Educational Technology International

The Korean Society for Education Technology (한국교육공학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

What is Monitored and by Whom in Online Collaborative Learning?: Analysis of Monitoring Tools in Learner Dashboard

  • Received : 2019.09.10
  • Accepted : 2019.10.15
  • Published : 2019.10.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to draw implications for designing online tools to support monitoring in collaborative learning. For this purpose, eighteen research papers that explored learner dashboards and group awareness tools were analyzed. The driving questions for this analysis related to the information and outcomes that must be monitored, whose performance they represent, and who monitors the extent of learning. The analytical frameworks used for this study included the following: three modes of co-regulation in terms of who regulates whose learning (self-regulation in collaborative learning, other regulation, and socially shared regulation) and four categories of dashboard information to determine which information is monitored (information about preparation, participation, interaction, and achievements). As a result, five design implications for learner dashboards that support monitoring were posited: a) Monitoring tools for collaborative learning should support multiple targets: the individual learner, peers, and the entire group; b) When supporting personal monitoring, information about the individual and peers should be displayed simultaneously to allow direct comparison; c) Information on collaborative learning achievements should be provided in terms of the content of knowledge acquired rather than test scores; d) In addition to information related to interaction between learners, the interaction between learners and learning materials can also be provided; and e) Presentation of the same information to individuals or groups should be variable.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

This work was supported by the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea and the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2017R1A2B4002606).

