Seminario eMadrid sobre "Inteligencia natural y artificial en educación". Colaborar para aprender: ¿Esperar lo mejor pero prepararse para lo peor?. Frank Fischer. Universidad de Munich. 17/03/2017.
Seminario eMadrid sobre "Inteligencia natural y artificial en educación". Colaborar para aprender: ¿Esperar lo mejor pero prepararse para lo peor?. Frank Fischer. Universidad de Munich. 17/03/2017.
Holy Grail of On-Page Content Conversion Optimization
Semelhante a Seminario eMadrid sobre "Inteligencia natural y artificial en educación". Colaborar para aprender: ¿Esperar lo mejor pero prepararse para lo peor?. Frank Fischer. Universidad de Munich. 17/03/2017.
Semelhante a Seminario eMadrid sobre "Inteligencia natural y artificial en educación". Colaborar para aprender: ¿Esperar lo mejor pero prepararse para lo peor?. Frank Fischer. Universidad de Munich. 17/03/2017. (20)
TỔNG ÔN TẬP THI VÀO LỚP 10 MÔN TIẾNG ANH NĂM HỌC 2023 - 2024 CÓ ĐÁP ÁN (NGỮ Â...
Seminario eMadrid sobre "Inteligencia natural y artificial en educación". Colaborar para aprender: ¿Esperar lo mejor pero prepararse para lo peor?. Frank Fischer. Universidad de Munich. 17/03/2017.
1. Collaborating to learn: Hope for the
best but prepare for the worst
Frank Fischer
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität
München
8. Simulation-based learning in medical education:
Crisis Resource Management Skills
Jan Zottmann, Peter Dieckmann,
Marcus Rall, Frank Fischer & Tatjana Taraszow (2009; subm.)
11. Learning Partner A
Learning Partner B
Situational Conditions
Instructional support
Cognitive Processing Learning Outcomes
Individual Readiness for
Learning
Cognitive Readiness
Motivational Readiness
Social Learning Activities
Social Learning Activities
Cognitive Processing
Individual Readiness for
Learning
Cognitive Readiness
Motivational Readiness
Learning Outcomes
Wecker & Fischer (2014)
12. ICAP-model (Chi, 2009)
Rummel & Kollar (2014), Learning in social settings | Cognition 3.0 - the social mind in the connected world | IK Günne | March 16 – March 17 2014
Overt
activities
Passive
(e.g. listening to
partner‘s
contribution)
Active
(e.g. underline
or paraphrase
text)
Constructive
(e.g. self-
explain
material)
Interactive
(e.g.
give/receive
feedback on
contribution)
Underlying
cognitive
processes
Sometimes not
any…
Activation of
prior knowledge
Assimilation,
encoding, storing
of information
Restructuring
knowledge
Synthesizing own
and partner‘s
explanations,
leading to shared
understanding
14. Social processes predictive for learning
• Explaining
– Explainers learn more than receivers of explanations
– Self-generated solution better than using other-generated solutions
– Receivers of explanations benefit most if they apply the new
knowledge themselves
15. Social processes predictive for learning
• Thought-provoking questions (King, 2007)
– Go beyond factual and comprehension questions
– Requires the individual to process and go beyond the given material
– Create the need, e.g., to generate examples, to create alternative
perspectives or solutions, to generalize, to justify, or to apply
16. Social processes predictive for learning
• Resolving cognitive discrepancies (Mugny &
Doise, 1978)
– Becoming aware of different and potentially incompatible ideas or
positions in social interaction
– The need to resolve this socio-cognitive conflict
– The real „motor“ of collaborative learning (Roschelle, 1992)
17. Social processes predictive for learning
• Argumentation (Andriessen et al., 2003)
– Argumentation as process of resolving socio-cognitive conflicts
– Claim and counter-claim can trigger evidence-based reasoning
– learners need to process the learning material with very high-level
cognitive processing, including „drawing conclusions“ and integrating
argument and counter-argument in a synthesis.
