# 2
Theor. Framework Authoring Interface Runtime Environm.
Stegmann, K., Wecker, C., Harrer, A., Ronen, M., Kohen-Vacs, D., Dimitriadis, Y., Hernández- Leo, D., Fernandez, E., Asensio-Pérez, J., Fischer, F., 2011. How can current approaches to the transfer of technology-based collaboration scripts for research and practice be integrated? In: Spada, H., Stahl, G., Miyake, N., Law, N. (Eds.), CSCL2011 Community Events Proceedings. ISLS.
CoSSICLE framework* / MoCoLADe
ReCourse Web Collage CeLS LAMS S-COL IMS-LD CeLS XSS ManyScripts *Kobbe et al. (2007)
Figure 3.1: Overview of approaches to the development of scripted learning applications according to Stegmann et al. (2011). Our approach is highlighted in blue.
this thesis is highlighted in blue. As the figure shows quite clearly, it is the only approach which allows a continuous development processand follows the CoSSICLE framework. The latter is particularly important since it allows for an unlimited variety of supported scripts.
CeLS and similar approaches enable educators to design their collaboration scripts and enact them in IMS-LD compatible learning environments. The great benefit of this approach is the low barrier for educators. Collaboration scripts can be implemented without extensive programming skills. The drawback is that the control over the user interface implementation is lost. This can be a strong disadvantage in terms of human computer interaction (HCI). While the S-COL approach provides full control over the GUI, programmers are needed to implement the entire ‘logic’ of the scripted learning application as well as the graphical user interface. Another limitation of most existing approaches is that they are restricted to web-based learning environments. Applications for novel devices like smartphones, tabletop displays or tablet computers are not considered. In addition, IMS-LD based learning environments are usually full-featured platforms rather than simple-to-use ‘out of the box’ solutions that are needed in classroom settings. For instance, while user management is needed in university-wide learning environments, such features are unneces- sary for teachers who realize a peer-review script in class. The solution, which we propose in the following, provides full control over the GUI and at the same time incorporates the capability to read and enact IMS-LD descriptions of collaboration scripts.
3.2
An Example Application for Scripted Text Com-
prehension Training
This section presents the development of a collaborative learning application for text compre- hension. The underlying collaboration script was derived from a collaboration script called M.U.R.D.E.R. (Dansereau et al., 1979), which was originally developed for pen-and-paper sce-
38 3 From Graphical Learning Designs to Scripted Learning Applications
narios. The M.U.R.D.E.R. application is a typical example of an application that can be devel- oped with the XSS Framework.
3.2.1
M.U.R.D.E.R. Script
M.U.R.D.E.R. is a face-to-face script which aims at supporting reading comprehension (Dansereau et al., 1979). The abbreviation stands for Mood, Understanding, Recall, Detect, Elaborate and Review, which represent the different stages that the learners iterate through. It is designed for two learners who rotationally adopt the roles of a summarizer and a listener (see Figure 3.2). In the first phase the learners read a text passage on their own. Afterwards one per- son summarizes the text while the other one listens and tries to find errors or omissions. In phase three, the listener gives feedback and subsequently the results are elaborated on together. For the next paragraph the roles are switched.
1. Reading Each learner reads text passage 2. Summarizing Summarizer reflects content 3: Feedback Listener gives feedback 4: Elaborating Both elaborate on the results Summarizer Listener
Figure 3.2: Roles and Learning Activities in the M.U.R.D.E.R. script.
The M.U.R.D.E.R. script has proven to be an effective learning strategy (Dansereau et al., 1979). After an assessment in a learning skills course, the pre-test-post-test gains were significantly higher than in the control group.
