Summary spring 06

1
Summary spring 06

• Anders Mørch
• TOOL 5100, 16.05.06 20.05.06

2
Outline

• 4-5 foils from each of the previous
  presentations, slightly edited
• Tries to capture the important points, but strips
  off important context
• It requires the viewers to have read the
  presented articles, otherwise the points may not
  make sense

3
CSCW and groupware

• What is CSCW and groupware and their relation to
  CSCL
• Historical development
• Basic problems addressed
• Research areas and concepts
• Components of groupware

4
Aspects of groupware

• Common task / goal
• Interface to a shared environment
• In addition, because there are more than one
  users
• Division of labor, explicit role assignment
• Awareness of the others who are interacting with
  the shared environment (often not directly
  visible)

5
Relationships between HCI, CSCW, and CSCL
6
Basic concepts in CSCW

• Ellis et al. identify the following three terms
  are basic for CSCW research and design
• Communication
• Coordination
• Collaboration (sometimes divided into 2)
• Cooperation
• Collaboration

7
Time/place matrix
8
Extended matrix for CSCL

• One of the approaches to CSCL we address in this
  course is to use asynchronous groupware for
  educational purposes
• What additional dimensions or characteristics
  would be necessary or convenient to add to the
  time/place matrix in order to better account for
  the factors that emerge when groupware is put in
  an educational context, such as classrooms?

9
Basic concepts in CSCL

• CSCL Computer Supported Collaborative Learning
• A field concerned with collaborative learning and
  how it can be supported by computers
• The role of technology as mediating artifact,
  i.e. mediation becomes a key concern
• It has been compared to the role of language in
  conventional education (e.g. Vygotsky)

10
Bannons deconstruction of CSCL

• L What do people mean by Learning?
• CL What do people mean by Collaborative
  Learning?
• SCL What do people mean by Support for
  Collaborative Learning?
• CSCL What do people mean by Computer Support
  for Collaborative Learning?

11
Pitfalls of collaborative learning

• Collaborative learning has been criticized as
  having similar problems to those identified in
  problem-based learning and cased-based
  instruction (where learners work in groups)
• The problem of lurkers (free passengers)
• The complexity of modeling real situations
• Reaching closure and scaling up
• Process becomes more important than outcome
• Many of these issues have been addressed by
  improvements to CSCL and integration or alignment
  with related fields (CSCW, Instructional design,
  etc.)

12
Factors important to CL

• The nature of the collaborative task e.g.
  physics problem solving vs. editing a school
  newspaper
• The nature of collaborators (peer,
  teacher-student, student-computer, etc.)
• The unit of analysis (individual, activity,
  group, classroom)
• The number of collaborators
• The previous relationship between collaborators
• The motivation of collaborators
• The setting of collaboration classroom,
  workplace, home
• The time period of collaboration from minutes to
  years

13
An open issue for discussion

• Schmidt identifies socialization as a bottleneck
  to Internet-based (distance) education , he
  believes it is not reachable by the current
  generation of virtual universities
• Do you agree that this is the factor impeding
  distance education institutions to further
  progress, or are there other factors that needs
  to be taken into account as well?
• Hint Think of ways for socialization to be
  redefined for the network society so that it
  better aligns with the needs of distance
  learners, the technological possibilities they
  may have at their disposal, and the practices
  that can be expected to be adopted in the near
  future

14
Paradigms of instructional technology

• Computer-aided instruction (CAI)
• Since ca. 1960
• Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITS)
• Since ca. 1970
• Logo-as-Latin
• Since ca. 1980
• Computer Supported Collaborative Learning
• Since ca. 1990
• Note these fields are active today, but
  sometimes under new umbrellas and evolved to meet
  new needs (e.g. instructional design, Lego/Logo,
  e-learning)

15
Computer-Aided Instruction

• Psychological roots in behavioral science
• Focus on support for instruction in teaching
  situations (e.g. classroom) with the computer
• The teachers role is to acquire knowledge and
  find efficient ways to share it with the students
• Often referred to as to as the acquisition-transm
  ission metaphor of teaching and learning
• Today often associated with instructional design,
  such as reusable learning objects and
  domain-specific repositories that domain experts
  (e.g. teachers) can search to find teaching
  material

