Enhancing Free-text Interactions in a Communication Skills Learning Environment

Learning environments frequently use gamification to enhance user interactions.Virtual characters with whom players engage in simulated conversations often employ prescripted dialogues; however, free user inputs enable deeper immersion and higher-order cognition. In our learning environment, experts developed a scripted scenario as a sequence of potential actions, and we explore possibilities for enhancing interactions by enabling users to type free inputs that are matched to the pre-scripted statements using Natural Language Processing techniques. In this paper, we introduce a clustering mechanism that provides recommendations for fine-tuning the pre-scripted answers in order to better match user inputs

Design-activity-sequence: A case study and polyphonic analysis of learning in a digital design thinking workshop

In this case study, we report on the outcomes of a one-day workshop on design thinking attended by participants from the Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning conference in Philadelphia in 2017. We highlight the interactions between the workshop design, structured as a design thinking process around the design of a digital environment for design thinking, and the diverse backgrounds and interests of its participants. Data from in-workshop reflections and post-workshop interviews were analyzed using a novel set of analytical approaches, a combination the facilitators made by possible by welcoming participants as coresearchers

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

컴퓨터 기반 협력적 논증에서 집단 인식 도구 설계원리 개발

학위논문(석사) -- 서울대학교대학원 : 사범대학 교육학과, 2021.8. 김수진.With the advancement of society and the rapid development of technology, every community member of society often needs to collaborate with others to solve problems together. In school education, collaborative learning is widely used in the actual teaching activities. As one of the forms of collaborative learning, collaborative argumentation can improve students’ argumentation skills, promote effective content learning and cultivate critical thinking. However, it is challenging to apply collaborative argumentation to the actual teaching activities, and there are many situations where collaborative argumentation activities cannot be carried out efficiently. Especially in the field of Computer-supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL), such as conflicts between group members, free-riding behavior, and unequal participation occur frequently. At the same time, in the CSCL environment, it is difficult to coordinate one’s actions with other group members’ actions, which can also exacerbate the occurrence of these problems. These problems are mainly caused by learners who cannot obtain group awareness information about accompanying learners and the current group. Group awareness information specifically includes cognitive, behavioral, and social awareness information. Previously, there are many studies on group awareness tools that provide group awareness information. Still, few group awareness tools can provide cognitive, behavioral, and social awareness information simultaneously. Moreover, some group awareness tools mainly monitor and evaluate collaborative learning results and cannot to conduct deep analysis on the study activity process. In the design and support research of collaborative argumentation activities, most of whom research face-to-face environments. There is not much research on the scheme design or specific guidelines in computer-supported collaborative argumentation. Therefore, according to the limitations of the group awareness tool in current research, combined with the research necessity of specific guidelines in computer-supported collaborative argumentation, this study has developed design principles and specific guidelines for group awareness tool in computer-supported collaborative argumentation. The issues of this study are：1) what are the design principles and specific guidelines for group awareness tool in computer-supported collaborative argumentation? 