April 24
Housekeeping
Focus Theory
Collaborative Writing
Virtual Learning
housekeeping
• Questions about projects
– April 27. Let me know which groupware tool your
team has decided to use to coordinate your project. I
do not mean by this your presentation environment;
rather, I mean your internal coordination tool. Let me
know as well at this point, your first pass list of
software you are going to evaluate. I can provide you
feedback as to whether you are on track, missing a
key product, or way off base with some of the
products.
– Blog post on this…
Tools/Blogs
• Ning
• Sosius
• ScribeFire post
What is a document?
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Rough notes?
Table of contents?
In process?
Final
Final with comments?
Version (final, but will change)
Who are the authors, reviewers, editors, publishers?
– Might this vary by section or by version?
• What are it’s antecedents? (citations)?
Collaborative Writing
• Problem
– Teams are assigned to write documents
– Different people have different knowledge, skills,
opinions
– Need to create uniform solution
– Time pressure
– Need to keep track of process (drafts)
• Three basic architectures for solution:
Sequential Writing
Pros:
• Easy to use common tools
•
Each
author
• Easy to understand
edits
and
hands
• Little
wasted
effort
Cons:
off material to
• Slow, lots of wasted time
subsequent
• Only
one person active at a
author
time
• Some people miss out on
• MS-Word
final
edit
• Procrastinator
revisionscan halt
project
Parallel Writing
Pros:
•• Fast
One document is
written isbyactive
multiple
• Everyone
Cons:
authors.
• Often reads like N
• separate
Edits are
compared
documents
and reconciled.
• Much
editing required to
• assemble
MS-Word master
• Overlap
and omissions in
document
text
• Subject to whims of free
riders
Reciprocal Writing
Pros:
•• Multiple
authors
Single voice emerges
out, edit,
• check
Fast
• and
Little check
wasted effort
in the
• Supports a large number
document or one
of authors
of its sections.
Cons:
Need to
relearn
how to
•• Web
2.0
Editors,
write with others
Wikis
• Need to use tools other
than MS-Word
Granularity in
Reciprocal writing
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Character?
Word?
Line?
Sentence?
Paragraph?
Section? [must define this to use it]
Chapter?
Document?
Sequential
Parallel
Collaborative
Two case examples
• Small Group
– Five person student project team has to write
a 40-60 page collaborative term paper and
has procrastinated until 72 hours before it is
due.
• Large Group
– Fourteen person DoD team has to write a
125-175 page book in four days. They’ve
been fighting over content for about a year.
Small Team
Small Team Process
Gathered
Information
Outline
Document
Author section one
Edit section five
Author section four
Author section five
Organic
Process
Organizing info
Edit section one
Author section two
Small Team Process
• We all worked in one space, each of us at a computer
• We continued along these lines for about 18 hours,
coming and going into the space
• By the end, at least three of us (sometimes more) had
touched each section of the document
• We felt a very strong sense of co-ownership
• We lost track of who wrote what
• The document read as though written by a single author
• Technology used was an early version of GroupSystems
GroupWriter. Current version is called ThinkTank.
Large Team
• Process must be more structured
• Outside facilitator is very helpful
• Political issues may emerge along with
functional issues
Stages of Writing
•
•
•
•
•
Brainstorming
Planning
Writing
Editing
Reviewing
Ede & Lunsford (1990); Posner & Becker (1992)
Open Discussion
Open
Discussion
Generation of Document Outline
Open
Discussion
Outline
Document
Discussion of Content
Open
Discussion
Outline
Document
Discuss
Content
Composition by Sub-teams
Open
Discussion
Outline
Document
Discuss
Content
Sub-team
Composition
On-line Feedback and
Discussion
Open
Discussion
Outline
Document
Discuss
Content
Sub-team
Composition
On-line
Feedback
Verbal Walkthru
Open
Discussion
Outline
Document
Discuss
Content
Sub-team
Composition
Verbal
Walkthru
On-line
Feedback
Large Team Process
•
•
•
•
All authoring in dyads
We seeded the dyads as we saw fit
Largest conflicts were handled in the dyads
We negotiated out several issues over happy
hour at the hotel bar
• Team spent Wed AM till 2pm doing walkthru
• We gave the team Wednesday afternoon off and
sent them to Mexico
• Document was essentially finished by Thursday
afternoon
Collaborative Writing Software on
the Market Today
• Using MS-Word for Collaborative Writing
• Wikis
• Web 2.0 Authoring Tools
– Presentation to come…
How do you evaluate an authoring
tool?