References

  1. Arnold, K. E., & Pistilli, M. D. (2012). Course signals at Purdue: Using learning analytics to increase student success. In Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on learning analytics and knowledge(Vancouver, Canada).
  2. Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Borokhovski, E., Wade, C. A., Tamim, R. M., Surkes, M. A., & Bethel, E. C. (2009). A meta-analysis of three types of interaction treatments in distance education. Review of Educational Research, 79(3), 1243-1289.
  3. Bodemer, D. (2011). Tacit guidance for collaborative multimedia learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(3), 1079-1086.
  4. Bodemer, D., & Dehler, J. (2011). Group awareness in CSCL environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(3), 1043-1045.
  5. Bodemer, D., Janssen, J., & Schnaubert, L. (2018). Group awareness tools for computer-supported collaborative learning. In F. Fischer, C. E. Hmelo-Silver, S. R. Goldman, & P. Reimann (Eds.), International handbook of the Learning Sciences(pp. 351-358). New York: Routledge.
  6. Bodily, R., & Verbert, K. (2017). Review of research on student-facing learning analytics dashboards and educational recommender systems. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 10(4), 405-418.
  7. Buder, J. (2011). Group awareness tools for learning: Current and future directions. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(3), 1114-1117.
  8. Buder, J., & Bodemer, D. (2008). Supporting controversial CSCL discussions with augmented group awareness tools. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3(2), 123-139.
  9. Buder, J., Schwind, C., Rudat, A., & Bodemer, D. (2015). Selective reading of large online forum discussions: The impact of rating visualizations on navigation and learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 44, 191-201.
  10. Carroll, J. M., Neale, D. C., Isenhour, P. L., Rosson, M. B., & McCrickard, D. S. (2003). Notification and awareness: synchronizing task-oriented collaborative activity. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 58(5), 605-632.
  11. Dado, M., & Bodemer, D. (2017). A review of methodological applications of social network analysis in computer-supported collaborative learning. Educational Research Review, 22, 159-180.
  12. DiDonato, N. C. (2013). Effective self-and co-regulation in collaborative learning groups: An analysis of how students regulate problem-solving of authentic interdisciplinary tasks. Instructional Science, 41(1), 25-47.
  13. 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.
  14. Engelmann, T., Baumeister, A., Dingel, A., & Hesse, F. W. (2010). The added value of communication in a CSCL-scenario compared to just having access to the partners' knowledge and information. In Proceedings of the 4th international conference on concept mapping (Pamplona, Spain).
  15. Enyedy, N., & Stevens, R. (2016). Analyzing collaboration. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.). The Cambridge handbook of the Learning Sciences (2nd ed.), (pp. 191-212). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
  16. Erkens, M., & Bodemer, D. (2019). Improving collaborative learning: Guiding knowledge exchange through the provision of information about learning partners and learning contents. Computers & Education, 128, 452-472.
  17. Erkens, M., Bodemer, D., & Hoppe, H. U. (2016). Improving collaborative learning in the classroom: Text mining based grouping and representing. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 11(4), 387-415.
  18. Ezzy, D. (2013). Qualitative analysis-Practice and innovation. London: UK. Routledge.
  19. Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7(2), 117-140.
  20. Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906.
  21. Gravill, J., & Compeau, D. (2008). Self-regulated learning strategies and software training. Information & Management, 45(5), 288-296.
  22. Hadwin, A., Jarvela, S., & Miller, M. (2018). Self-regulation, co-regulation, and shared regulation in collaborative learning environments. In D. H. Schunk., & J. A. Greene. (Eds.), Handbook of Self-regulation of learning and performance (2nd ed.), (pp. 83-106). New York, NY: Routledge.
  23. Hundhausen, C. D., Olivares, D. M., & Carter, A. S. (2017). IDE-based learning analytics for computing education: a process model, critical review, and research agenda. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 17(3), 11.
  24. Iandoli, L., Quinto, I., De Liddo, A., & Shum, S. B. (2014). Socially augmented argumentation tools: Rationale, design, and evaluation of a debate dashboard. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 72(3), 298-319.
  25. Janssen, J., Erkens, G., & Kirschner, P. A. (2011). Group awareness tools: It's what you do with it that matters. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(3), 1046-1058.
  26. Janssen, J., & Bodemer, D. (2013). Coordinated computer-supported collaborative learning: Awareness and awareness tools. Educational Psychologist, 48(1), 40-55.
  27. Jin, S. H. (2019). The effects of dashboard types and learner characteristics on educational effectiveness in an asynchronous online discussion. Korean Journal of Educational Technology, 35(2), 339-364.
  28. Jivet, I., Scheffel, M., Drachsler, H., & Specht, M. (2017). Awareness is not enough: pitfalls of learning analytics dashboards in the educational practice. In Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning: Data driven approaches in digital education. (Tallinn, Estonia).
  29. Kimmerle, J., & Cress, U. (2008). Group awareness and self-presentation in computer-supported information exchange. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3(1), 85-97.
  30. Kim, S-y., & Cho, K-l. (2018). The effects of social network centrality in collaborative interaction groups on group synergy and academic achievement. Korean Journal of Educational Technology, 34(3), 383-406.
