The added value of implementing the Planet Game scenario with Collage and Gridcole

This paper discusses the suitability and the added value of Collage and Gridcole when contrasted with other solutions participating in the ICALT 2006 workshop titled “Comparing educational modelling languages on a case study.” In this workshop each proposed solution was challenged to implement a Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning situation (CSCL) posed by the workshop’s organizers. Collage is a pattern-based authoring tool for the creation of CSCL scripts compliant with IMS Learning Design (IMS LD). These IMS LD scripts can be enacted by the Gridcole tailorable CSCL system. The analysis presented in the paper is organized as a case study which considers the data recorded in the workshop discussion as well the information reported in the workshop contributions. The results of this analysis show how Collage and Gridcole succeed in implementing the scenario and also point out some significant advantages in terms of design reusability and generality, user-friendliness, and enactment flexibility

Models in the Cloud: Exploring Next Generation Environmental Software Systems

There is growing interest in the application of the latest trends in computing and data science methods to improve environmental science. However we found the penetration of best practice from computing domains such as software engineering and cloud computing into supporting every day environmental science to be poor. We take from this work a real need to re-evaluate the complexity of software tools and bring these to the right level of abstraction for environmental scientists to be able to leverage the latest developments in computing. In the Models in the Cloud project, we look at the role of model driven engineering, software frameworks and cloud computing in achieving this abstraction. As a case study we deployed a complex weather model to the cloud and developed a collaborative notebook interface for orchestrating the deployment and analysis of results. We navigate relatively poor support for complex high performance computing in the cloud to develop abstractions from complexity in cloud deployment and model configuration. We found great potential in cloud computing to transform science by enabling models to leverage elastic, flexible computing infrastructure and support new ways to deliver collaborative and open science

Some Research Questions and Results of UC3M in the E-Madrid Excellence Network

32 slides.-- Contributed to: 2010 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON), Madrid, Spain, 14-16 April, 2010.-- Presented by C. Delgado Kloos.Proceedings of: 2010 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON), Madrid, Spain, 14-16 April, 2010Universidad Carlos III de Madrid is one of the six main participating institutions in the eMadrid excellence network, as well as its coordinating partner. In this paper, the network is presented together with some of the main research lines carried out by UC3M. The remaining papers in this session present the work carried out by the other five universities in the consortium.The Excellence Network eMadrid, “Investigación y Desarrollo de Tecnologías para el e-Learning en la Comunidad de Madrid” is being funded by the Madrid Regional Government under grant No. S2009/TIC-1650. In addition, we acknowledge funding from the following research projects: iCoper: “Interoperable Content for Performance in a Competency-driven Society” (eContentPlus Best Practice Network No. ECP-2007-EDU-417007), Learn3: Hacia el Aprendizaje en la 3ª Fase (“Plan Nacional de I+D+I” TIN2008-05163/ TSI), Flexo: “Desarrollo de aprendizaje adaptativo y accesible en sistemas de código abierto” (AVANZA I+D, TSI-020301- 2008-19), España Virtual (CDTI, Ingenio 2010, CENIT, Deimos Space), SOLITE (CYTED 508AC0341), and “Integración vertical de servicios telemáticos de apoyo al aprendizaje en entornos residenciales” (Programa de creación y consolidación de grupos de investigación de la Universidad Carlos III de Madrid).Publicad

The Making of Faulty Optic's Dead Wedding: Inertia, Chaos and Adaptation

An examination of Faulty Optic's creative process during the devising and construction of their show Dead Wedding. Published by Palgrave Macmillan as Chapter 3 in 'Devising in Process' edited by Alex Mermikides and Jackie Smart, 201

System Orchestration Support for a Collaborative Blended Learning Flow

Portable and interactive technologies are changing the nature of collaborative learning practices and open up new possibilities for Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL). Now, activities occurring in and beyond the classroom can be combined and integrated leading to a new type of complex collaborative blended learning scenarios. However, to organize and structure these scenarios is challenging and represent a workload for practitioners, which hinder the adoption of these technology-enhanced practices. As an approach to alleviate this workload, this paper proposes a proof of concept of a technological solution to overcome the limitations detected in an analysis of an actual collaborative blended learning experiment carried out in a previous study. The solution consists on a Unit of Learning suitable to be instantiated with IMS Learning Design and complemented by a GenericService Integration system. This chapter also discusses to which extent the proposed solution covers the limitations detected in the previous study and how useful could be for reducing the orchestration effort in future experiences.This work has been partially funded by the Project Learn3 (TIN2008- 05163/TSI) from the Plan Nacional I+D+I and "Investigación y Desarrollo de Tecnologías para el e-Learning en la Comunidad de Madrid” funded by the Madrid Regional Government under grant No. S2009/TIC-1650

