"This paper presents our research efforts to support students’ collaborative process when learning mathematics and science as they interact in microworlds and engage in discussions and structured arguments. From a pedagogical perspective, the system provides students with an environment to explore challenging problems and encourages them to collaborate. The collaboration takes place in a discussion environment that is integrated with microworlds, allowing students to discuss and argue with one another and share their rationales and insights. The challenge of this work lies in providing students, teachers, and researchers with coherent, unified feedback within the system as a whole. To accomplish this, the system must combine and analyze student actions across tools, and results of those actions. We conclude that the integration of these two types of software tools provides a solid foundation for intelligent analysis of student collaboration."
Dragon T McLaren B Mavrikis M Geraniou E - Lecture Notes in Computer Science - 2012
1. SUMMARY
The paper presents a blend of Exploratory Learning Environment (ELE) and Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) to allow more possible ways to learn, one of which is the sharing of examples within the integrated system among students - a form of peer-tutoring. Statistics are shared across tools in the integrated environment in order to provide prompt supports such as matching a struggling student with a potential peer-tutor, alerting teachers on mistakes made by both students, etc. The cross-tool communication system include: an analysis channel, a command channel, a server and the cross-tool analysis component. The common language involves Indicators and Landmarks.
2. STRENGTHS
The paper presented a unique approach to collaborative learning. The combination of microworld and discussion tool with robust analytics sharing allow more possible ways of learning. The system can also be used as a template and by other researchers/educators in their future projects.
3. WEAKNESSES
It appeared as if the work did not reach a full implementation phase and thus, lacks qualitative study of actual users (students). The paper also admits its limitations on recognizing scenarios leading to limited responses in certain cases.