  31. Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., Kirschner, F., & Zambrano, J. (2018). From cognitive load theory to collaborative cognitive load theory. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 13(2), 213-233.
  32. Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P. A., & Jochems, W. (2002). The sociability of computersupported collaborative learning environments. Educational Technology & Society, 5(1), 8-22.
  33. Kuhn, D. (2015). Thinking together and alone. Educational Researcher, 44(1), 46-53.
  34. Kwon, K., Hong, R. Y., & Laffey, J. M. (2013). The educational impact of metacognitive group coordination in computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(4), 1271-1281.
  35. Lim, K., Eun, J., Jung, Y., & Park, H. (2018a). An exploratory study on the information design of the online dashboard for learner-centered learning. Journal of the Korean Association of Computer Education, 21(3), 35-50.
  36. Lim, K. Y., Lim, J. Y., & Lee, J. H. (2018b). The development of an other-regulation scale for college students. The Journal of Educational Studies, 49(2), 1-26.
  37. Lim, K. Y., Lim, J. Y., & Kim, H. J. (2017). An exploratory study of self-regulation in a collaborative context scale for college students. Korean Journal of Educational Technology, 33(3), 567-598.
  38. Lin, J. W., Lai, Y. C., Lai, Y. C., & Chang, L. C. (2016). Fostering self-regulated learning in a blended environment using group awareness and peer assistance as external scaffolds. Journal of Computer-Assisted Learning, 32(1), 77-93.
  39. Malmberg, J., Jarvela, S., & Jarvenoja, H. (2017). Capturing temporal and sequential patterns of self-, co-, and socially shared regulation in the context of collaborative learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 49, 160-174.
  40. McCaslin, M., & Hickey, D. T. (2001). Educational psychology, social constructivism, and educational practice: A case of emergent identity. Educational Psychologist, 36(2), 133-140.
  41. McGrath, J. E., Arrow, H., & Berdahl, J. L. (2000). The study of small groups, past, present, and future. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4, 95-105.
  42. McKenna, K. Y. A., & Bargh, J. A. (2000). Plan 9 from cyberspace: The implications of the Internet for personality and social psychology. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4, 57-75.
  43. Miller, M., & Hadwin, A. (2015). Scripting and awareness tools for regulating collaborative learning: Changing the landscape of support in CSCL. Computers in Human Behavior, 52, 573-588.
  44. Pifarre, M., Cobos, R., & Argelagos, E. (2014). Incidence of group awareness information on students' collaborative learning processes. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 30(4), 300-317.
  45. Puhl, T., Tsovaltzi, D., & Weinberger, A. (2015). Blending Facebook discussions into seminars for practicing argumentation. Computers in Human Behavior, 53, 605-616.
  46. Rogat, T. K., & Adams-Wiggins, K. R. (2014). Other-regulation in collaborative groups: Implications for regulation quality. Instructional Science, 42(6), 879-904.
  47. Schreiber, M., & Engelmann, T. (2010). Knowledge and information awareness for initiating transactive memory system processes of computer-supported collaborating ad hoc groups. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6), 1701-1709.
  48. Schwendimann, B. A., Rodriguez-Triana, M. J., Vozniuk, A., Prieto, L. P., Boroujeni, M. S., Holzer, A., Gillet, D., & Dillenbourg, P. (2016). Perceiving learning at a glance: A systematic literature review of learning dashboard research. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 10(1), 30-41.
  49. Sedrakyan, G., Malmberg, J., Verbert, K., Jarvela, S., & Kirschner, P. A. (in press). Linking learning behavior analytics and learning science concepts: designing a learning analytics dashboard for feedback to support learning regulation. Computers in Human Behavior.
  50. Smith, R. H. (2000). Assimilative and contrastive emotional reactions to upward and downward social comparisons. In J. Suls & L. Wheeler (Eds.), Handbook of social comparison: Theory and research (pp.173-200). New York: Plenum.
  51. Stahl, G. (2000). A model of collaborative knowledge-building. In Fourth international conference of the Learning Sciences (Vol. 10, pp. 70-77). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  52. Sung, E., Jin, S. H., & Yoo, M. (2016). Exploring learning data for supporting self-directed learning in the perspective of learning analytics. Journal of Educational Technology, 32(3), 487-533.
  53. Suthers, D. D. (2006). Technology affordances for intersubjective meaning making: A research agenda for CSCL. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1, 315-337.
  54. Tan, J. P. L., Koh, E., Jonathan, C., & Yang, S. (2017). Learner dashboards a double-edged sword? Students' sense-making of a collaborative critical reading and learning analytics environment for fostering 21st-century literacies. Journal of Learning Analytics, 4(1), 117-140.
  55. Winne, P. H. (2001). Self-regulated learning viewed from models of information processing. In B. J. Zimmerman., & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives, (2nd ed.), (pp. 153-189). Mahwah, New Jersey: Routledge.
  56. Winne, P. H., Hadwin, A. F., & Perry, N. E. (2013). Metacognition and computer-supported collaborative learning. In C. E. Hmelo-Silver., C. A. Chinn., C. K. K. Chan., & A. O'Donnell (Eds.), The international handbook of collaborative learning (pp. 462-479). New York, NY: Routledge.
  57. Zimmerman, B. J. (1990). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview. Educational Psychologist, 25(1), 3-17.
  58. Zufferey, J. D., Bodemer, D., Buder, J., & Hesse, F. W. (2010). Partner knowledge awareness in knowledge communication: Learning by adapting to the partner. The Journal of Experimental Education, 79(1), 102-125.