Coding Schemes for
Collaborative Learning Dialogs
Chih-yu Chao
<cchao@cmu.edu>
Dialogs on Dialogs Reading Group
March 4th, 2005
Overview

The Paper

Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (in press). A
methodology to analyze argumentative
knowledge construction in computer-supported
collaborative learning. Computers & Education.
My Research
 Questions / Discussion

Overview :: The Paper :: My Research :: Questions
2
Part I. The Paper
Introduction

CSCL (Computer-Supported Collaborative
Learning)


Written discourse of learners (text-based,
asynchronous discussion boards)
Knowledge Construction




Participation
Epistemic
Argumentative
Social mode
Overview :: The Paper :: My Research :: Questions
4
Participation

Quality of participation


To what extent learners contribute to discourse
Heterogeneity of participation

Collaborative learning may enhance quality
because all learners are supposed to contribute
to small group discussions (in contrast with
classroom discussion)
Overview :: The Paper :: My Research :: Questions
5
Epistemic

How learners work on the knowledge
construction task they are confronted with


Whether learners are engaging in on-task
discourse
The activities can be considered to detect
misconceptions of learners
Overview :: The Paper :: My Research :: Questions
6
Argumentative
Learners continuously warrant, qualify, or
argue against solutions to the problems
until they converge towards a joint
solution
 Construction of



Single arguments
Sequences of arguments
Overview :: The Paper :: My Research :: Questions
7
Social Modes

To what extent learners refer to
contributions of their learning partners



Externalization: make contributions without
reference to other contributions
Elicitation: using learning partners as a
resource by asking questions
Quick consensus building: accept others’
contributions not because they are convinced,
but in order to be able to continue discourse
Overview :: The Paper :: My Research :: Questions
8
Social Modes (cont.)


Integration-oriented consensus building: show
a willingness to actively revise or change their
own views in response to persuasive
arguments
Conflict-oriented consensus building: pinpoint
out specific aspects of the peers’ contributions
and modify them or present alternatives
Overview :: The Paper :: My Research :: Questions
9
Coding Hierarchy

Participation



Epistemic



Engagement in on-task discourse
Detection of misconceptions
Argumentative



Quality of participation
Heterogeneity of participation
Construction of single arguments
Construction of sequences of arguments
Social mode





Externalization
Elicitation
Quick consensus building
Integration-oriented consensus building
Conflict-oriented consensus building
10
Discourse Segmentation

Fine grained


How learners apply single concepts to problem
space (epistemic)
Coarser grained


Construction of arguments (argumentative)
How learners refer to their learning partners’
contributions (social modes)
Overview :: The Paper :: My Research :: Questions
11
Part II. My Research
Introduction
Calculus problem-solving
 Treatment group
(human-human, groups of 2):

pretest, tutorial, midtest
 collaborative problem-solving (using IM)
 posttest
Control group:





pretest, tutorial, midtest
think-aloud individual problem-solving
posttest
Overview :: The Paper :: My Research :: Questions
13
Data Collection


Pretest, midtest, posttest results
Peer learning dialogs during the problemsolving session
How much information can I get
from the dialogs?
Overview :: The Paper :: My Research :: Questions
14
Hypotheses

The peer learner provides the knowledge that the
subject does not have. (The subjects learns by
receiving instructions.)

In contrast, the peer learner shows his/her
insufficiency of knowledge, and the subject
reinforces the knowledge s/he has by teaching
the peer learner.

The peer learner provides encouragement when
the subject feels frustrated.
Overview :: The Paper :: My Research :: Questions
15
Hyp1: Learning by Receiving

The subject may show his/her lack of knowledge by


Asking questions (elicitation)
Making mistakes detected by the peer learner

If the subject shows a quick consensus building (i.e. the peer
learner only dictates the subject to fill out the answer without any
explanation) – it does not count

The peer learner has to elaborate or explain the segment of
the target knowledge, and the subject has to acknowledge
such input (integration-oriented consensus building)

The subject may disagree with the peer learner (conflictoriented consensus building, argumentative)
Overview :: The Paper :: My Research :: Questions
16
Examples of Hyp1
A: which side is u’ and which side is v’?
 B: du/dx is u’, the right side, 1
----------------------------------------------- A: we have u = (t+1), right?
 B: right
 A: when you take derivative, the 1 is out; it’s 0
 B: oh so you did it in your head then… I see
----------------------------------------------- A: wait, not x^(1/2)
 B: … I think its right. My tutor told me that
square root was 1/2 power
 A: it’s x

Overview :: The Paper :: My Research :: Questions
17
Hyp2: Learning by Teaching

Similar to Hyp1, only switching roles
(The difficult part is in determining and
measuring the reinforcement of
knowledge.)
Overview :: The Paper :: My Research :: Questions
18
Hyp3: Learning with Support/Motivation

Words of



Annoyance
Disappointment
Frustration
(the use of obscene words may be a good indication)

Words of


Support
Encouragement
Overview :: The Paper :: My Research :: Questions
19
Examples of Hyp3
A: I think this is getting lame…
there are so many boxes to fill in
-------------------------------------------------------- A: I’m really not very good at basic algebra so I missed
these things easily
-------------------------------------------------------- A: probably my fault…
-------------------------------------------------------- A: so… this is tricky… I don’t like calculus :(
 B: yea it can be
-------------------------------------------------------- A: this one looks complicated though
 B: we can rock its socks off
-------------------------------------------------------- A: I hate math
 B: you’re doing fine so far

Overview :: The Paper :: My Research :: Questions
20
My Coding Hierarchy

Participation



Epistemic



Engagement in on-task discourse (?)
Detection of misconceptions
Argumentative



Quality of participation
Heterogeneity of participation
Construction of single arguments
Construction of sequences of arguments (?)
Social mode







Externalization (?)
Elicitation
Quick consensus building
Integration-oriented consensus building
Conflict-oriented consensus building
Showing frustration
Offering support
Overview :: The Paper :: My Research :: Questions
21
Part III. Questions / Discussion
My Questions





How should I define and quantify elaboration or
explanation?
How do I determine how quickly (or how late) the
subject detects a mistake made by the peer
learner?
The peer learners rarely offer encouragement
when the subjects feel frustrated – they usually
just wanted to move on to the next question…
Other relevant research papers?
Suggestions on the coding schemes?
Overview :: The Paper :: My Research :: Questions
23
Your Questions?

Or comments?
Overview :: The Paper :: My Research :: Questions
24