Download
slide1 n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
By Roy Clariana personal.psu/rbc4 University of Oulu, Finland EDTECH Team seminar PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
By Roy Clariana personal.psu/rbc4 University of Oulu, Finland EDTECH Team seminar

By Roy Clariana personal.psu/rbc4 University of Oulu, Finland EDTECH Team seminar

100 Vues Download Presentation
Télécharger la présentation

By Roy Clariana personal.psu/rbc4 University of Oulu, Finland EDTECH Team seminar

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Workshop: Utilizing concept maps and other approaches for acquiring, eliciting, representing, and comparing structural knowledge By Roy Clariana http://www.personal.psu.edu/rbc4 University of Oulu, Finland EDTECH Team seminar 14 and 15 of March, 2005 (9am till 1pm) Monday March 14th

  2. A few orienting thoughts "First we build the tools, then they build us" -- Marshall McLuhan "The best technologies are those that become invisible." --Mark Weiser, Xerox PARC, Early Champion of Ubiquitous Computing "If you can talk brilliantly enough about a problem, it can create the consoling illusion that it has been mastered." -- Stanley Kubrick "Science is not about control. It is about cultivating a perpetual condition of wonder in the face of something that forever grows one step richer and subtler than our latest theory about it. It is about reverence, not mastery." --Richard Powers "We have a continual challenge to use accelerating technological developments to our best advantage. We have an even higher challenge to discover ways to reemploy the brainpower and manpower that our modern systems continually displace, to use technology to gain a deeper understanding of each other's needs, of ourselves, and of what it means to be a human being." -- John Smart "…everything we know is only some kind of approximation, because we know that we do not know all the laws yet. Therefore, things must be learned only to be unlearned again or, more likely, to be corrected." -- Richard Feynman "What they don't fathom is the burning, this obsessive need for understanding. Why would anyone want to spend their life in the clutter and stink of a laboratory? Is there any money in it? they ask. How do you tell them about the burning?" -- Anonymous

  3. Intro to CMAP-Tools app • Open CMAP Tools software under IHMC on the Start – Programs menu • You may need to fill in some initial stuff • Play with the app. – views window vs. map windows; how to add terms, add links, drag, save, add arrows • If you like, try it for note taking during the seminar

  4. We will consider … • Task: design a CSCL investigation that uses mindmaps • Task: analyze ECOL interview data with mindmaps • Have fun, play with CMAP Tools, go slow, take time to think, ask questions…

  5. Vocabulary corpus of terms Some foundation stuff • Concept map – diagrams indicating interrelationships among concepts and representing conceptual frameworks within a specific domain of knowledge (vanBoxtel) • Concept map – a visual set of nodes and arcs (a network representation) that embodies the relationships among the set of concepts. Also called knowledge maps, mindmaps, semantic maps (Turns, et al.). • Nodes – terms/complexes/concepts (usually nouns, things, examples, ideas, categories, people, locations…) • Links (arcs) – lines connecting nodes, usually labeled with a relationship term (usually verbs) • Propositions – node-link-node combinations, also called “soup” (ketti) by IHMC contrast Vygotsky Turns, Atman, & Adams, 2000

  6. words – complexes – concepts Some foundation stuff My heuristic (i.e., sandbox theory) Cat (word) Cat (complex) Cat (concept) • Mapping with words – words are “prickly” but not “heavy” or “sticky”. The context is the map and words can flit around the map. • Mapping with complexes – complexes are selectively sticky and so heavier, but not as prickly. A few real-world concrete instances (associations) strongly influence the mapping context and structure. • Mapping with concepts – concepts are prickly, heavy, and sticky. Generalized instances and abstracted notions influence the map context, concepts are heavy with meaning (more constrained) and strongly influence the mapping context and structure. zoo hunt cats pet cats cats pet Africa territorial kills matriarchy lion bites mammal dogs comment: Mapping seems to depend on the essence of the term rather than its meaning and the mindmap tends to become a microworld or self-contained world (suspended disbelief)

  7. Mindmaps… Some foundation stuff • The mapping process makes implicit or tacit knowledge explicit (to others, but especially to self) • The map artifact (product) communicates unique knowledge to others (e.g., peers & teacher) This knowledge is not just “domain” knowledge

  8. Mindmaps… Some foundation stuff “less than precise meaning” • Ambiguity (Andriesen’s heuristic adequacy) leaves room for alternate interpretations and meanings (transfer) • Compared to verbal conversations and discussion group or chat texts, there are fewer words in mindmaps (e.g., the collaborative process can be quicker and more thorough…) • But the visual nature is problematic because it is difficult to argue with it (peremptory)

