analyses on tech-enhanced and anonymous peer discussion as well as anonymous control ...

232 Pages·2016·5.3 MB·English

FacultyofComputerScienceInstituteofSystemsArchitecture,ChairofComputerNetworks
Dissertation
ANALYSES ON
TECH-ENHANCED AND ANONYMOUS
PEER DISCUSSION AS WELL AS
ANONYMOUS CONTROL FACILITIES
FOR TECH-ENHANCED LEARNING
Dipl.-Inf. Tenshi C. Hara
Bornon21February1982inAvonTownship(OaklandCounty),MI,USA.
SubmittedtoTechnischeUniversitätDresdenon18March2016inpartialfulfilment
oftherequirementstoobtainthedegree‘Doktor-Ingenieur’(Dr.-Ing.).Theresearch
wassuccessfullydefendedinfrontofthedoctoratecommitteeon14June2016.
Supervisedby:
Prof. Dr.rer.nat.habil. Dr.h.c. Alexander Schill
SubjectConsultant(Fachreferent):
Prof. Dr.rer.nat.habil. Hermann Körndle
(DepartmentofPsychology,ChairofLearningandInstruction)
ExternalReviewer:
Univ.-Prof. Dipl.-Ing.Dr. Andreas Bollin
(Alpen-AdriaUniversitätKlagenfurt)
‘TellmeandIforget,teachmeandImayremember,involvemeandIlearn.’
BenjaminFranklin
ABSTRACT
An increasing number of university freshmen has been observable in absolute number as well
as percentage of population over the last decade. However, at the same time the drop-out rate
has increased significantly. While a drop in attendance could be observed at the same time,
statisticsshowthatyoungprofessionalsconsideronlyroughlythirtypercentoftheirqualification
to originate in their university education. Taking this into consideration with the before men-
tioned, oneconclusioncouldbethatstudentsfailtoseetheimportanceoffundamentalclasses
and choose to seek knowledge elsewhere, for example in free online courses. However, the so
acquired knowledge is a non-attributable qualification. One solution to this problem must be to
make on-site activities more attractive. A promising approach for raised attractiveness would be
to support students in self-regulated learning processes, making them experience importance
and value of own decisions based on realistic self-assessment and self-evaluation. At the same
time, strict ex-cathedra teaching should be replaced by interactive forms of education, ideally
activating on a meta-cognitive level. Particularly, as many students bring mobile communication
devicesintoclasses,thispromisingapproachcouldbeextendedbyutilisingthesemobiledevices
as second screens. That way, enhanced learning experiences can be provided. The basic idea
is simple, namely to contribute to psychological concepts with the means of computer science.
An example for this idea are audience response systems. There has been numerous research
intotheseandrelatedapproachesforuniversityreadings,butotherformsofeducationhavenot
been sufficiently considered, for example tutorials. This technological aspect can be combined
with recent didactics research and concepts like peer instruction or visible learning. Therefore,
this dissertation presents an experimental approach at providing existing IT solutions for on-site
tutorials, specifically tools for audience responses, evaluations, learning demand assessments,
peerdiscussion,andvirtualinteractivewhiteboards. Thesetoolsareprovidedunderobservation
of anonymity and cognisant incidental utilisation. They provide insight into students’ motivation
toattendclasses,theirmotivationtoutilisetools,andintotheirtoolutilisationitself. Experimental
findingsarecombinedintoanextensiblesystemconceptconsistingofthreemajortoolclasses:
anonymous peer discussion means, anonymous control facilities, and learning demand assess-
ment. With the exception of the latter, promising findings in context of tutorials are presented,
for example the reduction of audience response systems to an emergency brake, the versatility
of(peer)discussionsystems,orademandforretroactivedeanonymisationofcontributions. The
overall positive impact of tool utilisation on motivation to attend and perceived value of tutorials
isdiscussedandsupplementedbyapositiveimpactonthefinalexams’outcomes.
