The 2 nd Factor: Group leader structure

The 2The 2ndnd Factor: Group leader structure Factor: Group leader structure

In our previous experience in conducting KB activities, we found that group leaders In our previous experience in conducting KB activities, we found that group leaders play a substantial role in affecting the outcome of KB activities. There could be a play a substantial role in affecting the outcome of KB activities. There could be a variety of ways to organize groups: variety of ways to organize groups:

• Single group leaderSingle group leader

• Multiple group leadersMultiple group leaders

•Group members take turns to be the leaderGroup members take turns to be the leader

And different ways of preparing group leaders for their tasks and setting up And different ways of preparing group leaders for their tasks and setting up expectations for their roles. expectations for their roles.

We still have not conducted systematic enquiry on this, but in one of our We still have not conducted systematic enquiry on this, but in one of our participating schools……participating schools……

The 3The 3rdrd Factor: Project Discussion vs. Theme Discussion Factor: Project Discussion vs. Theme Discussion

Promoting higher level of knowledge building outcome: design issuesBy Nancy Law, Allan Yuen, Johnny Yuen and Elaine Wong

lcp@cite.hku.hkCentre for Information Technology in School and Teacher Education, University of Hong Kong

TThe design of learning activities has been a major area of research in education. When the focus of education moves from learning to knowledge building, are he design of learning activities has been a major area of research in education. When the focus of education moves from learning to knowledge building, are there design factors that affect the depth of knowledge building that students could reach? Theoretically, the depth of engagement of the students and the kind of there design factors that affect the depth of knowledge building that students could reach? Theoretically, the depth of engagement of the students and the kind of facilitation/scaffolding that teacher could provide are key factors. Could certain kinds of learning task facilitate deeper engagement? Does the structure of the facilitation/scaffolding that teacher could provide are key factors. Could certain kinds of learning task facilitate deeper engagement? Does the structure of the discussion tasks or the time duration of the learning task matter? As students are generally working in groups, would particular group structures/organizations discussion tasks or the time duration of the learning task matter? As students are generally working in groups, would particular group structures/organizations affect the ease with which student groups develop into autonomous knowledge building team? Do team leaders matter? Would team leaders with specific affect the ease with which student groups develop into autonomous knowledge building team? Do team leaders matter? Would team leaders with specific training/knowledge building experience contribute to deeper levels of knowledge building of the entire team? training/knowledge building experience contribute to deeper levels of knowledge building of the entire team?

The 1The 1stst factor: Nature of the task for KB factor: Nature of the task for KB

IIt is generally known that open-ended enquiry tasks rather than close-t is generally known that open-ended enquiry tasks rather than close-ended ones are necessary for knowledge building. However, reflecting ended ones are necessary for knowledge building. However, reflecting on the level of KB activities exhibited in different task designs over the on the level of KB activities exhibited in different task designs over the past year, we found that there is more to task design than just openness past year, we found that there is more to task design than just openness and appeal to students. Tasks that can be accomplished by simply putting and appeal to students. Tasks that can be accomplished by simply putting some information together would be far less productive than ones that some information together would be far less productive than ones that will require real engagement with the ideas, demanding that will require real engagement with the ideas, demanding that contributions must link with concepts and ideas already held. contributions must link with concepts and ideas already held.

Case Study:Case Study:

ATK analysisATK analysis 11stst Trial (20 students) Trial (20 students) 22ndnd Trial (20 students) Trial (20 students)

Total number of new notes created by Total number of new notes created by all studentsall students

57 notes 57 notes 249 notes 249 notes

Mean number of notes contributed per Mean number of notes contributed per studentstudent

2.85 notes (S.D. 1.77)2.85 notes (S.D. 1.77) 12.45 notes (S.D. 2.77)12.45 notes (S.D. 2.77)

Mean percentage of new notes that are Mean percentage of new notes that are linked to other notes per studentlinked to other notes per student

63.7% (S.D. 29.68%)63.7% (S.D. 29.68%) 76.8% (S.D. 13.8%)76.8% (S.D. 13.8%)

Mean percentage of new notes with Mean percentage of new notes with key words per studentkey words per student

85.4% (S.D. 28.85%) 85.4% (S.D. 28.85%) 52.5% (S.D. 29.64%) 52.5% (S.D. 29.64%)

Mean number of notes read per studentMean number of notes read per student 42.3 notes (S.D. 38.39)42.3 notes (S.D. 38.39) 104.7 notes (S.D. 40.99)104.7 notes (S.D. 40.99)

Mean number of note revisions made Mean number of note revisions made per studentper student

0.8 revisions (S.D. 1.09) 0.8 revisions (S.D. 1.09) 2.9 revisions (S.D. 3.15) 2.9 revisions (S.D. 3.15)

