Teacher Training with face to face Computer Supported Collaborative Learning M.Nussbaum1, C. Cortez1, X. López2, P. Rodríguez1, R. Rosas 2 Universidad Católica de Chile, 1 Departamento de Ciencia de la Computación, Escuela de Ingeniería 2 Escuela de Sicología Vicuña Mackenna 4860, Santiago de Chile, Chile mn@ing.puc.cl Abstract: Face-to-face Computer Supported Collaborative Learning is used to update teachers’ knowledge through short courses of math, biology and physics. Pocket PCs wirelessly interconnected through WiFi were used. When we compare the results of twenty one courses that involved 418 teachers we find a statistically significant progress of 13.74% (p<0.000). The methodological activity was seen like an opportunity to interchange not only knowledge but also effective pedagogical strategies to apply them in its task with the students. Introduction Handhelds can be a very effective tool to support constructivist activities in collaborative groups (Jonassen 2001). This article proposes the use of a collaborative learning system supported by wirelessly connected handheld computers to train teachers. The system may be considered as a face-toface Computer Supported Collaborative Learning system (Zurita 2004) and its functioning is based in Collaborative Learning (CL) and Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) theories. Studies suggest that when students work in groups, in a collaborative context, i.e., CL, better academic results are obtained (Johnson et al. 1999) since they learn more, remember for more time, develop abilities of superior reasoning and critical thought and feel more valued and confident (Gomez et al. 2001). Technology, within the CSCL framework, provides in the teaching process an educational environment that controls the interactions between the participants (Klumar 1996). It also supplies information, regulates the tasks, administrates rules and roles and mediates in the acquisition of new knowledge. Wirelessly interconnected handhelds (Palms and Pocket PCs) allow forming, in a natural way, a mobile environment of collaboration. It facilitates face-to-face interactions due to the physical characteristics of the small device, plus the mobility that allows the wireless networks (MANET), (Macker et al. 1999). System Description and Design The aim is to transform the classroom dynamics. From a teacher centered class, where students are passive receiving the instructors’ knowledge, to one where students are active and the teacher performs as a mediator. Our objective is to help the teachers to efficiently update their knowledge through short courses (See Section 3). Collaboration is our instrument through a face-to-face CSCL system. The system was formed by a set of Pockets PCs interconnected by a wireless network (WiFi). The Pocket PCs were IPAQ with 64 MB RAM, color display, PocketPC 2002 operating system and Wi-Fi wireless communication (IEEE 802.11b). We created two sorts of activities: One that involved members of a small group and another that involved students of a whole classroom Activities that involve the members of a same group (Cortez et. al. 2005) Participants were arranged in groups of three which has been shown the best collaborating group size (Dillenbourg 1999). The members of the group had to answer a set of multiple choice questions collaboratively in his/her Pocket PC, discussing the question and their alternatives as shown In Figure 1. In this figure a set of machines of a group is shown plus the mediators’ machine that controls the session. Each group member has two choose an alternative. Technology forces the members of a group to reach an agreement before they can proceed. If an accord is not reached in the answer, the system asks the same question again until everyone in the group agrees on the same answer. Only then the system accepts the answer. If the answer is incorrect the system informs the group and makes them answer the same question again, omitting the selected alternative, until the answer is correct. Once the correct answer is reached, the group proceeds to the next question of the exercise. The group members are randomly selected for each new collaborative session (See Table 1). This allows the teachers to know new people and learn different viewpoints. Additionally if one group member tends to dominate the collaborative discussion, this will occur for just one session since the members will be reshuffled in the next one. The mediators’ machine objective is to control the session. It provides tools to stop any of the groups, or all the groups simultaneously, in order to explain a given concept. The mediator can also send a group, or all the groups, to a given question. In any moment the mediator can see what activity the group is performing and what has been the group achievement. The aim of all this is to give the mediator the necessary tools to support a group when necessary and assist those groups that require it most. The questions that the teachers had to answer came from a question database. Our database had around 1500 questions for each subject area: Math, Chemistry, Biology, Physics and