Scaffolding learning activities in real life contexts with collaborative scripts and mobile computers

Scaffolding learning activities in real
life contexts with collaborative
scripts and mobile computers
Jari Laru,
University of Oulu
25.4.2012

Focus of the study
The general focus of this doctoral
thesis is to apply theoretical ideas of
distributed cognition and scaffolding
for mobile computer supported
collaborative learning in authentic
contexts

Ill-structured problems in this thesis

Ill-structured problem solving was a
core task in all experiments in this
doctoral thesis. According to Jonassen
(2002) problems can be either well-
structured, when there is one clear
solution and solution path, or ill-
structured, when there are unclear
problem elements and multiple
possible solutions and solution paths.

Theoretical framework

Sirexkat @ Flickr, CC-SA

Distributed cognition

© Distributed-cognition-maggie-nichols.jpg @ http://cyborganthropology.com/

Distributed cognition (Hutchins, 1995;
Salomon, 1993) is is a view that cognition
does not reside only in person’s head,
but distributed among people, artifacts
and symbols during thinking, reflection
and learning (Salomon, 1993)

Social distribution

Symbolic distribution

Physical distribution openclipart

The concept of cognitive tools is used to refer to any tool that
can support aspects of learner’s cognitive processes (Lajoie,
1993). Jonassen and Reeves (1996) broadens Lajoie’s view of
the term, using it to refer to any tools “than enhance the
cognitive powers of human beings during thinking, problem
solving, and learning” (p.693).

Cognitive tool

Tools for living vs. tools for learning
Tools for Living Tools for Learning
Type Tools with first-order fingertip Tools with second-order Mindtools (Jonassen,
effect (Perkins, 1986) fingertip effect (Perkins, 1996)
186)
Definition tools that are used Tools that enhance Tools that engage and
spontaneously without higher-order skills facilitate critical
chancing basic aspirations, thinking and higher-
endeavors, or thinking habits order skills
of population
Aim Improve productivity and Change our goals and the To make effective use of
efficiency ways of thinking the mental efforts of
the learner
Examples Eyeglasses, feature phone Handheld calculators Productivity software,
expert systems,
computer conferences,
smartphones, digital
learning environments,
mobile applications

In order to fit world of
Person-solo distributed cognition where
Person+ we live and role of mobile
Framework devices and applications
within it appropriate
framework is needed. One
fitting approach for this
purpose is a distributed
view of thinking and
learning suggested
originally by D. Perkins
(1996).

Distributed cognitive system

Exexutive function F(x)

F(x) F(x)
F(x)
F(x)

F(x)

Higher-order F(x) Tools for living
knowledge

F(x) F(x) Tools for learning

Scaffolds F(x) Mindtools F(x)

F(x)
Access craharacteristics

Knowledge
Person-solo
Representations
Person+Artefact
Retrieval
Person+Surround
Construction

Executive function F(X)
F(x)
F(x)
F(x) A system can further be
characterized as dependent on
F(x)
which of its components has the
executive function with respect to
the task being accomplished.
F(x)
In the distributed cognition model
executive function is distributed by
F(x)
the nature – distributions happen
in our surround all the time
Person-solo (Perkins, 1993)
Person+Artefact

Person+Surround

Knowledge

Access characteristics Representations

Retrieval

Construction

Collaborative learning

Creative Commons

Nature of the learning task is one
crucial determinant of successful
Ill-structured collaboration (Arvaja, Häkkinen,
problem solving Eteläpelto, & Rasku-Puttonen,
2000). One of the everlasting
was a core task in challenges for instructional
designers is to provide real group
all experiments in tasks and contexts that stimulate
this thesis. questioning, explaining and other
forms of knowledge articulation
(Järvelä, Häkkinen, Arvaja, &
Leinonen, 2003). Such challenge is
grounded to an idea that the
authenticity of the learning
situations and tasks is assumed to
be an important factor that can
facilitate higher order learning
(Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989).