• What feature sets are important?
• What characteristics or affordances are
important?
• [In fact, this criteria makes sense for
evaluating any authoring tool – serial or
parallel – and makes sense for evaluating
any groupware tool]
Characteristics and Features
• Affordances: What capabilities does the tools have?
• Media Channels: How do people communicate when
using the tool?
• Interrupts: How do people signal they wish to take
control of conversation or product?
• Synchronicity & Feedback: How quickly (and how richly)
do you receive feedback from teammates? Do you know
what work others have done?
• Access Control: At what level of granularity can you
block out portions of the document to work in? Can you
manage ACL by person, by section, by role? How does
the software handle contention and conflict?
• Archival: How are version histories maintained? How
does undo work?
An evaluation approach
Sequential
MS-Word
Affordances
Media
Channels
Interrupts
Synchronicity
& Feedback
Access
Control
Archival
PBWiki
Parallel
Google
Collaborative
Docs
Virtual
Learning
Control of the Learning Environment
Learner
Objectivism focuses on the creation of performance objectives and
programmed instruction following a series of stages that are intended
to guide the instruction and evaluation of participants. Objectivism
emphasizes passing knowledge from the trainer to the learner, which
Constructivist
promotes passive learning.
Cooperative
Constructivism focuses on the
learners with the goal of helping
them construct meaning from
experience
Teacher
Objectivist
Dissemination
of Knowledge
Philosophy of Learning
Definitions from Nunes, M.B.; McPherson, M. Advanced Learning Technologies, 2003. Proceedings.
The 3rd IEEE International Conference on Volume , Issue , 9-11 July 2003 Page(s): 496 - 500
Creation
of Knowledge
Graph from Leidner and Jarvenpa
Constructivism is based on
Cognitive Learning Theory
Student Cognitive Effort
Information
Access
Instructor Intervention
Provide
Information
Resources
Mental Model
Test the Model
Feedback
Provide
Feedback
Vested Interest Motivates
Cognitive Effort
Student Cognitive Effort
Information
Access
Instructor Intervention
Provide
Information
Resources
Mental Model
Vested
Interest
Authentic
Productivity
Test the Model
Instructor must
engage
vested interest
Instructor Intervention
Feedback
Provide
Feedback
Sage on the Stage
T
T
S
S
S
S
S
S
What does the
environment look like?
S
S
S
Guide on the Side
Objectivist DL Teaching Environment
T
S
S
S
S
Dean
Sage on
on the
the Screen
Stage
So…
• We have to figure out which pedagogy we
are employing… and why.
• Then, we have to figure out: what are the
environmental requirements in order to
deliver this pedagogy effectively
Sage on the Stage
T
S
S
S
S
Vs
.
S
S
S
S
Guide on the Side
S
A story
DC Public Schools:
The Goal of Education
• Increase the probability that the learner
and others will survive and thrive.
Produce citizens who can face
unfamiliar problems
and think their way to a solution
DC Public Schools:
The Symptoms
•
•
•
•
64% Drop-out Rate
Declining test scores
Increasing disorder
Poor reading, writing, speaking, calculating
skills
• Poor problem-solving skills
• Poor team-work skills
Surfaced Causes
• Students say school is: “Boring”
“Irrelevant” “Unimportant”
• Students did not believe that school would
help them survive and thrive
• Students don’t believe good jobs are
available to them
• Students don’t believe college is a
possibility
Conclusion One
Stop preparing learners for the future.
Give them real problems right now.
Weak Learning Motivators
• Grades
• Entertainment
Strong Learning Motivators
• A stake in the outcome of the effort
• Discovery - Learning by doing
Why This Won’t Work
Solving real problems takes more time
than you have in a classroom.
Solution to the Time Crunch: Group
Support Systems
• Research shows time savings 50-90%
• Anonymity boosts participation
• Parallel communication
– Nobody sits in bored silence
– Nobody gets left behind
– Students engage one another - teacher free to
give individual attention
GSS Supports Deliberation
•
•
•
•
•
Understand the problem
Generate Alternatives
Select Course of Action
Plan Execution
Execute and Monitor
Result: GSS-Supported Active
Learning
We call this the
High Engagement Learning Pedagogy
(HELP)
High Engagement
Learning Pedagogy
• Students solve real problems in which they
perceive a vested interest
• Instructor frames the problem so students
must learn what they need to know in
order to solve the problem
• Students seek information. Instructor
provides guidance
How do we find the
right problems?
