协作脚本对社交注释工具中学生互动的数量和质量的影响

Vincent De Boer, H. Spoelstra
{"title":"协作脚本对社交注释工具中学生互动的数量和质量的影响","authors":"Vincent De Boer, H. Spoelstra","doi":"10.4995/head21.2021.12862","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Social Annotation (SA) tools can be used to facilitate active and collaborative learning when students have to study academic texts. However, making these tools available does not ensure students participate in argumentative discussions. Scaffolding students by means of collaborations scripts geared towards collaboration and discussion encourages students to engage in meaningful, high-quality interactions. We conducted an experiment with students (n=59) in a course running at a Dutch university, using the SA tool Perusall. A control group received normal instructions, while an experimental group received scaffolding through collaboration scripts. The results showed a significant increase in the number of responses to fellow students for the experimental group compared to the control group. The quality of the annotations, measured on levels of Bloom’s taxonomy, increased significantly for the experimental group compared to both its baseline measurement and the control group. However, when scaffolding was faded out over subsequent assignments these differences became non-significant. The experimental groups’ increased quality of annotations did not remain over time, suggesting that internalization of the scripts was not achieved.","PeriodicalId":169443,"journal":{"name":"7th International Conference on Higher Education Advances (HEAd'21)","volume":"113 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The effects of collaboration scripts on the number and quality of student interactions in a social annotation tool\",\"authors\":\"Vincent De Boer, H. Spoelstra\",\"doi\":\"10.4995/head21.2021.12862\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Social Annotation (SA) tools can be used to facilitate active and collaborative learning when students have to study academic texts. However, making these tools available does not ensure students participate in argumentative discussions. Scaffolding students by means of collaborations scripts geared towards collaboration and discussion encourages students to engage in meaningful, high-quality interactions. We conducted an experiment with students (n=59) in a course running at a Dutch university, using the SA tool Perusall. A control group received normal instructions, while an experimental group received scaffolding through collaboration scripts. The results showed a significant increase in the number of responses to fellow students for the experimental group compared to the control group. The quality of the annotations, measured on levels of Bloom’s taxonomy, increased significantly for the experimental group compared to both its baseline measurement and the control group. However, when scaffolding was faded out over subsequent assignments these differences became non-significant. The experimental groups’ increased quality of annotations did not remain over time, suggesting that internalization of the scripts was not achieved.\",\"PeriodicalId\":169443,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"7th International Conference on Higher Education Advances (HEAd'21)\",\"volume\":\"113 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-06-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"7th International Conference on Higher Education Advances (HEAd'21)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4995/head21.2021.12862\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"7th International Conference on Higher Education Advances (HEAd'21)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4995/head21.2021.12862","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

当学生必须学习学术文本时,社会注释(SA)工具可用于促进主动和协作学习。然而,提供这些工具并不能确保学生参与辩论讨论。通过协作脚本的协作和讨论,脚手架学生鼓励学生参与有意义的,高质量的互动。我们对荷兰一所大学开设的一门课程的学生(n=59)进行了实验,使用了SA工具Perusall。对照组接受正常指导,实验组通过协作脚本接受搭建。结果显示,与对照组相比,实验组回复同学的次数显著增加。与基线测量和对照组相比,实验组在Bloom分类水平上测量的注释质量显著提高。然而,当脚手架在随后的分配中逐渐消失时,这些差异就变得不显著了。实验组提高的注释质量并没有随着时间的推移而保持,这表明脚本的内部化并没有实现。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The effects of collaboration scripts on the number and quality of student interactions in a social annotation tool
Social Annotation (SA) tools can be used to facilitate active and collaborative learning when students have to study academic texts. However, making these tools available does not ensure students participate in argumentative discussions. Scaffolding students by means of collaborations scripts geared towards collaboration and discussion encourages students to engage in meaningful, high-quality interactions. We conducted an experiment with students (n=59) in a course running at a Dutch university, using the SA tool Perusall. A control group received normal instructions, while an experimental group received scaffolding through collaboration scripts. The results showed a significant increase in the number of responses to fellow students for the experimental group compared to the control group. The quality of the annotations, measured on levels of Bloom’s taxonomy, increased significantly for the experimental group compared to both its baseline measurement and the control group. However, when scaffolding was faded out over subsequent assignments these differences became non-significant. The experimental groups’ increased quality of annotations did not remain over time, suggesting that internalization of the scripts was not achieved.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信