Collaboratively usable vs. collaborative
…suggestion was made to divide tools into the collaboratively
usable technology (in which software alone does not scaffold
collaboration) and collaborative technology (in which software is
designed specifically to support collaborative knowledge
construction), based on the instructional and pedagogical
aspects of tools (Lipponen & Lallimo, 2004)

Cases Collaboratively usable technology Collaborative technology
Case 1: ViMa - FLE3mobile
Case 2: Flyer Flyers -
Case 3: Edufeed Shozu, Flickr, Wordpress, Google Wikispaces
Reader

Supporting learning with

Emergent technologies

The world is entering into the Age
of Mobilism (Norris & Soloway,
2011). New technology tools fit
more readily and naturally our
lives; increasingly broad,
inexpensive, and easy access to
Internet wireless devices, and a
variety of Web-based personal
publishing and social software
tools are making computing truly a
ubiquitous and “continuous” part
of our lives (Roush, 2005, p.49).

Furthermore many researchers have argued
that educational use of emergent mobile
devices have technological attributes, which
provide unique technological, social and
Affordances
pedagogical affordances

Type of affordance Roschelle & Pea (2002) Klopfer & Squire (2008) Kiinalainen..
Technological · leverage topological · Connectivity
(or physical) space · Portability
· augment physical · Context sensitivity
space with the
information exchange
Social · aggregate individual’s · Social interactivity
participation into ·
group reflection
opportunities
Pedagogical · Situate teacher as · Individuality (provide
conductor of activity unique scaffolding)
· use students’ actions
as artifacts for
discussion

Evolution of the research on ”mobile
learning”
Mobility & PDA(s) Wild(s) Social mobile media Ubiquitous tomorrow
Years 1996- 2002- 2009-
Type of devices Personal Digital Feature phone, Smartphones Smartphones,
Assistant, PocketPC Smartphone Internet tablets,
phidgets, tangibles

Main type of Infrared Wifi, 2G cellular 3G cellular data 4G -->
connectivity data

Type of tools Mobile versions of Mobile Mobile clients and Multiple apps
desktop software applications internet based cloud
services

In this thesis Case I Case II Case III -

Scafffolding

webb-zahn @ Flickr, CC-SA

The fact that students nowadays
make use of different electronic
devices, which are available
ubiquitously and they are called
digital natives doesn’t make them
good users of the media they have
their disposal.

In other words, Perkins (1993) and
Salomon (1993) argue that learners
do not automatically know how to
take appropriate and measured
advantage of computer tools when
involved in cognitive activities with
them.

Interlearn (2005)
Scaffolding 1/2
• The concept of scaffolding was first introduced by
Wood, Bruner & Ross (1976) in order to define what kind of
instructional processes enables novices to carry out tasks that
are beyond their unassisted efforts, thus helping them
achieve independent task competence.
• The theoretical foundation of scaffolding comes from ideas
concerning the zone of proximal development (ZPD) and
sociocultural perspective (Vygotsky, 1986; Wertch, 1998).
• Scaffolding techniques have been used successfully in a
number of desktop tools
(Quintana, Reiser, Davis, Krajcik, Fretz, Duncan, Kyza, Edelson,
Soloway, 2004)

jari.laru@oulu.fi 23

Interlearn (2005)
(distributed) Scaffolding 2/2
• Puntembekar & Kolodner (1998) have argud that models of
individual scaffolding are not necessarily applicaple to
educational settings in which a group of learners is pursuing a
common goal.
• Other up-to-date notions on scaffolding emphasize that it can
take a variety of forms - it can be extended to cover physical
artifacts and representations, which can serve as cognitive
tools that mediate action (Palincsar, 1998; Wertch, 1998), but
also to consider peers and social roles as scaffolding agents
(Tabak, 2004; Puntembakar & Kolodner, 1998).
=>Puntembekar & Kolodnner (1998) have coined the term
distributed scaffolding to refer to such instructional designs
that sequence and integrate a variety of social and material
supports.

jari.laru@oulu.fi 24

Collaborative scripts
• With respect to challenges in collaborative
learning, Kollar, Fischer & Hesse (2006) have
distinguished two classes of scaffolds:
A) scaffolds that provide support on a conceptual level
(microscript)
B) scaffolds that provide support concerning interactive
processes between the collaborators (macroscript)

• Especially in CSCL such scaffolds have been called
collaboration scripts (Fischer et. al, 2007; MOSIL, 2004)