Spanish, for the whole High School (4 years). The mediator selected from the database the questions from those topics that were most relevant for the teachers. This information came from the information obtained from the pre test (See table 1), i.e., those areas where the teachers performed worst. Fig. 1: Students and teacher machine Activities that involve the students of a whole classroom. While in the previous activity the students worked in groups and the teacher assisted a group at a time, the aim of this activity is to produce a discussion between the whole class. The course is divided in groups of three students. The mediator asks all the students to solve a given problem, or answer a given question, independently, using their pocket PCs. For this , each student writes on his/her touch-screen the solution process. Once each student completes his work, s/he waits for his group members. When all complete the activity, they compare their answers and discuss it until they reach an agreement, which will be the solution for the group. It is interesting to observe that compared with the activity that involves members of a same group, here answers are not stored in a data base and are freely written by the students . The solution obtained by the group is sent through the wireless network to the mediator. The mediator then selects those answers , from all the answers received, that s/he finds are worth of being discussed by the whole class. Two discussion alternatives for the whole class are possible. First, that randomly the network selects one student that is involved in a given answer, for each of the answers of the mediators’ selected set. Each of the selected students has to argue with the other students that were also randomly selected form the other answers belonging to the selected solution set, and mediated by the teacher. The second discussion form is that the students have to first vote for the solutions belonging to the teachers selected solution set. Once the result of the votes is available to all, a similar procedure as the previous one is established for each of the possible solutions to achieve a class discussion. Experimental Results The Face-to-face CSCL system was used with the activity that involves members of a same group, to update the knowledge of math and science teachers. This was performed under the supervision and support of the Ministry of Education of Chile. The system was used during the whole 2004 school year (March to November) in 21 short courses. The aim of each course was that each teacher: 1. Identified his/her strength and weakness within his subject area, of the Chilean high school curricular requirements. 2. Updated and strengthened his/her knowledge. 3. Get used to new technology and learned how to use it in class. Each course was in charge of an expert teacher in his/her discipline. As shown in Table 1, each course lasted 20 hours in 4 sessions, on consecutives Saturday mornings. On the Pre and Post Test an evaluation was performed with the Pocket PCs with the main topics that covered the whole curriculum that the teachers should know. The initial diagnosis and the final evaluation allowed establishing the level of achievement of each participant. Both evaluations had the same questions, to observe in a quantitative way the percentage of progress made by each participant. The first evaluation was not only used as a pre test, but also helped to orient the mediators. Those areas that were reported as weaker were selected for the sessions were collaborative work was done. The Pre and Post test was the same and lasted the same: one and a half hour. Since the machines’ batteries last around 90 minutes, after a session they had to be recharged for about the same time. Therefore between technological sessions a mediator (teacher) session was introduced. Here he discussed those topics that presented problems for the students . Each mediator (teacher) session lasted one and half hour totaling five sessions. Finally, in the Collaborative work the Pocket PCs were also used in sessions of one and a half hour with the Face-to-face CSCL system in group of three, as analyzed in Section 2. In total five collaborative sessions were performed. 08:30 10.30 Session 1 Pre Test Session 2 Collaborative Work Session 3 Collaborative Work Session 4 Teachers Work Teachers Work Post Test Brake (15 minutes) 10:45 12:15 Teachers Work Teachers Work Brake (15 minutes) 12:30 14:00 Collaborative Work Collaborative Collaborative Work Work Table 1: Timetable of the course Teachers Work The courses were given in five cities of the country. The organization of the courses was performed by the Chilean Ministry of Education through their training office, CPEIP. Eight courses in math, five in biology, three in physics and one in Spanish were given. The number of teachers that finished the courses was 418 (Table 2). When we compare the results of the pre and post evaluation, obtained by every participant, we find a statistically significant progress for all but one course (Physics in Rancagua that had only nine students). It is worth mentioning that in Biology the increment was the