16
Intelligent Tutoring Systems

• The focus here, as often in CAI, is on computer
  support for individual learning
• More emphasis on the learner than the teacher
• Psychological roots in cognitive science and
  Artificial Intelligence (e.g. Newell Simon,
  1972)
• The computer provides a cognitive model of human
  information processing, representing novice and
  expert problem solving, and track performance
• An ITS provides expert advice to students as they
  solve problems in well-defined domains (e.g.
  physics, math, medical procedures)

17
Logo-as-Latin

• Instead of learning by being taught, this
  approach focuses on learning by doing
• Psychological roots in the developmental psych of
  Piaget and the philosophy of education of Dewey
• Constructionism is a term that is often used as a
  label for this approach
• The student constructs by creating and running
  micro-worlds programmed in Logo (Papert, 1980)
• Later efforts have extended this to higher level
  languages, e.g. using Lego/Logo (e.g. Resnick,
  1990)

18
Computer Supported Collaborative Learning

• Roots in several fields in the social sciences
  and socially oriented theories of learning (going
  back to Vygotsky, G H Mead, and others)
• Focus on overarching concerns that attempts to
  bridge the individual-social gap in interaction
• Common perspectives and sources of influence
• Social constructivism
• Socio-cultural theories
• Situated and shared cognition

19
Three factors that influence research design and
experiments

• Effects
• Conditions
• Group heterogeneity
• Individual prerequisites
• Task features
• Interactions
• Explanation
• Control

20
Role of the computer

• Tool for analysis
• Interaction analysis
• Analyzing and modeling collaborative learning
  practices, such as ..
• Negotiation
• Argumentation
• Mediating artifact
• This is not addressed in this article, but comes
  up in later articles

21
Concepts underlying CSCL research

• Concepts of collaboration
• Collaboration can be considered as a
  special form of interaction. Engeström (1992) has
  elaborated a three-level notion of developmental
  forms of interaction coordination, cooperation,
  and reflective communication.
• According to another definition
  Collaboration can be defined as a process of
  participating in knowledge communities. As
  pointed out by Brufee (1993, p.3) collaboration
  is "a reculturative process that helps students
  become members of knowledge communities whose
  common property is different from the common
  property of the knowledge
• communities they already belong to".
• Collaboration as seen as a special form of
  interaction, and collaboration as a process of
  participation in collective activities ("working
  together"), include the idea of achieving shared
  goals. It appears that we can--that perhaps we
  must--analyze collaborative activities on both
  micro and macro levels.

22
Challenges and advantages of CSCL

• Why has CSCL been so slowly adopted? As proposed
  by Kling (1991) in the context of CSCW, it might
  be that the meanings attached to collaboration
  are too positively loaded, or the collaborative
  settings are interpreted too narrowly referring
  only to positive phenomenon. This may restrict
  one from seeing that collaborative situations are
  also full of contradictions, competition, and
  conflicts.
• On the other hand, technology offers the kind of
  potentials for learning which are very different
  from those available in other contexts. One
  self-evident benefit is, that computer networks
  break down the physical and temporal barriers of
  schooling by removing time and space constraints.
  The delay of asynchronous communication allows
  time for reflection in interaction. Making
  thinking visible by writing should help students
  to reflect on their own and others' ideas and
  share their expertise.

23
Technology for collaboration

• collaborative use of technology and collaborative
  technology are different. Imagine a pair of
  students working at the computer running a
  simulation program in physics. The simulations on
  the screen can help the students to collaborate,
  by creating a referential anchor, a point of
  shared reference (Crook, 1994). This referential
  anchor can function as a "concrete" shared
  representation, can support the negotiation of
  meanings, and mediate students communication
  activities in their development of reciprocal
  understanding (Hakkarainen, et al., 1998
  Järvelä, et. al., 1999). In this case, the
  technology, the software developed for the
  individual user, is utilized in creating and
  establishing collaborative activities through its
  use as anchoring support.

