Kaleidoscope Computer Supported Collaborative Learning Special Interest Group By Mary Ulicsak, Learning Development Manager, Futurelab
The Kaleidoscope network incorporates over 800 researchers in 76 research units from 23 countries around Europe. Its goal is to develop new concepts and methods for exploring the future of learning with digital technologies. As part of this I attended the first meeting of the special interest group in computer supported collaborative learning (CSCL) in September. This special interest group is one of the largest in the Kaleidoscope network and over one hundred researchers attended the three-day meeting.
Rather than describing all the papers presented, this article focuses on two themes that emerged from the sessions I attended, specifically, whether motivation is a state or a trait, and whether technology oversimplifies tasks.
Motivation: trait or state?
The idea that working in groups with technology is motivating is virtually a given within the research and education community. Professor Sanna Järvelä (from University of Oulu, Finland), however, argued that there is little research so far to prove this assumption, and that the research that does exist has been focused on traditional pedagogic contexts or in laboratories, and so is difficult to extend to other settings. Possible reasons for this lack of extensive research include the difficulty in investigating motivation - you cannot just ask questions and expect to identify all the intrinsic and extrinsic motivating factors. In a research study which is just beginning, Prof Järvelä is looking at a variety of methods for examining motivation, including: self reports, stimulated recall, online interviews, videos, observations in intensive and longitudinal case studies. One key method being developed is a dynamic questionnaire and a method for tracking socially challenging situations. Professor Järvelä argues this needs to be done in the classroom and in real time. The conclusions about motivation in CSCL so far are limited but include the following:
collaboration makes a task-oriented activity more task
collaboration makes students more interested in others and their work
technology can facilitate social interaction and the division of labour
self-regulation skills are crucial and contribute to involvement
continuous teacher guidance and tutoring is vital, especially at the beginning.
Technology - oversimplifying?
Motivation also arose in another session - in particular whether or not it can occur without the technology. Does technology oversimplify the task? The topic under discussion was mobile learning. In particular the conversation was focused on the role of technology in the Savannah project (see our Showcase section for more information about this project). Would the students learn about lions if they were sent into the field and given rules without the PDA? The conclusion was probably not. As Victor Kaptelinen pointed out, the technology mediated rather than simplified the interaction between the students. The map in the den, which gave the students the opportunity to see where they had been and what they had discovered, was worthwhile because it linked the field activities to reflection. Although as Liam Bannon pointed out it was the affordances - both physical and technological - that led to the success of the project.
Another interesting discussion from this session was the question: in mobile learning does the technology have to be mobile? After all, it is the people that use the device that are mobile. This led to a discussion of the method used within the Mobilearn project of using scenarios to provide a structure for focusing development. The two goals were to create a pedagogically sound architecture for a mobile learning environment, and an instantiation of that environment. Josie Taylor and her partners from the Open University divided an activity into two domains: semiotic (the human-centred aspect) and technology (the non-human aspect). Using the Activity Theory model they mapped these two domains directly, so you could look at a task in terms of rules for the participants or rules for the technology etc, as shown in the diagram below with the two triangles representing the two domains and expanded upon in the table.
Rules
Community
Division of labour
Technology
Usability of device
Network
What technology enables, eg texting, uploading
Semiotic
Constraints and protocol
Community of practitioners
Conversation
The argument is that this will allow a system to be evaluated as well as designed.
In summary, the symposium brought together a varied group of researchers, interested in why groups participate through to more technical aspects of designing such systems. However, it was interesting to note that all the participants seemed more interested in designing systems for learning and not teaching. It also led to me reflecting upon how this knowledge translates into everyday experiences for teachers and students. Are these skills of identifying activities that would benefit from collaboration and support already acted upon? And if not, how can academics assist teachers and students in recognising opportunities to create and structure such tasks?
