Scripting strategies in computer supported collaborative learning Michele
Scripting strategies in computer supported collaborative learning Michele Notari
Menu • Introduction • Goals of thesis • Rich, action based learning • What is scripting ? • Choice of the tool • Method • Specific results • Conclusions Michele Notari 2
Goal of thesis • Apply rich, action based units in ‚real learning environments‘ • Test rich learning environments under different circumstances: - Focalised paramters: scripting and tool Michele Notari 3
Rich action based learning environment? 3 d models literature Learning pairs Discussions interaction with partner Michele Notari Creation of collaborative hypertext • interaction with the learning community 4
What is ‚scripting‘? A script is a story or scenario that the students and tutors have to play as actors play a movie script. • Scripts enable integration of actions that were • • often separated: individual, cooperative, collaborative and collective actions. Scripts enable integration of co-present actions and computer-mediated actions Scripts often include an important role for the tutor Michele Notari 5
Scripting example Michele Notari 6
The tool Swiki -> unstructured collaboration tool • Concept of a Wiki: • Every user can create edit and change pages • Reconstruction of older versions • involve visitor in ongoning process -> incites to improve and change existing sites Michele Notari 7
Principal question 1 • The use of a Swiki as collaborative editing tool causes no technical and comprehensive problems for high school students without experience in collaborative editing but with some knowledge of the use of a common text -editing software and the research of information in the Web. Michele Notari 8
Principal question 2 • Scripting which induces students to compare and comment on the work of the whole learning community (using a collaborative editing tool) leads to better learning performance than a script leading students to work without such a tool and with little advice or / and opportunity to make comments and compare their work with the learning community. Michele Notari 9
Principal question 3 • The quality of the product of the working groups is better (longer and more detailed) when students are induced to compare and comment on their work (with a collaborative editing tool) during the learning unit. Michele Notari 10
Method • Work with high school students in normal learning environments. • Testing 3 learning units. Human anatomy Evolution Michele Notari Human embryology 11
What did we analyse? (part 1) Human anatomy • Human anatomy: unstructured script <-> evolution and human embryology: structured script. Evolution • Is there a difference in students Human embryology satisfaction? Michele Notari 12
Subjective perception Evolution Embryology Human anatomy No statistical differences could be found within the units Michele Notari 13
comparison of three scenarios: difficulties to edit input with the Swiki Statistical difference between anatomy and evolution (U = 40; p = 0. 0065) but no difference between the other settings (anatomy <-> embryology: U = 45; p = 0. 09; and evolution <-> embryology: U = 393; p = 0. 2). Michele Notari 14
comparison of three scenarios: It is easy to get lost within a text with many links’ Almost significant difference (anatomy <-> evolution: U = 60; p = 0. 09; anatomy embryology: U = 46; p = 0. 07) BUT (evolution <->embryology: U = 189; p = 0. 81) Michele Notari 15
Conclusion Subjective perception • Structuring the work has a positive influence on the sense of satisfaction that the students gained from the tool and the work in general (no statistical significance) • Students in unstructured unit thought they were getting lost often within the few links, while the students that were guided had a different sensation • Discussion is an important element of building a concept and learning in a constructivist way especially when different opinions merge and have to be compared (result not shown) Michele Notari 16
What did we analyse? (part 2) Human embryology Pre test Scripting differences for two classes: • 1. Normal high school class working in conventional set up (without tool) • 2. Vocational high school class working with the tool -> vocational high school normally show inferior pedagogical performances compared to normal high school Learning unit Post test 6 weeks Michele Notari Final test 17
Increase of factual konwledge Human embryology n = 17 ANOVA: F(5, 101) = 14. 841 Pre test conventional <->post test conventional p< 0. 001 Pre test Swiki <-> post test Swiki p< 0. 001 Michele Notari 18
Student‘s confidence in their answers Human embryology ANOVA : F(5, 101) = 11. 05 Pre test conventional <->post test conventional p< 0. 001 Pre test Swiki <-> post test Swiki P< 0. 01 Michele Notari 19
Comparison of the produced work Human embryology • Length of the summaries • • 10 pages for the conventional class, 36 pages for the Swiki class Number of topics treated 9 topics for the conventional class 14 topics for the Swiki class Quality of the content of the summaries Comparable quality within the summaries Michele Notari 20
Conclusions Human embryology • Equal increase of knowledge and self • evaluation capacities for different backgrounds (normal high school <-> vocational high school) Better quality of Product for Swiki scripting Michele Notari 21
Scripting leads to Compare and coment inputs Create a critical mass of input Regroup concepts Link inputs Michele Notari 22
‚Our‘ scripting leads to an: Action based, hypertext constructive, computer supported, collaborative learning environment (ABAHCOCOSUCOL) Michele Notari 23
ABAHCOCOSUCOL is adequate for tasks where it is improtand to have: • Long-term knowledge retention • Mastering a certain problem-solving strategy • High quality of produced work • Have a good use of some specific handling • Increased metacognitive skills Michele Notari 24
Thanks for listening For more information consult thesis: http: //tecfa. unige. ch/perso/staf/notari/ -> see link ‚info thesis‘ Michele Notari 25
- Slides: 25