24
From technical to social infrastructure

• One of the major challenges of CSCL, or
  educational technology in general, is scaling-up
  how to expand and implement the good practices
  that researcher and teachers have found and
  developed.
• Bielaczyc (2001) has presented a parallel idea.
  According to her, one of the key factors in
  successful implementation of CSCL is to build an
  appropriate social infrastructure around the
  technical infrastructure.

25
The multidisciplinary CSCL

• CSCL can presently be characterized as consisting
  of three methodological traditions experimental,
  descriptive and iterative design.
• Many empirical studies follow the dominant
  experimental paradigm that compares an
  intervention to a control condition in terms of
  one or more variables.
• The ethno-methodological tradition (exemplified
  in CSCL by Koschmann et al., 2003 Koschmann et
  al., 2005 Roschelle, 1996 Stahl, 2006) is more
  suited for descriptive case analyses.
• The iterative design tradition is exemplified by
  Fischer Ostwald (2005), Lingnau, et al. (2003)
  and Guzdial et al. (1997)

26
Summary (F4)

• Lipponen To strengthen a set of coherent
  foundations for CSCL. This task is absolutely
  worthwhile of striving for, but also be a very
  demanding task
• Stahl et al argued that CSCL requires a focus on
  the meaning-making practices of collaborating
  groups and on the design of technological
  artifacts to mediate interaction. Whether this
  focus can, will or should lead to a coherent
  theoretical framework and research methodology
  for CSCL remains to be seen.

27
A Model of Collaborative Knowledge-Building

• The paper (F5) present a model of learning as a
  social process
• Individual minds in relation to socio-cultural
• Framework for the design of CSCL-SW (KBE)
• 5 theories of learning (Koschmann)
• The paper incorporating insights from these
  theories/philosophies
• Multiple phases constitute a cycle gt
  increasingly complex questions to be posed

28
A Diagram of Personal and Social
Knowledge-Building
29
The Idea of a Computer System to Support the
Knowledge-Building Process(1)

• A KBE should
• go beyond a single-purpose system
• retain a record of the knowledge that was built
  up
• And it should therefore probably be
• built on asynchronous, persistent collaborative
  technologies and be deployed on the Internet as a
  Web-based environment

30
Collaboration scripts

• Collaboration script is a set of instructions
  specifying how the group members should interact
  and collaborate to solve a problem. ODonnell
  Dansereau 1992)
• Internal or external representations
• A CSCL-script is a computational representation
  of a collaborative script
• A general modelling language for formalising
  collaboration scripts is missing.
• No tool for CSCL practitioners to create, reuse,
  integrate, and customize CSCL scripts.

31
IMS-LD as collaboration modeling language

• Existing learning process modelling language
  IMS-LD provides insufficient support to model
  group-based, synchronous collaborative learning
  activities.
• Some attempts have been done to extend IMS-LD,
  but still no good solutions.
• The aim for the research work presented in this
  paper is to develop a scripting language for
  formalising CSCL scripts and exploring their
  potential types of usage and system support
  possibilities

32
An approach to formalize CSCL ScriptsCSCL
Scripting language (from Miao et al., 2005)
33
Two modes in dealing with Knowledge

• Belief Mode
• Concerned with what we and other people believe
  or ought to believe
• Our response to this mode is to agree or
  disagree, to present arguments and evidence for
  or against, to express and try to resolve doubts
• Ex. ideas that presented for consideration
• Design Mode
• Concerned in the usefulness, adequacy,
  improvability and development potential ideas
• The essence is IDEA IMPROVEMENT
• Ex. There is no ultimate computer because with
  each advancement new possibilities arise for
  further advances

34
Four constructivist educational approaches in
Design Mode

• Learning by Design (developed at Georgia Tech.)
• Project-Based Science ( developed at the
  University of Michigan)
• Problem-Based Learning (developed at Southern
  Illinois University)
• Knowledge Building (developed at Ontario
  Institute of Study in Education/University of
  Toronto)

