Computer support for collaborative learning environments

This paper deals with computer support for collaborative learning environments. Our analysis is based on a moderate constructivist view on learning, which emphasizes the need to support learners instructionally in their collaborative knowledge construction. We will first illustrate the extent to which the computer can provide tools for supporting collaborative knowledge construction. Secondly, we will focus on instruction itself and show the kinds of advanced instructional methods that computer tools may provide for the learners. Furthermore, we will discuss the learners’ prerequisites and how they must be considered when constructing learning environments.Dieser Bericht behandelt die Unterstützung kooperativer Lernumgebungen durch den Einsatz von Computern. Der theoretische Hintergrund greift auf einen moderaten Konstruktivismus zurück, der die Notwendigkeit einer instruktionalen Unterstützung für die gemeinsame Wissenskonstruktion betont. Darauf aufbauend beschreibt der Bericht in einem ersten Schritt, wie der Computer Werkzeuge zur gemeinsamen Wissenskonstruktion bereitstellen kann. Im zweiten Teil steht die Instruktion für das kooperative Lernen im Vordergrund. Dabei werden Methoden instruktionaler Unterstützung vorgestellt, die computerbasierte Werkzeuge für die gemeinsame Wissenskonstruktion bereitstellen, insbesondere Skripts und inhaltliche Strukturvorgaben. Darüber hinaus beschreibt der Bericht, inwieweit individuelle Lernereigenschaften, wie z.B. das Vorwissen, einen Einfluss auf die Realisierung von Lernumgebungen haben

JuxtaLearn D3.2 Performance Framework

This deliverable, D3.2, for Work Package 3 incorporating the pedagogy from WP2 and orchestration factors mapped in D3.1 reviews aspects of performance in the context of participative video making. It reviews literature on curiosity and engagement characteristics of interaction mechanisms for public displays and anticipates requirements for social network analysis of relevant public videos from WP6 task 6.3. Thus, to support JuxtaLearn performance it proposes a reflective performance framework that encompasses the material environment and objects required, the participants, and the knowledge needed

Preserving Communication Context. Virtual workspace and interpersonal space in Japanese CSCW.

The past decade has seen the development of a perspective\ud holding that technology is socially constructed (Mackenzie and Wacjman, 1985; Bijker, Hughes and Pinch, 1987; Bijker and Law, 1992). This paper examines the social construction of one group of technologies, systems for computer supported cooperative work (CSCW). It describes the design of CSCW in Japan, with particular attention to the influence of culture on the design process. Two case studies are presented to illustrate the argument that culture is an important factor in technology design, despite commonly held assumptions about the neutrality and objectivity of science and technology. The paper further argues that, by looking at\ud CSCW systems as texts which reflect the context of their production and the society from which they come, we may be better able to understand the transformations that operate when these texts are “read” in the contexts of their implementation

Space for Two to Think: Large, High-Resolution Displays for Co-located Collaborative Sensemaking

Large, high-resolution displays carry the potential to enhance single display groupware collaborative sensemaking for intelligence analysis tasks by providing space for common ground to develop, but it is up to the visual analytics tools to utilize this space effectively. In an exploratory study, we compared two tools (Jigsaw and a document viewer), which were adapted to support multiple input devices, to observe how the large display space was used in establishing and maintaining common ground during an intelligence analysis scenario using 50 textual documents. We discuss the spatial strategies employed by the pairs of participants, which were largely dependent on tool type (data-centric or function-centric), as well as how different visual analytics tools used collaboratively on large, high-resolution displays impact common ground in both process and solution. Using these findings, we suggest design considerations to enable future co-located collaborative sensemaking tools to take advantage of the benefits of collaborating on large, high-resolution displays

Distributed-Pair Programming can work well and is not just Distributed Pair-Programming

Background: Distributed Pair Programming can be performed via screensharing or via a distributed IDE. The latter offers the freedom of concurrent editing (which may be helpful or damaging) and has even more awareness deficits than screen sharing. Objective: Characterize how competent distributed pair programmers may handle this additional freedom and these additional awareness deficits and characterize the impacts on the pair programming process. Method: A revelatory case study, based on direct observation of a single, highly competent distributed pair of industrial software developers during a 3-day collaboration. We use recordings of these sessions and conceptualize the phenomena seen. Results: 1. Skilled pairs may bridge the awareness deficits without visible obstruction of the overall process. 2. Skilled pairs may use the additional editing freedom in a useful limited fashion, resulting in potentially better fluency of the process than local pair programming. Conclusion: When applied skillfully in an appropriate context, distributed-pair programming can (not will!) work at least as well as local pair programming

Beyond representations: towards an action-centric perspective on tangible interaction

In the light of theoretical as well as concrete technical development, we discuss a conceptual shift from an information-centric to an action-centric perspective on tangible interactive technology. We explicitly emphasise the qualities of shareable use, and the importance of designing tangibles that allow for meaningful manipulation and control of the digital material. This involves a broadened focus from studying properties of the interface, to instead aim for qualities of the activity of using a system, a general tendency towards designing for social and sharable use settings and an increased openness towards multiple and subjective interpretations. An effect of this is that tangibles are not designed as representations of data, but as resources for action. We discuss four ways that tangible artefacts work as resources for action: (1) for physical manipulation; (2) for referential, social and contextually oriented action; (3) for perception and sensory experience; (4) for digitally mediated action

Collaborative trails in e-learning environments

This deliverable focuses on collaboration within groups of learners, and hence collaborative trails. We begin by reviewing the theoretical background to collaborative learning and looking at the kinds of support that computers can give to groups of learners working collaboratively, and then look more deeply at some of the issues in designing environments to support collaborative learning trails and at tools and techniques, including collaborative filtering, that can be used for analysing collaborative trails. We then review the state-of-the-art in supporting collaborative learning in three different areas – experimental academic systems, systems using mobile technology (which are also generally academic), and commercially available systems. The final part of the deliverable presents three scenarios that show where technology that supports groups working collaboratively and producing collaborative trails may be heading in the near future