Adaptable scaffolding of mathematical argumentation skills: The role of self-regulation when scaffolded with CSCL scripts and heuristic worked examples
Tóm tắt
Collaboration scripts and heuristic worked examples have been described as powerful scaffolds to support skill acquisition in CSCL. While CSCL scripts particularly facilitate argumentative discourse within groups, heuristic worked examples provide heuristics and worked out pathways to solve domain-specific tasks. Yet, both scripts and heuristic worked examples are often designed in a one-size-fits-all fashion. Granting learners the opportunity to adapt these scaffolds to their self-perceived needs might be a way to further enhance their effects. We tested this assumption in two experiments. In experiment 1, we compared the effects of learning with adaptable and non-adaptable CSCL scripts. In experiment 2, we compared the effects of learning with adaptable and non-adaptable heuristic worked examples. University students (N = 167) learned repeatedly in pairs with either adaptable or non-adaptable scaffolding in the context of mathematical conjecture problems. Results show that adaptable CSCL scripts were partly helpful for students with higher levels of self-regulation skills. Non-adaptable maximal scaffolding supported learning of distinctive skill components. Social-discursive components were best facilitated by maximal heuristic worked examples through content knowledge scaffolds. In contrast, CSCL scripts best facilitated domain-specific skill components by scaffolding learners’ engagement in social discourse about domain knowledge. The study provides recommendations for designing adaptable scaffolding by taking into account the relation between the targeted skill component and the activities scaffolded in the learning process. We suggest conducting future studies on adaptable scaffolding with a focus on supporting learning regulation and group awareness to improve learners’ success in CSCL environments.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Alcock, L., & Weber, K. (2005). Proof validation in real analysis: Inferring and checking warrants. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 24(2), 125–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2005.03.003
Andriessen, J., Baker, M., & Suthers, D. (2003). Argumentation, computer support, and the educational context of confronting cognitions. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning environments (pp. 1–25). Kluwer.
Atkinson, R. K., Derry, S. J., Renkl, A., & Wortham, D. (2000). Learning from examples: Instructional principles from the worked examples research. Review of Educational Research, 70(2), 181–214. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543070002181
Boero, P. (1999). Argumentation and mathematical proof: A complex, productive, unavoidable relationship in mathematics and mathematics education. Preuve: International Newsletter on the Teaching and Learning of Mathematical Proof, July/August 1999. Friday, May 10. Retrieved March 1, 2022, from http://www.lettredelapreuve.org/OldPreuve/Newsletter/990708Theme/990708ThemeUK.html
Clark, M., & Lovric, M. (2009). Understanding secondary–tertiary transition in mathematics. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 40(6), 755–776. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207390902912878
Dillenbourg, P. (2002). Over-scripting CSCL: The risks of blending collaborative learning with instructional design. In P. A. Kirschner (Ed.), Three worlds of CSCL. Can we support CSCL (pp. 61–91). Open University Nederland.
Diziol, D., Rummel, N., Spada, H., & McLaren, B. M. (2007). Promoting learning in mathematics: Script support for collaborative problem solving with the cognitive tutor algebra. Carnegie Mellon University. https://doi.org/10.1184/R1/6470348
Diziol, D., Walker, E., Rummel, N., & Koedinger, K. R. (2010). Using intelligent tutor technology to implement adaptive support for student collaboration. Educational Psychology Review, 22, 89–102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-009-9116-9
Duffy, T. M., & Jonassen, D. H. (1991). Constructivism: New implications for instructional technology? Educational Technology, 31(5), 7–12.
Fischer, F., Kollar, I., Stegmann, K., & Wecker, C. (2013). Toward a script theory of guidance in computer-supported collaborative learning. Educational Psychologist, 48(1), 56–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2012.748005
Fischer, F., Kollar, I., Ufer, S., Sodian, B., Hussmann, H., Pekrun, R., et al. (2014). Scientific reasoning and argumentation: advancing an interdisciplinary research agenda in education. Frontline Learn. Res., 2, 28–45. https://doi.org/10.14786/flr.v2i2.96
Fisher, M., King, J., & Tague, G. (2001). Development of a self-directed learning readiness scale for nursing education. Nurse Education Today, 21(7), 516–525. https://doi.org/10.1054/nedt.2001.0589
Gogoulou, A., Gouli, E., & Grigoriadou, M. (2008). Adapting and personalizing the communication in a synchronous communication tool. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24(3), 203–216. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2007.00254.x
Hilbert, T. S., Renkl, A., Kessler, S., & Reiss, K. (2008). Learning to prove in geometry: Learning from heuristic examples and how it can be supported. Learning and Instruction, 18(1), 54–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.10.008
Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark. Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99–107. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520701263368
Hummel, H. G. K., Paas, F., & Koper, R. (2006). Effects of cueing and collaboration on the acquisition of complex legal skills. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(3), 613–631. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709905X85629
Janssen, J., & Bodemer, D. (2013). Coordinated computer-supported collaborative learning: Awareness and awareness tools. Educational Psychologist, 48(1), 40–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2012.749153
Janssen, J., & Kirschner, P. A. (2020). Applying collaborative cognitive load theory to computer-supported collaborative learning: Towards a research agenda. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(2), 783–805. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09729-5
Järvelä, S., & Hadwin, A. F. (2013). New Frontiers: Regulating learning in CSCL. Educational Psychologist, 48(1), 25–39. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2012.748006
Kalyuga, S., Ayres, P., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2003). The expertise reversal effect. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 23–31. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3801_4
King, A. (2007). Scripting collaborative learning processes: A cognitive perspective. In F. Fischer, I. Kollar, H. Mandl, & J. M. Haake (Eds.), Scripting computer-supported collaborative learning—Cognitive, computational, and educational perspectives (pp. 13–37). Springer.