35
Problem-based learning vs. kn bldg

• Problem-Based Learning
• Learners are expected to determine what
  information they need to solve the problem and
  work together to achieve the solution with a
  little direct help from the instructor.
• Is often treated as synonymous with project-based
  learning.
• Originated in the medical school to solve problem
  encounter in practice Grows out in different
  tradition and focus
• Disadvantage Is not focused on tangible end
  product. The end product is a problem solution
  purely conceptual artifact.
• Knowledge Building
• Defined as creatively work with ideas that
  really matter to the people doing the work
• work directly aimed at creating and improving
  broadly significant theories, problem
  formulations, interpretations and the like.
• Is the least bound to a particular activity
  structures and it is not confined to particular
  occasions or subjects but pervades (or spread
  through) mental life and they claim in and out
  of school!!

36
Knowledge building vs. knowledge construction

• Knowledge building May be defined as the
  production and continual improvement of ideas of
  value to a community, through means that increase
  the likelihood that what the community
  accomplishes will be greater than the sum of
  individual contributions and part of broader
  cultural efforts. Bereiter Scardamalia, 1987,
  1989, 1993.
• Knowledge construction Is evidenced by the
  accretion (accumulation) of interpretations on an
  information base that is simultaneously expanded
  by information seeking and transformations.
  Suthers, 2005

37
Technology to support knowledge building

• Computer Support Intentional Learning Environment
  (CSILE)
• Knowledge Forum

38
CSILE Study (Hakkarainen et al)

• The aim is to study how different practices of
  CSCL learning influenced the epistemological
  nature of students inquiry.
• The focus is in examining the condition for which
  CSCL facilitates higher-level practice inquiry in
  different classroom cultures ( Canadians and
  Finnish CSILE groups).
• Can be abstracted as from potentially
  culture-specific factors
• It is based on a conceptual, qualitative and
  quantitative analysis
• It does not give direct information about
  psychological process involved in CSILE use

39
Method

• Qualitative analysis of notes stored in CSILE
  database
• Five steps scale research questions
  classification
• Isolated Facts
• Partially Organized Facts
• Well-organized Fact
• Partial explanation
• Explanation
• Production was made at the level of ideas and
  several observation
• Interaction was analyzed through the content of
  their written communication with the use of CSILE
  network

40
Results 1

• Canadian Classroom A
• has prominent role of a explanation-oriented
  process of inquiry
• Higher proportion of explanation-seeking research
  questions, explanatory level of scientific
  information and intuitive knowledge
• Canadian Classroom B and Finnish
• Focused on processing factual knowledge and
  empirical generalization
• Low proportion of explanation-oriented inquiry

41
Recommendations

• All students, regardless of their individual
  cognitive competencies, might remain at more
  elementary level without the guidance of a
  teacher
• Students needs a great deal of pedagogical and
  epistemological guidance to participate at a
  process of level of inquiry analogous to
  scientific inquiry
• There is a need of the teacher to have a
  pre-service function and conceptual understanding
  of advanced processes of knowledge-seeking
  inquiry

42
Video-based research (workshop)

• Emphasis on describing in detail the wholeness
  of what is going on in a particular activity or
  situation.
• Video-based Interaction Analysis (Jordan and
  Henderson,1995), consists of
• the in-depth micro-analysis of how people
  interact with one another,
• their physical environment,
• and the documents, artifacts, and technologies in
  that environment.
• Jordan (1992) used video data to explicate how
  authoritative knowledge is distributed in two
  highly computerized settings
• an airline operations room, where knowledge is
  continually jointly produced
• and a hospital setting, where it is vested in the
  technology and the physician.