Mean number of times of scaffold Mean number of times of scaffold support used per studentsupport used per student

2.9 scaffolds (S.D. 2.35) 2.9 scaffolds (S.D. 2.35) 9.2 scaffolds (S.D. 5.02) 9.2 scaffolds (S.D. 5.02)

Staged, guided Staged, guided discussiondiscussion

Unstructured, Unstructured, thematic discussionthematic discussion

• the in-depth investigation process the in-depth investigation process

• interconnected stagesinterconnected stages

• outputs from earlier stages are the outputs from earlier stages are the input of later stages input of later stages

• achieve certain stage at certain achieve certain stage at certain time time

•freedom of exploration freedom of exploration •teachers propose a topic and students decide teachers propose a topic and students decide aspects of that topic that they are interested to aspects of that topic that they are interested to talk about talk about

•aspects of the topic are discussed aspects of the topic are discussed simultaneously simultaneously

•both the breath and depth of discussion can both the breath and depth of discussion can occur at the same timeoccur at the same time

Summary Summary • some apparent differences in terms of idea interactionsome apparent differences in terms of idea interaction

- more exploration & relating of ideas in unstructured discussions - more exploration & relating of ideas in unstructured discussions - more evaluation of ideas in guided staged discussions- more evaluation of ideas in guided staged discussions

• Findings inconclusive, need further researchFindings inconclusive, need further research

There were 14 students participating in the Peer Tutoring Project 2002:There were 14 students participating in the Peer Tutoring Project 2002:

And in subsequent KB activities, these students became group leaders:And in subsequent KB activities, these students became group leaders:

………………

ResultsResultsUnder the 12 KB principles analysis, 5 groups scored 18 points or above (out of Under the 12 KB principles analysis, 5 groups scored 18 points or above (out of 36 points) according to a 4 point scoring scale. In 4 groups out of the 5 high 36 points) according to a 4 point scoring scale. In 4 groups out of the 5 high scoring groups, their leaders were award-winners in the Peer Tutoring Project. scoring groups, their leaders were award-winners in the Peer Tutoring Project. These groups were characterized by outstanding performance in contributing These groups were characterized by outstanding performance in contributing real ideas and authentic problems, idea diversity, collective responsibility, real ideas and authentic problems, idea diversity, collective responsibility, democratizing knowledge and knowledge building discourse, under the 12 KB democratizing knowledge and knowledge building discourse, under the 12 KB principles analysis. principles analysis.

AverageAverage

ofof

High score groups High score groups with award with award

winning leaderswinning leaders

(4)(4)

The rest of the groupsThe rest of the groups(10)(10)

Mean score of KB principlesMean score of KB principles 22.5 (S.D. 3.42)22.5 (S.D. 3.42) 10.8 (S.D. 5.75)10.8 (S.D. 5.75)

Mean number of notes created per groupMean number of notes created per group 107.5 (S.D. 69.29)107.5 (S.D. 69.29) 70 (S.D. 26.5)70 (S.D. 26.5)

Mean number of revisions done per Mean number of revisions done per groupgroup

65.5 (S.D. 45)65.5 (S.D. 45) 20.4 (S.D. 15.9)20.4 (S.D. 15.9)

Mean percentage of notes linked per Mean percentage of notes linked per groupgroup

78% (S.D. 15%)78% (S.D. 15%) 60% (S.D. 16%)60% (S.D. 16%)

Mean percentage of intra-group note Mean percentage of intra-group note read per group read per group

68% (S.D. 22%)68% (S.D. 22%) 43% (S.D. 33%)43% (S.D. 33%)

Main task for this stage: Introduce an application of EMI

Trial 1:Electromagnetic induction (EMI)

20 Form 6 students

Which appliance?Info.

Task Ends

Trial 2:Electromagnetic Induction (EMI)Same group of 20 Form 6 students

Describe and explain teacher’squestion without using technical terms.

