Resources

View || Understanding the meaning of Collaborative and Self-Directed learning for students. || 22 Mar 2010 21:01 || meng joo chua || View || Dillenbourg discusses diverse meanings underlying "Collaboration" and "Learning" and needs for such multiple perspectives. ||  || Hyo-Jeong So ||
 * ~ **Generic Resources** ||~  ||~   ||~   ||
 * **Title** || **Description** || **Date** || **Contributor** ||
 * Collaborative and Self Directed Learning for Students
 * Dillenbourg - What do we mean by collaborative learning?
 * Self-Organizing Systems and Knowledge-Creating Organizations || I suggest we broaden the scope of concepts to be explored, to include self-organizing systems, not just SDL, and knowledge-creating organizations, not just CoL and collaboration scripts (or what Ann Brown termed the “activity structures”). Ann and I discussed these matters at length, especially differences between CoL’s and KBC’s (knowledge building communities) and why teachers working in one context resisted shifting to the other. Carl Bereiter and I wrote an article about this, in a book written in Ann Brown’s honour.

Reference: Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2007). “Fostering communities of learners” and “knowledge building”: An interrupted dialogue. In J. C. Campione, K. E. Metz, & A. S. Palincsar (Eds.), Children's learning in the laboratory and in the classroom: Essays in honor of Ann Brown (pp. 197-212). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. ||  || Marlene Scardamalia || View || Understanding the meaning of Collaborative and Self-Directed learning for students. || 22 Mar 2010 21:01 || meng joo chua || View || Describes MOE's (Singapore) perspective of what scraffolding and conditions teachers need to provide and create for students' collaborative and self-directed learning. || 22 Mar 2010 21:09 || meng joo chua || View || Describe the mp3 vision and goals of Ministry of Education. || 22 Mar 2010 20:59 || meng joo chua || View || Ushahidi represents a new frontier of innovation and suggests a new paradigm in humanitarian work. || 23 Mar 2010 08:45 || Elliot Soloway || View || Dillenbourg argues that while verbal interaction in small groups (Plane 2) and cultural process of collaborative learning (Plane 4)have been studied extensively, less attention has been paid to the class level orchestration (Plane 3) and non-verbal interaction (Plane 1). ||  || Hyo-Jeong So || View || Perhaps our discussions are going back to the very fundamental question by what we mean by learning and this article help us look toward reconceptualizing the meaning of learning in this digital age. In fact, we live in a paradoxical period, as expressed by the authors:
 * ~ **Research Question One** ||~  ||~   ||~   ||
 * **Title** || **Description** || **Date** || **Contributor** ||
 * Collaborative and Self Directed Learning for Students
 * Conditions for Teachers to Create Collaborative and Self-Directed Learning for Students
 * Singapore MOE Third ICT Masterplan
 * Ushahidi - Wiki Technology in Action enabling Collaboration for Humanitarian Efforts
 * CSCL2009: Keynote speakers "Exploring neglected planes: social signals and class orchestration"
 * Learning: Peering Backward and Looking Forward in the Digital Era

"Going forward, learning may be far more individualized, far more in the hands (and the minds) of the learner, and far more interactive than ever before. This constitutes a paradox. As the digital era progresses, learning may be at once more individual (contoured to a person's own style, proclivities, and interests) yet more social (involving networking, group work, the wisdom of crowds, etc). How these seemingly contradictory directions are addressed impacts the future complexion of learning" (p.2) ||  || Hyo-Jeong So || 2. ESRC (Economic and Social Research Council) and TLRP (Teaching and Learning Research Program), (2006), Teaching and Learning in Schools, accessed April 29, 2008. [] 3. Miguel Nussbaum, Florencia Gomez, Javiera Mena, Patricia Imbarack, Alex Torres, Marcos Singer, María Elena Mora, (2010), Technology-Supported Face-to-Face Small Group Collaborative Formative Assessment and its Integration in the Classroom, Educational Psychology, chapter in Perspectives on Learning, Teaching and Human Development, Springer, New York, pp 295-233. ||  || Miguel Nussbaum ||
 * Conditions? || 1. Cortez C., Nussbaum M., Rodríguez P., López X, y Rosas R., Teachers’ support with ad-hoc collaborative networks, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 21, 2005, pp. 171–180
 * Collaboration Scripts are a pivotal means to scaffold collaborative learning. || Pierre Dillenbourg saw the problem of overscripting in CSCL (telearn.noe-kaleidoscope.org/.../Dillenbourg-Pierre-2002.pdf) || || Cress, Ulrike ||
 * Collaborative Productivity as Self-Sustaining Processes in a Grade 4 Knowledge Building Community || Collaborative Productivity as Self-Sustaining Processes in a Grade 4 Knowledge Building Community