Conceptualizing and supporting awareness of collaborative argumentation

In this thesis, we introduce “Argue(a)ware”. This is a concept for an instructional group awareness tool which aims at supporting social interactions in co-located computer-supported collaborative argumentation settings. Argue(a)ware is designed to support the social interactions in the content (i.e., task-related) and in the relational (i.e., social and interpersonal) space of co-located collaborative argumentation (Barron, 2003). The support for social interactions in the content space of collaboration is facilitated with the use of collaborative scripts for argumentation (i.e., instructions and scaffolds of argument construction) as well with the use of an argument mapping tool (i.e., visualization of argumentation outcomes in a form of diagrams) (Stegmann, Weinberger, & Fischer, 2007; van Gelder, 2013). The support for social interactions in the relational space of collaboration is facilitated with the use of different awareness mechanisms from the CSCL and the CSCW research fields (i.e., monitoring, mirroring and awareness notification tools). In this thesis, we examined how different awareness mechanisms facilitate the regulation of collaborative processes in the relational space of collaborative argumentation. Moreover, we studied how they affect the perceived team effectiveness (i.e., process outcome) and group performance (i.e., learning outcome) in the content space of collaboration. Thereby, we studied also the effects of the design of the awareness mechanisms on the application of the mechanisms and the user experience with them. In line with the design-based research paradigm, we attempted to simultaneously improve and study the effect of Argue(a)ware on collaborative argumentation (Herrington, McKenney, Reeves & Oliver, 2007). Through a series of design-based research studies we tested and refined the prototypes of the instructional group awareness tool. Moreover, we studied the ecological validity of dominant awareness and instructional theories in the context of co-located computer-supported collaborative argumentation. The underlying premise of the Argue(a)ware tool is that a combination of awareness and instructional support will result in increased awareness of collaboration, which will, in turn, mediate the regulation of collaborative processes. Moreover, we assume that successful regulation of collaboration will result in high perceived team effectiveness and the group performance in turn. In the first phase of development of the Argue(a)ware tool, we built support of the content space of collaborative argumentation with argument scaffold elements in a pedagogical face-to-face macro-script and an argument mapping tool. Furthermore, we extended the use of the script for supporting the relational space of collaboration by embedding awareness prompts for reflecting on collaboration during regular breaks in the script. Following, we designed two variations of the same pedagogical face-to-face macro-script which differ with respect to the type of group awareness prompts they used for supporting the relational space of collaboration i.e. behavioral and social. Upon designing the two script variations, we conducted a longitudinal, multiple-case study with ten groups of Media Informatics master students (n = 28, in groups of three or two, group=case, 4 sessions x70 min, Behavioural Awareness Script group= 5, Social Awareness Script group =5.) where each group was conceptualized as a case. Students collaborated every time for arguing to solve one different ill-structured problem and for transferring their arguments in the argument mapping tool Rationale. Thereby, we intended to investigate the effects of different awareness prompts on (a) collaborative metacognitive processes i.e., regulation, reflection, and evaluation (b) the relation between collaborative metacognitive processes and the quality of collaborative argumentation as well as (c) the impact of the two script variations on perceived team effectiveness and (d) what was experience with the different parts of the script variations in the two groups and how this fits into the design framework by Buder (2011). The quantitative analysis of argument outcomes from the groups yield no significant difference between the groups that worked with the BAS and the SAS variations. No significant difference between the script variations with respect to the results from the team effectiveness questionnaires was found either. Prompts for regulating collaboration processes were found to be the most successfully and consistently applied ones, especially in the most successful cases from both script variations and have influenced the argumentation outcomes. The awareness prompts afforded an explicit feedback display format (e.g. assessment of participation levels of self- and others) through discussion (Buder, 2011). The prompted explicit feedback display format (i.e., ratings of one’s self and of others) was criticized for running only on subjective awareness information on participation, contribution efforts and performance in the role. This resulted in evaluation apprehension phenomena (Cottrell, 1972) and evaluation bias (i.e., users may have not assessed themselves or others frankly) (Ghadirian et al., 2016). The awareness prompts for reflection and evaluation did reveal frictions in the plan making process (i.e., dropping out of the plan for collaboration) in the least successful groups. Problems with group dynamics (i.e., free-loading and presence of dominance) but were not powerful enough to trigger the desired changes in the behaviors of the students. The prompts for evaluating the collaboration in both script variations had no apparent connection to argumentation outcomes. The results indicated that dominant presence phenomena inhibited substantive argumentation in the least successful groups. They also indicated that the role-assignment influenced the group dynamics by helping student’s making clear the labor division in the group. In the second phase of development of the Argue(a)ware tool, the focus is on structuring and regulating social interactions in the relational space of collaborative argumentation by means of scripted roles and role-based awareness scaffolds. We designed support for mirroring participation in the role (i.e., a role-based awareness visualization) and support for monitoring participation, coordination and collaboration efforts in the role (i.e., self-assessment questionnaire). Moreover, we designed additional support for guiding participation in the role i.e., role-based reminders as notifications on smartwatches. In a between-subjects study, ten groups of three university students each (n = 30, Mage =22y, mixed educational backgrounds, 1x90min) worked with two variants of the Argue(a)ware for arguing to solve one ill-structured problem and transferring their arguments in the argument mapping tool Rationale. Next, to that, students should monitor their progress in their role with the role-based awareness visualization and the self-assessment questionnaire with the basic awareness support (role-based awareness visualization with the intermediate self-assessment) and the enhanced awareness support (additional role-based awareness reminders). Half of the groups worked only with the role-based awareness visualization and the self-assessment questionnaire (Basic Awareness Condition-BAC) while the other half groups received additional text-based awareness notifications via smartwatches that were sent to students privately (Enhanced Awareness Condition- EAC). Thereby, we tested the use of different