Students give comments to other groups

Students re-answer the questions with appropriate phrases

Task Ends

Students present what they find about EMI

ATK analysisATK analysis

Analysis of the level of idea interaction found in the KF notes created by same group of students in two types of discussionsAnalysis of the level of idea interaction found in the KF notes created by same group of students in two types of discussions

Nature of Nature of notesnotes

Guided, Guided, staged staged discussions discussions (PTP2002)(PTP2002)

UnstructureUnstructured, thematic d, thematic discussion discussion

(2003)(2003)

The Coding rubic for analyzing the level of idea interaction found in the KF notes The Coding rubic for analyzing the level of idea interaction found in the KF notes created by the studentscreated by the students

Ideas as Ideas as discrete itemsdiscrete itemsStaged, Staged,

INFINF Presenting information which may not be targeted at a specific Presenting information which may not be targeted at a specific problem or indicate understandingproblem or indicate understanding

51.9%51.9% 47.7%47.7%

NIDNID A new idea or problem or new information which is addresses A new idea or problem or new information which is addresses the problem being discussedthe problem being discussed

RPTRPT Repeating the ideas similar to those expressed by others without Repeating the ideas similar to those expressed by others without contributing further interpretation or extensioncontributing further interpretation or extension

TECTEC Introducing technical terms relevant to the topic of discussionIntroducing technical terms relevant to the topic of discussion

SUMSUM Summarizing various contributed information without evaluation Summarizing various contributed information without evaluation or synthesisor synthesis

DEFDEF Providing the definition for a term or a conceptProviding the definition for a term or a concept

Explore or Explore or relate ideasrelate ideas

RELREL Relating to another group's discussion notesRelating to another group's discussion notes

35.2%35.2% 42.7%42.7%

QRYQRY Raising content-related query, which may be fact finding, or Raising content-related query, which may be fact finding, or explanation seekingexplanation seeking

RCTRCT Relating different conceptsRelating different concepts

EIDEID Elaborating one's own ideaElaborating one's own idea

XIDXID Extending idea contributed by othersExtending idea contributed by others

Evaluate Evaluate IdeasIdeas

CHLCHL Posing challenges to ideas contributed by othersPosing challenges to ideas contributed by others

13%13% 9.7%9.7%ADWADW Admitting own idea as wrongAdmitting own idea as wrong

CFMCFM Confirming one's own or someone else's idea as correctConfirming one's own or someone else's idea as correct

PlanningPlanning

PLNPLN Planning (presenting or asking for) course of action to take for task Planning (presenting or asking for) course of action to take for task completioncompletion

0%0% 0%0%MONMON Monitoring plan execution or time scheduleMonitoring plan execution or time schedule

CLRCLR Seeking clarification for task progressSeeking clarification for task progress

KB performance of the same students engaging in two KB performance of the same students engaging in two types of discussions using the KB principles analysistypes of discussions using the KB principles analysis

Staged, guided discussionStaged, guided discussion (PTP2002)(PTP2002)

Unstructured, thematic discussionUnstructured, thematic discussion

(Activity in 2003)(Activity in 2003)

Mean Mean ScoreScore

AccessibilityAccessibility Mean Mean ScoreScore

AccessibilityAccessibility

Real ideas, authentic problemsReal ideas, authentic problems 1.71.7 55 1.71 1.71 44

Improvable ideasImprovable ideas 1.31.3 77 1.21 1.21 77

Idea diversityIdea diversity 22 11 1.93 1.93 33

Rise aboveRise above 11 88 0.71 0.71 88

Epistemic agencyEpistemic agency 22 11 1.50 1.50 66

Community knowledge, collective responsibilityCommunity knowledge, collective responsibility 22 11 2.14 2.14 22

Democratizing knowledgeDemocratizing knowledge 1.71.7 55 2.29 2.29 11

Constructive use of authoritative sourcesConstructive use of authoritative sources 0.70.7 99 0.71 0.71 88

Knowledge building discourseKnowledge building discourse 22 11 1.71 1.71 44

Embedded and transformative assessmentEmbedded and transformative assessment 0.70.7 99 0.21 0.21 1010

ReferencesReferencesBrown, A. L. (1992). Design Experiments: Theoretical and Methodological Challenges in Creating Complex Interventions in Brown, A. L. (1992). Design Experiments: Theoretical and Methodological Challenges in Creating Complex Interventions in

Classroom Settings. Classroom Settings. The Journal of the Learning SciencesThe Journal of the Learning Sciences , 2(2), 141-178.  , 2(2), 141-178.  Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1999). Schools as knowledge building organizations. In D. Keating & C. Hertzman (Eds.), Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1999). Schools as knowledge building organizations. In D. Keating & C. Hertzman (Eds.),

Today’s children, tomorrow’s society: The developmental health and wealth of nationsToday’s children, tomorrow’s society: The developmental health and wealth of nations (pp. 274-289). New York: Guilford. (pp. 274-289). New York: Guilford.  Bielaczyc, K. (1997). Designing Social Infrastructure: The Challenge of Building Computer-Supported Learning Communities. Bielaczyc, K. (1997). Designing Social Infrastructure: The Challenge of Building Computer-Supported Learning Communities.

Proceedings of the Computer Supported Collaborative Learning Conference,Proceedings of the Computer Supported Collaborative Learning Conference, 1997. 1997.