VMT CSCL Workshop June 2004. Group Formation, Facilitation, Recruitment This material is based upon...

VMT CSCL WorkshopJune 2004

Group Formation,Facilitation,Recruitment

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant Nos. 0333493 and 0325447.

Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of theNational Science Foundation.

PresentFuture

- Motivated- Improving problem-solving skills- Improving communication skills- Increasing content knowledge- Works for unlimited numbers of participants

PresentFuture


How do peoplecollaborateface-to-face?

- Middle school students- College/Grad students

PresentFuture



How do peoplecollaborateonline?

- Middle school students- Grad students

- PoW-Wow! (AIM)- College/Grad students (Blackboard)

PresentFuture





- PoW-Wow! (AIM)- Grad students (Blackboard)

- Parallel conversation is easy- Erasing makes reconstruction hard- Tone, expressions, gestures are easy- Speaking is fast- ...

PresentFuture




- Middle school students- College Grad students

- PoW-Wow! (AIM)- College/Grad students (Blackboard)

- Parallel conversation is easy- Erasing makes reconstruction hard- Tone, expressions, gestures are easy- Speaking is fast

- Parallel conversation is hard- Typing is slow- Tone, expressions, gestures are hard- ...

- ...

PresentFuture






“Neutral” scaffolding:Easy things should remain easy,hard things should become less hard.



Neutral scaffolding

Identify obstacles to exploration, provide tools (e.g., shared whiteboard)to mitigate them.

PresentFuture






“Neutral” scaffolding:Easy things should remain easy,hard things should become less hard.

“Positive” scaffolding:Make it easy to do the right thing, and tolearn what that is.



Positive scaffoldingMake it clear where they’re supposed to go; easier to go there; more difficult to go somewhere else.

PresentFuture






“Neutral” scaffolding:Easy things should remain easy,hard things should become less hard.People should be able to find collaborators.

“Positive” scaffolding:Make it easy to do the right thing, and tolearn what that is.People should be able to find appropriate collaborators.



Exploring How People Collaborate

• So far we did some experiments to get a feeling for this

• Face-to-face– Fall ‘03: In a middle school classroom, we observed a

face-to-face lesson– Winter ‘04: Taxicab Geometry session in Gerry’s

class (university level)

• Online– Winter ‘04: 3 online sessions in Gerry’s class– Winter – Spring ‘04: 20 PoW-wow! sessions

What Factors Affect Collaboration?

Environmental Factors Group Attributes Individual Attributes

Math Problems - Difficulty - Resource availability - Learning goals

F2F Experiment I - Sharswoodgroup formation

• In the middle school classroom, we observed a face-to-face lesson in which students were grouped by their classroom teacher.

• Students were asked to self-assign typical cooperative learning roles (reporter, facilitator, recorder). – Results: They did not continue to use the roles as

they worked together.

F2F Experiment II – TaxiCab Geometry Sessions

• Student surveys were used to form groups• Decisions were mainly based on

availability of students for synchronous communication.

• Students were not highly motivated• Depending on their math knowledge and

problem solving skills, each group followed very different approaches.

F2F Collaboration in General

• + Easy to coordinate discussion, taking turns etc.

• + Effective communication channels, can benefit from gestures, body lang. etc.

• - Resource limitation, discussed ideas are volatile, could be forgotten etc.

• - Access to information resources is limited

Our Experience with Online Experiments – In Class

• Groups were initially grouped randomly for the first online session.

• For the second two virtual problems groups were the same as in taxicab sessions. (longevity)

• Groups used Blackboard software (shared whiteboard, synch chat, equation editor)

• Groups did better as they became familiar with the software and their group members

• Facilitation instructions – Inscribed-Circle Tangent-Square Ducks-in-a-row

Our Experience with Online Experiments – PoW-Wow!

• Collected information– Age– Grade– Gender– Math class– Knowledge about math– Knowledge about

technology– How often they join a

Pow-wow

• Group size– Original goal of 3-4

students– Later goal of 3-5– With small numbers

of registrants, groups were usually small

PoW-Wow! - Facilitation

• In initial Pow-wows, instructions were given within the chat room. Later general instructions were printed only on the problem page.

