Skip to main content

Supporting classroom orchestration with real-time feedback: A role for teacher dashboards and real-time agents

Abstract

This paper investigates the role of the physical classroom environment, coupled with a technology environment that includes real-time agents and data analytics, to support the orchestration of complex collaborative inquiry designs in a high school physics classroom. This design-based research contributes to the wider domain of scripting and orchestration (e.g., Dillenbourg 2012; Dimitriadis 2012; Fischer et al. 2013). Guided by a theoretical perspective of learning in knowledge communities (Slotta et al., 2018), we partnered with a physics teacher to co-design curricular activities and assessments that engaged students in collectively solving, tagging and evaluating physics problems, creating a knowledge base of student-contributed examples, and using those examples as a resource in collaborative inquiry challenges. To support the teacher in orchestrating such a complex curricular design, we developed a tablet application that allowed the teacher see the state of the class in real-time, control the flow of activities and helped him know when and where he was needed within the flow of class activities. The tablet leveraged a set of specially designed real-time software agents to process student interactions in real time, allowing dynamic orchestration of student groups, material allocation, and teacher notifications. The paper begins with a review of recent literature on scripting and orchestration, drawing connection to the theoretical perspective of knowledge communities. We then describe our theoretical model, the design-based method, and details of our curriculum and technology environment. The paper concludes with a summary of how the teacher tablet and the real-time software agents helped support the teacher’s real-time facilitation and orchestration.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

References

  • Abowd, G. D., & Mynatt, E. D. (2004). Designing for the human experience in smart environments. Smart environments: technologies, protocols, and applications, 2, 167–207.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alavi, H. S., Dillenbourg, P., & Kaplan, F. (2009). Distributed awareness for class orchestration. In . Sage, Distributed Awareness for Class Orchestration.

  • Anderson, J. R., Corbett, A. T., Koedinger, K. R., & Pelletier, R. (1995). Cognitive tutors: Lessons learned. The journal of the learning sciences, 4(2), 167-207.

  • Aronson, E. (1978). The jigsaw classroom. Sage.

  • Baker, R. S., Corbett, A. T., Koedinger, K. R., & Wagner, A. Z. (2004, April). Off-task behavior in the cognitive tutor classroom: When students game the system. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems.

  • Barab, S. & Squire, K. (2004). Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground. The journal of the learning sciences, (October 2013), 37-41.

  • Bielaczyc, K., Collins, A., O'Donnell, A. M., Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Erkens, G. (2006). Fostering knowledge-creating communities. Collaborative learning, reasoning, and technology, 37–60.

  • Brown, A. L., Ellery, S., & Campione, J. C. (1998). Creating zones of proximal development electronically. In J. G. Greeno & S. V. Goldman (Eds.), Thinking practices in mathematics and science learning (pp. 341–368). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brusilovsky, P. (2001). Adaptive hypermedia. User modeling and user-adapted interaction, 11(1-2), 87-110.

  • Charles, E. S., & Whittaker, C. (2015). Active learning spaces: Blending technology and orchestration. In Exploring the material conditions of learning: The CSCL conference (Vol. 1, pp. 225-226).

  • Clark-Wilson, A. (2010). Emergent pedagogies and the changing role of the teacher in the TI-Nspire navigator-networked mathematics classroom. ZDM, 42(7), 747–761.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology. A once and future discipline. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook, D. J., & Das, S. K. (2007). How smart are our environments? An updated look at the state of the art. Pervasive and Mobile Computing, 3(2), 53–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crook, C. (1998). Children as computer users: The case of collaborative learning. Computers & Education, 30(3 & 4), 237–247.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Winter, J. C. (2013). Using the Student's t-test with extremely small sample sizes. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 18(10).

  • Design-Based Research Collective. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 5–8.

  • Dillenbourg, P. (2002). Over-scripting CSCL: The risks of blending collaborative learning with instructional design. Three worlds of CSCL. Can we support CSCL?, 61-91.