43
Advantages ?

• The ability to document nonverbal behavior and
  interpersonal communication (facial expressions
  and emotions).
• It preserves the activity as its unfolding, so
  that the data material can be validated by other
  researchers.
• Viewing it several times
• Comments from others
• Captures multiple views of a situation.
• Enables the researcher to participate in the
  activity

44
Limitations ?

• Do the recordings manipulate the reality?
• Note without an exceptionally wide-angled lens,
  no camera can record all activity in a classroom
• Capturing too much can also be a problem
• Confidentiality can be a problem
• Time consuming and expensive
• Large amount of data
• Expensive equipment
• Subjects may get influenced by the presence of a
  camera

45
Empirical studies

• The literature about distance education is
  dominated by enthusiastic studies and accounts
• But some studies report the importance of
  students isolation in distance education course
• Original research question was How do the
  students in B555 overcome their feelings of
  isolation in a virtual classrom to create the
  sense of a community of learning?

46
Methods

• Three different techniques was used
• Observation Online classrom discussion was
  observed to grasp how the instructor facilitated
  the dialogue among the students. And it was
  observed how each student interacted with the Web
  site
• Interview Was conducted immediately after the
  students had finished their tasks on the Web
• Document review Examination of various types of
  documents realted to B555, including the course
  syllabus, reading assigment, and the cataogs
  course description. And the instructors personal
  log

47
Discussion

• From the interviews and the observations it
  appared that there were two foci of fustrations
  among the students, the first was on the
  technological problems and the second was on the
  course content and the instructurs practices in
  managing her communications with the students
• The Instructor belived that she had reduced the
  students fustrations during the semester, but
  this was shown not to be true, as the student
  only had expressed some of their fustrations to
  the Instructor

48
Findings contd

• Most articles about distance education emphasize
  the positive aspects
• Only a few scholars examine important limitations
  and pervasive problems
• According to the authors is time to seriously
  consider the actual experience among students in
  distance education courses an to critically
  discuss the phenomena of distance education
• It is also question if technology can improve
  pedagogy with little special effort

49
Study 2

• The objective of the study was to intensivly
  examine the patterns of female and male
  studentsparticipation in computer-supported
  collaborative learning in two classrooms
• There are significant differences between male
  and female students in their attitudes towards,
  knowledge about, or use of computers (Durnell
  Thompson, 1997, Hakkarainen et.al, 2000, Scott,
  Cole Engel, 1992)
• Male students are generally more enthusiastic
  about the use of information and communication
  technologies
• Female students experience computer phobia or
  tend to minimize the use of their computers

50
Method

• Participants Classrooms A and B
• Classroom A, 19 female, 9 male
• Classroom B, 10 female, 20 male
• Study material The CSILE database
• Qualitative analysis of the students written
  comments posted to the database within one
  academic year
• The comments was first partitioned into ideas
• Then the comments were classified according to
  type of communicative idea (agreement, neutral or
  disagreement)
• - Communicative ideas within a comment were
  analyzed by specifying the object of inquiry
  Linguistic form, research question, research
  methods, information, explanation, other or
  unspecified

51
Results 1
52
Results contd

• Patterns of interaction
• The analysis indicated that CSILE
  studentsnetwork of interaction was rather dense
  in both of the classroms
• Also indicated that the students preferred to
  communicate within their own gender group. This
  was stronger in classroom A than classroom B

53
Interaction analysis (workshop)

• Capture speech, gestures, use of artefacts
  (social and material), distributed activity
• Individual/Collective/Relations
• How detailed trajectories
• in relation to time, space, semiotic layers?
• Multiple levels (zooming)
• Transcriptions

54
Problem identification

• The black box of peer group learning
  (Kumpulainen, K., Mutanen, M., 1999).
• The Phenomenon? Meaning making, new type
  activity, negotiations
• Unit of analysis? Episodes?
• When/How can we make assumptions and claims from
  qualitative data? Corpus? Theory (abduction)?
  From review of literature?

