Advertisement

Analysis Methods for Collaborative Models and Activities

  • K. Gaßner
  • M. Jansen
  • A. Harrer
  • K. Herrmann
  • H. U. Hoppe
Chapter
Part of the Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning book series (CULS, volume 2)

Abstract

A classification of analysis methods for CSCL systems is presented which uses as one dimension the distinction into summary analysis and structural analysis and as another distinction different types of raw data: either user actions or state descriptions. The Cool Modes environment for collaborative modeling enables us to explore the whole spectrum of analysis methods. Action logging is based on the MatchMaker communication server underlying Cool Modes. Example instances for several analysis methods have been implemented in the Cool Modes framework.

Keywords

User Action Collaborative Learning Cool Mode Collaborative Model Summary Analysis 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Baker, M. & Lund, K. (1996). Flexibly structuring the interaction in a CSCL environment. In Proc. Of EuroAIED-96 (pp. 401–407). Lisbon: Edicoes Colibri.Google Scholar
  2. Barros, B. & Verdejo, M.F. (1999). An approach to analyse collaboration when shared structured workspaces are used for carrying out group learning processes. In Proc. of AIED-99 (pp. 449–456). Amsterdam: IOS Press.Google Scholar
  3. Constantino-Gonzalez, A., Suthers, D. & Icaza, J. (2001). Designing and evaluating a collaboration coach: knowledge and reasoning. In Proc. of AIED-2001 (pp. 176–187). Amsterdam: IOS Press.Google Scholar
  4. Dourish, P. & Bellotti, V. (1992). Awareness and coordination in shared work spaces. In Proc. of CSCW-92 (pp. 107-114). Toronto, Canada.Google Scholar
  5. Hoppe, H.U. (1995). The use of multiple student modeling to parameterize group learning. In Proc. of AIED-95 (pp. 234–241). Charlottesville (VA): AACE.Google Scholar
  6. Jansen, M., Pinkwart, N. & Tewissen, F. (2001). MatchMaker-Flexible Synchronisation von Java-Applikationen. GI-Workshopwoche “Lernen-Lehren-Wissen-Adaptivität”. Dortmund, Germany.Google Scholar
  7. Joolingen, W.R. van (2000). Designing for collaborative learning. In Proc. of ITS-2000 (pp. 202–211). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  8. Mühlenbrock, M. (2001). Action-based Collaboration Analysis for Group Learning. Berlin: Infix.Google Scholar
  9. Pinkwart, N., Hoppe, H.U., Bollen, L. & Fuhlrott, E. (2002) Group-oriented modelling tools with heterogeneous semantics. In Proc. of ITS-2002 (pp. 21–30). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  10. Zumbach, J., Mühlenbrock, M., Jansen, M., Reimann, P. & Hoppe, H.U. (2002). Multi-dimensional tracking in virtual learning teams. An Exploratory Study. In Proc. of CSCL-2002 (pp. 650–651). Boulder, USA.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • K. Gaßner
    • 1
  • M. Jansen
    • 1
  • A. Harrer
    • 1
  • K. Herrmann
    • 1
  • H. U. Hoppe
    • 1
  1. 1.Collide Research GroupUniversität Duisburg-EssenGermany

Personalised recommendations