A model for flexibly editing CSCL scripts

Article

Abstract

This article presents a model whose primary concern and design rationale is to offer users (teachers) with basic ICT skills an intuitive, easy, and flexible way of editing scripts. The proposal is based on relating an end-user representation as a table and a machine model as a tree. The table-tree model introduces structural expressiveness and semantics that are limited but straightforward and intuitive. This approach is less expressive and introduces less semantics than approaches based on workflow representations and complex meta-models. However, it may be enhanced to represent complex features such as by-intention grouping mechanisms, constraint checking or configuration of enactment frameworks. A usability test suggests that the model/interface is easy to use and that teachers avail themselves of the flexibility available to model scripts according to their perspectives.

Keywords

CSCL Scripts Editing Flexibility 

References

  1. Aronson, E., Blaney, N., Sikes, J., Stephan, G., & Snapp, M. (1978). The jigsaw classroom. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publication.Google Scholar
  2. Baker, M., & Lund, K. (1997). Promoting reflective interactions in a CSCL environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 13(3), 175–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bakia, M., Murphy, R., Anderson, K., & Trinidad, G. E. (2011). International experiences with technology in education: Final report. Washington, D.C: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology.Google Scholar
  4. Belgiorno, F., Chiara, R. D., Manno, I., & Scarano, V. (2008). A flexible and tailorable architecture for scripts in F2F collaboration. In Proceedings of the 3rd European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning: Times of Convergence: Technologies Across Learning Contexts. Springer-Verlag Berlin, pp. 401–412.Google Scholar
  5. Botturi, L., & Todd, S. (2007). Handbook of visual languages for instructional design: Theory and practices. Information Science Reference: Hershey, IGI Publishing Hershey.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Botturi, L., Derntl, M., Boot, E., & Figl, K. (2006). A classification framework for educational modeling languages in instructional design. In Proceedings of 6th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, pp. 1216–1220.Google Scholar
  7. Derntl, M., Neumann, S., Griffiths D., & Oberhuemer, P. (2011). The conceptual structure of IMS Learning Design does not impede its use for authoring. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies (preprint). doi: 10.1109/TLT.2011.25
  8. De Wever, B., Van Keer, H., Schellens, T., & Valcke, M. (2009). Structuring asynchronous discussion groups: The impact of role assignment and self-assessment on students’ levels of knowledge construction through social negotiation. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25, 177–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dillenbourg, P. (2002). Over-scripting CSCL: The risks of blending collaborative learning with instructional design. In P. A. Kirschner (Ed.), pp. 61–91.Google Scholar
  10. Dillenbourg, P., Dimitriadis, Y., Nussbaum, M., Prieto, L. P., Asensio, J. I., Sharples, M. et al. (2011). Classroom Orchestration (submitted; extended version of Deliverable D1.5 of the European Network for Excellence Stellar).Google Scholar
  11. Dillenbourg, P., & Hong, F. (2008). The mechanics of CSCL macro scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3(1), 5–23. Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dillenbourg, P., & Jermann, P. (2007). Designing Integrative Scripts. In: F. Fischer, I. Kollar, H. Mandl & J. M. Haake (Eds.). Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Series, Springer, pp.275–301.Google Scholar
  13. Dillenbourg, P., & Tchounikine, P. (2007). Flexibility in macro-scripts for CSCL. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(1), 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Drools. (2012). The Business Logic integration Platform (www.jboss.org/drools), visited in 08/2012.
  15. Fischer, F., Kollar, I., Haake, J. M., & Mandl, H. (2007). Perspectives on collaboration scripts. In F. Fischer, I. Kollar, H. Mandl, & J. M. Haake (Eds.), Scripting computer-supported communication of knowledge – cognitive, computational, and educational perspectives (pp. 1–10). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  16. Haake, J. M., & Pfister, H.-R. (2007). Flexible scripting in Net-Based Learning Groups. In F. Fischer, I. Kollar, H. Mandl, & J. M. Haake (Eds.). Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Series, Springer, pp.155–175.Google Scholar
  17. Harrer, A., & Hoppe, H. U. (2008). Visual modeling of collaborative learning processes – uses, desired properties and approaches. In L. Botturi & S. Todd (Eds.), Handbook of visual languages for instructional design: Theory and practices (pp. 281–298). Hershey: Information Science Reference.Google Scholar
  18. Harrer, A., Malzahn, N., & Hoppe, H. U. (2007). Graphical modeling and simulation of learning designs. In T. Hirashima, H. U. Hoppe, & S. S. Young (Eds.), Supporting learning flow through integrative technologies (pp. 291–294). Amsterdam: Ios Press.Google Scholar
  19. Hernández-Leo, D., Asensio-Pérez, J. I., Dimitriadis, Y., & Villasclaras-Fernández, E. D. (2010). Generating CSCL scripts: From a conceptual model of pattern languages to the design a real situation (Appendix). In P. Goodyear & S. Retalis (Eds.), Technology enhanced learning. Design Patterns and Pattern Languages: SensePublishers.Google Scholar
  20. Hernández-Leo, D., Villasclaras-Fernández, E. D., Asensio-Pérez, J. I., Dimitriadis, Y., Jorrín-Abellán, I. M., Ruiz-Requies, I., & Rubia-Avi, B. (2006). COLLAGE: A collaborative learning design editor based on patterns. Journal of Educational Technology and Society, 9(1), 58–71.Google Scholar
  21. IMS-LD. (2012). IMS Learning Design (http://www.imsglobal.org/learningdesign), visited 08/2012.
  22. Kobbe, L., Weinberger, A., Dillenbourg, P., Harrer, A., Hämäläinen, R., Häkkinen, P., & Fischer, F. (2007). Specifying computer-supported collaboration scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(2–3), 211–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kollar, I., Fischer, F., & Slotta, J. D. (2007). Internal and external scripts in computer-supported collaborative inquiry learning. Learning and Instruction, 17(6), 708–721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kollar, I., Fischer, F., & Hesse, F. W. (2006). Computer-supported cooperation scripts – a conceptual analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 18(2), 159–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. LAMS. LAMS: Learning Activity Management System (http://www.lamsfoundation.org/), visited in 08/2012.
