1. Computer supported collaborative learning using wirelessly interconnected handheld computers 2006/11/9 Taylor,Ruby,Sain

2. About Miguel Nussbaum System of information

3. About Gustavo Zurita Science of Computation

4. CL v.s MCSCL

5. Abstract  Where are used collaborative learning?  How weaknesses will happen and be solved?  What device will be used ?

6. introduction  What the goal of CL  Vygotsky said  Social interactions and collaborative efforts  Handhelds & Mobility

7. Background and related work  Why collaborative learning has been frequently seen as a stimulus for cognitive development  Piagetian  Vygotskian  children’s use of technology  Modify the nature and the efficacy of the interaction  Paradigms  One or multiple peripherals  Side-by-side computers

8. The relationships between communication, negotiation, coordination and interactivity in CSCL  Communication in three different ways  Verbal  Physical  graphical  Teamwork is vital for a successful CSCL environment  The lack of visual contact and body language  Collaboration around computers vs. collaboration through computers

9. Children as users of face-to-face CSCL  Children enjoy playing together  Existing technological infrastructure available in schools

10. Handhelds as support to collaborative learning activities  As computers get smaller and more personal  Mobility, flexibility and instant access of handhelds  Beam information  WILDs  Core concepts  Students need to become owners of their computing environment  Information needs to seek out for the student  The tools used in the computer environment need to naturally extend a student’s computer use  Computing facilities need to empower a student to naturally become part a larger community  despite the apparent restricting aspect of limited size

11. Evaluation of CL activity for children without technology  Method  Understand children’s social interactions and shared learning  Videotapes  Coordination  Communication  Organization  Negotiation  Interaction  Mobility  Quantitative and qualitative data was gathered form Video,field notes, interviews

12. Description of math and language CL activities  The materials used in both activities are  A considerable number of cards  Envelopes containing cards  A cardborad was use for the language activity

13. Subjects and settings  In low-income elementary school of Santiago de Chile  20 days,35-to45 min activities  48 students(21 girls and 21 boys)  Ranging 6-7 years  Language activity  Seven groups  Three members  Math activity  Four groups  Three members  Plus three groups of five member  None of the students had previously worked on CL activities

14. Procedure  Instructions  Roles, rules, tasks and objective description  Video recorded and closely observed  Interrupted when help was needed  15-to 20-min interview

15. Results (1)  Coordination  Others are left aside  The amount of members in a group is higher  Communication  administration of material  Affinity reasons  Need to be very close

16. Results (2)  organization  Manage a considerable amount of material  Uncomfortable  Delays their tasks  Loses visibility  Negotiation  Impose their point of view  Causing others to be left aside  Interactivity  A CL activity must be interactive  Do not respond  Breaking the collaboration  Mobility  Require a physically close approach

18. Solving weaknesses of CL activities with Handhelds: MCSCL  What can Handhelds offer? (table2)  Mobility  Ubiquitous  Transparency of computer network  A model of MCSCL  8 taxonomy factors  Appropriate teacher behavior  Appropriate member behavior  Nature of learning tasks  Member roles  Task materials that enable execution of task  CL goal definition  Formative evaluation with feedback from peers or from educators  Additive evaluation and reward structure  CL components plus mobility and organization of material

19. Solving weaknesses of CL activities with Handhelds: MCSCL

20. Evaluation of two MCSCL activities  Math and language MCSCL  Language  Each handheld shows a syllable that to be combined with the syllables of the other two children to form as many words as possible  Each member contribute s with her/his ideas, promoting a discussion with the others, to perform their word formation  Once members agree upon the word to be formed, they have two buttons available to form the word in a sequence

21. Evaluation of two MCSCL activities  Math and language MCSCL  Language (con.)  The "cloud" button: to choose the syllable  The "face" button: allow child to indicate that she/he is not considering the syllable to form a word  Once the word is formed, a voice message played, two options can be chosen, if someone disagree, another voice message will be played  “si” button: continue forming new words with the same syllables  “no” button: provide all members agree on the same action

22. Evaluation of two MCSCL activities

23.  Math and language MCSCL  Math  Each group member having a set of given objects and achieving the specified number for each of the objects by sending and receiving these from another member of group  Each member is identified by given color, used as the main background  The child select the button that corresponds to the group member from whom she/he wants to receive an object

24. Evaluation of two MCSCL activities  Subjects and settings  48 students (25 girls, 23 boys)  Language: 7 groups 21 students  Math: 4 groups 3 students & 3 groups 5 students  Procedure  The main difference with CL  The possibility for the children to take a handheld anywhere  Target  Analyze the children’s behavior  Analyze user’s behavior toward other children  Analyze user’s behavior toward machine

25. Evaluation of two MCSCL activities  Results

26. Conclusions  Usability problem  MCSCL V.S CSCL  Possibility to mediate the interactivity  Encouraging of the members mobility  MCSCL  Organization of information  Enabling students to collaborate in groups  Monitoring real-time progress  Controlling the interaction, negotiation, portable ability

27. Reference  http://www2.ing.puc.cl/ipaq/