Jianwei Zhang, State University of New York at Albany, USA. jzhang1@albany.edu Richard Messina, Institute of Child Study Laboratory School, Toronto, Canada. rmessina@oise.utoronto.ca

Abstract: This study elaborates collaborative productivity as self-sustaining processes along with the role of the teacher in a knowledge building community. The participants were 22 fourth-graders, who investigated light over a three-month period facilitated by a veteran teacher with the support of Knowledge Forum. Content analysis of the students’ portfolios indicates significant advancement of understanding. Qualitative analysis of classroom videos, online discourse, and the teacher’s reflection journal identifies community interactions and teacher scaffolding related to four interrelated processes. These include: (a) accumulating a highly variable stock of information and ideas and mobilizing information connection; (b) sustained, incremental idea development; (c) critical examination and selection of ideas; and (d) distributed emergent control. These processes elaborate self-organization mechanisms underpinning collaborative productivity, informing new ways to scaffold knowledge building. || || Zhang Jian Wei || 1. Tasks are open. 2. All information is shared. 3. The group seeks to reach agreement. 4. The group takes responsibility for decisions. 5. Reasons are expected. 6. The group task requires contributions from all members of the group. 7. Alternatives are discussed before a decision is taken. 8. All in the group are encouraged to speak to other group members. 9. The teacher’s role is to act as a facilitator and guide during the cooperative learning activities. 10. The group makes decisions in a democratic way, and they are expected to be accountable. REFERENCES Gillies, R. M. (2006). Teachers’ and students’ verbal behaviors during cooperative and small-group learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 271–287. Nussbaum, M, Alvarez C, McFarlane A, Gomez F, Claro S, Radovic D., Technology as small group face-to-face Collaborative Scaffolding, Computers and Education, Volume 52, Issue 1, January 2009,, pp 147-153 Wegerif, R., Mercer, N., & Dawes, L. (1999). From social interaction to individual reasoning: An empirical investigation of a possible socio-cultural model of cognitive development. Learning and Instruction, 9, 493–516. || || Miguel Nussbaum || Barron, B. (2006). Interest and self-sustained learning as catalysts of development: a learning ecology perspective. Human Development, 49, 192-224. || || Reimann, Peter || REFERENCE Guzman, M.A. and Nussbaum M., Teaching Competencies for Technology Integration in the Classroom, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning (2009), 25, pp 453–469. || || Miguel Nussbaum ||
 * Collaboration Scripts are a pivotal means to scaffold collaborative learning. || In (Nusbaum et al 2009) we showed that Collaborative Scaffolding should follow the ground rules for exploratory talk in groups described by Wegerif, Mercer, and Dawes (1999) and Gillies (2006):
 * Self-directed or Self-managed? || To develop a personal relation to culturally valued knowledge requires more than managing one's learning. I find for instance Jere Brophy's work here relevant, e.g. Brophy, J. (2008). Developing students' appreciation of what is taught in schools. Educational Psychologist, 43(3), 132-141. And there is also the wider discourse on learning and identity in today's information ecology, e.g. the reader by Buckingham, D. (Ed.). (2008). Youth, Identity, and Digital Media. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. fully online at []
 * Motivational resource for SDL - hedonistic and eudeamonic || A psychologist named Waterman has done some interesting work into the differences between hedonism and eudaimonism (both Greek, the later referring to discovering one's true self (daimon))and their relation to effort investment in learning situations, see e.g. Waterman, A. S. (2005). When effort is enjoyed: Two studies of intrinsic motivation for personally salient activities. Motivation and Emotion, 29(3), 165-188. || || Reimann, Peter ||
 * Self-directed or Self-managed? || A good learning environment make external goals to internal goals. A theoretical model which can be used to describe this process is the Hierarchical motivation model by Vallerand (1995; 1997). || || Cress, Ulrike ||
 * ~ **Research Question 2** ||~  ||~   ||~   ||
 * **Title** || **Description** || **Date** || **Contributor** ||
 * Let teachers do CoL (or SDL) first(?) || In (Guzman et al 2009) we established a number of domains that configure in-service teacher training processes in the area of technology integration. We observe that the logic that guides teacher training in technology integration is principally toward the methodological implementation of technology while tending to neglect the social and interactive aspects of in-service teacher training.
 * Let teachers do CoL (or SDL) first(?) || In (Guzman et al 2009) we established a number of domains that configure in-service teacher training processes in the area of technology integration. We observe that the logic that guides teacher training in technology integration is principally toward the methodological implementation of technology while tending to neglect the social and interactive aspects of in-service teacher training.
 * Let teachers do CoL (or SDL) first(?) || There's also good evidence that teacher-study-groups work, as for instance documented in Gersten, R., Dimino, J., Jayanthi, M., Kim, J. S., & Santoro, L. E. (2010). Teacher study group: Impact of the professional development model on reading instruction and student outcomes in first grade classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, On line first, published 19 April 2010. || || Reimann, Peter ||
 * How do create is one challenge - how to follow students' learning is another || For collaborative learning, see for instance the work on LAMS ([]) and the wider research on eductional design and design languages (for collaborative learning) as e.g. done in Kaleidoscope. But as important is the challenge of following students through the design once it is enacted. || || Reimann, Peter ||
 * ~ **Research Question 3** ||~  ||~   ||~   ||
 * **Title** || **Description** || **Date** || **Contributor** ||
 * Some Challenges to embracing CoL & SDL || David Shaffer's work on Epistemic Network Analysis. (Shaffer, D. W., Hatfield, D., Svarovsky, G. N., Nash, P., Nutly, A., Bagley, E., et al. (2009). Epistemic Network Analysis: A prototype of 21st-Century assessment of learning. International Journal of Learning and Media, 1, 33-53.) His approach is still in a research stage, and at this stage primarily a research method, but it could very well be extended into something that is more IT supported, and becomes a practical method for formative if not summative assessment. || || Reimann, Peter ||
 * Some Challenges to embracing CoL & SDL || And for group learning, you could see the same happening with team-enabled planning tools. For instance, we use in our graduate teaching a tool called TRAC (www.edgewall.com) that combines a wiki with a light-weight approach to planning ('milestones') and task management ('tickets'). That works quite well once students got the hang of it.
 * Some Challenges to embracing CoL & SDL || And for group learning, you could see the same happening with team-enabled planning tools. For instance, we use in our graduate teaching a tool called TRAC (www.edgewall.com) that combines a wiki with a light-weight approach to planning ('milestones') and task management ('tickets'). That works quite well once students got the hang of it.