smallest one, since the previous knowledge of the teachers in this subject area was the highest one. The average increment for all the courses, as shown in Table 2, was 13.74% (p < 0.000). As shown in Figure 2, the teachers showed collaborative work to discuss their answers and exchange classroom experience. The expert teacher solved their doubts and differences. The methodological activity was seen like an opportunity to interchange not only knowledge but also effective pedagogical strategies to apply them in its job with the students. These assertions came from a survey that was made to the participants with respect to the questions of the evaluations, to the use and appropriation of the technological tool and to the collaborative work. Fig. 2: Teachers using the Face-to-face CSCL system Subject Math City 72,31% 80,55% 0 11,40% 19 71,43% 81,51% 0 14,11% Rancagua San Fernando 15 70,75% 85,17% 0 20,38% 22 84,26% 92,73% 0 10,05% Temuco 28 54,69% 86,61% 0 58,37% Santiago 25 79,35% 86,95% 0 9,58% Valparaíso 18 79,58% 88,06% 0 10,65% Valparaíso 20 75,25% 84,75% 0 12,62% 0,007 16,95% San Antonio 12 73,13% 85,52% 20,4 73,72% 85,76% Santiago 33 89,82% 92,95% Santiago 18 91,22% Rancagua 17 90,30% Valparaíso 16 Temuco 18,23% 0 3,49% 94,83% 0 3,96% 93,92% 0,004 4,01% 91,13% 95,30% 0,001 4,57% 0 7,88% 30 85,64% 92,39% 22,8 89,62% 93,88% Santiago 10 65,90% 77,64% Valparaíso 10 68,19% Rancagua 9 78,09% 9,7 70,73% 81,47% Valparaíso 10 76,72% 89,92% 0,001 17,20% Santiago 27 84,34% 91,79% 0 8,82% 0 15,08% Temuco Average Chemistry Spanish Increment p 25 Average Physics Chemistry Post Santiago Average Biology Physics Pre San Felipe Average Math Biology N Santiago General Average 4,78% 0,005 17,81% 84,58% 0 24,03% 82,18% 0,155 5,24% 15,69% 22 75,44% 86,82% 19,7 78,83% 89,51% 32 78,60% 83,10% 0 5,72% 418 77,88% 87,71% 0 13,74% 13,01% Table 2: Results for the 21 experimental courses Conclusions Social relationships significantly affect technology based teachers’ training positively (Nian-Shing Chen et. al. 2004). It is well known (Vigotsky 1978), that knowledge is built within a community through social interactions. From this perspective within a learning community, learning occurs when the participants socially interact and share their experiences (Rogoff 1994). From this study we can confirm these previous findings. Handhelds wirelessly interconnected are the infrastructure to build a learning group that interacts socially and permits through face to face interactions a fluid communication between members. This same system has been used with the same data base in high schools. We also have obtained statistical significant results in this second environment and similar conclusions have been obtained about the qualitative aspects (Cortez et al. 2005). A key issue is however, the way teachers use technology. While in the reported experience the teachers (mediators) were skilled professionals , in schools we have to work with regular professionals that not necessarily make the best use of the collaborative aspects possible to achieve with this technology. Training teachers in how to work collaboratively in an effective way and how to mediate collaboration to be operative is a key issue we are working on. Acknowledgements This work was partially supported by a Grantt of FONDECYT # 1040605 and by the Chilean Ministry of Education: CPEIP. References Cortez C., Nussbaum M., López X, ,Rodríguez P., Rosas R. (2005), Teachers’ Support with Ad Hoc Collaborative Networks. Accepted for publication in Computer Assisted Learning (JCAL). Dillenbourg, P. (Ed.). (1999). Collaborative learning: cognitive and computational approaches. Oxford, England: Pergamon, Elsevier Science Ltd. Gómez, Gutiérrez, Cobos, Alamán. (2001). El aprendizaje colaborativo con soporte informático en el diseño de material para desarrollo del pensamiento abstracto en educación infantil. Una experiencia en didáctica de las matemáticas. 3º Simposio Internacional de Informática Educativa, Portugal. Johnson, D.W. & Johnson, R.T. (1999). Learning Together and Alone. Cooperative, Competitive, and Individualistic Learnings. Publiser Allyn. Jonassen, David H. (1991). Evaluating constructivistic learning. Educational technology, 31, 28-33. Kumar, V. (1996). Computer-supported collaborative learning: issues for research. 8th Annual Graduate Symposium on Computer Science, University of Saskatchewan. Macker, J.P., Corson, M.S. (1999). Mobile Ad Hoc Networking and the IETF, ACM Mobile Computing and Communications Review, Vol. 3, Number 2, April 1999. Nian-Shing Chen, Hsin-Yi Huang, Yueh-Chun Shih (2002) Factors Affecting Usage of Web-based Teachers’ Training in Elementary and High School, Proceedings of the International Conference on Computers in Education (ICCE’02), IEEE Press. Rogoff, B. (1994). Developing understanding of the idea of communities of learners. Mind, Culture and Activity, 1 (4), pp.209-229. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Zurita, G., Nussbaum M.. (2004). MCSCL: Mobile Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, Computers & Education, Volume 42, Issue 3 , April 2004, Pages 289-314 View publication stats