  • Dillenbourg, P. (2012). Design for classroom orchestration, position paper. In P. Dillenbourg, Y. Dimitriadis, M. Nussbaum, J. Roschelle, C. K. Looi & J. Asensio (Eds.), Design for classroom orchestration. Computers & Education.

  • Dillenbourg, P., Jarvela, S., & Fischer, F. (2009). The evolution of research on computer- supported collaborative learning. In N. Balacheff, S. Ludvigsen, T. Jong, A. Lazonder, & S. Barnes (Eds.), Technology-enhanced learning (pp. 3–19). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dillenbourg, P., Zufferey, G., Alavi, H. S., Jermann, P., Do, L. H. S., Bonnard, Q., ... & Kaplan, F. (2011). Classroom orchestration: The third circle of usability. In Connecting Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning to Policy and Practice: CSCL2011 Conference Proceedings. Volume I—Long Papers (Vol. 1, No. CONF, pp. 510-517). International Society of the Learning Sciences.

  • Dillenbourg, P., & Jermann, P. (2007). Designing integrative scripts. In scripting computer-supported collaborative learning (pp. 275-301). Springer US.

  • Dimitriadis, Y. (2012). Supporting teachers in orchestrating CSCL classrooms. Research on E- learning and ICT in education, (September), 33-40.

  • Dori, Y. J., & Belcher, J. (2005). How does technology-enabled active learning affect undergraduate students' understanding of electromagnetism concepts? The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(2), 243–279.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunleavy, M., Dede, C., & Mitchell, R. (2009). Affordances and limitations of immersive participatory augmented reality simulations for teaching and learning. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18(1), 7–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, F., Slotta, J., Dillenbourg, P., Tchounikine, P., Kollar, I., & Wecker, C. (2013). Scripting and orchestration: Recent theoretical advances. In Proceedings of the international conference of computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL2013) (pp. 564–571). WI: Madison.

    Google Scholar 

  • Furberg, A. (2016). Teacher support in computer-supported lab work: Bridging the gap between lab experiments and students’ conceptual understanding. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 11(1), 89–113.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greene, J. C. (2006). Toward a methodology of mixed methods social inquiry. Research in the Schools, 13(1), 93–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hod, Y., Charles, E. S., Acosta, A., Ben-Zvi, D., Chen, M. H., Choi, K., et al. (2016). Future learning spaces for learning communities: New directions and conceptual frameworks. Singapore: International Society of the Learning Sciences.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hollan, J., Hutchins, E., & Kirsh, D. (2000). Distributed cognition: Toward a new foundation for human-computer interaction research. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), 7(2), 174–196.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2000). Knowledge recycling: Crisscrossing the landscape of educational psychology in a problem-based learning course for preservice teachers. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 11(2), 41–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235–266.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ingulfsen, L., Furberg, A., & Strømme, T. A. (2018). Students’ engagement with real-time graphs in CSCL settings: Scrutinizing the role of teacher support. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 13(4), 365–390.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ishii, H., Wisneski, C., Brave, S., Dahley, A., Gorbet, M., Ullmer, B., et al. (1998). ambientROOM : Integrating with architectural ambient space media. Chi, 1998(April), 173–174.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jennings, N. R., & Wooldridge, M. (1998). Applications of intelligent agents. InAgent technology (pp. 3-28). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

  • Jennings, N. (2001). An agent-based approach for building complex software systems. Communications of the ACM, 44(4), 35–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jermann, P., Soller, A., & Muehlenbrock, M. (2001). From mirroring to guiding: A review of the state of art technology for supporting collaborative learning. In European conference on computer-supported collaborative learning EuroCSCL-2001 (pp. 324-331).

  • Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Turner, L. A. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of mixed methods research, 1(2), 112-133.

