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

  • Published on
    18-Nov-2014

  • View
    2.466

  • Download
    1

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

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

Transcript

  • 1. Scaffolding learning activities in real life contexts with collaborative scripts and mobile computers Jari Laru, University of Oulu 25.4.2012
  • 2. Focus of the studyThe general focus of this doctoralthesis is to apply theoretical ideas ofdistributed cognition and scaffoldingfor mobile computer supportedcollaborative learning in authenticcontexts
  • 3. Ill-structured problems in this thesisIll-structured problem solving was acore task in all experiments in thisdoctoral thesis. According to Jonassen(2002) problems can be either well-structured, when there is one clearsolution and solution path, or ill-structured, when there are unclearproblem elements and multiplepossible solutions and solution paths.
  • 4. Theoretical frameworkSirexkat @ Flickr, CC-SA
  • 5. Distributed cognition Distributed-cognition-maggie-nichols.jpg @ http://cyborganthropology.com/
  • 6. Distributed cognition (Hutchins, 1995;Salomon, 1993) is is a view that cognitiondoes not reside only in persons head,but distributed among people, artifactsand symbols during thinking, reflectionand learning (Salomon, 1993)
  • 7. Social distribution Symbolic distributionPhysical distribution openclipart
  • 8. The concept of cognitive tools is used to refer to any tool thatcan support aspects of learners cognitive processes (Lajoie,1993). Jonassen and Reeves (1996) broadens Lajoies view ofthe term, using it to refer to any tools than enhance thecognitive powers of human beings during thinking, problemsolving, and learning (p.693). Cognitive tool
  • 9. Tools for living vs. tools for learning Tools for Living Tools for LearningType 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 populationAim Improve productivity and Change our goals and the To make effective use of efficiency ways of thinking the mental efforts of the learnerExamples Eyeglasses, feature phone Handheld calculators Productivity software, expert systems, computer conferences, smartphones, digital learning environments, mobile applications
  • 10. In order to fit world ofPerson-solo distributed cognition wherePerson+ we live and role of mobileFramework 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).
  • 11. 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 RepresentationsPerson+Artefact RetrievalPerson+Surround Construction
  • 12. 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+ArtefactPerson+Surround
  • 13. KnowledgeAccess characteristics Representations Retrieval Construction
  • 14. Collaborative learningCreative Commons
  • 15. Nature of the learning task is one crucial determinant of successfulIll-structured collaboration (Arvaja, Hkkinen,problem solving Etelpelto, & Rasku-Puttonen, 2000). One of the everlastingwas a core task in challenges for instructional designers is to provide real groupall experiments in tasks and contexts that stimulatethis thesis. questioning, explaining and other forms of knowledge articulation (Jrvel, Hkkinen, 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).
  • 16. 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 technologyCase 1: ViMa - FLE3mobileCase 2: Flyer Flyers -Case 3: Edufeed Shozu, Flickr, Wordpress, Google Wikispaces Reader
  • 17. Supporting learning withEmergent technologies
  • 18. The world is entering into the Ageof Mobilism (Norris & Soloway,2011). New technology tools fitmore readily and naturally ourlives; increasingly broad,inexpensive, and easy access toInternet wireless devices, and avariety of Web-based personalpublishing and social softwaretools are making computing truly aubiquitous and continuous partof our lives (Roush, 2005, p.49).
  • 19. Furthermore many researchers have arguedthat educational use of emergent mobiledevices have technological attributes, whichprovide unique technological, social and Affordancespedagogical affordancesType 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 exchangeSocial aggregate individuals Social interactivity participation into group reflection opportunitiesPedagogical Situate teacher as Individuality (provide conductor of activity unique scaffolding) use students actions as artifacts for discussion
  • 20. Evolution of the research on mobilelearning 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 -
  • 21. Scafffoldingwebb-zahn @ Flickr, CC-SA
  • 22. The fact that students nowadaysmake use of different electronicdevices, which are availableubiquitously and they are calleddigital natives doesnt make themgood users of the media they havetheir disposal. In other words, Perkins (1993) andSalomon (1993) argue that learnersdo not automatically know how totake appropriate and measuredadvantage of computer tools wheninvolved in cognitive activities withthem.
  • 23. 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
  • 24. 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
  • 25. 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)
  • 26. Challenging concept of
  • 27. 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 its original meaning in computer mediated contexts (Belland, 2011)
  • ...