Concept of fading reveals to be
problematic!
• Pea (2004) suggested that scaffolds that do
not incorporate fading are actually a part of
distributed cognition, or the division of an
overall cognitive task into subtasks that can be
completed by different people or tools
(Hutchins, 1995).
• Fading is not possible at all with it’s original
meaning in computer mediated contexts
(Belland, 2011)

Scaffolds as a part of distributed
cognition
Scripts can be examined through the metaphor
of distributed cognition which have been argued
to appropriately to apply computer-based
scaffolding: ”because the latter do no not
simply, but fundamentally change the nature of
cognition (Kollar, Fischer & Hesse, 2006; Belland,
2011)

Distributed Scaffolding
cognition Distributed scaffolding

Scaffolding in the context of

Microscripts Macroscripts

Integrated learning scripts
Collaborative learning activities


Exexutive function F(x)

F(x) F(x)
F(x)
F(x)

F(x)

Higher-order F(x) Tools for living Controlling agent
knowledge (in this case it’s
external CL script)
F(x) F(x) Tools for learning

Scaffolds F(X) F(x) Mindtools F(x) Removal
Internal CL script ag
F(x)
Access craharacteristics

Knowledge
Person-solo
Representations
Person+Artefact
Retrieval
Person+Surround
Construction

External script

Emergent interaction pattern(s)
Team+

External script Task(s)

Degree of congruency
C
A

Integrated learning script (macroscript)
B

Group members
Microscript Microscript Microscript

Person+ Person+ Person+

Internal script

Internal script

Internal script
Person-solo Person-solo Person-solo
A B C

Script as method
• In this thesis script is considered as method to be
used during activities in different case studies,
not as a pedagogical objective, with goal to be
internalized for the future
• However, when script is a method, the internal
script is instrumental to play well the external
script (each students construct some internal
script that will – to some – extent be different
from the external script) (Dillenbourg & Jermann,
2006

Didactic envelope
(macroscripting)
In MOSIL project dillenbourg et. Al (2004) expanded the scope of
collaboration scripts presented by Dillebourg (2002) to encompass
more than just small group interaction by introducing concept of
didactic envelope: “we discriminate the core script from its
didactic envelope, i.e. a set of pre- and post-structuring activities”
(p.13). Such structuring activities (e.g. introducing the
topic, reflecting on what what was discussed, etc.) allow triggering
the core mechanisms and enable scripts to be optimally integrated
into the lesson plan and are an essential part of macroscripting
(Dillenbourg & Jermann, 2006; Dillenbourg & Tchounikine, 2005).

Disturbing collaboration: ”swish”
Dillenbourg & Hong (2008) have termed their approach for
disturbing collaboration as “Split Where Interaction Should
Happen” (SWISH). They summarize it by using three axioms:

1. Learning is result from interactions in which learners have
to engage in order to compensate split introduced by
macroscript, i.e constructing shared solution based on
materials gained during individual reflections (case study
III in this thesis).
2. The nature of “split” thus determines the nature of
interactions. Interactions are mechanisms for overcoming
task splits
3. The splits can therefore – in reverse engineering- be
designed to trigger the very interactions that the designer
wants to foster

Learning context Pedagogical design

Macroscript

Internal script Internal script

Microscript n

Person-solo Person-solo

Internal script Microscript n+1 Internal script

Person-solo Person-solo
Person-solo Person+ / team+

Learning design

Poitinjimmie @ Flickr, CC-SA

Aims of the study I/II
The general focus of this doctoral
thesis is to apply theoretical ideas of
distributed cognition and scaffolding
for mobile computer supported
collaborative learning in authentic
contexts

Aims of the study II/II
• The first aim was to analyze the nature of collaboration
in the mobile technology supported settings of
collaborative learning (papers I and III-IV) and work
(paper II)
• The second aim was to experiment the kind of
scaffolding of mobile computer supported
collaboration that can enrich collaborative learning
(papers I,III-IV) and work (paper II)
• The third aim was to discuss the methodological issues
for studying social interactions and collaborative
learning in mobile computer supported activities (I-IV)

