Using annotation services in a ubiquitous Jigsaw cooperative learning environment

1. Using annotation services in a ubiquitous Jigsaw cooperative learning environment Presenter : Su, Wun-Huei Authors : Yueh-Min Huang and Tien-Chi Huang , Meng-Yeh Hsieh 國立雲林科技大學National Yunlin University of Science and Technology ETS (2008)

2. Outline • Motivation • Objective • Methodology • Experiments • Conclusion • Personal Comments

3. Motivation • Most of studies focus on providing the learning opportunities at the right place rather than providing right resources. • The appropriate learning materials should render to different learners according to their different learning abilities. • Another issue related to wireless learning is the use of annotation systems in educational settings.

4. Objective • The process of material design needs experts to highly involve in. • In this paper, we present how to carry out the discussion process among topic experts in a ubiquitous learning environment. • We investigate how to embed mobile annotation services in learners’ cooperative learning.

5. Methodology • Jigsaw learning activities are performed in a traditional classroom with four essential steps:

6. Methodology(Cont.) • Topic assignment • The course instructor assigned topics to each Jigsaw group, and all topics were designated by the instructor beforehand. • each learner studied a different topic with his or her group members • Individual study • Since the course materials are stored in our LMS(Learning Management System), learners in our study could download the assigned materials to their own handheld devices. • In order to ensure that learners could effectively obtain expert knowledge from the studying process, the SQ3R (Survey, Question, Read, Recite and Review) study method was used.

7. Methodology(Cont.) • Expert group meeting • Each expert needed to upload the annotation files that are the form of XML format and then the other experts in the same topic downloaded these files so that the annotation review and discussion process could begin. • The purpose of this phase was to validate and extend the knowledge gleaned through individual study via discussions with the other experts

8. Methodology(Cont.)

9. Methodology(Cont.) • Annotation review and discussion module • annotation clarification • error correction • annotation classification • Brief • Medium • Abounding • The questionnaire used was a composite, using both survey type and quiz type questions.

10. Methodology(Cont.) • The responses of the survey type questionnaire were classified into one of three groups: does not understand, understands to some extent (medium), and understands fully.

11. Methodology(Cont.) • The other type of questionnaire is an exam which contains several questions related to the given topic.

12. Methodology(Cont.) • Jigsaw group meeting • each expert was required to upload the annotation files into the classified annotation repository and then inform the members of the original Jigsaw of the location of annotated course materials, indicated by an URL. • Therefore, group members could see the annotated course materials and then access the knowledge embedded in attached annotations. • Before a learner could read an annotated material, he needed to reply to questions in the questionnaire designed by his expert peers. • a beginner, expert, or middle learner.

13. Experiments

14. Experiments (Cont.)

15. EXPERIMENTS (CONT.)

16. Conclusion • devised cooperative learning process certainly did help learners. However, based on learners’ responses, deficiencies in software design need to be addressed. • The findings also showed that 3G wireless network and synchronous communication tools were the most appropriate network.

17. Comments • Advantage • … • Drawback • … • Application • u-learning, learning materials creation, summary share