18. Social processes predictive for learning
• Modeling of cognition (Collins et al., 1989)
– Learners who are good in questioning, explaining, elaborating etc are
ideal cognitive models in collaborative learning
– Very effective for cognition and meta-cognition
– Thinking-aloud or other forms of externalising cognition can be
effective
19. Social processes predictive for learning
• (Peer-)Feedback on performance (Stribos et al., 2011)
– Better if criteria based
– If feedback comes from several peers
– Should be on process rather than on outcome for more
complex tasks (Hattie & Timperley, 2007)
24. Andrea:
Ich hab irgendwie den Überblick verloren! Sind wir uns
einig dass das ein internal stabiles Verhalten ist und das eine
negative Attribution der Eltern vorliegt. Zusätzlich könnte
man sagen, dass der Lehrer eine Reattribution fördern sollte
(um das Verhalten zu ändern). Und natürlich auch bei den
Eltern.
Ben:
>Ich hab irgendwie den Überblick verloren! Sind wir uns
>einig dass das ein internal stabiles Verhalten ist und das eine
>negative Attribution der Eltern vorliegt. Zusätzlich könnte
>man sagen, dass der Lehrer eine Reattribution fördern sollte
>(um das Verhalten zu ändern). Und natürlich auch bei den
>Eltern.
OK! Lasst uns zum Fall Klassentreffen wechseln.
OT/FNN/BS
R3/FBF/FRA
R4/FBF/FRA
R7/FBF/FRA
R17/ERG/BS
QUOTED
KOO/AKZ/PLA
25. 28
• In line with
findings on
cooperative
learning (Gillies,
2009; Slavin
2000)
26. The two basic forms of pedagogical intervention in CSCL
Support self-regulation:
1. Cognitive awareness tools
2. Social awareness tools
Shape interaction:
3. Collaboration scripts
4. Community-building environments
Overview on different pedagogical approaches in Kirschner et
al. (2013)
27. Group awareness tools
Idea: Groups are presented with information about themselves that may be relevant for
their group processes
Cognitive awareness: Information about group members’ knowledge and expertise
Social awareness: Information about group members’ contributions to the group
process
Intended effects: Based on the information that is displayed to the group…
…coordination may be facilitated,
…contributions may be shaped in a way that is more adequate in light of the
knowledge and expertise of the co-learners,
…the group may self-regulate its collaboration
Borrowed from: Learning in social settings | Cognition 3.0 - the social mind in the connected world | IK Günne | March 16 – March 17 2014
28. A social group awareness tools
Dillenbourg et al. (2008)
Phielix et al., 2011
29. A cognitive group awareness tool
(Dehler, Bodemer,
Buder & Hesse, 2009)
Learning in social settings | Cognition 3.0 - the social mind in the connected world | IK Günne | March 16 – March 17 2014
30. Group awareness tools
Group awareness tools as a “soft” method of facilitating collaborative learning, not
much interference with actual collaboration process
Effectiveness is documented with respect to some important social processes, not
so much with respect to improved performance in individual post-tests
Possible problem: Sometimes group members do not have the competence to
effectively deal with the information they are provided with by a group awareness tool
Borrowed from: Learning in social settings | Cognition 3.0 - the social mind in the connected world | IK Günne | March 16 – March 17 2014
31. So what are collaboration scripts?
A collaboration script is a content-independent support
that…
– …prompts,
– …sequences,
– …and distributes…
…(meta-) cognitive and social learning activities as well
as collaboration roles among members of a small
group (Kollar, Fischer & Hesse, 2006)
Internal and external collaboration scripts
32. Internal Collaboration Script COMPONENTS
Play A
Scene
Role 1Scriptlet
Scene Scene
Partly based on Dynamic Memory model of LTM representation of
knowledge (Schank, 1999)
Scriptlet
Scriptlet
Scriptlet
Scriptlet
Scriptlet
Scriptlet
Scriptlet
Play B
Role 2
Scene
33. Visit at the dentist‘s
Say
goodbye
Treat-
ment
WaitEnter office Show
insurance card
Enter waiting
room (A)
Greet (A) Greet (B) Scan magazines
(A)
…
The structure of internal scripts
34. Visit at the lawyer‘s
Say
Goodbye
Counse-
ling
WaitEnter office
Enter waiting
room (A)
Greet (A) Greet (B) Scan magazines
(A)
…
The structure of internal scripts
35. What are internal collaboration scripts?
•Collaboration Scripts: knowledge structures that help
individuals to understand and to act in specific collaborative
situations (in part: Schank, 1999).
