Exploring Initiative as a Signal of Knowledge Co-Construction During Collaborative Problem Solving

Peer interaction has been found to be conducive to learning in many settings. Knowledge co-construction (KCC) has been proposed as one explanatory mechanism. However, KCC is a theoretical construct that is too abstract to guide the development of instructional software that can support peer interaction. In this study, we present an extensive analysis of a corpus of peer dialogs that we collected in the domain of introductory Computer Science. We show that the notion of task initiative shifts correlates with both KCC and learning. Speakers take task initiative when they contribute new content that advances problem solving and that is not invited by their partner; if initiative shifts between the partners, it indicates they both contribute to problem solving. We found that task initiative shifts occur more frequently within KCC episodes than outside. In addition, task initiative shifts within KCC episodes correlate with learning for low pre-testers, and total task initiative shifts correlate with learning for high pre-testers. As recognizing task initiative shifts does not require as much deep knowledge as recognizing KCC, task initiative shifts as an indicator of productive collaboration are potentially easier to model in instructional software that simulates a peer.

[1]  Rebecca J. Passonneau,et al.  Discourse Segmentation by Human and Automated Means , 1997, CL.

[2]  Amy Soller,et al.  Supporting Social Interaction in an Intelligent Collaborative Learning System , 2001 .

[3]  Daniel D. Suthers,et al.  Coaching Web-based Collaborative Learning based on Problem Solution Differences and Participation , 2003, Int. J. Artif. Intell. Educ..

[4]  James F. Allen,et al.  The Trains 91 Dialogues , 1993 .

[5]  Davide Fossati,et al.  Supporting Computer Science Curriculum: Exploring and Learning Linked Lists with iList , 2009, IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies.

[6]  Carolyn Penstein Rosé,et al.  Finding transactive contributions in whole group classroom discussions , 2010, ICLS.

[7]  Frank Stewart,et al.  June , 1890, The Hospital.

[8]  Hans Spada,et al.  Motivation and emotion in shaping knowledge co-construction , 2013 .

[9]  P. Pirolli,et al.  The role of learning from examples in the acquisition of recursive programming skills. , 1985 .

[10]  Margaret M. Recker,et al.  Learning Strategies and Transfer in the Domain of Programming , 1994 .

[11]  Davide Fossati.  Data driven automatic feedback generation in the iList intelligent tutoring system , 2014 .

[12]  Herbert J. Walberg,et al.  Knowing, Learning, and Instruction: Essays in Honor of Robert Glaser. , 1991 .

[13]  Barbara Di Eugenio,et al.  Control and Initiative in Collaborative Problem Solving Dialogues , 1997 .

[14]  M. W. Britz.  The Effects of Peer Tutoring on Mathematics Performance: A Recent Review. , 1989 .

[15]  Curry I. Guinn,et al.  An Analysis of Initiative Selection in Collaborative Task-Oriented Discourse , 1998, User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction.

[16]  Carol K. K. Chan.  Peer collaboration and discourse patterns in learning from incompatible information , 2001 .

[17]  Fan Yang,et al.  Control in task-oriented dialogues , 2003, INTERSPEECH.

[18]  Arthur C. Graesser,et al.  When Are Tutorial Dialogues More Effective Than Reading? , 2007, Cogn. Sci..

[19]  K. Topping.  Trends in Peer Learning , 2005 .

[20]  Bowen Hui,et al.  What is Initiative? , 1998, User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction.

[21]  Sue Fitzgerald,et al.  Debugging: a review of the literature from an educational perspective , 2008, Comput. Sci. Educ..

[22]  Marilyn A. Walker,et al.  Mixed Initiative in Dialogue: An Investigation into Discourse Segmentation , 1990, ACL.

[23]  Michelene T. H. Chi,et al.  Active-Constructive-Interactive: A Conceptual Framework for Differentiating Learning Activities , 2009, Top. Cogn. Sci..

[24]  Keith J. Topping,et al.  Outcomes in a randomised controlled trial of mathematics tutoring , 2011 .

[25]  Jacob Cohen.  A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales , 1960 .

[26]  David E. Meltzer,et al.  Relation between students’ problem-solving performance and representational format , 2005 .

[27]  S. Argamon,et al.  Hedged Responses and Expressions of Affect in Human/Human and Human/Computer Tutorial Interactions , 2004 .

[28]  R. Ploetzner,et al.  Learning by explaining to oneself and to others. , 1999 .

[29]  Claus Zinn,et al.  The Role of Initiative in Tutorial Dialogue , 2003, EACL.

[30]  John R. Anderson.  Language, Memory, and Thought , 1976 .

[31]  Barbara Di Eugenio,et al.  KSC-PaL: A Peer Learning Agent , 2010, Intelligent Tutoring Systems.