  9. Group derived Concept map Individual Concept map Teacher made Concept map dialectic artifacts (invites argument, a cold medium ‘you must fill-in-the-blanks’) Some foundation stuff My sand-box theory at this moment in time of the affects of using different artifacts both on knowing and on the artifact’s future affordances Constructivist perspective artifacts Heuristic adequacy (invites explanation, general, specific meaning is less clear, less context bound) Epistemic adequacy (specific meaning is more clear, more context bound, i.e., a dissertation that is coherent with one theoretical perspective) knowing Individual’s Tacit knowledge Objectivist perspective peremptory artifacts (requires acceptance or rejection, brings along its underlying worldview, is a-dialectic, hot ‘high information at a level of lower sensory participation’)

  10. Mindmaps… Groups can use mindmaps to: • Summarize a group discussion or seminar (document) • Brainstorm ideas • Representing group knowledge (i.e., grow, change, evolve) • … Note that these all actually overlap substantially

  11. Mindmaps may provide a feedback strategy to affect calibration Summarize a group discussion Summary notes from EDTECH seminar on 24.1.05

  12. Brainstorming

  13. Forward group knowledge Artefact (taken from corpus discussion of Virtual Doc School, Group 6) In the literature a key concern or key interest is on how tools serve as artefacts of, to use Peas terms, distributed intelligence, that is how tools are made relevant and, as defined by the users of such tools, considered as carrying with them new opportunities for contributing to activity. This interrelatedness between artefacts-agents- and activity is I would say a main theme in the readings. Another interesting aspect in such a perspective is both the affordances as well as the constraints such artefacts put on the activities we engage in. Andriessen and Stahl address the collaborative aspect directly towards technology enhanced learning. Stahl focuses in this respect on 'face to face interaction', defining the concepts of collaborative learning in terms of 'building of collaborative knowing' as: "the gradual construction and accumulation of increasingly refined and complex cognitive and linguistic artefacts" (Stahl 2004: 64). In this respect it seems to be an evident connection both with how Pea understands the term 'artefact' and how he outlines the principles regarding 'distributed cognition'. An interesting remark, from my point of view is, what Stahl (2004), in his text, argues, is, that in spite of the wide recognition of artefacts as “an embodiments of shared understanding” (referring to Dourish, 2001), only few have been focusing on the question how new users learn to use these “stored understandings” (p. 9).

  14. Forward group knowledge Artefact (taken from corpus discussion of Virtual Doc School, Group 6) In the literature a key concern or key interest is on how tools serve as artefacts of, to use Peas terms, distributed intelligence, that is how tools are made relevant and, as defined by the users of such tools, considered as carrying with them new opportunities for contributing to activity. This interrelatedness between artefacts-agents- and activity is I would say a main theme in the readings. Another interesting aspect in such a perspective is both the affordances as well as the constraints such artefacts put on the activities we engage in. Andriessen and Stahl address the collaborative aspect directly towards technology enhanced learning. Stahl focuses in this respect on 'face to face interaction', defining the concepts of collaborative learning in terms of 'building of collaborative knowing' as: "the gradual construction and accumulation of increasingly refined and complex cognitive and linguistic artefacts" (Stahl 2004: 64). In this respect it seems to be an evident connection both with how Pea understands the term 'artefact' and how he outlines the principles regarding 'distributed cognition'. An interesting remark, from my point of view is, what Stahl (2004), in his text, argues, is, that in spite of the wide recognition of artefacts as “an embodiments of shared understanding” (referring to Dourish, 2001), only few have been focusing on the question how new users learn to use these “stored understandings” (p. 9).

  15. dialectic artifacts (invites argument, a cold medium ‘you must fill-in-the-blanks’) Constructivist perspective Concept map Group derived text artifacts Individual’s knowledge Heuristic adequacy (invites explanation, general, specific meaning is less clear, less context bound) Epistemic adequacy (specific meaning is more clear, more context bound, i.e., a dissertation that is coherent with one theoretical perspective) knowing Individual’s knowledge Individual’s knowledge Objectivist perspective peremptory artifacts (requires acceptance or rejection, brings along its underlying worldview, is a-dialectic, hot ‘high information at a level of lower sensory participation’)

  16. Besides use for Summarizing discussions, Brainstorming ideas, and Representing group knowledge • Mindmaps can be used as a learning strategy

  17. Mindmap as learning strategy • Individual – every student creates a mindmap of the entire topic • Cooperative • peremptory – divide the topic into parts, each individual student creates a mindmap of their part and shares it with the group (note: this supports an objectivists perspective) • peremptory to Argumentative – using the same topic, individually each student creates a mindmap of the entire and then compares it to the group • Collaborative – every student works in their group to create a mindmap of the entire topic

