Guiding collaborative revision of science explanations
Guiding collaborative revision of science explanations
复制标题
DOI：
10.1007/s11412-019-09298-y
复制
发表时间：
2019-09-01
影响因子：
4.3
通讯作者：
Linn, Marcia C.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Gerard, Libby;Kidron, Ady;Linn, Marcia C.
本文阐述了如何结合教师和计算机指导可以加强协作修改，并确定在计算机支持的协作学习环境中的教师指导的机会。我们利用嵌入在在线协作环境中的自然语言处理工具，使用人工设计的知识整合规则自动对学生的回答进行评分。我们使用自动解释分数为学生分配自适应指导，并为老师提供有关学生学习的实时信息。我们研究了一位教师如何定制自动化指导工具，并将其与她的课堂监控系统相结合，以指导98名学生对嵌入在在线板块构造单元中的两个科学解释进行有意义的修订。我们的研究借鉴了教学过程中师生互动的视频和音频记录，以及学生对预测，嵌入式和后测评估的反应。研究结果揭示了五种不同的策略，教师用来指导学生对合作修改。教师的策略借鉴了自动化指导，个性化指导学生的想法。教师指导系统支持所有学生对单元中的两个解释进行两轮复习。学生们在后测中比前测做了更多实质性的修改，但总体上进行修改的学生比例仍然很小。研究结果可提供教师专业发展的设计，以指导学生在计算机支持的环境下进行合作修改。
This paper illustrates how the combination of teacher and computer guidance can strengthen collaborative revision and identifies opportunities for teacher guidance in a computer-supported collaborative learning environment. We took advantage of natural language processing tools embedded in an online, collaborative environment to automatically score student responses using human-designed knowledge integration rubrics. We used the automated explanation scores to assign adaptive guidance to the students and to provide real-time information to the teacher on students' learning. We study how one teacher customizes the automated guidance tools and incorporates it with her in-class monitoring system to guide 98 student pairs in meaningful revision of two science explanations embedded in an online plate tectonics unit. Our study draws on video and audio recordings of teacher-student interactions during instruction as well as on student responses to pretest, embedded and posttest assessments. The findings reveal five distinct strategies the teacher used to guide student pairs in collaborative revision. The teacher's strategies draw on the automated guidance to personalize guidance of student ideas. The teacher's guidance system supported all pairs to engage in two rounds of revision for the two explanations in the unit. Students made more substantial revisions on posttest than on pretest yet the percentage of students who engaged in revision overall remained small. Results can inform the design of teacher professional development for guiding student pairs in collaborative revision in a computer-supported environment.