55
Methods for design

• In the same way we have methods for evaluation we
  have methods for design
• I have chosen to put different approaches to
  design under the umbrella of design techniques
  and to focus on them in detail
• There are other ways to approach design, some of
  them more general, others specific

56
Design techniques

• Scenario-based design
• Empirical-based design
• Participatory design
• Theory-based design
• Evolutionary design
• The techniques are partially overlapping and are
  often used in combination

57
Empirical-based design (also called iterative
design, prototyping)

• Suggest answers to empirical questions
• Involving real users in order to support their
  needs, not the needs of system developers,
• Iterations of system building and evaluation with
  users
• Evaluation is often done in usability labs, but
  can also be done using other means

58
Participatory design

• User participation in the early phases of system
  development
• Users are considered equal partners with
  developers
• Often referred to as Scandinavian approach to
  system development (democratic design)
• Understand what goes on at the workplace and in
  the interaction between workers
• Technology is mediating artefact alongside
  other artefacts such as profession-oriented
  languages
• Mutual learning and use of low-fidelity
  prototyping techniques

59
Evolutionary design

• Develop a new system based on an existing one
• This is often the default approach for many
  developers, even without being aware of it,
  because many developers have a repertoire of
  tools to build from
• Start from something that already works and
  available to low level inspection and code reuse
• Find out what can be improved and add the
  improvements to the existing working system
• Can be used in different ways
• within one system (e.g. extending an open source
  system)
• from one generation of system to another (e.g.
  product families)
• and from one technology to another (mock up to
  computer display)

60
Knowledge building using Knowledge Forum (see PDF)

• Separate foils
• The Learning Sciences
• CSILE/KF
• Projects A KB perspective
• Core elements
• Screen dumps of Knowledge Forum (should
  understand how the system is used by students)
• Scaffolds (check this in particular)

61
Reusable learning objects

• Movements in the Learning Object Economy
• Historical summary showing various definitions
  and criticizing them
• Towards a Concept of the Reusable Learning Object
  (LO)
• Setting the principles of LO foundation
• Creating Learning Objects
• LOs and principles of learning intent and
  reusability
• Developing Learning Objects
• Conceptualization and Collaborative development
• Standards and Specifications for Developing
  Learning Objects
• Standards enables genuinely sharable and reusable
  content objects
• Learning Objects and Electronic Books
• Differences between e-books and material books
• The role of LOs in the construction of e-books
• Conclusion

62
Multiple definitions of learning objects

• Draft Standard for Learning Object Metadata v6.1
  
• LO is defined as any entity, digital or
  non-digital. Non-digital objects such as computer
  hardware and digital objects like images enjoy
  the same conceptual status, thereby making it
  impossible to use the term Learning Object in a
  meaningful way.
• Wiley, David. A. (2002)
• LO is any digital resource that can be reused to
  support learning. a broad characterization
  classifying every digital asset as a LO.
• L'Allier, James J. (1997)
• LO is the smallest independent structural
  experience that contains an objective, a learning
  activity and an assessment."
• Based on these foundational principles LO can be
  defined as
• A Learning Object is an independent and
  self-standing unit of learning content that is
  predisposed to reuse in multiple instructional
  context

63
Conclusions

• LOs are the most meaningful and effective way of
  creating content for e-learning
• The current definitions and practices of LOs are
  confusing and arbitrary
• They will never be able to avail themselves of
  the flexibility, scalability and speed offered by
  information technology
• Necessary with a commonly accepted, accurate and
  functionally effective definition of a LO
• Establish a concept of the LO that clearly lays
  out the principle basis on which it is founded
• Need to reengineer the design and development
  process of LOs
• Developers should embrace a multidisciplinary and
  cooperative model of development

64
Description of the ITCOLE software

• The pilot version FLE2 (now 3) is cross platform
  and HTML based for end users
• The ITCOLE/ Fle3 environment will contain several
  tools
• Virtual Web Top storing and sharing documents,
  java applets etc.
• KB module facilitates between-user interaction,
  multiple discussions
• Jam session encourages free flow of ideas
  allows experimentation
• Meeting room collaborative multi-user
  applications (whiteboard, chat etc.)
• Library - store, publish and browse diff.
  learning materials
• Provide external structures that help a student
  to participate in expert like processing of
  knowledge without increasing the cognitive
  processing load.
• Participation in depth learning, scaffolding the
  users
• Tools for students to record and visually
  represent their activity
• Challenge design interface helping users to
  manage knowledge produced
• Important challenge of ITCOLE is to design tools
  that help to represent progress of discussions by
  graphical means.

