Complexity of Social Interactions in Collaborative Learning: The Case of Online Database Environment

Rimor, Rikki; Rosen, Yigal; Naser, Kefaya

doi:10.28945/1321

Cited by 28 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Another challenge in CPS assessment refers to the need for synthesizing information from individuals and teams along with actions and communication dimensions (Laurillard 2009;Rimor et al 2010). Communication among the group members is central in the CPS assessment and it is considered a major factor that contributes to the success of CPS (Fiore and Schooler 2004;Dillenbourg and Traum 2006;Fiore et al 2010).…”

Section: Assessing Collaborative Problem Solving Skillsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Computer-based Assessment of Collaborative Problem Solving: Exploring the Feasibility of Human-to-Agent Approach

Rosen

2015

Int J Artif Intell Educ

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How can activities in which collaborative skills of an individual are measured be standardized? In order to understand how students perform on collaborative problem solving (CPS) computer-based assessment, it is necessary to examine empirically the multi-faceted performance that may be distributed across collaboration methods. Theaim of this study was to explore possible differences in student performance in humanto-agent (H-A), compared to human-to-human (H-H) CPS assessment tasks. One hundred seventy nine 14 years-old students from the United States, Singapore and Israel participated in the study. Students in both H-H and H-A modes were able to collaborate and communicate by using identical methods and resources. However, while in the H-A mode, students collaborated with a simulated computerdriven partner, and in the H-H mode students collaborated with another student to solve a problem. Overall, the findings showed that CPS with a computer agent involved significantly higher levels of shared understanding, progress monitoring, and feedback. However, no significant difference was found in a student's ability to solve the problem or in student motivation with a computer agent or a human partner. One major implication of CPS score difference in collaboration measures between the two modes is that in H-A mode one can program a wider range of interaction possibilities than would be available with a human partner. Thus, H-A approach offers more opportunities for students to demonstrate their CPS skills. This study is among the first of its kind to investigate systematically the effect of collaborative problem solving in standardized assessment settings.

show abstract

Section: Assessing Collaborative Problem Solving Skillsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Computer-based Assessment of Collaborative Problem Solving: Exploring the Feasibility of Human-to-Agent Approach

Rosen

2015

Int J Artif Intell Educ

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…From the comments made in the personal reflections, it was evident that many participants engaged in what Rimor et al (2010) referred to as rapid consensus. That is, they reached a point where they were prepared to accept the opinions of their peers not necessarily because they agreed with them or have been persuaded, but because it was a way to resolve conflict and quickly advance with the discussion.…”

Section: Focus On the Completing Of The Taskmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although conflict has the potential to enhance collaborative learning (Achinstein, 2002;Uline, Tschannen-Moran, & Perez, 2003), it can also seriously inhibit collaborative learning. For example, it can often lead to collaborative learning groups working towards what Rimor, Rosen, and Naser (2010) refer to as rapid rather than integrative consensus. Rapid consensus is characterised by group members accepting the opinions of their peers not necessarily because they agree with them or have been persuaded but because it is a way to resolve conflict and quickly advance the discussion.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nobody says no: Student self-censorship in a collaborative knowledge building activity

Roberts¹,

Nason

2011

JLD

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper explores student self-censorship within an online learning environment. Selfcensorship in group activity can be seen as a two-edged sword. While it can be advantageous that a student censor personal frustration and angst when working with others, if the self-censorship impacts on the cognitive contribution a student makes then this may significantly impact upon the overall quality of the group's collective knowledge artefact. This paper reports on a study where it was found that students had self censored both their feelings and ideas as they collaboratively worked together. Keywords self-censorship, CSCL, group work, team, knowledge building IntroductionAs the notion of the knowledge worker/learner takes hold in universities, the range of learning and assessment activities are invariably moving from traditional print and face-to-face modes to those of a digital nature -with the concomitant challenge being more so related to pedagogy and social infrastructure, than to the technology (Burnett & Roberts, 2005). Arguably at play also is a "pull effect" where student engagement with online social networking and other digital technologies is leading many educators to believe that this practice and enthusiasm should be harnessed for educational use (Mason & Rennie, 2008). Invariably underpinned by constructivist understandings, the way we prepare university students for their future lives is seen as needing to be increasingly collaborative in nature (The New Media Consortium, 2010).There is considerable evidence to support the benefits of collaborative team-based approaches (Page, 2007;Roberts, 2007). Collaborative work in virtual teams seemingly maps nicely to the notion of equipping individuals for 21st Century work, where technology is a tool to think with (Bereiter, 2002;Brown, 2002). However, within collaborative learning environments, the importance of social context and the role of social interaction in the process of constructing knowledge and understanding should not be underestimated (Bielaczyc, 2006;Pritchard, 2010). In particular, any failure of productive collaboration among group members may have a detrimental effect on both individual learning and collective knowledge development (Puntambekar, Erkens, & Hmelo-Silver, 2011). Thus, within the research literature, much has been written about how productive collaboration amongst group members can be established and maintained. Three major factors that influence the quality of collaboration that emerge from this literature are diversity, conflict, and self-censorship. Journal of Learning Design Roberts & Nason Diversity, conflict and self-censorshipWithin the research literature, there is considerable support for the view that heterogeneous teams with diverse expertise are more creative and productive than homogeneous teams (see, for example, Guimera, Uzzi, Spiro, & Nunes Amaral, 2005;Hoffman, 1959;Hong & Page, 2004;Houldsworth & Mathews, 2000;Miura & Hida, 2004;Watson, Kumar, & Michaelsen, 1993). Cognitive diversity 1 within collaborati...

show abstract

“…This could lead to reduced trust and cooperation within the group [23]. An effective collaborative task is one that enables all participants to express themselves and make significant contributions [24]. In the view of participation, successful collaboration acknowledges that everyone has ideas to contribute in the collaborative learning [25].…”

Section: A Collaborative Knowledge Constructionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Use of Intelligent Agents in Collaborative MLearning: Case of Facilitating Group Learner Interactions

Njenga¹,

Oboko²,

Omwenga³

et al. 2017

IJMECS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-Intelligent agents have been used in collaborative learning. However, they are rarely used to facilitate group interactions in collaborative m-learning environments. In view of this, the paper discusses the use of intelligent agents in facilitating collaborative learning in mobile learning environments. The paper demonstrates how to design intelligent agents and integrate them in collaborative mobile learning environments to allow group learners to improve their levels of group knowledge construction. The design was implemented in a collaborative mobile learning system running on Modular Object-Oriented Dynamic Learning Environment (Moodle) platform. The application was used in some experiments to investigate the effects of those facilitated interactions on the level of group knowledge construction. The results showed improved levels of group knowledge construction in instances where the facilitations were enabled compared to where they were disabled. The paper concludes that the use of intelligent agents in facilitating learner group interactions in collaborative mobile learning environments improves the levels of group knowledge construction. For future work, the use of intelligent agents can be tested in other areas of group interactions to enhance group learning.

show abstract

Complexity of Social Interactions in Collaborative Learning: The Case of Online Database Environment

Cited by 28 publications

References 30 publications

Computer-based Assessment of Collaborative Problem Solving: Exploring the Feasibility of Human-to-Agent Approach

Computer-based Assessment of Collaborative Problem Solving: Exploring the Feasibility of Human-to-Agent Approach

Nobody says no: Student self-censorship in a collaborative knowledge building activity

Use of Intelligent Agents in Collaborative MLearning: Case of Facilitating Group Learner Interactions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About