degrees of awareness support in the two conditions with respect to their impact on a) self-perceived awareness of performance in the role and of collaboration and coordination efforts (measured with the same questionnaire at two time points), b) on perceive team effectiveness, c) group performance. We hypothesized that students in EAC will perform better thanks to the additional awareness reminders that increased the directivity and influenced their awareness in the role. The mixed methods analysis revealed that the awareness reminders, when perceived on time, succeeded in guiding collaboration (i.e., resulted in more role-specific behaviors). Students in the EAC condition improved their awareness over time (between the two measurements). These results indicated that enhanced awareness support in the form of additional guidance through awareness reminders can boost the awareness of students’ performance in the role as well as the awareness of their coordination and collaboration efforts over time by directing them back to the mirroring and monitoring tools. Moreover, students in EAC exhibited higher perceived team effectiveness than the students in BAC. However, no significant differences in building of shared mental models or performing in mutual performance monitoring were found between the groups. However, students in BAC and EAC did not differ significantly with respect to the formal correctness or evidence sufficiency of their group argumentation outcomes. Moreover, technical difficulties with the smartphones used as delivery devices for the awareness reminders (i.e., low vibration modus) hindered the timely perception of the reminders and thus their effect on participation. Finally, the questionnaire on the experience with the different parts of Argue(a)ware system indicated the need for exploring further media for supporting the awareness reminders to avoid the overwhelming effects of the multiple displays of the system and enhancing higher perceptiveness of the reminders with low interruption costs for other group members. The rather high satisfaction with the use of the role-based awareness visualization and the positive comments on the motivating aspects of monitoring how the personal success contributes to the group performance indicate that the group mirror succeeded in making group norms visible to group members in a non-obtrusive way. The high interpersonal comparability of performances without moderating the group ‘s interaction directly in the basic awareness condition was proven to be the favored design approach compared to the combination of group mirror and awareness reminders in the enhance awareness condition. In the third phase of development of Argue(a)ware, we focused on designing and testing different notification modes on different ubiquitous mobile devices for facilitating the next prototype of a notification system for role-based awareness reminders. Thereby, the aim of the system was again to guide students’ active participation in collaborative argumentation. More specifically, we focused on raising students’ attention to the reminders and triggering a prompter reaction to the contents of the reminders whilst avoiding a high interruption cost for the primary task (i.e., arguing for solving the problem at hand) in the group. These goals were translated into design challenges for the design of the role-based awareness notification system. The system should afford low interruptions, high reaction and high comprehension of notifications. Notification systems with this particular configuration of IRC values are known as "secondary display" systems (McCrickard et al., 2003). Next, we designed three low-fidelity prototypes for a role-based notification system for delivering awareness reminders: The first ran on a smartwatch and afforded text-based information with vibration and light notification modalities. The second ran on smartphone and afforded text-based information with vibrotactile and light-based notification modalities. Finally, the third prototype run on a smart-ring which afforded graphical- based (i.e. abstract light) information with and light and vibration notification modalities. To test the suitability of these prototypes for acting as “secondary display” systems, we conducted a within-subjects user study where three university students (n= 3, Mage=28, mixed educational background) argued for solving three different problem cases and producing an argument map in each of the three consecutive meetings (max 90min) in the Argue(a)ware instructional system. Students were assigned the roles of writer, corrector and devil`s advocate and were instructed to maintain the same role across the three meetings. In each meeting, students worked with a different role-based awareness notification prototype, where they received a notification indicating their balloon is not growing bigger after five minutes of not exhibiting any role-specific behaviors. The role-based awareness notification prototypes aimed at introducing timely interventions which would prompt students to check on their own progress in the role and the group progress as visualized by the role-based awareness visualization on the large display. Ultimately, this should prompt them to reflect on the awareness information from the visualization and adapt their behaviors to the desired behavior standards over time. Results showed that students perceived the notifications from all media mostly based on vibration cues. Thereby, the vibration cues on the wrist (smartwatch) were considered the least disruptive to the main task compared to the vibration cues on finger (smartwatch) and the vibration cues on the desk (smartphone). Students also declared that vibration cues on wrist prompted the fastest reaction i.e., attending to notification by interacting with the smartwatch. These results indicate that vibration cues on the wrist can be a suitable notification mechanism for increasing the perceived urgency of the message and prompting the reaction on it without causing great distraction to the main task, as studies previous studies showed before (Pielot, Church, & deOliveira, 2013; Hernández-Leo, Balestrini, Nieves & Blat, 2012). Based on very limited qualitative data on light as notification modality and awareness representation type no inferences could be made about its influence on the cost of interruption, reaction and comprehension parameters comprehensiveness. The qualitative and quantitative data on the experience with different media as awareness notification systems indicate that smartwatches may be the most suitable medium for acting as awareness notification medium with a “secondary display” IRC configuration (low-high-high). However, this inference needs to be tested in terms of a follow up study. In the next study, the great limitations of study (limited data due to low power and mal-structured measurement instruments) need to be repaired. Finally, the focus should be on comparing notification modalities of one medium (e.g., smartphone) based on a larger set of participants and with the use of objective measurements for the IRC parameter values (Chewar, McCrickard & Sutcliffe, 2004). Finally, we draw conclusions based on the findings from the three studies with respect to the role of awareness mechanisms for facilitating collaborative processes and outcomes and provide replicable and generalizable design principles. These principles are formed as heuristic statements and are subject to refinement by further research (Bell, Hoadley, & Linn, 2004; Van den Akker, 1999). We conclude with the limitations of the study and ideas for future work with Argue(a)ware