  18. Individual measure of domain knowledge Engineering • Classroom content assessment – pretest, midcourse, and Final exam mindmaps to show “growth”; usually comparison to a closed-ended expert referent; but sometimes to examine extra-domain learning (open-ended) • Program-level content assessment – mindmaps can represent a students understanding of course content, a discipline, and even a profession These uses tend to support an objectivist perspective Turns, Atman, & Adams, 2000

  19. Warning: The problem with giving students domain concept maps • There is a strong belief that handing students a prepared domain map upfront is a good idea, HOWEVER, • Lambiotte and Dansereau (1992) report that, “students with more well established schemas … performed less well when structure was imposed by … a knowledge map (sic concept map).” (p. 198) • Lee and Nelson (in press) suggest that presenting completed concept maps to learners as instructional materials places emphasis on unintentional imitation of its structure by the learners because when the learners are given a concept map they cannot make it fit with their internal knowledge structures. • Thus, it is likely that the instructional benefits of mindmaps are a result of the process of making it

  20. Cicognani says Cicognani, 2000 The purpose of concept mapping is not the production of a map which represents in absolute terms the relationships between concepts, but the production of a visual layout, which can make that specific issue clearer and certainly more understandable to the learner who produced the map. It is fundamental for the success of the learning experience, that each learner produces her own concept map. This for obvious reasons: using somebody else’s schematization of a concept is as difficult to retain and use as it would be to impersonate that person’s mental structure. (p.154) Cicognani, 2000

  21. To negotiate some common ground Concept mapping is a technique that can involve multiple parties, especially in the preliminary phase of collecting keywords regarding a particular text. In a brainstorming session, all participants are engaged in an activity that results in the (1) creation of a list of keywords. (2) Individually, each participant organises the keywords in a map and then (3) confronts them with the others. From the comparison, the individual can understand more about her own concept map, and (4) modify it in order to be more comprehensive and thorough. Collaboration is achieved when each individual is able to criticise and modify her map by learning from others in the same group. (p. 155, Cicognani, 2000) Lets try this now, open CMAP Tools software

  22. Cluster analysis, as a group enter Brainstorming (corpus list) Sorting (move like terms closer) Naming Clusters (name the categories/themes) Merging & Pruning (combine like terms, delete or move unlike terms, synthesize terms) and if necessary Sorting Clusters (move like clusters closer) Naming broad themes (name the cluster of clusters) Finally, links may be added Then document (save/print)

  23. Large group online collaboration then individual teamwork • On one online map, brainstorm together an initial corpus list until a rich list is made (NO links), about 5 minutes • Save as “team 1” “team 2” (etc.) into Places, each team opens their team file and collaborates as a team on sorting, merging and pruning, and clustering (refer to the previous slide). Label the clusters. You may now link terms. • Teams compare their mindmaps • Can a “large group” consensus mindmap be established? Should a large group mindmap be established? • Debrief the experience What happened? How to utilize mindmaps as an instructional strategy in a CSCL setting Next time? What worked? What didn’t?

  24. Collaboration scripts (mental, ideal, actual) • (Didactic) scenarios that structure learning activities by • defining a sequence of activities and/or • creating roles within groups participatory roles (e.g., CSCL course: starter, wrapper, evaluator) and/or • constructing the mode of interaction • Script families: jigsaw, conflict, reciprocal, … • Macro vs. microscript • level of coercion? • level of granularity? (time scale, grain size) Contrast: Instructional design / educational engineering vs. sociocultural approaches From ”Comments on…” March 12, 2005, Winter School Presentation

  25. Example: defining a sequence of activities… “For instance, students might initially collaborate in small groups on the construction of a concept map, then individually transpose this graphic representation into written text. This classroom strategy would allow students to share and clarify ideas, while talking about the concept-mapping task, before consolidating and refining their knowledge while writing about the map.” (p.588) Rivard, L. P., & Straw, S.B. (2000). The effect of talk and writing on learning science: an exploratory study

  26. Example: Creating roles in an online collaboration • Assign argumentation perspectives/roles: • Advocate • Opponent • Blue-sky (futurist, idealist) • Pragmatist (realist, practical) • Other? • Further develop your mindmap while assuming one of these roles • Review maps • Debrief experience

  27. Possible research question on optimal scripts: Under- vs. over-scripting CSCL Amount of collaboration with crash? linear S-curve J-curve Amount of scripting  Amount of scripting  Amount of scripting  Some possibilities

  28. Do mindmaps support a particular epistemology or learning ecology? • It depends on how the mindmap is used • If used for assessment only (with score based on ‘valid’ propositions), then mindmaps promote an objectivist view of “transmission teaching” • If used to promote elaboration and argumentation, then mindmaps promote a constructivist view of collaborative knowledge building • Can mindmaps be used as a constructivist’s ‘Trojan Horse’? • Designing CSCL – To optimize the potential collaborative effects, Mindmap strategies and scripts should be part of a collaborative overall strategy, ecology, and epistemology; not just tacked on to the course Kinchin, 2000

