Collaborative Learning in CS/ IT Subjects By Dr SC Li

 Programming languages are not flexible enough to facilitate student ’ s cognitive process  Lack of social context of learning computer programming  too much emphasis on individualized learning  “ one person one PC ”  physical constraints  Lack of multiple perspectives and authenticity in problem solving Learning Difficulties Revisit

Strategies to tackle the difficulties Individualized Learning (one person to one computer) Collaborative Learning Authentic Problem Solving Unrealistic/ decontextualized Problem Solving Process-driven Assessment Product-driven Assessment

 Rationale:  cognitive restructuring may occur when students give and receive help from each other  In formulating explanations to give to another student, students may reorganize or clarify the material in ways they have not previously thought of (Bargh & Schul 1980), and help them reshape their ideas, rectify misunderstandings. Collaborative Learning

 Rationale:  group settings provide a diversity of skills and knowledge.  This diversity may  help them how to solve complex problems that they would not be able to complete on their own  give rise to conceptual conflict and conflict resolution Collaborative Learning

 Rationale:  peer interaction provide opportunities for scaffolding, modelling and imitation.  Viewing a peer successfully perform a task may raise children ’ s self-efficacy form performing well more than observing the teacher (Schunk 1987)  This may lower their level of anxiety and increase their willingness to ask for help Collaborative Learning

individualized collaborative Pretest/Posttest gain score No. of students (Joyce et al. 1989)

Collaborative Learning Student who learned alone Student who received explanations Student who gave explanations (Farivar & Webb 1994)

Student Interaction in group Student Interaction in group  Six types of interaction (kappa, E. 1999):  Together and apart Together and apart  One of the pair is working, the other is ‘ dreaming ’ One of the pair is working, the other is ‘ dreaming ’  One of the pair is working, the other is mostly observing One of the pair is working, the other is mostly observing  Distributed work or parallel work on separate parts of the task Distributed work or parallel work on separate parts of the task  One of the pair is dominant One of the pair is dominant  Both of them work together Both of them work together

Together and Apart Together and Apart  The students sit together but they are not really collaborating. Each one of them solves the problem in his or her own way and does not consult with the other.

Working and Dreaming Working and Dreaming  The task actually is being done by one of the pair while the other is mostly occupied in things that are irrelevant to the educational task.

Working and Observing Working and Observing  Both of them are working together but there is a gap between them in the level of contribution to the solution of the problem: one is active and the second is passive most of the time and follows the partner.

Distributed or Parallel Work Distributed or Parallel Work  Both are dominant and want to contribute their part to the problem solution. They are aware of each other ’ s will, and therefore they decide to divide the work between them. Sometimes distributed work is done for other motives, for instance, the need to complete the task in limited time.

One of the pair is dominant One of the pair is dominant  One of the pair is dominant cognitively and the other finds himself doing mostly routine work because of a wish to participate in the task actively.

Work Together Work Together  The Both of them are busy in the task while searching/receiving information each from the partner. If there are contradictions, they are solved by cognitive negotiation between them.

Cooperation Chapter 1 Chapter 2 Chapter 3 Chapter 4 Chapter 5 Collaboration Book Intentions: personal Expectations: of others of self shared Cooperation vs. Collaboration

core knowledge zone of proximal development gives ability to perform autonomous actions action requires help from colleagues or tutors Learning processes Cooperation vs. Collaboration

an enlarged core learning has taken place but there is always a new zone of proximal development Cooperation vs. Collaboration

Group learning Overlapping core knowledge of a group Overlapping zones of a group Cooperation vs. Collaboration

Cooperation: Cooperation: depends upon a supportive community of actors who agree to help one another in activities aimed at attaining the goals of each person involved. Collaboration Collaboration: on the other hand, depends upon the establishment of a common meaning and language on a task which leads to the community setting a common goal. Cooperation vs. Collaboration

 Conditions for collaborative learning  team building  conflict management  communication/ explanation skills  group size and composition  equalization of status  gender difference  reward structure  planning ability  metacognition and problem solving ability Collaborative Learning

 What are the opportunities of integrating Internet technologies into Pascal programming? Is it possible to design meaningful tasks or problems for students regarding CGI programming with Pascal? Discuss.  Transform the about exercises into meaningful problem-solving activities.  Reference:  Irie Pascal Irie Pascal  Free pascal Free pascal Authentic Activities