  • Kirschner, P., Strijbos, J., Kreijns, K., & Beers, P. (2004). Designing electronic collaborative learning environments. Educational Technology Research & Development, 52(3), 47–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kling, R., & Courtright, C. (2003). Group behavior and learning in electronic forums: A sociotechnical approach. The Information Society, 19(3), 221–235.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koh, E., & Hong, H. (2017). Developing professional competency in a CSCL environment for teamwork: Two TPACK case studies of teachers as co-designers.

  • Kollar, I., Hämäläinen, R., Evans, M., De Wever, B., & Perrotta, C. (2011). Orchestrating CSCL–more than a metaphor. In connecting computer-supported collaborative learning to policy and practice: CSCL2011 conference proceedings (Vol. 2, pp. 946-947).

  • Lemke, J. L. (2000). Across the scales of time: Artifacts, activities, and meanings in ecosocial systems. Mind, Culture and Activity, 7(4), 273–290.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lui, M., & Slotta, J. D. (2014). Immersive simulations for smart classrooms: Exploring evolutionary concepts in secondary science. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 23(1), 57–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mason, J. (2006). Mixing methods in a qualitatively driven way. Qualitative Research, 6(1), 9–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moher, T., Slotta, J. D., Acosta, A., Cober, R., Dasgupta, C., Fong, C., ... & Peppler, K. (2015). Knowledge construction in the instrumented classroom: Supporting student investigations of their physical learning environment. International Society of the Learning Sciences, Inc.[ISLS].

  • Nussbaum, M., Alvarez, C., Mcfarlane, A., Gomez, F., Claro, S., & Radovic, D. (2009). Technology as small group face-to-face collaborative scaffolding. Computers & Education, 52(1), 147–153.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ontario Ministry of Education (2008). The Ontario Curriculum Grades 11 and 12.

  • O'Donnell, A. M., & Dansereau, D. F. (1992). Scripted cooperation in student dyads: A method for analyzing and enhancing academic learning and performance. In R. Hertz-Lazarowitz & N. miller (Eds.), interaction in cooperative groups the theoretical anatomy of group learning (pp. 120-141) Cambridge University press.

  • O'Driscoll, C., Mithileash, M., Mtenzi, F., & Wu, B. (2008). Deploying a context aware smart classroom. Education and Development Conference.

  • Palincsar, A. S., & Herrenkohl, L. R. (2002). Designing collaborative learning contexts. Theory Into Practice, 41(1), 26–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Papazoglou, M. (2001). Agent-oriented technology in support of e-business. Communications of the ACM, 44(4), 71–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pea, R. D., & Maldonado, H. (2006). WILD for learning: Interacting through new computing devices anytime, anywhere. The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences, 852–886.

  • Penuel, W. R., Roschelle, J., & Shechtman, N. (2007). Designing formative assessment software with teachers: An analysis of the co-design process. 10.1007/s11412-019-09306-1 Research and practice in technology enhanced learning, 2(01), 51-74.

  • Purba, S. W. D., & Hwang, W. Y. (2017). Investigation of learning behaviors and achievement of vocational high school students using an ubiquitous physics tablet PC app. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 26(3), 322–331.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roschelle, J., Dimitriadis, Y., & Hoppe, U. (2013). Classroom orchestration: Synthesis. Computers & Education, 69, 523–526.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roschelle, J., & Pea, R. (2002). A walk on the WILD side: How wireless handhelds may change computer-supported collaborative learning. International Journal of Cognition and Technology, 1(1), 145–168.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roschelle, J., Penuel, W. R., & Shechtman, N. (2006). Co-design of innovations with teachers: Definition and dynamics. In Proceedings of the 7th international conference on learning sciences (pp. 606–612).

    Google Scholar 

  • Roschelle, J., Rafanan, K., & Estrella, G. (2010). From handheld collaborative tool to effective classroom module: Embedding CSCL in a broader design framework. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1018–1026.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rubio-Fernández, A., Muñoz-Merino, P. J., & Kloos, C. D. (2019, June). Analyzing the group formation process in intelligent tutoring systems. In International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems (pp. 34-39). Springer, Cham.