•Culturally shared and personal knowledge on collaboration.
•Re-conceptualising “lack of knowledge”: Erroneous, lacking
or heterogeneous application of (internal) collaboration scripts
in computer-supported collaborative learning discourse.
42. Scriptlet level scaffolding
Claim Warrant + Data
Qualifier
Claim
...
Warrant + Data
...
Qualifier
...
He believes he is not
talented due to failures.
This means an internal
stable attribution of
failures.
Michael suffers from an
inefficient self-attribution
in maths.
Michael simply might be lazy
or swamped with maths or
suffer from bad instruction.
Stegmann, Weinberger & Fischer (2007). Scripting argumentative knowledge construction. ijCSCL.
43. Fostering simulation-based learning in medical education with
collaboration scripts
Simulation-Based Courses with Video-Assisted
Debriefing at U. of Tübingen
Jan Zottmann, Peter Dieckmann,
Marcus Rall, Frank Fischer & Tatjana Taraszow (2009; subm.)
44. Collaborative Observation Script for the „waiting“ participants
„Vicarious Learning“ (Stegmann et al., 2012): S
cene and scriptlet level scaffolding
51. So do they help?
• Meta-analysis on effects of studies using collaboration scripts in
CSCL (Vogel, Kollar, Wecker & Fischer, 2014):
– Includes 31 articles with N = 3.132 learners
• Learning processes
– Content quality
– Social quality
• Learning outcomes
– Domain-specific outcomes
– Domain-general outcomes
55. Internal Collaboration Script COMPONENTS
Play A
Scene
Role 1Scriptlet
Scene Scene
Dynamic Memory model of representation of knowledge (Schank, 1999)
Scriptlet
Scriptlet
Scriptlet
Scriptlet
Scriptlet
Scriptlet
Scriptlet
Play B
Role 2
Scene
56. What internal script level should
external scripts target?
What internal script level should be targeted by the
collaboration scripts?
– Meta-analysis by Vogel et al. (2016):
• Categorizing external scripts with respect to the
internal script level they predominately target (play,
scene, scriptlet)
• ICC = 0.58
57. Effects on learning processes
Play level
Play level
Scene level
Scene level
Scriptlet level
Scriptlet level
-0,5
-0,4
-0,3
-0,2
-0,1
0,0
0,1
0,2
0,3
0,4
0,5
0,6
0,7
0,8
0,9
1,0
Content quality Social quality
Effectsize(Hedges'g)
64
k = 3
d = -0.14
k = 9
d = 0.57*
k = 5
d = 0.02
k = 3
d = 0.60*
k = 15
d = 0.46* k = 6
d = 0.26
58. Conclusion
• Prepare for the worst..
• For CL to be effective, not any kind of interaction is equally
instrumental:
• Interactive activities I>C>A>P
• Effective social processes: Explaining, asking thought
provoking questions, resolving cognitive discrepancies,
argumentation, modeling cognition, peer feedback
• Collaboration has very high potential for interactivity.
However, this potential is often not realised without additional
support
59. Conclusion
• Sometimes, simple support of group self-regulation with
awareness tools can be enough
• Often, however, more is needed – especially when
collaboration skills are not yet at the disposal of the
learners
• Targeting the scene level proved to be most effective for
domain learning.
• For strategy learning – including collaboration skills –
scriptlet, scene, and play level are the targets (Vogel et al.,
2013)