  26. Lonchamp, J. (2006). Supporting synchronous collaborative learning: A generic, multi-dimensional model. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(2), 247–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Miao, Y., Hoeksema, K., Hoppe, H. U., & Harrer, A. (2005). CSCL scripts: Modelling features and potential Use (pp. 423–432). Taipei, Taiwan: International Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning.Google Scholar
  28. Moodle. (2012) Open-source community-based tools for learning (www.moodle.org), visited in 08/2012.
  29. Neumann, S., Klebl, M., Griffiths, D., Hernández-Leo, D., de la Fuente Valentín, L., Hummel, H., Brouns, F., Derntl, M., & Oberhuemer, P. (2010). Report of the results of an IMS learning design expert workshop. International Journal of Emerging Technologies In Learning (IJET), 5(1), 58–72.Google Scholar
  30. Nodenot, T., Caron, P-A., Le Pallec, X., Laforcade P. (2008). Applying Model Driven Engineering Techniques and Tools to the Planets Game Learning Scenario. Journal of Interactive Media in Education (http://jime.open.ac.uk), Special Issue: Comparing Educational Modelling Languages on the “Planet Game” Case Study.
  31. 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
  32. Palincsar, A., & Brown, A. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Prieto, L.P., Asensio-Pérez, J.I., Dimitriadis, Y.A., Gómez-Sánchez, E. & Muñoz-Cristóbal, J.A. (2011). GLUE!-PS: A Multi-language Architecture and Data Model to Deploy TEL Designs to Multiple Learning Environments. European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning, pp. 285–298.Google Scholar
  34. Ronen, M., Kohen-Vacs, D., & Raz-Fogel, N. (2006). Adopt & Adapt: Structuring, Sharing and Reusing Asynchronous Collaborative Pedagogy. International Conference of the Learning Sciences, pp. 599–605Google Scholar
  35. Roschelle, J., Rafanan, K., Bhanot, R., Estrella, G., Penuel, B., Nussbaum, M., & Claro, S. (2009). Scaffolding group explanation and feedback with handheld technology: Impact on students’ mathematics learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(4), 399–419. Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rummel, N., & Spada, H. (2005). Learning to collaborate: An instructional approach to promoting collaborative problem solving in computer-mediated settings. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(2), 201–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Schellens, T., Van Keer, H., De Wever, B., & Valcke, M. (2007). Scripting by assigning roles: Does it improve knowledge construction in asynchronous discussion groups? International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(2–3), 225–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schoonenboom, J. (2008). The effect of a script and an interface in grounding discussions. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3(3), 327–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Slof, B., Erkens, G., Kirschner, P. A., Jaspers, J. G. M., & Janssen, J. (2010). Guiding students’ online complex learning-task behavior through representational scripting. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(5), 927–939.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Stahl, G., & Hesse, F. (2007). Welcome to the future: ijCSCL volume 2. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(1), 1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Stegmann, K., Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2007). Facilitating argumentative knowledge construction with computer-supported collaboration scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(4), 421–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Tchounikine, P. (2011). Computer Science and Educational Software DesignA Resource for Multidisciplinary Work in Technology Enhanced Learning. Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-20003-8_6
  43. Tchounikine, P. (2008). Operationalizing macro-scripts in CSCL technological settings. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3(2), 193–33. Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Trimmer, K. (2006). Teacher ICT Skills: Evaluation of the Information and Communication Technology Knowledge and Skill Levels of Western Australian Government School Teachers. Autralian Evaluation Society International Conference, Darwin, Australia. (retrieved from http://www.aes.asn.au, April 2012).
  45. Villasclaras-Fernández, E. D., Hernández-Gonzalo, J. A., Hernández-Leo, D., Asensio-Pérez, J. I., Dimitriadis, Y., & Martínez-Monés, A. (2009). InstanceCollage: A tool for the particularization of collaborative IMS-LD scripts. Educational Technology & Society, 12(3), 56–70.Google Scholar
  46. Wecker, C., Stegmann, K., Bernstein, F., Huber, M. J., Kalus, G., Kollar, I., Rathmayer, S., & Fischer, F. (2010). S-COL: A Copernican turn for the development of flexibly reusable collaboration scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5, 321–343. Springer New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Weinberger, A., Ertl, B., Fischer, F., & Mandl, H. (2005). Epistemic and social scripts in computer-supported collaborative learning. Instructional Science, 33(1), 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Weinberger, A., Kollar, I., Dimitriadis, Y., Mäkitalo-Siegl, K., & Fischer, F. (2008). Computer-supported collaboration scripts: Theory and practice of scripting CSCL. In N. Balacheff, S. Ludvigsen, T. de Jong, A. Lazonder, S. Barnes, & L. Montandon (Eds.), Technology-enhanced learning. Principles and products (pp. 155–174). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  49. Weinberger, A., Stegmann, K., & Fischer, F. (2010). Learning to argue online: Scripted groups surpass individuals (unscripted groups do not). Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 506–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Williams, D. L., Boone, R., & Kingsley, K. V. (2004). Teacher beliefs about educational software: A Delphi study. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36(3), 213–229.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society of the Learning Sciences, Inc. and Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.LIG – Université Joseph FourierGrenobleFrance
  2. 2.DCET – Universidade Estadual de Santa CruzIlhéusBrazil

Personalised recommendations