ED-MEDIA 1999 Proceedings Book - Association for the ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Tutee’s Reflective Thinking of Tutor’s Response Produces Monitoring Michiko Kayashima Department of Art Tamagawa University, Japan kayasima@lit.tamagawa.ac.jp Toshio Okamoto The Graduate School of Information Systems University of Electro-Communications, Japan okamoto@ai.is.uec.ac.jp Abstract: This study proposes two elements that were encountered during analysis of cross-age tutoring investigations. The first is that both learners’ questions and tutors’ advice is representative of their externalized metacognitive experiences. The second is the manner in which interaction between learners and tutors develops the learner’s monitoring abilities. If learners notice differences in meaning in the responses tutors give to learners’ questioning and perform conscious cognition of the tutor’s externalized metacognitive experiences, the learner’s reflective thinking caused by the tutor’s responses produces the learner's monitoring as affected by the tutor’s criterion. Introduction Recently the view of learning has changed from the “transference of knowledge” to “constructing knowledge through interaction with the external world including others”. Traditionally teachers have been about the task of transferring their knowledge. The important concern for the teacher was the organization of knowledge so those learners could learn effectively. However, the new view of learning considers that learners construct knowledge by their own processes through evaluation and improvement of their own knowledge. Concurrently they are learning how to learn as well. Under the new view of learning, many researchers focus on the role of others in the external world. They have tried to practice collaborative learning. Collaborative learning is defined as learners working on a task together. However it is yet unclear whether collaboration improves learning. There is some research supporting the view that low achievers progressively become passive while collaborating with high achievers (Mulyran 1992). A number of researchers in cognitive science have proposed reasons as to why collaborative learning is more efficient than learning alone. The aim of the early studies of collaborative learning was to determine the conditions under which collaborative learning is efficient. Experiments were conducted to answer the question: “Under what conditions is collaborative learning efficient” rather than “Which interactions occur under which conditions" or "What kind of effects do these interactions cause” They have considered conditions such as the composition of the group, the features of the task, the context of collaboration and so on. However these conditions were very complicated and inter-connected. Thus it was difficult for researchers to identify the relationship between the conditions and the effects. Consequently the study of collaborative learning has shifted in focus to the relationship between the process of collaboration itself and the learning results. Our focus is on the latter. We envisage how and why interaction in the collaborative process progresses participants’ metacognitive experience on the assumption that collaboration develops participants’ metacognitive experience. This term, metacognitive experience, is based on Nelson and Narens metacognitive system model of monitoring and control. Nelson and Narens proposed a metacognitive system model in which they split the cognitive process into two or more specifically interrelated levels. The most simple metacognitive system model consists of two interrelated levels; the meta-level and the object-level. Furthermore, the metacognitive system model has a kind of dominance relationship, which is defined by the direction of the flow of information; monitoring and control. Monitoring occurs when the meta-level is informed by the objectlevel; control occurs when the meta-level modifies the object-level (Nelson & Narens 1994).
In this study, we propose the following two points which were found through analysis of crossage tutoring. First we propose that learners’ questions and the tutors’ responses are representative of their metacognitive experience. Second we propose in the process of cross-age tutoring that tutors cause the learners’ metacognitive experience to progress. Section 2 describes the cross-age tutoring practices and representative dialogs. Section 3 illustrates the relationship between learners' questions and tutors’ suggestions and their metacognitive experience. Section 4 delineates the process of the cross-age tutoring that tutors cause the learners’ metacognitive experience to progress. Cross-age tutoring practice and dialog First, let us make a distinction between collaboration and cooperation. We cite the following definition by Roschelle and Teasley (Roschelle & Teasley, 1994). “Collaboration is a coordinated, synchronous activity that is the result of a continued attempt to construct and maintain a shared conception of a problem. Cooperation is accomplished by the division of labor among participants, as an activity where each person is responsible for a portion of the problem solving.” We designed a cross-age tutoring situation for use on a computer network between the Department of Engineering and the Department of Art at Tamagawa University. The 6 senior students in the Department of Engineering tutored the 34 first year students in the Department of Art. The first year students had no particular level of computer literacy. Two tasks were assigned. The first task was to learn new terms that are encountered in computer science. As examples: 1. RAM: random access memory, 2. ROM, read only memory, and so on. The second task was for the first year students to create Web Pages to explain their interpretation of the terms encountered in computer science. Requesting this explanation of terms allowed the students to engage in furthering constructive knowledge. This "class" term was for six weeks. In the first task, most students did not understand the terms encountered. Additionally most students were unable to explain the terms as assigned in the second task. They required further help from senior students in the Department of Engineering using Bulletin Board Services [BBS]. Senior students tutored them through the BBS. By using the BBS for their communications all students were able to have access to all questions and suggestions. The tutors were not given any specific instructions about how to do their teaching. They were only told to help the first year students. The content of the interactions was recorded on the BBS. Following we will show some examples of natural discourse indicating how knowledge was constructed in cross-age tutoring. Questions that request information All university students asked questions that request information such as “What is a modem” in the first lesson. Question 1: Although we have researched SCSI, we do not understand it. Please explain it to us simply. Question 2: Hi, it is hot today. How are you doing I have researched about floppy disks. However, I have little knowledge. Please help me. Please explain about floppy disks in words that I can understand. Question 3: Let us know about CD-ROMs in simple terms.