Research design

The research design combines
chracteristics from the design
based research (DBR), Case-
study approach (Yin, 2003) and
situated approach (Greeno,
2006)

Theory

Inquiry learning Case III
Argumentative learning
Paper III
Instructional design
Case II Instructional design Core activity
2nd analysis
Main methods Core activity Blended learning EI
Results & findings
1st analysis Argumentative inquiry
Mann Whitney U-test Script
learning

Data Script Integrated learning script
Qualitative content
analysis Flyers, audio
recordings, mindmaps Integrated learning script
Context
Context Macro: Storyboard + tutors
Mobile tool Higher Education
Flyers
Fieldtrip (K12) Micro: Sentence openers
Data
Tools
Log
Mobile tool data, recordings, knowledge
test, wiki history, content
Case I Media uploader
2nd analysis Paper II Results & findings Google Reader
Main methods 1st analysis
Social software (students)
Social network analysis 1st analysis
Instructional design Media sharing
Data 2nd analysis
Weblog
Qualitative content Logs, interviews, Core activity Wiki
analysis questionnaires RSS Reader
Knowledge building Paper IV
Context Social software (class)
Mobile tool Script
Virtual master’s Course blog Main methods
FLE3mobile Macro: Free collaboration Course wiki
programme
Micro: sentence openers RSS aggregats Qualitative content
analysis (mixed)

Theory Bayesian modeling
FLE3 Tiernajack
Progressive inquiry learning
Flyers SmartLibrary Knowledge building

Preliminary Theory
Paper I analysis Theory (analytical lens)
Foundations Community of Practise

Laru, J. & Järvelä, S. (2008). Social patterns in mobile
technology mediated collaboration among members of the
professional distance education community. Educational
Media International Journal, 45(1),17-3.

Results

Interviews Content analysis

stimulus

Social network analysis
Log-files Matrices
(SNA)

Database

Overall, the analyses revealed nonparticipative behaviour within the online
community.

The social network analysis revealed structural holes and sparse collaboration
among participants in the offline community. It was found that due to their
separated practices in the offline community, they didn’t have a need for mobile
collaboration tools in their practices.

STUDY 2: FLYERS
Laru, J. & Järvelä, S. (2008). Social patterns in mobile
technology mediated collaboration among members of the
professional distance education community. Educational Media
International Journal, 45(1),17-3.

Results

Mindmap
Pre-test

Top-performers

Audio recordings of
argumentative discussions

Mindmap analysis Content analysis Mann-Whitney U-test

Knowledge claim messages

Low performers

Mindmap
Post-test

Although the results revealed several shortcomings in the types of
argumentation...

….In general, the use of the mobile tool likely promoted important
interaction during inquiry learning, but led to superficial
epistemological quality in the knowledge claim messages.

Course blog and wiki
Mobile applications

Course level tools

D. Reflect & E. Review &
B.Reflect F. Co-construct
Phase: A.Ground C.Conceptualize elaborate evaluate
knowledge Course feed

Group level tools

Software:

Collaborative Solo Collaborative

Activity:
Lecture Discussion Phototaking Blogging Discussion Wikiwork

Multiple feeds
Merged feeds

Monitoring tools

G.Monitor Tools used to merge multiple RSS feeds

Figure 4. Socio-technological design of the course. The idea of making use of each others’
knowledge was operationalized in socio-technical design. It consisted of recurrent individual and collective phases in which students
used multiple Web 2.0 tools and mobile phones in concert to perform designed tasks. Retrieved from: Jari Laru, Piia Näykki, Sanna
Järvelä, Supporting small-group learning using multiple Web 2.0 tools: A case study in the higher education context, The Internet and
Higher Education, Available online 28 August 2011, ISSN 1096-7516, 10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.08.004.

Figure 5. Pedagogical design of the course. Groups were required to complete a wiki project
by the end of the semester. In order to complete the wiki project, students needed to
participate in recurrent solo and collective phases mediated by the use of social software
tools and face-to-face discussions in their respective phases. Jari Laru, Piia Näykki, Sanna
Järvelä, Supporting small-group learning using multiple Web 2.0 tools: A case study in the
higher education context, The Internet and Higher Education, Available online 28 August
2011, ISSN 1096-7516, 10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.08.004.

