Visualisation of agreement and discussion processes during online collaborative learning

1
Visualisation of agreement and discussion
processes during online collaborative learning

• Jeroen Janssen, Gijsbert Erkens, Marcel Broeken,
  Jos Jaspers Gellof Kanselaar
• Research Centre Learning in Interaction
• Utrecht University, The Netherlands

EARLI Special Interest Meeting, June 21-23, 2006
projectnumber 411-02-121
2
Computer-supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL)

• Electronic learning environment that facilitates
  collaborative learning.
• Supports exchange and sharing of information.
• Computer-mediated communication (CMC).
• Positive expectations (combination of
  collaborative learning and ICT).
• But also problems during CSCL (e.g., Thompson
  Coovert, 2003 Hobman, Bordia, Irmer, Chang,
  2002 Lipponen et al., 2003).
• Conflicts
• Free riding behavior
• Dominance, etc.

3
Problem 1 Communication problems

• Communication is sometimes difficult during CSCL
  (Fjermestad, 2004).
• Possibly too little media richness because
  facial expressions and intonation of voice are
  lacking (Daft Lengel, 1986).
• Group tasks may not suit communication mode of
  CSCL (Mennecke, Valachich, Wheeler, 2000).

4
Problem 2 Quality of discussions

• Critical yet constructive discussions
  (exploratory discussions) are important, but
  occur seldomly.
• Students give few arguments and explanations
  (Kuhn Udell, 2003 Van der Meijden Veenman,
  2005).
• Students may not possess the necessary skills.
• Interpretation of discussions may be more
  difficult during CSCL (is there agreement or
  discussion?).
• Role of group norms (Postmes, Spears, Cihangir,
  2001).

5
CSCL-environment VCRI

• Virtual Collaborative Research Institute VCRI.
• Groupware, tools are shared by group members.
• Research tasks, inquiry tasks.
• Communication is synchronously (chat) and
  asynchronously (forum).
• Several different tools (sources, shared text
  processor).
• Separate tool for
• teachers.

6
CSCL-environment VCRI
Teacher
Students
7
Possible solution Shared Space (1)

• Shared Space visualizes agreement and discussion
  during online collaboration.
• Shared Space discerns episodes during online
  collaboration.
• Message is analyzed using a filter based on 1300
  rules
• Filter uses discourse markers.
• Categorizes messages into 29 dialogue acts.
• Confirmations, acceptations and positive
  evaluations signal agreement.
• Denials, verification questions, negative
  evaluations and counterarguments signal
  discussion.

8
Possible solution Shared Space (2)
Chat-fragment of group of two girls and a boy.
9
Possible solution Shared Space (3)

• Possible advantages Shared Space
• Providing feedback.
• Raising awareness.
• Making communication easier Understanding
  whether there is discussion or agreement.
• Group discussion about the manner in which
  discussions are conducted critical or
  consensual?
• Stimulating more critical, exploratory group
  norms.

10
Research design

• Posttest-only design with experimental (n59) and
  control group (n58).
• Pre-university, secondary education students (/-
  16 years).
• Group size 2-4.
• Course History.
• Group task Inquiry task about the first four
  centuries of Christianity. 3 different parts.
• Duration 8 lessons in 4 weeks.
• Data collected using questionnaires and
  protocolanalyses.

11
Results Media richness

• Question Do students with access to the Shared
  Space perceive higher media richness? I.e. Is
  communication made easier?
• Instrument 15 items on a 5-point scale.
• Example item I could easily explain things
  during the chat.
• Results Students with access to the Shared Space
  perceive marginally higher media richness (p
  .06).

12
Results Group norms

• Question Do students with access to Shared Space
  hold other, more critical group norms?
• Instrument 3 scales in questionnaire
• Critical group norm (3 items, Our group was a
  critical one).
• Consensual group norm (3 items, In this group
  people generally adapt to each other).
• Exploratory group norm (7 items based on the work
  of Mercer et al. (1999), During collaboration
  critism and counter arguments were accepted)
• Students with Shared Space report a more
  exploratory group norm perception.
• No differences regarding critical and consensual
  group norm perception.

13
Results Perception of collaboration

• Question Do students with Shared Space hold more
  positive perceptions of their collaboration?
• Instrument 3 scales in questionnaire
• Positive group behavior (7 items, We helped each
  other).
• Negative group behavior (5 items, We had
  conflicts).
• Effectiveness of group task strategies (8 items
  based on the work of Saavedra et al. (1993), We
  planned our group work effectively)
• Students with Shared Space report more positive
  group behavior and higher perceptions of
  effectiveness of group task strategies.
• No differences for negative group behavior.

14
Results Collaboration process

• Question Do students with Shared Space
  collaborate differently?
• Instrument Coding scheme for online discussions.
• 4 main categories
• Task-related activities.
• Regulation of task-related activities.
• Social activities.
• Regulation of social activities.

15
Results Collaboration process

• Collaboration
• Mostly regulation of task-related activities
  (planning 22, monitoring 13).
• Lot of time devoted to reaching and maintaining
  shared understanding (20).
• Many positive social remarks (10).
• Some differences in collaboration processes.
• Shared Space Asking less task-related questions.
• Shared Space Less negative remarks about the
  electronic learning environment.
• Shared Space Less effort devoted to reaching and
  maintaining shared understanding.

16
Results Quality of group products

• Question Do groups of students with Shared Space
  produce group products of higher quality?
• Instrument Assessment form which assesses, for
  each of the three parts of the task
• Content and argumentation
• Presentation (language, text construction, etc.)
• Groups with Shared Space obtain higher scores for
  presentation for part 1 of the group task.
• Groups with Shared Space obtain marginally higher
  scores (p lt .07) for content and argumentation
  for part 1 of the group task.
• No differences for part 2 and 3 of the group task.

17
Conclusions

• Shared Space
• Makes online communication easier (higher media
  richness, less effort is needed to reach and
  maintain shared understanding).
• Stimulates critical, exploratory group norm.
• Contributes to positive perceptions of the
  collaboration process.
• Has some influence on students collaboration
  processes. However, students do not discuss group
  processes more.
• Has an impact on the quality of part 1 of the
  group task.

18
Discussion (1)

• Unclear why Shared Space had influence on group
  norm perception and perception of collaboration,
  but influence on actual collaboration process is
  limited.
• Only a small effect of the Shared Space on
  quality of the group products. Possibly because
  of the small effect of Shared Space on
  collaboration process.
• Are results replicable with other group tasks?
• Influence of individual and group factors is
  unknown (e.g., familiarity of group members,
  gender).

19
Discussion (2)
20
Questions?

• E-mail j.j.h.m.janssen_at_fss.uu.nl
• URL http//edugate.fss.uu.nl/crocicl/