Page 1 and 2:
Designing an Interactive Learning E
Page 3 and 4:
develop an educationally meaningful
Page 5 and 6:
2. Functionality of the BSCW System
Page 7 and 8:
3. First empirical findings During
Page 9 and 10:
of the users as participating actor
Page 11 and 12:
2. Other Characteristics of the Pro
Page 13 and 14:
education resources are being produ
Page 15 and 16:
y using a drop-down menu: Informati
Page 17 and 18:
Results Computing ability and expos
Page 19 and 20:
instructional designs while introdu
Page 21 and 22:
Global Educational Multimedia Serve
Page 23 and 24:
Assured Access/Mobile Computing Ini
Page 25 and 26:
The University has set up a secure
Page 27 and 28:
* Changes in educational paradigms
Page 29 and 30:
Using Computer Imagery and Visualis
Page 31 and 32:
Publishing an imej Journal for Comp
Page 33 and 34:
In summary, we offer the following
Page 35 and 36:
Discussion Forums and Peer Review F
Page 37 and 38:
Languages and Statistics: Solutions
Page 39 and 40:
Kelly and Leckbee (1998) indicate,
Page 41 and 42:
A Wide Array of Uses: Inquiry and I
Page 43 and 44:
Effects of Question-Based Learning
Page 45 and 46: The EFFECTS of TRAINGING METHOD on
Page 47 and 48: 3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY A 10-day ex
Page 49 and 50: prototype for futuristic learning e
Page 51 and 52: Designing a Course Web-Site to Supp
Page 53 and 54: International Collaborative Learnin
Page 55 and 56: Facilitation frameworks Bostrom et
Page 57 and 58: From table 2 it can be seen that te
Page 59 and 60: Learning in Safety and Comfort: Tow
Page 61 and 62: Networking The Nation Noel Craske S
Page 63 and 64: Norfolk Stations. Schools of Distan
Page 65 and 66: one-on-one with Teaching Assistants
Page 67 and 68: Java. One of them is already an exp
Page 69 and 70: • Personal study room management
Page 71 and 72: As has already been discussed in th
Page 73 and 74: On-line Support of On-Campus Educat
Page 75 and 76: In-service Teachers Teaching Pre-se
Page 77 and 78: How the Construction & Analysis of
Page 79 and 80: Yet, still we ask ourselves: How do
Page 81 and 82: us, we need to be ever-conscious of
Page 83 and 84: A Reporting Simulation Using Toolbo
Page 85 and 86: environment — it is impossible to
Page 87 and 88: Actually, when a particular author
Page 89 and 90: Any instance of this type is an HC
Page 91 and 92: Figure 5: Saving an Educational App
Page 93 and 94: To address this problem Webfuse dra
Page 95: Cognitive tools can act as structur
Page 99 and 100: more information about it, for exam
Page 101 and 102: Charlottesville, VA., 691-696. Muly
Page 103 and 104: ownership is retained by the instit
Page 105 and 106: priority, it is in the interests of
Page 107 and 108: limitations of the prevailing compl
Page 109 and 110: exchange information with other cla
Page 111 and 112: whether compiled or interpreted. So
Page 113 and 114: A web site system for instructors t
Page 115 and 116: is to monitor the status of learner
Page 117 and 118: the capability grant G13 as Not Set
Page 119 and 120: Slavin R.(1994), Small group method
Page 121 and 122: tutor. Support offered in the form
Page 123 and 124: Apart from utilising the functional
Page 125 and 126: Rogoff, B., & Lave, J. (Ed.). (1984
Page 127 and 128: Java can significantly increase the
Page 129 and 130: The modules are designed for a vari
Page 131 and 132: adapted tests to assess the student
Page 133 and 134: Architecture of HEZINET The system
Page 135 and 136: Berners-Lee, T. & R. Cailliau, (198
Page 137 and 138: The ParlEuNet system will provide a
Page 139 and 140: 3. Students use a dedicated HTML co
Page 141 and 142: The prototype under development is
Page 143 and 144: make an hypermedia educational envi
Page 145 and 146: accreditation or standing in countr
Page 147 and 148:
A government designates a certain a
Page 149 and 150:
will be involved - either in partne
Page 151 and 152:
Streaming 7000 films... Uwe Sander
Page 153 and 154:
and how to innovate will be paramou
Page 155 and 156:
Toward a framework for instruction
Page 157 and 158:
A knowledge integration approach to
Page 159 and 160:
In 1978, the University formalized
Page 161 and 162:
comparisons to conventional instruc
Page 163 and 164:
Multimedia Cases in Teacher Educati
Page 165 and 166:
Merseth, K.K. (1996). Cases and cas
Page 167 and 168:
Using Multimedia to support mentors
Page 169 and 170:
Conclusion The project is still und
Page 171 and 172:
An Investigation into Faculty Attit
Page 173 and 174:
Web-Based Testing in Distance Educa
Page 175 and 176:
Selecting Internet Technologies to
Page 177 and 178:
Designing and Implementing Web-Base
show all

ED-MEDIA 1999 Proceedings Book - Association for the ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?