An adaptive collaboration script for learning with multiple visual representations in chemistry

Undergraduate STEM instruction increasingly uses educational technologies to support problem-solving activities. Educational technologies offer two key features that may make them particularly effective. First, most problem-solving activities involve multiple visual representations, and many students have difficulties in understanding, constructing, and connecting these representations. Educational technologies can provide adaptive support that helps students make sense of visual representations. Second, many problems with visual representations involve collaboration. However, students often do not collaborate effectively. Educational technologies can provide collaboration scripts that adaptively react to student actions to prompt them to engage in specific effective collaborative behaviors. These observations lead to the hypothesis we tested: that an adaptive collaboration script enhances students' learning of content knowledge from visual representations. We conducted a quasi-experiment with 61 undergraduate students in an introductory chemistry course. A control condition worked on a traditional worksheet that asked students to collaboratively make sense of connections among multiple visual representations. An experimental condition worked on the same problems embedded in an educational technology that provided an adaptive collaboration script. The experimental condition showed significantly higher learning gains on a transfer test immediately after the intervention and on complex concepts on a midterm exam three weeks later. Educational technologies can enhance collaborative learning with visual representations.A quasi-experiment with 61 students tests effects of an adaptive collaboration script.The collaboration script yields higher learning outcomes than traditional instruction.The effects were more pronounced for learning of complex concepts.Adaptive collaboration scripts can help students connect visual representations.

[1]  Vincent Aleven,et al.  Different Futures of Adaptive Collaborative Learning Support , 2016, International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education.

[2]  Shaaron Ainsworth,et al.  Examining the Effects of Different Multiple Representational Systems in Learning Primary Mathematics , 2002 .

[3]  Robert B. Kozma,et al.  Students Becoming Chemists: Developing Representationl Competence , 2005 .

[4]  Daniel L. Schwartz,et al.  The Emergence of Abstract Representations in Dyad Problem Solving , 1995 .

[5]  Pierre Dillenbourg,et al.  Over-scripting CSCL: The risks of blending collaborative learning with instructional design , 2002 .

[6]  Vicente A Talanquer,et al.  Chemistry Education: Ten Facets to Shape Us. , 2013 .

[7]  Kenneth R. Koedinger,et al.  CTRL: A research framework for providing adaptive collaborative learning support , 2009, User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction.

[8]  B. Laeng,et al.  A Redrawn Vandenberg and Kuse Mental Rotations Test - Different Versions and Factors That Affect Performance , 1995, Brain and Cognition.

[9]  Anastasios Karakostas,et al.  Adaptive and Intelligent Systems for Collaborative Learning Support: A Review of the Field , 2011, IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies.

[10]  Adam Kraft,et al.  What happens when representations fail to represent? Graduate students’ mental models of organic chemistry diagrams , 2010 .

[11]  Vincent Aleven,et al.  A New Paradigm for Intelligent Tutoring Systems: Example-Tracing Tutors , 2009, Int. J. Artif. Intell. Educ..

[12]  Y. Lou,et al.  Small Group and Individual Learning with Technology: A Meta-Analysis , 2001 .

[13]  F. Fischer,et al.  Collaboration Scripts – A Conceptual Analysis , 2006 .

[14]  D. Uttal.  On the relation between play and symbolic thought: The case of mathematics manipulatives , 2003 .

[15]  M. Stieff.  Mental rotation and diagrammatic reasoning in science , 2007 .

[16]  John K. Gilbert,et al.  Models and Modelling: Routes to More Authentic Science Education , 2004 .

[17]  S. Ainsworth.  DeFT: A Conceptual Framework for Considering Learning with Multiple Representations. , 2006 .

[18]  Zachary A. Pardos,et al.  How Should Intelligent Tutoring Systems Sequence Multiple Graphical Representations of Fractions? A Multi-Methods Study , 2013, International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education.

[19]  Tina Seufert.  Supporting Coherence Formation in Learning from Multiple Representations , 2003 .

[20]  Roy D. Pea,et al.  Distributed by Design: On the Promises and Pitfalls of Collaborative Learning with Multiple Representations , 2011 .

[21]  Fred Paas,et al.  Task complexity as a driver for collaborative learning efficiency: The collective working-memory effect , 2011 .

[22]  Martina A. Rau,et al.  A Framework for Educational Technologies that Support Representational Competencies , 2017, IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies.

[23]  Nikol Rummel,et al.  Are two heads always better than one? Differential effects of collaboration on students’ computer-supported learning in mathematics , 2011, Int. J. Comput. Support. Collab. Learn..

[24]  Karsten Stegmann,et al.  Computer-supported collaborative learning in higher education: scripts for argumentative knowledge construction in distributed groups , 2005, CSCL.

[25]  F. Fischer,et al.  Toward a Script Theory of Guidance in Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning , 2013, Educational psychologist.

[26]  Jacob Cohen.  Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences , 1969, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

[27]  Anastasios Karakostas,et al.  Enhancing collaborative learning through dynamic forms of support: the impact of an adaptive domain-specific support strategy , 2011, J. Comput. Assist. Learn..

[28]  Antonija Mitrovic,et al.  Supporting collaborative learning and problem-solving in a constraint-based CSCL environment for UML class diagrams , 2007, Int. J. Comput. Support. Collab. Learn..

[29]  Karsten Stegmann,et al.  Computer-supported collaborative learning in higher education: Scripts for argumentative knowledge c , 2005 .

[30]  Benjamin S. Bloom,et al.  Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals. , 1957 .

[31]  John K. Gilbert,et al.  Visualization: An Emergent Field of Practice and Enquiry in Science Education , 2008 .

[32]  K. VanLehn.  The Relative Effectiveness of Human Tutoring, Intelligent Tutoring Systems, and Other Tutoring Systems , 2011 .

[33]  Martina A. Rau,et al.  Enhancing undergraduate chemistry learning by helping students make connections among multiple graphical representations , 2015 .

[34]  Michelle K. Smith,et al.  Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics , 2014, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[35]  Daniel D. Suthers,et al.  Beyond threaded discussion: Representational guidance in asynchronous collaborative learning environments , 2008, Comput. Educ..

[36]  Paul A. Kirschner,et al.  The social and interactive dimensions of collaborative learning , 2014 .

[37]  Benjamin S. Bloom,et al.  A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives , 2000 .