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1
Kobbe, L., Weinberger, A., Dillenbourg, P., Harrer, A., Hämäläinen, R., Häkkinen, P., & Fischer, F. (2007). Specifying computer-supported collaboration scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2, 211–224. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-007-9014-4
Kollar, I., Fischer, F., & Hesse, F. W. (2006). Collaboration scripts—A conceptual analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 18(2), 159–185. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-006-9007-2
Kollar, I., Ufer, S., Reichersdorfer, E., Vogel, F., Fischer, F., & Reiss, K. (2014). Effects of collaboration scripts and heuristic worked examples on the acquisition of mathematical argumentation skills of teacher students with different levels of prior achievement. Learning and Instruction, 32, 22–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.01.003
Kollar, I., Wecker, C., & Fischer, F. (2018). Scaffolding and scripting (computer-supported) collaborative learning. In F. Fischer, C. E. Hmelo-Silver, S. R. Goldman, & P. Reimann (Eds.), International handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 340–350). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315617572-33
Kosiol, T., Rach, S., & Ufer, S. (2019). (Which) Mathematics interest is important for a successful transition to a university study program? International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 17(7), 1359–1380. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-018-9925-8
Leitão, S. (2000). The potential of argument in knowledge building. Human Development, 43(6), 332–360. https://doi.org/10.1159/000022695
Leutner, D. (2002). Adaptivität und Adaptierbarkeit multimedialer Lehr-und Informationssysteme. In L. J. Issing & P. Klimsa (Eds.), Information und Lernen mit Multimedia und lnternet (3rd Edn, pp. 115–125). Beltz.
Lin, F. L., Yang, K. L., Lee, K. H., Tabach, M., & Stylianides G. (2012). Task designing for conjecturing and proving: Developing principles based on practical tasks. In M. de Villiers & G. Hanna (Eds.), Proof and Proving in Mathematics Education. The 19th ICMI Study (pp. 305–323). Springer.
Lockwood, E., Ellis, A. B., & Lynch, A. G. (2016). Mathematicians’ example-related activity when exploring and proving conjectures. International Journal of Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education, 2(2), 165–196. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40753-016-0025-2
Melzner, N., Greisel, M., Dresel, M., & Kollar, I. (2020). Regulating self-organized collaborative learning: The importance of homogeneous problem perception, immediacy and intensity of strategy use. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 15(2), 149–177. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-020-09323-5
Miller, M., & Hadwin, A. (2015). Scripting and awareness tools for regulating collaborative learning: Changing the landscape of support in CSCL. Computers in Human Behavior, 52, 573–588. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.01.050
Mulder, Y. G., Lazonder, A. W., & de Jong, T. (2014). Using heuristic worked examples to promote inquiry-based learning. Learning and Instruction, 29, 56–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.08.001
Nadolski, R. J., Kirschner, P. A., & Van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2005). Optimizing the number of steps in learning tasks for complex skills. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(2), 223–237. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709904X22403
Nicolay, B., Krieger, F., Stadler, M., Gobert, J., & Greiff, S. (2021). Lost in transition – Learning analytics on the transfer from knowledge acquisition to knowledge application in complex problem solving. Computers in Human Behavior, 115, 106594. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106594
Noroozi, O., Weinberger, A., Biemans, H. J. A., Mulder, M., & Chizari, M. (2012). Argumentation-based computer supported collaborative learning (ABCSCL). A systematic review and synthesis of fifteen years of research. Educational Research Review, 7(2), 79–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2011.11.006
Noroozi, O., Weinberger, A., Biemans, H. J. A., Mulder, M., & Chizari, M. (2013). Facilitating argumentative knowledge construction through a transactive discussion script in CSCL. Computers & Education, 61, 59–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.08.013
Noroozi, O., Kirschner, P. A., Biemans, H. J. A., & Mulder, M. (2018). Promoting argumentation competence: Extending from first- to second-order scaffolding through adaptive fading. Educational Psychology Review, 30(1), 153–176. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-017-9400-z
OECD. (2017). PISA 2015 assessment and analytical framework. Science, reading, mathematic, financial literacy and collaborative problem solving. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264281820-en
Ottinger, S., Kollar, I., Ufer, S. (2016). Content and form - all the same or different qualities of mathematical arguments? In Csikos, C., Rausch, A., Szitanyi, J. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 40th Conference of the International Group for the psychology of mathematics education (vol. 4, pp. 19–26). PME.