Conceptual Conceptual
knowledge post- knowledge post-
test test

Knowledge
test analysis Results

Paired samples
t-test

Normalized Bayesian dependency & classification
learning gain modeling

Descriptive analysis

Analysis of Wiki
history

Analysis of the On task analysis
engagement

Discussions Shozu Flickr Wordpress Wikispaces Google Reader

In our case, we found that using social software tools together to perform multiple
tasks likely increased individual knowledge acquisition during the course.

Bayesian classification analysis revealed that the best predictors of good learning
outcomes were wiki-related activities.

Single task, free collaboration
Existing master’s programs

New master’s program

Knowledge building activity

Microscript

Collective task

Internal script External script Internal script(s)

Activity: Collaborative knowledge
building (progressive inquiry learning)
Nonparticipative
behavior

Co-operative learning Microscript: Knowledge building Self-study

ag
Activity: Argumentative knowledge
construction

- Integrated learning script - Emergent interaction
pattern(s)
prestructuring

Core activity

Post structuring
ag
Activities: Conceptualizations,
reflections, elaborations, knowledge
construction

CSCL Integrated learning script CSCL Emergent interaction
pattern(s)
ag
prestructuring

SWISH Core activity

ag Post structuring
ag

Three independent tasks + didactic
envelope
Microscript

Task 1 Task 2 Task 3

Macroscript
Collective activities Small-group activities
Storyboard Argumentative discussions

Conclusive discussion Review and comparison

Separated tasks w integrated subtasks
+ Swish

1st topic 2nd topic 3rd topic

Micro S1

Micro S2

Macro Micro S3

Core activity Micro S4
Micro S5

Collective activities Small-group activities Individual activities Collaboration script

Grounding (Lecture) Reflect (Discussion) Conceptualize (Photo [mobile]) Micro Sn = Microscript n
Macro = Macroscript
Review and evaluate Reflect and elaborate (Blog)
(Discussion)
Co-construct of knowledge Monitor (RSS [mobile])
(Wiki)

Internal script External script Internal script(s)

Activity: Collaborative knowledge
building (progressive inquiry learning)
Nonparticipative
behavior

Co-operative learning Microscript: Knowledge building Self-study

ag
Activity: Argumentative knowledge
construction

- Integrated learning script - Emergent interaction
pattern(s)
prestructuring

Core activity

Post structuring
ag
Activities:
Conceptualizations, reflections, elab
orations, knowledge construction

CSCL Integrated learning script CSCL Emergent interaction
pattern(s)
ag
prestructuring

SWISH Core activity

ag Post structuring
ag

Comparison between experiments
Subtask
Topic 1 Subtask n
n+1

Topic 1 Subtask
Topic 2 Subtask n
n+1
X
Subtask
Topic 3 Subtask n
Topic Topic 2 n+1

Subtask
Topic 1 Subtask n
X n+1

Topic 3 Subtask
Topic 2 Subtask n
n+1

Subtask
Topic 3 Subtask n
n+1
Free Didactic envelopes (Dillenbourg, 2002) Swish splits (Dillenbourg & Jermann, 2006)

Conclusion

Simple tools, rich
pedagogical practises
(Roschelle, 2002)

• Kussakin osatutkimuksessa käytettiin
”parhaita menetelmiä” –
• Design tutkimus vs. Case study.. =>
• Menetelmät kehittyivät monipuolisemmiksi ja
tarkemmiksi.. Voisikos niitä selittää ilmiön
kehittymisellä, menetelmien kehittymisellä..
• Kontekstien muuttuessa kollaboraatio voi
muuttua.. Oletko ottanut huomioon..

Scaffolding learning activities in real life contexts with collaborative scripts and mobile computers

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (20)

En vedette

En vedette (13)

Similaire à Scaffolding learning activities in real life contexts with collaborative scripts and mobile computers

Similaire à Scaffolding learning activities in real life contexts with collaborative scripts and mobile computers (20)

Plus de Jari Laru

Plus de Jari Laru (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

Scaffolding learning activities in real life contexts with collaborative scripts and mobile computers