Operationalizing macro-scripts in CSCL technological settings
This paper presents a conceptual analysis of the technological dimensions related to the operationalization of CSCL macro-scripts. CSCL scripts are activity models that aim at enhancing the probability that knowledge generative interactions such as conflict resolution, explanation or mutual regulation occur during the collaboration process. We first recall basics about CSCL scripts and macro-scripts. Then, we propose an analysis of some core issues that must be made explicit and taken into account when operationalizing macro-scripts, such as the reification of some aspects of the script within the technological setting, the strategy within which students are presented with the technological setting and the uncertainties related to scripts and technological setting perception and enactment. We then present SPAIRD, a model that we propose as a means to conceptualize the relations between scripts and technological settings used to operationalize them. This model describes four points of view on the script (structural model, implementation-oriented model, student-oriented models and platform specification) and the underlying design rationale (learning hypothesis, pedagogic principle and design decisions). In order to exemplify SPAIRD’s usefulness we propose examples of how it allows drawing general propositions with respect to the couple script + technological setting. Finally, we present an analysis of current state-of-the-art technological approaches with respect to this conceptualization, and research directions for the design and implementation of technological settings that present the properties identified in our analysis. In particular, we study the interest of model-driven approaches, flexible technological settings and model-based script engines.
KeywordsCSCL macro-scripts Operationalization Technological setting Computer science
This work benefited from fruitful exchanges and collaboration with P. Dillenbourg (Craft, EPFL, Switzerland). The author thanks C. Choquet (Lium, University of Le Mans, France), A. Harrer (Collide, University of Duisburg-Essen, Germany), C. Jones (OpenUniversity, UK), L. Kobbe (KMRC, Tübingen, Germany), and the anonymous reviewers for their comments on preceding versions of this article. More generally, this research benefited from the work realized in the groups focusing on CSCL of Kaleidoscope (http://www.noe-kaleidoscope.org), a European Research Network of Excellence focusing on Technology Enhanced Learning.
- Berger, A., Moretti, R., Chastonay, P., Dillenbourg, P., Bchir, A., Baddoura, R. et al. (2001). Teaching community health by exploiting international socio-cultural and economical differences. In: European Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (pp. 97–105), Maastricht (NL).Google Scholar
- Betbeder, M. L., Tchounikine, P. (2003). Symba: A framework to support collective activities in an educational context. In International Conference on Computers in Education (pp. 188–196), Hong Kong.Google Scholar
- Bote-Lorenzo, M. L., Hernández-Leo, D., Dimitriadis, Y., Asensio-Pérez, J. I., Gómez-Sánchez, E., Vega-Gorgojo, G., et al. (2004). Towards reusability and tailorability in collaborative learning systems using IMS-LD and Grid Services. Advanced Technology for Learning, 1(3), 129–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Brousseau, G. (1998). Théorie des situations didactiques. France: La Pensée Sauvage.Google Scholar
- Caron, P.-A., Derycke, A., Le Pallec, X. (2005). Bricolage and model driven approach to design distant course. In Proceedings of the World Conference on E-learning in Corporate Government, Healthcare & Higher Education (pp. 2856–2864), Vancouver, Canada.Google Scholar
- CopperCore (2007). http://coppercore.sourceforge.net/index.shtml. Last visited March 2007.
- Delium, C. (2003). OSCAR: A framework for structuring mediated communication by speech acts. In IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (pp. 229–233), Athens, Greece.Google Scholar
- DiGiano, C., Yarnall, L., Patton, C., Roschelle, J., Tatar, D. G., Manley, M. (2002). Collaboration design patterns: Conceptual tools for planning for the wireless classroom. In International Workshop on Wireless and Mobile Technologies in Education (pp. 39–47), Växjö, Sweden.Google Scholar
- Dillenbourg, P. (1999). What do you mean by collaborative learning? In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.) Collaborative-learning, cognitive and computational approaches (pp. 1–19). Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
- Dillenbourg, P. (2002). Over-scripting CSCL: The risks of blending collaborative learning with instructional design.. In P. A. Kirschner (Ed.) Three worlds of CSCL. Can we support CSCL (pp. 61–91). Heerlen: Open Universiteit Nederland.Google Scholar
- Dillenbourg, P., & Jermann, P. (2007). SWISH: A model for designing CSCL scripts. In F. Fischer, H. Mandl, J. Haake, & I. Kollar (Eds.) Scripting computer-supported collaborative learning—Cognitive, computational, and educational perspectives. Computer-supported Collaborative Learning Series. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
- Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding. A activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit.Google Scholar
- Ferraris, C., Martel, C., & Vignollet, L. (2007). LDL for collaborative activities. In L. Botturi, & T. Stubbs (Eds.) Handbook of visual languages in instructional design: Theories and practices. Hershey, PA: Idea Group.Google Scholar
- Fischer, F., Mandl, H., Haake, J., & Kollar, I. (2007). Scripting computer-supported collaborative learning–Cognitive, computational, and educational perspectives. Computer-supported Collaborative Learning Series. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
- Goodyear, P. (2001). Effective networked learning in higher education: Notes and guidelines. Volume 3 of the Final Report to JCALT: Networked Learning in Higher Education Project. Retrieved from http://csalt.lancs.ac.uk/jisc/ (December 2nd, 2006).