• Goal: basic, clear information• Script: Facilitator Information

http://mathforum.org/pow/vmt/facilitate.mar07.html

PoW-Wow! - Recruitment

• We have promoted the Pow-wows on the Math Forum site– Problem of the Week index page– Algebra and Geometry problem pages– Instant Messages from MFpowwow to see if

registrants are serious and if past participants are coming back

– We contacted some active PoW submitters

PoW-Wow! - Statistics

• 20 Pow-wows

• 37 different participants

• 7 repeating participants (2, 3, 3, 4, 4, 6, 11)

• 64 never-shows (some registered more than once; some participants were no-shows at times)

• VMT facilitators joined 4 chats to fill space

PoW-Wow! - Getting Return Visitors

• Problems– Time zones, home schedules, other homework– Kids who register don’t show up– A few rude participants– Software?– Purpose not clear?

• What’s in it for the participant?– Socializing, chatting– Math help

Online Collaboration in General

• - Coordination is difficult (taking turns, following ideas etc.)

• - Limited communication channels– Hard to share your work (e.g. diagram)– Typing issue

• + Resources, easy keep a log of the discussion for future reference

• + Math resources: Can benefit from online searches to retrieve necessary math info

What Factors Affect Collaboration?

Environmental Factors Group Attributes Individual Attributes

Math Problems - Difficulty - Resource availability - Learning goalsActivity structure (roles)Software Interface - Affordances - Usability of the systemFacilitation

Group SizeMember compositionLongevityCohesion

Math skills: - Math background - Problem solving skillsSocial skills: - Communication style - Linguistic skillsTechnical skills: - Familiarity with techAvailabilityLearning stylePersonalityMotivation/ConfidenceFamiliarity with

tools/collaboration.

Some Desirable Outcomes of Small Group Collaboration in Our Context Mastering problem solving (logical reasoning) skills Mastering communication skills, becoming better collaborators Developing mathematical thinking; logically linking topics learned

in class to solve a problem Asking insightful questions Raising different viewpoints, perspectives Paying attention to other members’ thoughts and needs;

providing feedback, help Critiquing other members’ ideas in a constructive way Learning from mistakes, making corrections/refinements with the

help of other members Intertwining of perspectives through a process of negotiation;

collectively constructing a solution to the problem

To get to the desirable situation…

• We need to find out how we should set the parameters effecting the collaboration.

• I.e. we need to answer questions like: – How we should form our groups?– What sort of software tools do we need to

provide scaffolding?– What sort of facilitation/help features can we

build into the system?– What sort of problems should we use?

Approximating Parameters

• Answering previous questions requires us to approximate the values of key parameters (especially those regarding skills of group members)

• Possible data sources:– Self-assessment data obtained from surveys– Observed performance in previous sessions

(if such historical info is available)

Automation Issues

• We expect to serve 100s of users around the globe

• Due to the projected scale of the system we need – a reasonable group formation scheme– an automated facilitator agent (handle group

formation, providing feedback etc.)– a scheme for forming/updating user profiles

• updating user profiles according to observed performance

Present Future ∆Sharing drawings, resources is awkward.

Sharing drawings, resources is fast and easy.

[Remove this obstacle.]

Typing is slow, error prone. Other input modes are supported.

[Remove this obstacle.]

Students don’t seem to understand problem reduction.

Tracking and coordinating sub-problems is facilitated by the environment.

[Provide this structure.]

Hypotheses already rejected can resurface.

Tracking confirmed or rejected hypotheses is facilitated by the environment.

[Provide this structure.]

Limited perspectives lead to circling, ‘stuckness’.

Multiple perspectives increase alternatives.

[Form groups more effectively]

Mismatch in knowledge levels leads to excessive ‘catch-up’ discussions.

Compatible knowledge levels support facile exploration of problem space.

[Form groups more effectively]

A simple framework for collaboration...

In wiki...

VMT CSCL Workshop June 2004. Group Formation, Facilitation, Recruitment This material is based upon...

Documents

Transcript of VMT CSCL Workshop June 2004. Group Formation, Facilitation, Recruitment This material is based upon...