Do Students' Learning Behaviors Differ when they Collaborate in Open-Ended Learning Environments?

Researchers have long recognized the importance of using technology to support students' collaboration in learning and problem solving tasks. Recently, there has been a lot of research in capturing and characterizing student discourse and how they regulate each other when they perform learning tasks in pairs or in small groups. In this paper, our goal is to dive a little deeper into how students collaborate, and the learning behaviors they exhibit when working in pairs on a learning by modeling task, while also teaching a virtual agent in the Betty's Brain system. We report the results of a quasi-experimental study, where students were divided into two groups: one group worked in pairs and the other group worked individually. The results illustrate that students in the collaborative group built more correct causal maps than those working individually, and their pre-post test results show significantly higher learning gains in the science content. A differential sequence mining algorithm applied to their action sequences captured in log files showed differences in the learning behaviors between the two groups. The differences imply that the collaborative groups were better at debugging their evolving causal maps than the students who worked individually.

[1]  Welch Bl.  THE GENERALIZATION OF ‘STUDENT'S’ PROBLEM WHEN SEVERAL DIFFERENT POPULATION VARLANCES ARE INVOLVED , 1947 .

[2]  B. L. Welch.  The generalisation of student's problems when several different population variances are involved. , 1947, Biometrika.

[3]  L. Vygotsky.  Interaction between learning and development , 1978 .

[4]  Stephanie D. Teasley.  Constructing a Joint Problem Space: The Computer as a Tool for Sharing Knowledge , 1993 .

[5]  Stephanie D. Teasley,et al.  The Construction of Shared Knowledge in Collaborative Problem Solving , 1995 .

[6]  Claire O'Malley,et al.  Computer Supported Collaborative Learning , 1995, NATO ASI Series.

[7]  David W. Johnson,et al.  Making cooperative learning work , 1999 .

[8]  P. Dillenbourg.  What do you mean by collaborative learning , 1999 .

[9]  Valerie L. Shalin,et al.  Cognitive task analysis , 2000 .

[10]  Angela M. O'Donnell,et al.  The Structure of Discourse in Collaborative Learning , 2000 .

[11]  M. Goos,et al.  Socially mediated metacognition: creating collaborative zones of proximal development in small group problem solving , 2002 .

[12]  Janyce Wiebe,et al.  A machine learning approach to assessing knowledge sharing during collaborative learning activities , 2002, CSCL.

[13]  Heidi L. Schnackenberg,et al.  From co-operation to collaboration: helping students become collaborative learners , 2003 .

[14]  Gautam Biswas,et al.  LEARNING BY TEACHING: A NEW AGENT PARADIGM FOR EDUCATIONAL SOFTWARE , 2005, Appl. Artif. Intell..

[15]  Semra Sungur,et al.  Effects of Problem-Based Learning and Traditional Instruction on Self-Regulated Learning , 2006 .

[16]  L. Schauble,et al.  Scientific Thinking and Science Literacy , 2007 .

[17]  F. Fischer,et al.  Knowledge convergence in collaborative learning: Concepts and assessment , 2007 .

[18]  K. Blair.  Pedagogical agents for learning by teaching: Teachable agents , 2007 .

[19]  Gautam Biswas,et al.  Designing Learning by Teaching Agents: The Betty's Brain System , 2008, Int. J. Artif. Intell. Educ..

[20]  S. Reeves,et al.  Discourse Analysis , 2018, The Study of Language.

[21]  Daniel L. Schwartz,et al.  Teachable Agents and the Protégé Effect: Increasing the Effort Towards Learning , 2009 .

[22]  Judy Kay,et al.  Clustering and Sequential Pattern Mining of Online Collaborative Learning Data , 2009, IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering.

[23]  M. Scardamalia,et al.  Schools as Knowledge-Building Organizations , 2010 .

[24]  S. Järvelä,et al.  Self-Regulated, Co-Regulated, and Socially Shared Regulation of Learning , 2011 .

[25]  Manu Kapur,et al.  Temporality matters: Advancing a method for analyzing problem-solving processes in a computer-supported collaborative environment , 2011, Int. J. Comput. Support. Collab. Learn..

[26]  David A. Gillam,et al.  A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas , 2012 .

[27]  B. Reiser.  A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas: National Research Council, Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education , 2012 .

[28]  Anthony James Aylsworth.  Professional learning communities: An analysis of teacher participation in a PLC and the relationship with student academic achievement , 2012 .

[29]  John S. Kinnebrew,et al.  A Contextualized, Differential Sequence Mining Method to Derive Students' Learning Behavior Patterns , 2013, EDM 2013.

[30]  Helen R. Quinn,et al.  A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas , 2013 .

[31]  Gautam Biswas,et al.  Shallow strategy development in a teachable agent environment designed to support self-regulated learning , 2013, Comput. Educ..

[32]  Susan M. Land,et al.  Open learning environments: Foundations, methods, and models , 2013 .

[33]  Ngss Lead States.  Next generation science standards : for states, by states , 2013 .

[34]  Gautam Biswas,et al.  Analyzing the temporal evolution of students’ behaviors in open-ended learning environments , 2014 .

[35]  Gautam Biswas,et al.  Using Coherence Analysis to Characterize Self-Regulated Learning Behaviours in Open-Ended Learning Environments , 2015, J. Learn. Anal..

[36]  Sanna Järvelä,et al.  Enhancing socially shared regulation in collaborative learning groups: designing for CSCL regulation tools , 2014, Educational Technology Research and Development.

[37]  Gautam Biswas,et al.  From Design to Implementation to Practice a Learning by Teaching System: Betty’s Brain , 2016, International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education.

[38]  Philip H. Winne.  What is the state of the art in self-, co- and socially shared regulation in CSCL? , 2015, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[39]  Sanna Järvelä,et al.  Socially shared regulation of learning in CSCL: understanding and prompting individual- and group-level shared regulatory activities , 2016, Int. J. Comput. Support. Collab. Learn..

[40]  Peter Maurer,et al.  The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences , 2022 .

[41]  John S. Kinnebrew,et al.  Contextual Markup and Mining in Digital Games for Science Learning: Connecting Player Behaviors to Learning Goals , 2017, IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies.

[42]  Yi Dong,et al.  Analyzing Students' Collaborative Regulation Behaviors in a Classroom-Integrated Open Ended Learning Environment , 2017, CSCL.

[43]  Gautam Biswas,et al.  Learner modeling for adaptive scaffolding in a Computational Thinking-based science learning environment , 2017, User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction.

[44]  I. M. Kulikovskikh,et al.  Promoting collaborative learning through regulation of guessing in clickers , 2017, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[45]  Dragan Gasevic,et al.  Learning analytics to unveil learning strategies in a flipped classroom , 2017, Internet High. Educ..

[46]  Gautam Biswas,et al.  Integrating Model-Driven and Data-Driven Techniques for Analyzing Learning Behaviors in Open-Ended Learning Environments , 2017, IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies.

[47]  Na Li,et al.  Translating the ICAP Theory of Cognitive Engagement Into Practice , 2018, Cogn. Sci..

[48]  Gautam Biswas,et al.  Modeling Learners' Cognitive and Affective States to Scaffold SRL in Open-Ended Learning Environments , 2018, UMAP.

[49]  Allison L. Moore,et al.  Studying the Interactions between Components of Self Regulated Learning in Open Ended Learning Environments , 2018, ICLS.