Contours of Inclusion: Inclusive Arts Teaching and Learning

The purpose of this publication is to share models and case examples of the process of inclusive arts curriculum design and evaluation. The first section explains the conceptual and curriculum frameworks that were used in the analysis and generation of the featured case studies (i.e. Understanding by Design, Differentiated Instruction, and Universal Design for Learning). Data for the cases studies was collected from three urban sites (i.e. Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Boston) and included participant observations, student and teacher interviews, curriculum documentation, digital documentation of student learning, and transcripts from discussion forum and teleconference discussions from a professional learning community.The initial case studies by Glass and Barnum use the curricular frameworks to analyze and understand what inclusive practices look like in two case studies of arts-in-education programs that included students with disabilities. The second set of precedent case studies by Kronenberg and Blair, and Jenkins and Agois Hurel uses the frameworks to explain their process of including students by providing flexible arts learning options to support student learning of content standards. Both sets of case studies illuminate curricular design decisions and instructional strategies that supported the active engagement and learning of students with disabilities in educational settings shared with their peers. The second set of cases also illustrate the reflective process of using frameworks like Universal Design for Learning (UDL) to guide curricular design, responsive instructional differentiation, and the use of the arts as a rich, meaningful, and engaging option to support learning. Appended are curriculum design and evaluation tools. (Individual chapters contain references.