2) what are the responses of learners to group awareness tool reflecting the design principles and specific guidelines? This study was carried out to explore the questions according to Type 2 of the design and development research. First of all, according to the previous research, the initial design principles and initial specific guidelines for the group awareness tool were identified. After that, three educational technology experts reviewed the initial design principles and guidelines. The modified specific guidelines were applied to the two-week classroom teaching of 45 first-year students in a class. In addition, a learners’ response survey was conducted on the students who actually participated in the computer-supported collaborative argumentation activities. Finally, the results of questionnaire surveys (n=45) and interviews (n=5) were analyzed, and the final specific guidelines were developed. The group awareness tool in this study can provide cognitive, behavioral, and social awareness information at the same time and focus on exploring the process of online study activities deeply. According to the research results, collaborative argumentation based on group awareness tool solves the problem that general collaborative argumentation activities can’t obtain timely information on the cognitive, behavioral, and social awareness of accompanying learners and the current group study situation. It can continuously maintain their study motivation and promote interaction among learners to improve the quality of computer-supported collaborative learning. Suppose the results of this study are applied to actual teaching activities. In that case, students can develop their ability of argumentation and solving problems together, and promote students’ understanding and mastery of curriculum knowledge.사회와 과학 기술이 발전함에 따라 사회의 모든 구성원들은 타인과 협력을 통해 문제를 해결해야 하는 상황에 직면하게 된다. 협력학습은 학교에서 협력학습은 실제 교육 활동에 광범위하게 사용된다. 협력학습의 한 형태인 협력적 논증 활동은 학생들의 논증기능을 향상시키고 효과적인 내용학습을 촉진하며 비판적 사고력을 향상시킬 수 있다. 그러나 협력적 논증을 실제 교육 현장에서 적용하는 데 어려움이 있어 협력적 논증은 적극적으로 교육 활동에 활용되지 못하는 경우가 많았다. 특히 컴퓨터 기반 협력학습(CSCL) 분야에서는 팀 구성원 간의 충돌, 무임승차자, 학습자 간의 상호작용이 활발하게 이루어지지 못하는 등 문제가 발생하기 때문에 협력학습이 항상 효과적인 것은 아니다. 또한, CSCL 환경의 경우 인지, 행위, 사회 정보 등과 같은 동료 학습자에 대한 집단 인식 정보를 획듯하지 못하기 때문에 그룹 구성원과 협력하는 어려움이 준재한다. 기존의 연구는 CSCL분야에서 인지, 행위, 사회 정보를 획득하는 데 어려움을 해결하기 위해 다양한 집단 인식 도구에 대한 개발을 시도하였다. 그러나, 대부분의 집단 인식 도구는 인지, 행동, 사회 인식 정보를 동시에 제공하지 못하며, 학습 활동 과정에 대해 심층적으로 분석하지 못한다. 이러한 집단 인식 도구는 학습 결과의 모니터링과 평가를 하게 하는 것이 대표적이다. 그리고 협력적 논증의 설계와 지원에 대한 기존 연구 중 상당수는 대면환경에서 진행된 연구이며 CSCL 환경에서의 협력적 논증 활동의 방안 설계 및 세부지침에 대한 연구는 많지 않았다. 따라서 본 연구는 컴퓨터 기반 협력적 논증에서 집단 인식 도구 기반의 설계원리와 세부지침을 개발하였다. 본 연구의 연구 문제는 다음과 같다. 첫째, 컴퓨터 기반 협력적 논증에서 집단 인식 도구 기반의 설계원리와 세부지침은 무엇인가? 둘째, 설계원리와 세부지침을 반영한 집단 인식 도구에 대한 학습자의 반응은 어떠한가? 위의 두 가지 문제를 탐구하기 위해 본 연구는 설계개발 연구(유형 2)의 연구방법에 따라 진행하였다. 구체적으로 보면, 선행 연구의 검토를 통해 집단 인식 도구의 설계원리와 집단 인식 도구에 기반한 협력적 논증 활동을 촉진하기 위해 초기 세부지침을 도출하였다. 이후 3명의 교육공학 전문가를 대상으로 집단 인식 도구의 설계원리와 초기 세부지침의 타당성에 대한 검토를 실시하였다. 전문가의 의견에 따라 초기 세부지침을 수정하고 수정된 세부지침을 45명의 신입생에게 2주 동안 적용하였다. 이외에 실제 협력적 논증 활동에 참여한 학생들에 대한 학습자 반응 조사도 실시하였다. 마지막으로 학습자의 설문조사(n=45)와 인터뷰(n=5) 결과를 분석하여 최종 세부지침을 도출하였다. 본 연구에서의 집단 인식 도구는 인지, 행위, 사회 인식 정보를 동시에 제공하며 온라인 학습 활동을 깊이 탐색하는 데 집중한다. 연구결과에 따르면, 집단 인식 도구 기반의 협력적 논증을 통해 일반적인 협력적 논증 활동이 동료학습자 및 현재 그룹 학습상황의 인지, 행위, 사회 인식 정보를 획득하지 못하는 문제를 해결함으로써 학습동기를 지속적으로 유지시킬 수 있는 것으로 나타났다. 또한, 학습자 간 상호작용을 촉진하여 CSCL 학습의 질을 향상시킬 수 있었다. 본 연구의 연구결과를 실제 교육활동에 활용하면 학생들의 논증 능력과 협력적 문제해결력을 향상시킬 수 있을 뿐만 아니라 수업 지식에 대한 이해와 습득을 촉진할 수 있을 것이다.I. INTRODUCTION 1 1.Problem Statement and Purpose 1 2.Research Questions 3 3.Definition of Terms 3 II. LITERATURE REVIEW 4 1.Computer-supported Collaborative Argumentation 4 1.1 Concept of Computer-supported Collaborative Argumentation 4 1.2 Teaching Value of Computer-supported Collaborative Argumentation 7 1.3 Application of Computer-supported Collaborative Argumentation 8 2.Group Awareness 9 2.1 Concept of Group Awareness 9 2.2 Necessity of Group Awareness in Computer-supported Collaborative Argumentation 12 2.3 Group Awareness Tool 13 Ⅲ. METHODOLOGY 19 1.Research Procedure 19 2. Participants 21 3. Research Tools  22 3.1 Expert Validation Tool 22 3.2 Course Application Tool 23 3.3 Learners’ Response Tool 26 4. Data Collection and Analysis  27 4.1 Expert Validation 27 4.2 Course Development  27 4.3 Learners’ Responses 29 Ⅵ. RESULTS 29 1. The Initial Design Principles for Group Awareness Tool 30 2. The Initial Specific Guidelines 34 3. Expert Validation Result  38 3.1 Expert Validation Result of Design Principle for Group Awareness Tool 39 3.2 The Final Design Principles for Group Awareness Tool 42 3.3 Expert Validation Result of Specific Guidelines 46 4. Response of the Learners 55 4.1 Questionnaire Results 55 4.2 Interview Results 58 5. The Final Specific Guidelines 63 Ⅴ. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION 66 1.Discussion 66 2.Conclusion and Suggestions 68 REFERENCES 70 APPENDIXES 80 국 문 초 록 101석