3.2.2
M.U.R.D.E.R. Application
Based on the M.U.R.D.E.R. script a computer application was built. The application adopts the phases, roles and activities from the original pen-and-paper script. In addition, learners are instructed to create keywords that are intended as support the learning tasks throughout all phases. In phase one both learners are asked to identify the five most important keywords. Identifying the main ideas of a text is a fundamental comprehension skill which has been successfully used before, for instance by Dishner and Readence (1977). Therefore, we combined two successful scaffolds: the M.U.R.D.E.R. script and the identification of keywords. In the second phase the
3.2 An Example Application for Scripted Text Comprehension Training 39
keyword list serves as story thread for the summarizer. The listener can easily compare his own keyword list with the renarration and use deviations as basis for his feedback. In the elaboration phase both lists are compared and the two learners have to agree on a final revised list.
In particular for the last step computers are very useful as they visualize which keywords were marked by both learners and where differences occurred. In addition, the computer application guides learners through the sequence of tasks step by step.
Choice of display environment
The application is designed to run on two connected co-located notebooks. In this case providing private workspaces was preferred over one shareable user interface because the learners are not supposed to see their partner’s keywords. That way both learners are forced to individually think about the facts they consider most important. Moreover, the task of agreeing on a final keyword list can only trigger fruitful discussions if the two keyword lists are not identical.
Design of the graphical user interface
Computer applications can have many advantages. However, if the usability of the application is poor, it becomes a barrier to learning rather than a support. Furthermore, when applications are designed in a fun and playful manner, they can distract learners from the learning task (cf. Hinrichs et al., 2008 or Sugimoto, 2009). To avoid such negative implications, a ‘minimal de- sign’ was chosen. The idea is to carefully select few graphical user interface elements in order to guide the learners’ activities. At a particular time only those widgets are supplied that are needed to complete the current task. This is contrary to many other learning applications, which provide various ways of interaction to put the learner in control of the learning process and/or use multimedia elements to motivate the learner.
Figure 3.3 shows a screenshot of the GUI in the first phase. It consists of few standard elements (text fields and buttons). Only two standard interaction techniques are needed to fulfill the task: (1) By marking words in the text keywords are automatically extracted and placed in the keyword list. (2) To change the order of the keywords or delete one of them, drag-and-drop is used. The screens in phases two and three look very similar. The only difference is that the text is hidden and whoever listens to the other person’s narration can add notes in a text field. In addition the listener can checkmark keywords that were mentioned by the summarizer. In phase four all information is put together for the elaboration: The original text with markings as well as keywords lists and notes of summarizer and listener. As shown in Figure 3.4, the screenshot in phase four does not look ‘minimal’ anymore. However, it is still easily understandable because all elements and their handling are already known from the previous phases. In other words, the GUI is gradually expanded and the learner’s attention is implicitly guided to the task at hand (cf. Figure 3.5).
40 3 From Graphical Learning Designs to Scripted Learning Applications
Drag&Drop
1
2 My keywords
Figure 3.3: Screenshot of the M.U.R.D.E.R. application in Phase 1.
3.2.3
Usability Assessment
To assess the usefulness of the M.U.R.D.E.R. application two user studies have been conducted in regular seminars at the University of Munich. In both studies the application was compared to a pen-and-paper version in which the same instructions were given.
The first study (n=14) examined variables connected to learning. It took place in two successive sessions of a seminar on motivation psychology. In the first session one half of the students was supported by the application while the other half got the pen-and-paper version of the script. In the following week the allocation was swapped. Both versions of the script contained exactly the same instructions. The post-questionnaire results show that the two groups can be regarded as equally motivated and showing similar effort (p>.20; type-II error<.15).
The second study (n=23) focused on the usability of the application. It took place in a media psychology course during a single session (see Figure 3.6). In this course the application was used by all participants. The participants’ ratings regarding usability and functionality were very satisfying. Table 1 shows the investigated aspects, means and standard deviations (SD). In the two columns at the right the number of questions asked to evaluate the aspects (#items) and the reliability (Cronbach’sα) are stated. Observations confirm that the sequence of action was
3.3 eXtremely Simple Scripting (XSS) Framework 41