Plass, J. L., & Pawar, S. (2020). Toward a taxonomy of adaptivity for learning. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 52(3), 275–300. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2020.1719943
Rau, M. A., Bowman, H. E., & Moore, J. W. (2017). An adaptive collaboration script for learning with multiple visual representations in chemistry. Computers and Education, 109, 38–55. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.02.006
Reiss, K., & Renkl, A. (2002). Learning to prove: The idea of heuristic examples. ZDM the International Journal on Mathematics Education, 34(1), 29–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02655690
Renkl, A., Hilbert, T., & Schworm, S. (2009). Example-based learning in heuristic domains: A cognitive load theory account. Educational Psychology Review, 21(1), 67–78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-008-9093-4
Rienties, B., Giesbers, B., Tempelaar, D., Lygo-Baker, S., Segers, M., & Gijselaers, W. (2012). The role of scaffolding and motivation in CSCL. Computers & Education, 59(3), 893–906. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.04.010
Rummel, N., Walker, E., & Aleven, V. (2016). Different futures of adaptive collaborative learning support. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 26(2), 784–795. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-016-0102-3
Schank, R. C. (1999). Dynamic memory revisited. Cambridge University Press.
Schwarz, B. B., Hershkowitz, R., & Prusak, N. (2010). Argumentation and mathematics. In K. Littleton & C. Howe (Eds.), Educational dialogues: Understanding and promoting productive interaction (pp. 103–127). Routledge.
Schwarz, B. B., Swidan, O., Prusak, N., & Palatnik, A. (2021). Collaborative learning in mathematics classrooms: Can teachers understand progress of concurrent collaborating groups? Computers & Education, 165, 104151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104151
Schworm, S., & Renkl, A. (2007). Learning argumentation skills through the use of prompts for self-explaining examples. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(2), 285–296. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.2.285
Sommerhoff, D., & Ufer, S. (2019). Acceptance criteria for validating mathematical proofs used by school students, university students, and mathematicians in the context of teaching. ZDM Mathematics Education, 51(5), 717–730. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-019-01039-7
Stegmann, K., Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2007). Facilitating argumentative knowledge construction with computer-supported collaboration scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(4), 421–447. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-007-9028-y
Stylianides, G. J., & Stylianides, A. J. (2008). Proof in school mathematics: Insights from psychological research into students’ ability for deductive reasoning. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 10(2), 103–133. https://doi.org/10.1080/10986060701854425
Tchounikine, P. (2016). Contribution to a theory of CSCL scripts: Taking into account the appropriation of scripts by learners. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 11(3), 349–369. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-016-9240-8
Thomas, M. O. J., & Klymchuk, S. (2012). The school–tertiary interface in mathematics: Teaching style and assessment practice. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 24(3), 283–300. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-012-0051-6
Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge University Press.
van Aalst, J., & Chan, C. K. K. (2007). Student-directed assessment of knowledge building using electronic portfolios. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16(2), 175–220. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508400701193697
van Merriënboer, J. J. G., Kirschner, P. A., & Kester, L. (2003). Taking the load off a learner’s mind: Instructional design for complex learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 5–13. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3801_2
Vogel, F., Kollar, I., Ufer, S., Reichersdorfer, E., Reiss, K., & Fischer, F. (2016). Developing argumentation skills in mathematics through computer-supported collaborative learning: The role of transactivity. Instructional Science, 44(5), 477–500. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-016-9380-2
Vogel, F., Wecker, C., Kollar, I., & Fischer, F. (2017). Socio-cognitive scaffolding with collaboration scripts: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 29(3), 477–511. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-016-9361-7
Vrieling, E., Stijnen, S., & Bastiaens, T. (2018). Successful learning: Balancing self-regulation with instructional planning. Teaching in Higher Education, 23(6), 685–700. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2017.1414784
Walker, E., Rummel, N., & Koedinger, K. R. (2011). Designing automated adaptive support to improve student helping behaviors in a peer tutoring activity. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6(2), 279–306. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-011-9111-2
Wang, X., Kollar, I., & Stegmann, K. (2017). Adaptable scripting to foster regulation processes and skills in computer-supported collaborative learning. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 12(2), 153–172. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-017-9254-x
Wecker, C., & Fischer, F. (2014). Where is the evidence? A meta-analysis on the role of argumentation for the acquisition of domain-specific knowledge in computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers & Education, 75, 218–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.02.016
Winne, P. H. (2011). A cognitive and metacognitive analysis of self-regulated learning. In D. H. Schunk & B. Zimmerman (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance (pp. 15–32). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203839010.ch2
Wood, D. J., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem-solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89–100. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00381.x
Yackel, E., & Cobb, P. (1996). Sociomathematical norms, argumentation, and autonomy in mathematics. Journal for research in mathematics education, 27(4), 458–477. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.27.4.0458
Zandieh, M., & Rasmussen, C. (2010). Defining as a mathematical activity: A framework for characterizing progress from informal to more formal ways of reasoning. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 29(2), 57–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2010.01.001