  29. One teacher… (p.1262) • She recognized the concept map as a starting point for learning rather than an end product of it • She recognized concept mapping as a communication tool, and to leave a concept map without discussion is analogous to leaving a student’s question unanswered: The problem is, to address the concerns of a concept map, you probably need a dialogue and that’s what’s really tough - to find time for that. Kinchin, 2001

  30. Mindmap may be a good tool to capture prior knowledge, when done collaboratively, it may establish common ground • The group Mindmap must evolve, maybe with every exchange

  31. Example of dyad collaboration (not online) Note the attentional effects of the artifact Mindmap artefact Verbal discussion (taped) Observations: On task Abstract talk 3-propositions/min Question Answer Criticize Conflict Elaboration Co-construction Analyze the discussion Blah blah blah blah Blah blah Blah blah blah blah Blah blah The incredible value of talk! Hannah Inferred: Active use of prior knowledge Acknowledged problems Look for meaningful relations Negotiation Yergin Problem: Sometimes unscientific notions are ingrained Shared objects play an important role in negotiation and co-construction van Boxtel, van der Linden, Roelofs, & Erkens (2002)

  32. For emphasis i.e., mindmaps vanBoxtel “Next to the use of language, shared objects and tools can also play an important role in the negotiation and co-construction of meanings during communication. Crook (1998) argues that collaborating students will benefit from referential anchors because they can support the construction of a shared understanding: "The more abstract the terms of the problem, the more helpful it may prove to have external representations that resource the construction of a shared understanding" (pp. 241). During collaborative concept mapping, the product serves as a visible representation that can facilitate communication about abstract concepts and relationships. Students can refer to the concept labels and the propositions of the emerging concept map while verbalizing their ideas and negotiating meaning. In addition, the use of a large sheet of paper makes it difficult for students to divide the task into parts, and strengthens interdependency and negotiation between the collaborating students.” (vanBoxtel et al.) (abstract here has its general meaning, i.e., hard to understand for those individuals)

  33. Problems with concept mapping listed by van Boxtel et al • First, a concept map does not elicit much discourse in which concepts and their interrelationships are used to describe and explain phenomena in concrete electric circuits. Most student discourse is about the theoretical relationships between concepts. • Second, we discovered that the discourse rarely reached the explanatory (useful, practical) level, e.g., few if-then statements, used mainly peremptory explanations • Finally, discussion confused some important concepts and under-discussed others (reinforced naïve misconceptions)

  34. Problems with concept mapping listed by van Boxtel et al • How to fix it – add a post mindmap application step • For example, the end product of today’s seminar will be your team ideas on how to utilize mindmaps as an instructional strategy in a CSCL setting

  35. Chiu et al. example of an online collaboration Mindmap artefact Mindmap session lasted 80 minutes. 3 x 12 online groups, communicate by chat, 745 messages were exchanged (avg. of 62 per group). creates Online chat H: WE should … J: Did you see… Y: Yeah, but … Etc. Etc. Only the lead could alter the mindmap Jari Hannah (lead) The ‘other 2 members used chat to “advise” Researchers Analyzed the chat text And the mindmap Yergin p.22, Chiu, Huang, & Chang (2000)

  36. Final Activity • Teams describe an online strategy that uses mindmaps framed as a small research investigation (i.e., questions, interventions, data sources,…) • Keep in mind: Setting, the intent of the mindmap, people grouping pattern, scripts, scaffolds, steps, final deliverable (e.g., essay, map, drawing) • Present to group • Debrief

  37. Monday post workshop – Lessons learned On the CMAP online collaboration: • 2 people try to drag the same term at the same time. We discussed whether we should provide a script directions or negotiate the cluster process so this doesn’t happen (ie, you work on left side and me on the right, etc.) but we resolved that somehow the “exchange” or “conversation turn taking” in the map sorting developed on its own • Use the right click annotate to add comments to the terms • How does the online group know when to transition between adding terms, sorting terms, an naming terms. We discussed whether a script is needed, but again, somehow the “exchange” or “conversation turn taking” in the map sorting emerged on its own • We note that 100% of the discussion was on-topic. The CMAP artifact seems to have a powerful attentional effect • Discussion was critical, particularly in regulation and process • Themes did emerge • In face-2-face, big enough white board and group seating position with all having easy reach are very important, often several people were sorting and circling at the board at the same time See Tuesday powerpoint at http://www.personal.psu.edu/rbc4/edtech_tuesday.ppt