1. Coding Schemes for Collaborative Learning Dialogs Chih-yu Chao Dialogs on Dialogs Reading Group March 4 th, 2005

2. 2 Overview  The Paper Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (in press). A methodology to analyze argumentative knowledge construction in computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers & Education.  My Research  Questions / Discussion Overview :: The Paper :: My Research :: Questions

3. Part I. The Paper

4. 4 Introduction  CSCL (Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning) Written discourse of learners (text-based, asynchronous discussion boards)  Knowledge Construction Participation Epistemic Argumentative Social mode Overview :: The Paper :: My Research :: Questions

5. 5 Participation  Quality of participation To what extent learners contribute to discourse  Heterogeneity of participation Collaborative learning may enhance quality because all learners are supposed to contribute to small group discussions (in contrast with classroom discussion) Overview :: The Paper :: My Research :: Questions

6. 6 Epistemic  How learners work on the knowledge construction task they are confronted with Whether learners are engaging in on-task discourse The activities can be considered to detect misconceptions of learners Overview :: The Paper :: My Research :: Questions

7. 7 Argumentative  Learners continuously warrant, qualify, or argue against solutions to the problems until they converge towards a joint solution  Construction of Single arguments Sequences of arguments Overview :: The Paper :: My Research :: Questions

8. 8 Social Modes  To what extent learners refer to contributions of their learning partners Externalization: make contributions without reference to other contributions Elicitation: using learning partners as a resource by asking questions Quick consensus building: accept others’ contributions not because they are convinced, but in order to be able to continue discourse Overview :: The Paper :: My Research :: Questions

9. 9 Social Modes (cont.) Integration-oriented consensus building: show a willingness to actively revise or change their own views in response to persuasive arguments Conflict-oriented consensus building: pinpoint out specific aspects of the peers’ contributions and modify them or present alternatives Overview :: The Paper :: My Research :: Questions

10. 10 Coding Hierarchy  Participation Quality of participation Heterogeneity of participation  Epistemic Engagement in on-task discourse Detection of misconceptions  Argumentative Construction of single arguments Construction of sequences of arguments  Social mode Externalization Elicitation Quick consensus building Integration-oriented consensus building Conflict-oriented consensus building

11. 11 Discourse Segmentation  Fine grained How learners apply single concepts to problem space (epistemic)  Coarser grained Construction of arguments (argumentative) How learners refer to their learning partners’ contributions (social modes) Overview :: The Paper :: My Research :: Questions

12. Part II. My Research

13. 13 Introduction  Calculus problem-solving  Treatment group (human-human, groups of 2): pretest, tutorial, midtest collaborative problem-solving (using IM) posttest  Control group: pretest, tutorial, midtest think-aloud individual problem-solving posttest Overview :: The Paper :: My Research :: Questions

14. 14 Data Collection  Pretest, midtest, posttest results  Peer learning dialogs during the problem- solving session How much information can I get from the dialogs? Overview :: The Paper :: My Research :: Questions

15. 15 Hypotheses  The peer learner provides the knowledge that the subject does not have. (The subjects learns by receiving instructions.)  In contrast, the peer learner shows his/her insufficiency of knowledge, and the subject reinforces the knowledge s/he has by teaching the peer learner.  The peer learner provides encouragement when the subject feels frustrated. Overview :: The Paper :: My Research :: Questions

16. 16 Hyp1: Learning by Receiving  The subject may show his/her lack of knowledge by Asking questions (elicitation) Making mistakes detected by the peer learner  If the subject shows a quick consensus building (i.e. the peer learner only dictates the subject to fill out the answer without any explanation) – it does not count  The peer learner has to elaborate or explain the segment of the target knowledge, and the subject has to acknowledge such input (integration-oriented consensus building)  The subject may disagree with the peer learner (conflict- oriented consensus building, argumentative) Overview :: The Paper :: My Research :: Questions

17. 17 Examples of Hyp1  A: which side is u’ and which side is v’?  B: du/dx is u’, the right side, 1 ------------------------------------------------  A: we have u = (t+1), right?  B: right  A: when you take derivative, the 1 is out; it’s 0  B: oh so you did it in your head then… I see ------------------------------------------------  A: wait, not x^(1/2)  B: … I think its right. My tutor told me that square root was 1/2 power  A: it’s x Overview :: The Paper :: My Research :: Questions

18. 18 Hyp2: Learning by Teaching  Similar to Hyp1, only switching roles (The difficult part is in determining and measuring the reinforcement of knowledge.) Overview :: The Paper :: My Research :: Questions

19. 19 Hyp3: Learning with Support/Motivation  Words of Annoyance Disappointment Frustration (the use of obscene words may be a good indication)  Words of Support Encouragement Overview :: The Paper :: My Research :: Questions

20. 20 Examples of Hyp3  A: I think this is getting lame… there are so many boxes to fill in ---------------------------------------------------------  A: I’m really not very good at basic algebra so I missed these things easily ---------------------------------------------------------  A: probably my fault… ---------------------------------------------------------  A: so… this is tricky… I don’t like calculus :(  B: yea it can be ---------------------------------------------------------  A: this one looks complicated though  B: we can rock its socks off ---------------------------------------------------------  A: I hate math  B: you’re doing fine so far Overview :: The Paper :: My Research :: Questions

21. 21 My Coding Hierarchy  Participation Quality of participation Heterogeneity of participation  Epistemic Engagement in on-task discourse (?) Detection of misconceptions  Argumentative Construction of single arguments Construction of sequences of arguments (?)  Social mode Externalization (?) Elicitation Quick consensus building Integration-oriented consensus building Conflict-oriented consensus building Showing frustration Offering support Overview :: The Paper :: My Research :: Questions

22. Part III. Questions / Discussion

23. 23 My Questions  How should I define and quantify elaboration or explanation?  How do I determine how quickly (or how late) the subject detects a mistake made by the peer learner?  The peer learners rarely offer encouragement when the subjects feel frustrated – they usually just wanted to move on to the next question…  Other relevant research papers?  Suggestions on the coding schemes? Overview :: The Paper :: My Research :: Questions

24. 24 Your Questions?  Or comments? Overview :: The Paper :: My Research :: Questions