- Goodyear, P. (2004). Patterns, pattern languages and educational design. In R. Atkinson, C. McBeath, D. Jonas-Dwyer & R. Phillips (Eds.), Beyond the comfort zone: ASCILITE Conference (pp. 339–347), Perth, Australia.Google Scholar
- Haake, J., & Pfister, H.-R. (2007). Flexible scripting in net-based learning groups. In F. Fischer, I. Kollar, H. Mandl, & J. M. Haake (Eds.) Scripting computer-supported cooperative learning. Cognitive, computational, and educational perspectives. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
- Harrer, A., Malzahn, N. (2006). Bridging the gap—Towards a graphical modelling language for learning designs and collaboration scripts of various granularities. In International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (pp. 296–300). Kerkrade, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
- Hernández-Leo, D., Asensio-Pérez, J. I., Dimitriadis, Y. (2004). IMS learning design support for the formalization of collaborative learning patterns. In International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (pp. 350–354). Finland: Joensuu.Google Scholar
- Hernández-Leo, D., Asensio-Pérez, J. I., Dimitriadis, Y., Bote-Lorenzo, M. L., Jorrín-Abellán, I. M., & Villasclaras-Fernández, E. D. (2005). Reusing IMS-LD formalized best practices in collaborative learning structuring. Advanced Technology for Learning, 2(3), 223–232.Google Scholar
- Hernández-Leo, D., Burgos, D., Tattersall, C., & Koper, R. (2007). Representing CSCL macro-scripts using IMS LD: Lessons learned. http://hdl.handle.net/1820/784 .
- Hernández-Leo, D., Villasclaras-Fernández, E. D., Jorrín-Abellán, I. M., Asensio-Pérez, J. I., Dimitriadis, Y., Ruiz-Requies, I., et al. (2006). Collage, a collaborative learning design editor based on patterns special issue on learning design. Educational Technology & Society, 9(1), 58–71.Google Scholar
- Hong, F., & Dillenbourg, P. (2007). Conveying a pedagogical model through design patterns. In Workshop on Computer-Supported Collaboration Scripts, Villars (Switzerland). Retrieved March 2nd, 2007 from http: http://www.iwm-kmrc.de/cossicle/workshop/resources.html.
- Iksal, S., & Choquet, C. (2005). Usage analysis driven by models in a pedagogical context. In AIED’05 Workshop on usage analysis in learning systems (pp. 49–56), Amsterdam (NL).Google Scholar
- IMS-LD (2003). IMS global learning consortium. IMS Learning Design v1.0 Final Specification. Retrieved May 29th 2006, from http://www.imsglobal.org/learningdesign/index.cfm.
- Jermann, P., & Dillenbourg, P. (2003). Elaborating new arguments through a CSCL scenario. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker, & D. D. Suthers (Eds.) Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 205–226). Amsterdam: Kluwer.Google Scholar
- Jones, C., Dirckinck-Holmfeld, L., & Lindström, B. (2006). A relational, indirect, meso-level approach to CSCL design in the next decade. IJCSCL, 1(1), 35–56.Google Scholar
- LAMS (2007). http://www.lamsinternational.com. Last visited March 2007.
- Le Moigne, J.-L. (1990). La modélisation des systèmes complexes. Paris: Dunod.Google Scholar
- Malone, T. W., Lai, K.-Y., Fry, C. (1992). Experiments with oval: A radically tailorable tool for cooperative work. In Proceedings of ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative (pp 289–297), Toronto, Canada.Google Scholar
- McGrenere, J., Ho, W. (2000). Affordances: Clarifying and evolving a concept. In Proceedings of Graphic Interface (pp. 179–186), Montreal, Canada.Google Scholar
- MDA (2003). OMG, MDA guide version 1.0.1. Retrieved May 29th 2006, from http://www.omg.org/mda/.
- Miao, Y., Hoeksema, K., Hoppe, U., & Harrer, A. (2005). CSCL scripts: modelling features and potential use. In Proceedings of International Computer Supported Collaborative Learning Conference (CD-om), Taipei, Taiwan.Google Scholar
- MOF (2007). Meta-object facility. http://www.omg.org/mof/. Last visited March 2007.
- Moran, T. P., & Carroll, J. M. (1996). Design rationale: Concepts, techniques, and use. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Morch, A. (1997). Three levels of end-user tailoring: Customization, integration, and extension. In M. Kyng, & L. Mathiassen (Eds.) Computers and design in context (pp. 51–76). Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
- O’Donnell, A. M. (1999). Structuring dyadic interaction through scripted cooperation. In A. M. O’Donnell, & A. King (Eds.) Cognitive perspectives on peer learning (pp. 179–196). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Plone (2006). Plone: A user-friendly and powerful open source content management system. Retrieved May 29th 2006, from http://www.plone.org.
- Reinders, M., Vinkhuyzen, E., Voss, A., Akkermans, H., Balder, J., Bartsch-Spörl, B., et al. (1991). A conceptual modelling framework for knowledge-level Reflection. AI Communications, 4(2/3), 74–87.Google Scholar
- Schmidt, K. (1990). Analysis of cooperative work. A conceptual framework. Roskilde, Denmark: Riso National Laboratory.Google Scholar
- Soller, A. (2001). Supporting social interaction in a collaborative learning system. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 12(4), 40–62.Google Scholar
- Suthers, D., & Weiner, A. (1995). Groupware for developing critical discussion skills. In J. L. Schnase, & E. L. Cunnius (Eds.) Proceedings of CSCL ’95, the First International Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning. Oct. 17–20, 1995. Indiana U. Bloomington, IN (pp. 341–348). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum (see also http://belvedere.sourceforge.net).Google Scholar
- UML, Unified modeling language, OMG. Retrieved May 29th 2006, from http://www.uml.org.
- Wasson, B., & Morch, A. (2000). Identifying collaboration patterns in collaborative telelearning scenarios. Educational Technology & Society, 3(3), 237–248.Google Scholar
- Zope (2006). Zope community. Retrieved May 29th 2006, from http://www.zope.org.