[32]  Mordechai Ben-Ari,et al.  Constructivism in computer science education , 1998, SIGCSE '98.

[33]  R. Kozma.  The material features of multiple representations and their cognitive and social affordances for science understanding , 2003 .

[34]  Jean Carletta,et al.  Assessing Agreement on Classification Tasks: The Kappa Statistic , 1996, CL.

[35]  Barbara Di Eugenio,et al.  Shifting the Load: a Peer Dialogue Agent that Encourages its Human Collaborator to Contribute More to Problem Solving , 2017, International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education.

[36]  Rod D. Roscoe,et al.  Understanding Tutor Learning: Knowledge-Building and Knowledge-Telling in Peer Tutors’ Explanations and Questions , 2007 .

[37]  Joel A. Michael,et al.  Classifying Student Initiatives and Tutor Responses in Human Keyboard-to-Keyboard Tutoring Sessions , 2002 .

[38]  M. Pressley,et al.  Discourse Patterns and Collaborative Scientific Reasoning in Peer and Teacher-Guided Discussions , 1999 .

[39]  M. Chi,et al.  Learning from collaborative problem solving: An analysis of three hypothesized Mechanisms , 2004 .

[40]  Laura Rountree Smith.  January , 1890, The Hospital.

[41]  Carolyn Penstein Rosé,et al.  Using transactivity in conversation for summarization of educational dialogue , 2007, SLaTE.

[42]  Oscar N. Garcia,et al.  Cognitive activities and support in debugging , 1998, Proceedings Fourth Annual Symposium on Human Interaction with Complex Systems.

[43]  Christa S. C. Asterhan,et al.  Epistemic and interpersonal dimensions of peer argumentation: Conceptualization and quantitative assessment , 2013 .

[44]  Michelene T. H. Chi,et al.  Eliciting Self-Explanations Improves Understanding , 1994, Cogn. Sci..

[45]  Chen-Lin C. Kulik,et al.  Educational Outcomes of Tutoring: A Meta-analysis of Findings , 1982 .

[46]  Brigid Barron.  When Smart Groups Fail , 2003 .

[47]  Shaochun Xu,et al.  Cognitive process during program debugging , 2004, Proceedings of the Third IEEE International Conference on Cognitive Informatics, 2004..

[48]  Fan Yang,et al.  Initiative conflicts in task-oriented dialogue , 2010, Comput. Speech Lang..

[49]  Pamela Paulsen,et al.  May , 1890, The Hospital.

[50]  Brigid Barron,et al.  Problem Solving in Video-based Microworlds: Collaborative and Individual Outcomes of High-Achieving Sixth-Grade Students. , 2000 .

[51]  Crina Damsa,et al.  The multi-layered nature of small-group learning: Productive interactions in object-oriented collaboration , 2014, Int. J. Comput. Support. Collab. Learn..

[52]  Ann L. Brown,et al.  Guided, Cooperative Learning and Individual Knowledge Acquisition , 2018, Knowing, Learning, and Instruction.

[53]  Barbara Di Eugenio,et al.  Squibs and Discussions: The Kappa Statistic: A Second Look , 2004, CL.

[54]  D. Kuhn.  Thinking Together and Alone , 2015 .

[55]  Kimberly J. Vannest,et al.  Academic Benefits of Peer Tutoring: A Meta-Analytic Review of Single-Case Research , 2013 .

[56]  Amy Soller,et al.  Computational Modeling and Analysis of Knowledge Sharing in Collaborative Distance Learning , 2004, User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction.

[57]  Barbara Di Eugenio,et al.  Knowledge Co-construction and Initiative in Peer Learning Interactions , 2009, AIED.

[58]  Martha D. Rekrut.  Teaching To Learn: Cross-Age Tutoring To Enhance Strategy Acquisition. , 1992 .

[59]  W. Doise,et al.  Social interaction and the development of cognitive operations , 1975 .

[60]  Jennifer Chu-Carroll,et al.  An Evidential Model for Tracking Initiative in Collaborative Dialogue Interactions , 1998, User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction.

[61]  Anthony Scime,et al.  Globalized computing education: Europe and the United States , 2008, Comput. Sci. Educ..

[62]  Robert G. M. Hausmann,et al.  ELABORATIVE AND CRITICAL DIALOG: TWO POTENTIALLY EFFECTIVE PROBLEM-SOLVING AND LEARNING INTERACTIONS , 2005 .

[63]  Baruch B. Schwarz,et al.  Argumentation and Explanation in Conceptual Change: Indications From Protocol Analyses of Peer-to-Peer Dialog , 2009, Cogn. Sci..

[64]  Neil T. Heffernan,et al.  What Level of Tutor Interaction is Best? , 2007, AIED.

[65]  J. Stasko,et al.  A Meta-Study of Algorithm Visualization Effectiveness , 2002, J. Vis. Lang. Comput..