  • Serenko, A., & Detlor, B. (2002). Agent toolkits: A general overview of the market and an assessment of instructor satisfaction with utilizing toolkits in the classroom.

  • Sharples, M. (2013). Shared orchestration within and beyond the classroom. Computers and Education, 69, 504–506.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slotta, J. D., & Linn, M. C. (2009). WISE science: Web-based inquiry in the classroom Teachers College press.

  • Slotta, J. D., & Najafi, H. (2013). Supporting collaborative knowledge construction with web 2.0 technologies (In Emerging technologies for the classroom (pp. 93–112)). New York, NY: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slotta, J., & Peters, V. (2008, June). A blended model for knowledge communities: Embedding scaffolded inquiry. In Proceedings of the 8th international conference on International conference for the learning sciences-Volume 2 (pp. 343-350). International society of the learning sciences.

  • Slotta, J. D., Quintana, R. M., & Moher, T. (2018). Collective inquiry in communities of learners. In International handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 308-317). Routledge.

  • Soller, A. (2001). Supporting social interaction in an intelligent collaborative learning system. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education (IJAIED), 12, 40–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stanley, K. O., Bryant, B. D., & Miikkulainen, R. (2005). Real-time neuroevolution in the NERO video game. Evolutionary Computation, IEEE Transactions on, 9(6), 653–668.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, B. B., Prusak, N., Swidan, O., Livny, A., Gal, K., & Segal, A. (2018). Orchestrating the emergence of conceptual learning: A case study in a geometry class. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 13(2), 189–211.

    Google Scholar 

  • Szewkis, E., Nussbaum, M., Rosen, T., Abalos, J., Denardin, F., Caballero, D., Tagle, A., & Alcoholado, C. (2011). Collaboration within large groups in the classroom. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6(4), 561–575.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tchounikine, P. (2013). Clarifying design for orchestration: Orchestration and orchestrable technology, scripting and conducting. Computers & Education, 69, 500–503.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tchounikine, P. (2016). Contribution to a theory of CSCL scripts: Taking into account the appropriation of scripts by learners. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 11(3), 349–369.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tissenbaum, M., Lui, M., & Slotta, J. D. (2012). Co-designing collaborative smart classroom curriculum for secondary school science. Journal of Universal Computer Science., 18(3), 327–352.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tissenbaum & Slotta (2015), Scripting and orchestration of learning across contexts: A role for intelligent agents and data mining. In Milrad, Wong & Specht (eds.) Seamless learning in the age of connectivity. Springer.

  • Tissenbaum, M., & Slotta, J. D. (2019). Developing a smart classroom infrastructure to support real-time student collaboration and inquiry: A 4-year design study. Instructional Science, 1–40.

  • van Aalst, J., & Chan, C. K. (2007). Student-directed assessment of knowledge building using electronic portfolios. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16(2), 175–220.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiser, M., & Brown, J. S. (1996). Designing calm technology. PowerGrid Journal, 1(1), 75–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, T. (2018). Connecting levels of activity with classroom network technology. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 13(1), 93–122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wooldridge, M., & Jennings, N. R. (1995). Intelligent agents: Theory and practice. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 10(02), 115–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yau, S. S., Gupta, S. K., Karim, F., Ahamed, S. I., Wang, Y., & Wang, B. (2003). Smart classroom: Enhancing collaborative learning using pervasive computing technology. In ASEE 2003 Annual Conference and Exposition (pp. 13633–13642).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mike Tissenbaum.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tissenbaum, M., Slotta, J. Supporting classroom orchestration with real-time feedback: A role for teacher dashboards and real-time agents. Intern. J. Comput.-Support. Collab. Learn 14, 325–351 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-019-09306-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-019-09306-1

Keywords

  • Learning
  • Collaboration
  • Orchestration
  • Teacher dashboards