Socially-augmented argumentation tools: rationale, design and evaluation of a debate dashboard

Collaborative Computer-Supported Argument Visualization (CCSAV) is a technical methodology that offers support for online collective deliberation over complex dilemmas. As compared with more traditional conversational technologies, like wikis and forums, CCSAV is designed to promote more critical thinking and evidence-based reasoning, by using representations that highlight conceptual relationships between contributions, and through computational analytics that assess the structural integrity of the network. However, to date, CCSAV tools have achieved adoption primarily in small-scale educational contexts, and only to a limited degree in real world applications. We hypothesise that by reifying conversations as logical maps to address the shortcomings of chronological streams, CCSAV tools underestimate the importance of participation and interaction in enhancing collaborative knowledge-building. We argue, therefore, that CCSAV platforms should be socially augmented in order to improve their mediation capability. Drawing on Clark and Brennan’s influential Common Ground theory, we designed a Debate Dashboard, which augmented a CCSAV tool with a set of widgets that deliver meta-information about participants and the interaction process. An empirical study simulating a moderately sized collective deliberation scenario provides evidence that this experimental version outperformed the control version on a range of indicators, including usability, mutual understanding, quality of perceived collaboration, and accuracy of individual decisions. No evidence was found that the addition of the Debate Dashboard impeded the quality of the argumentation or the richness of content

Introduction to location-based mobile learning

[About the book] The report follows on from a 2-day workshop funded by the STELLAR Network of Excellence as part of their 2009 Alpine Rendez-Vous workshop series and is edited by Elizabeth Brown with a foreword from Mike Sharples. Contributors have provided examples of innovative and exciting research projects and practical applications for mobile learning in a location-sensitive setting, including the sharing of good practice and the key findings that have resulted from this work. There is also a debate about whether location-based and contextual learning results in shallower learning strategies and a section detailing the future challenges for location-based learning

Augmenting the field experience: a student-led comparison of techniques and technologies

In this study we report on our experiences of creating and running a student fieldtrip exercise which allowed students to compare a range of approaches to the design of technologies for augmenting landscape scenes. The main study site is around Keswick in the English Lake District, Cumbria, UK, an attractive upland environment popular with tourists and walkers. The aim of the exercise for the students was to assess the effectiveness of various forms of geographic information in augmenting real landscape scenes, as mediated through a range of techniques and technologies. These techniques were: computer-generated acetate overlays showing annotated wireframe views from certain key points; a custom-designed application running on a PDA; a mediascape running on the mScape software on a GPS-enabled mobile phone; Google Earth on a tablet PC; and a head-mounted in-field Virtual Reality system. Each group of students had all five techniques available to them, and were tasked with comparing them in the context of creating a visitor guide to the area centred on the field centre. Here we summarise their findings and reflect upon some of the broader research questions emerging from the project

‘We’re all in this toGather’ – A Virtual World for Improving Knowledge Exchange and Social Interaction for Digital Work

One drastic change that has been established in many organizations is the possibility of location-independent work. However, working remotely also creates distinct challenges that organizations must face. Thus, remote work could lead to a decrease in social interactions and therefore less implicit knowledge exchange in teams. However, informal conversations are crucial for building and maintaining team cohesion as well as experience transfer among employees. To address this problem, we apply a design science research approach to examine how a virtual world as a work environment could help to overcome those challenges within our research group. We designed a prototype of a virtual world that is based on knowledge gained from three design thinking workshops and tested it over four weeks in a real-world work case. Furthermore, we conducted 16 interviews with employees and present our initial findings of the effects on group awareness, social identity, IT identity, trust, and acceptance