(cid:13)cRandallMunroe
CC-BY-NC2.5–xkcd.com/894
a
b
CONFIRMATION OF AUTOGRAPHIC WORK
I confirm that I independently prepared this dissertation and that I only used the indicated refer-
ences and auxiliary means. Contents based on contributions of others are clearly marked. The
utilisedprototypeswereinpartprogrammedbyTommyKubicaandHuangzhouWu. Theexperi-
mentsandresultsonuserinterfacedesignsrelatedtoaudienceresponsesystemsarebasedon
AlexanderMartin’smasterthesis[Mar15],whichIsupervised.
Dresden,18March2016
c
d
CONTENTS
ListofDefinitions,TheoremsandProofs k
ListofFigures m
ListofTables q
IntroductionandMotivation 1
Part I: Propaedeutics 5
1 WorkingTheses 9
1.1 Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1.2 ContextofWorkingThesesandDefinitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2 ExistingConcepts 15
2.1 Psychology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.1.1 Self-Regulationandself-regulatedLearning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.1.2 PeerInstruction,PeerDiscussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
2.1.3 LearningProcessSupervision: LearningDemandAssessment . . . . . 24
2.1.4 CognitiveActivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
2.1.5 NoteonGamification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
2.1.6 NoteonBlendedLearning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
e
2.2 ComputerScience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
2.2.1 LearningPlatforms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
2.2.2 AudienceResponseSystems(ARS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
2.2.3 VirtualInteractiveWhiteboardSystems(V-IWB) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
2.2.4 CognisantIncidentialUtilisation(CIU) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
2.3 Appraisal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
3 RelatedWork 35
3.1 VisibleLearning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
3.2 auditorium. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
3.3 AuditoriumMobileClassroomService . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
3.4 ARSnovaandotherAudienceResponseSystems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
3.5 GoogleClassroom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
3.6 StackOverflow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
3.7 AwwApp . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Part II: Proceedings 61
4 GlobalPictureandPrototype 65
4.1 GlobalPicture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
4.2 SystemArchitecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
4.2.1 AnonymousDiscussionMeans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
4.2.2 AnonymousControlFacilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
4.3 Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
4.3.1 ThePrototype . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
5 InvestigatedTools 77
5.1 NoteonMethodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
5.2 Anonymity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
5.2.1 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
5.2.2 VisibleLearningEffects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
f Contents
5.2.3 Assertion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
5.2.4 Experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
5.2.5 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
5.2.6 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
5.3 LearningDemandAssessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
5.3.1 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
5.3.2 VisibleLearningEffects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
5.3.3 ToolDescription . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
5.3.4 Assertion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
5.3.5 Experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
5.3.6 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
5.3.7 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
5.4 PeerDiscussionSystem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
5.4.1 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
5.4.2 VisibleLearningEffects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
5.4.3 ToolDescription . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
5.4.4 Assertion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
5.4.5 Experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
5.4.6 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
5.4.7 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
5.5 VirtualInteractiveWhiteboard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
5.5.1 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
5.5.2 VisibleLearningEffects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
5.5.3 ToolDescription . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
5.5.4 Assertion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
5.5.5 Experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
5.5.6 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
5.5.7 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
5.6 AudienceResponseSystemandEmergencyBrake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
Contents g
5.6.1 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
5.6.2 VisibleLearningEffects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
5.6.3 ToolDescription . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
5.6.4 Assertion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
5.6.5 Experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
5.6.6 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
5.6.7 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
5.7 EvaluationSystem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
5.7.1 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
5.7.2 VisibleLearningEffects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
5.7.3 ToolDescription . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
5.7.4 Assertion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
5.7.5 Experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
5.7.6 ResultsandConclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
6 ExamOutcome 117
7 UtilisationandMotivation 127
7.1 PrototypeUtilisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
7.2 MotivationalAspects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
Part III: Appraisal 139
8 Lessonslearned 141
9 Discussion 147
9.1 WorkingTheses’Validity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
9.2 ResearchCommunity: ImpactandOutlook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
9.2.1 SignificancetoLearningPsychology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
9.3 PossibleExtensionofexistingSolutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
h Contents