Long Papers Review

- using custom version of PrimeClimb (Avalanche version) built by UBC EGEMS
* screenshots helpful in analysis
- flexible technology (multiple input device) leads to flexible roles
- setup of student locations - can observe turning to look at partner
- note virtual pointing w mouse not recorded 
- some students liked separated positions, but b/c of the novelty of the 
  headphones
* what about relationship between pairs?
- study conducted on students aged 11-13

- KidStory
  - for kids 5-7, develop collaborative storytelling

- evaluation study on collaborative learning
  - ages 6-7, KidPad w zooming, task was to recreate a poem
  - multiple mice vs single mouse
  - w 2 mice, increased verbalization but decreased reciprocity or elaboration 
    of ideas
  - boy-boy, girl-girl, boy-girl pairings
  - w 1 mouse, longer descussions (joint decisions), domination by partner,
    conflict
  - corellated what they talked about with their execution

- Sam - agent who tells story
- Emergent Literacy Learning
  - view children as learning oral and written skills together
- outside-in literacy skills
- role of students became to teach agent..
- Sam 
  - can share stories w advanced form
  - tell/elicit stories
  - currently Wizard-of-Oz implementation
- experimental design
  - 28 girls, 5 years old
  - 4 conditions, 1:1, 1:0, 2:1, 2:0 student-Sam ratio
  - increased use of speech, and temporal and spatial info
- children regarded Sam as storytelling partner, children tried to coach Sam

- what kids ought to be doing as learning goals for scienfic explanations
- focus on these skills in elementary schools
- teacher guided learning activities involving kids in 1st person observational 
  science investigations
- virtual ambients
  - 3D simluations
  - environments in which students can walk araound and record data (students 
    can't change vars)
  - just environment 
    - thus role of teacher is important
    - not stand-alone technology

- two-tiered strategy
  1) meet in whole class group: plan, talk about results
  2) meet in small groups: active explanation

* students develop confidence as investigators
- 1 person moved with controller, while others used PDA's for data recording
  - no contention for controller

- up and running in Nov 1
- posting of messages on an unmoderated discussion board
- teachers can set up a board in five minutes
- minimalist instructions to students, to see myriad of ways in which students 
  interpret assignment
- goal: to enforce students to talk to each other using certain message types or 
  formats when posting
- students provide opinion, experience
- flexible tool that supports different kinds of learning (chemistry, math, etc), 
  thus it's important to scaffold this stuff
- asynchronous (posts), synchronous (notification, message)
- cannot attach images.. but each group has some shared space to help share files

- background
  - need tools to monitor group activities and self-understanding
  - tutor has 3 roles
    - advice
    - control over activites
    - manage peer collaboration
- idea: coaching and monitoring == scaffolding

- Algebra Jam
  - synchronous remote collaboration
  - engages students in problem-finding
  - tools:
    - team blackboard
    - object oriented chat (can point to things that you want to talk about)
    - shared workspace (perform calculations,etc)
  - bookshelf exists for resources
  - agent that supports environment
  
- method
  - giving groups 3 problems to solve in one hour
  - explored nature of collaboration

- scaffolding requires balance
- examples: KIE, Model-It, Belvedere
  - but no general theoretical framework for characterizing how scaffolds assist 
    learning
- scaffolding the connection to domain thinking (try to apply learning of science 
  to the real domain), applying solution to the real world 
  -- connection from specifics to general
- why tools matter
  - cognitive artifacts affect ease of understanding and manipulating info (Norman)
  - task is not a fixed entity 
    -- tasks emerge through the interaction of person and tool
- strategic tools
- strategic artifacts
- get students to articulate by forcing them to focus on certain strats of data 
  analysis
- show that software influence the way that students work
- pre/post tests for testing whether or not this idea works

- issues differ by:
  - age, class, cultures, gender stereotypes
  - issues change rapidly
- unclear what problems are
- children programming
- 3.4 gigs of data
- kids log onto server and initiate instructions
- analysis is based on Perl scripts categorizing data
- girls spend slightly more time communicating (marginal significance: p=0.08)
  - programming achievement
    - identify basic concepts like flow control
      - weights assigned based on importance and difficulty
    - time vs task curve like LOG
      - achievement increases with time on task
      - curve for girls is longer than for boys

    - boys have higher achievement level than girls observed.. but..
      - note previous programming experience (27% did for boys while 16% for girls)
        - so perform regression analysis to see if this is true.. found that boys 
          and girls perform same
        - self-selection
      - achievement correlates with interest
  *** BUT why do boys have more programming experience? gender difference in 
      interest too?