65
Design objectives

• The objective for ITCOLE is to build a
  pedagogical interface for educational use
• The objective can be divided into three main
  aims
• Scalability universal access for different
  user/browser configurations
• Usefulness - full set of features to enable
  collaborative KB - system functionality
• Usability user friendly and attractive
  graphical design flexible and customizable
• Some screenshots from Fle3 http//fle3.uiah.fi/
  screen_shots/index.html

66
Pedagogical agents in CSCL

• Goal / intentions
• To integrate pedagogical agents with
• collaborative environments (synchronous and
  asynchronous)

• Findings/Contributions
• A design space for classifying pedagogical
  agents presentation, intervention, task, and
  pedagogy,
• A series of attempts that shows it is possible to
  take advantage of statistical information in
  collaborative learning environments without
  detailed student modeling,
• An approach to represent common attitude and
  principles associated with collaborative
  performance, and
• customizable agents to address the imprecision
  dilemma associated with providing agent-based
  assistance in poorly structured knowledge domains.

67
Claims

• A distributed learning environment has a set of
  rules and roles for how to interact.
• These rules and roles are not straight
  forward for most participants. The player need
  to learn at least one role in order to
  successfully participate e.g. to be a
  collaborator.
• When this set of rules-and-roles is internalized
  and shared among the other users, it may improve
  participation and collaboration.
• If software agents are allowed to reason with
  these representations, conceptual awareness can
  be trigged by a computational mechanism.

68
Methods

• Inspiration from related work (evolutionary
  design)
• Teamwave Workplace
• Future Learning Environment (FLE)
• Empirical studies
• Wizard of Oz technique (simulation experiment)
• Trials in high schools (design experiment)
• Iterative design (integrating agents with the
  systems and evaluating the results)

69
Findings from the simulation experiment
70
Pedagogical agent dimensions

• Four dimensions which are relevant to adopt
• Presentation
• Intervention
• Task
• Pedagogy
• a) collaboration principles
• b) knowledge building

71
Definition of awareness conceptual awareness

• an understanding of the activities of others,
  which provides a context for your own activity
  (Dourish Bellotti, 1992)
• an understanding of the generalized activities
  of others, which provides a context for your own
  activity (Mørch, Jondahl Dolonen, 2005)

72
Supporting argumentation discourse

• Classroom instruction need to be centred around
  students active learning and take into account
  research that demonstrates that students prior
  knowledge is significant factor for active
  learning
• That the focus on students work should transcend
  the declarative to include procedural and
  strategic knowledge reason and reflect
  meta-cognitively on their own learning and the
  construction and evaluation of scientific
  knowledge

73
Argumentation in classrooms

• This requires a focus on
• How evidence is used in science for the
  construction of explanations
• Evaluate the selection of evidence and the
  construction of explanations
• Debate and argumentation around competing
  theories, methodologies and aims are central to
  doing and learning science
• This requires that students engage in practicing
  and using this form of discourse in a range of
  structured activities
• This will support the social construction of
  knowledge, exposing student thinking and enabling
  its critical evaluation by the teacher, the
  student and his/her peers
• This is central to CSCL

74
Components of argumentation

• Argumentation as a war that seeks to establish a
  winner, or ..
• as a social and collaborative process necessary
  to solve problems and advance knowledge
• (e.g. Toulmin warrants and backings used to
  make claims are shaped by the guiding conceptions
  and values of the field/community)

75
How can teachers foster and improve the quality
of the argument?

• Encourage and sustain argument oriented discourse
  (warrant, claim, backings, qualifiers)
• Content oriented?
• These two aspects are intertwined
• arguments are more general and the content is
  more specific
• Combination of multiple techniques to foster
  sustained argumentation practices such as
  student presentations, small-group discussions,
  teaching argumentation skills and discourse
• How can CSCL take these issues into account?