As for norm development in learning groups, Rob Kildare U.Tass has just completed his PhD (still under examination), describing and researching an approch we developed to let learning teams formulate their own norms (regarding ways of interacting and working together, but this could be extended to 'achievement' goals as well) and he as developed a computational solution not only to supporting the formulation, but also the monitoring of group norms (allowing for dynamic changes as well). A short paper on this is: Kildare, R., Williams, R. N., Hartnett, J., & Reimann, P. (2007). Interaction rules: their place in collaboration software. In C. Chinn, G. Erkens & S. Puntambekar (Eds.), Minds, mind, and society. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Computer-supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL 2007) (pp. 361-364). New Brunswick, NJ.: International Society of the Learning Sciences. || || Reimann, Peter ||
 * Some Challenges to embracing CoL & SDL || To analyze the challenges we need to understand how a small group collaborative learning experience was perceived by the school actors in a one year experience(Nussbaum et al 2010).

Reference: Miguel Nussbaum, Florencia Gomez, Javiera Mena, Patricia Imbarack, Alex Torres, Marcos Singer, María Elena Mora, (2010), Technology-Supported Face-to-Face Small Group Collaborative Formative Assessment and its Integration in the Classroom, Educational Psychology, chapter in Perspectives on Learning, Teaching and Human Development, Springer, New York, pp 295-233 || || Miguel Nussbaum ||