Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
The Teaching and Learning CentreLingnan University
Brant Knutzen
Lingnan University
Social Constructivism
Transactivity
Study #1
Assessment methods
Participation marking scheme
Study #2
CMC : Computer-mediated Conferencing Synchronous : “chat”, or instant
messaging Asychronous : “discussion forum”
The effective construction of knowledge is a product of the collaborative group
Efficacy has been found to be linked to the process that learners utilize in working on the task together (Fischer et al 2002)
Process: social negotiation of arguments and argument sequences (Leitão 2000; Voss & Dyke 2001)
John Biggs captured the educational value of discussion when he stated:
"Good dialogue elicits those activities that shape, elaborate,
and deepen understanding“ (Biggs 1999 p. 5)
Transactivity: the method by which students build on the contributions of their fellow learners
(Berkowitz & Gibbs 1983)
Transactive communication: Participants respond to and build on
each other’s contributions Peer exchange of information and ideas Social negotiation of knowledge Each participant brings their own
experiences to apply to a common educational goal
A key theoretical construct for measuring collaboration
How can we describe it in easily grasped ways? Quantitative Qualitative
How can we formulate the instructional design conditions which consistently result in more productive and transactive learning activities?
Case study of one course (Knutzen)▪ International school in Hong Kong – secondary level▪ 1-to-1 laptop blended learning environment▪ Introduction to Psychology course▪ Sample size = 24
Investigation of instructional design conditions to achieve a highly productive online discussion
At start of study, average student production in online discussions = 1 post
Four conditions to achieve productive online discussions: Teacher facilitated social formation of small groups Class time to initiate online discussion interaction Setting open-ended, challenging topic questions that
encourage discussion and debate Assessment system that reinforces production and
peer interaction
At end of study, average studentproduction: over 10 posts per discussion!
Over the following three teaching years: Extensive use of the online discussion design Full-time instruction of secondary students
▪ 1-to-1 laptop environment▪ IT classes▪ Psychology
Part-time instruction of post-graduate students
Literally hundreds of online discussions
Design continues to result in good
production
Traditional – teacher-assessed subjective marking Review contributions by each student Award mark based on:
▪ Participation – any contribution to discussion
▪ Interaction - responding and seeking feedback
▪ Transaction – sharing / exchanging useful information and resources
▪ Transformation - ideas and understanding clearly develop as a
function of interaction and transaction
Best method for summative assessment
A highly productive discussion can easily produce over 200 posts!
A teacher can become a victim of their own success How much time can they devote to
quantitative marking? How much time remains for qualitative
feedback?
Desired graduate attributes: Critical thinking skills Excellent cooperative skills
▪ Integrity▪ Personal responsibility
Subjective peer-assessment can directly address the development of these attributes Requires student training Requires review and evaluation by teacher
Possible problems: “Revenge grading” or 報復
▪ you gave me a low grade, I will give you a low grade
“Back-scratching” or 賄賂 ▪ If you give me a high grade, I will give you a
high grade
One solution: objective peer-rating based on participation
No judgment, just rating using a clear system:
Moodle can automatically average these grades!
Moodle averages the peer-awarded marks Grades produced by participation:
▪ One post = 6 -> D-▪ Two posts = 8 -> B-▪ Three posts = 8.6 -> B▪ Four posts = 9 -> A-▪ Five posts = 9.2 -> A-▪ Six posts = 9.33 -> A▪ Seven posts = 9.42 -> A▪ Eight posts = 9.5 etc
More participation = higher grade
Students cannot mark own work, only others Awareness of contributions by other students Team-building incentive
Teacher has plenty of time to: Monitor progress Provide qualitative feedback
Name: the “6 / 10 / 10 / 10” peer-rated participation-based marking scheme
Knutzen & Kennedy – study conducted in 2009
Two versions of same course at HKU
Sample size: n = 53
Same lecture content, same 5 discussion topics
Different instructional design of discussions: Teacher facilitated social formation of small groups In-class time given to begin discussions Open-ended topic questions which encourage discussion and
debate Peer-rated participation marking scheme (6 / 10 / 10 / 10)
Quantitative:▪ Production = Total number of discussion posts / n▪ Interactivity = Total number of feedback posts / n▪ Group Activity = Total number of discussion
posts / # topics▪ Transactivity = Production × Interactivity
Qualitative: a new type of graphical representation – the “BushGraph”
a non-transactive Moodle discussion forum:
The BushGraph of Class #1 – discussion #1 Each student creates their own discussion topic and posts once, but
rarely reads or gives feedback to any other posts – a “lawn”
The same Moodle discussion, with improved instructional design:
The BushGraph of Class #2 - discussion #1
The BushGraph of Class #1 - discussion #2
Class #1 – Discussion #3
The one discussion in Class #1 worth
any points!
5% of total grade, teacher assessed
The BushGraph of Class #1 - discussion #4
The BushGraph of Class #1 - discussion #5
Participation marking has high reliability
Participation marking has very high validity
Could there be a further relationship between the discussion grades <-> project grades and the descriptive statistics, such as interactivity?
As interaction in a discussion goes up, the learning activity becomes more accurate in assessing student performance
We found evidence that the redesign of the instructional design variables to meet the conditions developed in study #1 have a significant positive effect on: the production in the resulting online
discussions several measures of transactivity:
▪ Interactivity▪ Group activity▪ Transactivity (Interactivity × Group Activity)
Peer-marked participation-based scoring method was found to have: High reliability
▪ Good consistency between discussion grades
Very high validity▪ Strong correlations to teacher-assessed
learning activities and the course total grade
Sample sizes were small
Almost exclusively Asian students
Replication and extension of this study with a larger sample size in other cultural settings would provide additional perspectives with greater predictive validity
Possible additional factor affecting results: differences in instructor teaching style emphasis on the importance of online discussions
Determine a causal direction: is the highly interactive discussion
environment conducive to the creation and demonstration of higher levels of understanding?
Or
are students with higher levels of understanding more capable and willing to create interactive discourse?
To achieve highly productive and transactive online discussions in a blended 1-to-1 teaching environment, instructors should incorporate a specific set of four design conditions: Teacher facilitation of social grouping of students Class time to initiate online discussion interaction Setting open-ended, challenging topic questions
that encourage discussion and debate Assessment system that reinforces production
and peer interaction
When these instructional design
conditions are successfully
incorporated, the potential benefits of
social constructivism as an instructional
design paradigm can be realized within
a blended educational environment.
Berkowitz, M. and Gibbs, J. (1983) "Measuring the developmental features of moral discussion", Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, Vol. 29, pp 399-410.
Biggs, J. (1999) "What the Student Does: teaching for enhanced learning", Higher Education Research & Development, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp 57.
Fischer, F., Bruhn, J., Gräsel, C., and Mandl, H. (2002) "Fostering collaborative knowledge construction with visualization tools", Learning and Instruction, Vol. 12, pp 213-232.
Leitão, S. (2000) "The potential of argument in knowledge building" Human Development, Vol. 43, pp 332-360.
Voss, J.F. and Van Dyke, J.A. (2001), "Argumentation in Psychology", Discourse Processes, Vol. 32, No. 2/3, pp 89-111.