Ask the learners what they want
to learn.
But…
“Students don’t know what they
need to learn”
Answer:
No, but they know what they want.
And if you let them learn what they
want, they will engage.
Conclusion Two
Ask the learners what they want, then
use it against them.
Case in Point: Fifth grade class at Orr
Elementary, Washington, D.C.
Objectives: improve reading,
writing, and problem-solving
skills
And a story of how it was
done...
Orr Elementary School
Anacostia District
Washington, D.C.
Projector
Leader
Workstation
Layout of computer classroom at Orr Elementary
Orr Elementary School
Anacostia District
Washington, D.C.
Stories
•
•
•
•
Early classes
History!
The Book
The letters
Orr Elementary School
Anacostia District
Washington, D.C.
Results of the HELP provided
• Increased writing and argumentation skills
• Increased problem-solving and teamwork
skills
• Better grasp of declarative knowledge
• Most disruptive became strongest
contributors
Early Writing Samples
I want to learn about coputer technician.
Myfavorite person is Kang Lao.He kill you
with has hat,i will get you too
Later Writing Samples
Everyone got up from the ground in shock
and then looked to see if anyone was hurt.
We kept going but we really weren't
walking,we started to run.
My name is Deshawn Harris. I am 12yrs old.
My class and I recently wrote a book, it is
called Achieving Greatness in Anacostia.
Grammatical Analysis
Post test
•
•
•
•
Errors/word (before Editing):
Words per sentence:
Characters per word:
Flesch Grade Level:
0.10
17.4
4.3
6.6
Note: Words per sentence dropped as they wrote less run on sentences.
Pre test
0.24
22.2
3.9
4.2
Reading Comprehension
Treatment
• Standard
• HELP
Grade
Level
6.6
7.9
t = 1.82, df = 33, p=.039
• Caveats:
– Action Research
– Different Teachers
– Few Data Points
Problem-Solving Skills
Students were given an opportunity to
build a team object (book, play, mural,
etc.) but given no guidance as to how to
produce it.
Problem-Solving Skills
• HELP Learners:
– Chose a task (10 min)
– Generated action items (30 min)
– Chose teams (15 min)
– Divided Work (30 min)
– Produced product (3 days)
Problem Solving Skills
• Standard Learners:
– Chose a task: (1 hr)
– Floundered in planning
– Abandoned projects
What happened in DC?
And how do we apply these lessons
elsewhere?
Control of the Learning Environment
Learner
Objectivism focuses on the creation of performance objectives and
programmed instruction following a series of stages that are intended to
guide the instruction and evaluation of participants. Objectivism
emphasizes passing knowledge from the trainer to the learner, which
Constructivist
promotes passive learning.
Teacher
Cooperative
Constructivism focuses on the
learners with the goal of helping
them construct meaning from
experience
Objectivist
Dissemination
of Knowledge
Philosophy of Learning
Definitions from Nunes, M.B.; McPherson, M. Advanced Learning Technologies, 2003. Proceedings.
The 3rd IEEE International Conference on Volume , Issue , 9-11 July 2003 Page(s): 496 - 500
Creation
of Knowledge
Graph from Leidner and Jarvenpaa
Constructivism is based on
Cognitive Learning Theory
Student Cognitive Effort
Information
Access
Instructor Intervention
Provide
Information
Resources
Mental Model
Test the Model
Feedback
Provide
Feedback
Vested Interest Motivates
Cognitive Effort
Student Cognitive Effort
Information
Access
Instructor Intervention
Provide
Information
Resources
Mental Model
Vested
Interest
Authentic
Productivity
Test the Model
Instructor must
engage
vested interest
Instructor Intervention
Feedback
Provide
Feedback
Sage on the Stage
T
T
S
S
S
S
S
S
What does the
environment look like?
S
S
S
Guide on the Side
Objectivist DL Teaching Environment
T
S
S
S
S
Sage
Deanon
onthe
theStage
Screen
So…
• We have to figure out which pedagogy we are
employing… and why.
• Then, we have to figure out: what are the
environmental requirements in order to
deliver this pedagogy effectively
Sage on the Stage
T
S
S
S
S
Vs
.
S
S
S
S
Guide on the Side
S