Collaborative E-Learning with Multiple Imaginary Co-Learner: Design, Issues and Implementation

Authors: Melvin Ballera, Mosbah Mohamed Elssaedi, Ahmed Khalil Zohdy

Abstract:

Collaborative problem solving in e-learning can take in the form of discussion among learner, creating a highly social learning environment and characterized by participation and interactivity. This paper, designed a collaborative learning environment where agent act as co-learner, can play different roles during interaction. Since different roles have been assigned to the agent, learner will assume that multiple co-learner exists to help and guide him all throughout the collaborative problem solving process, but in fact, alone during the learning process. Specifically, it answers the questions what roles of the agent should be incorporated to contribute better learning outcomes, how agent will facilitate the communication process to provide social learning and interactivity and what are the specific instructional strategies that facilitate learner participation, increased skill acquisition and develop critical thinking.

Keywords: Collaborative e-learning, collaborative problem solving, , imaginary co-learner, social learning.

Digital Object Identifier (DOI): doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1070177

References:

[1] Allen, J. & Blaylock, N. & Ferguson G. (2002). A Problem Solving Model for Collaborative Agents. 2002.
[2] Ballera, M. & Omar, A. Exploring Social Networking Technology and Multiple Pedagogical Agents: How and When and to What Extent they Facilitate Learning in E- Learning Systems. International Conference in Information Communication Technology in Education. pp 374-383. July 2012.
[3] Ballera, M. & Elssaedi, M. M, (2012). Incorporating Social Oriented Agent and Interactive Simulation in E-learning: Impact on Learning, Perceptions, Experiences to Non-Native English Students. To be appeared on World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education. Montreal Canada. October 9-12, 2012.
[4] Baylor, A. L., & Kim, Y. Pedagogical Agents aslearning companions: The role of agent competency and type of interaction. Association of Educational Communications and technology. 2006. Vol. 54 No. 3. pp. 223-243.
[5] Botsios, S., Mitropoulou, V., Gergiou, D., & Panapakidis, I. Design of Virtual co-Learner for asynchronous Collaborative e-learning. Paper presented at 6th International Conference on Advance Learning Technologies. Netherland. July 5-7, 2009.
[6] Chen, P., Gonyea, R., & Kuh, G. Learning at a distance: Engaged or not? 2008.
[7] Chou, C. Y., Chan, T. W., & Lin, C. J. Redefining the learning companion: The past, present, and future of educational agents. Computers & Education, 40, 255-269. 2003.
[8] Fan, Sandra. Roles in Online Collaborative Problem Solving. IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing, 2010. pp. 265-266.
[9] Gulz, A., Haake, M., Silvervarg, A., Sjoden. B., & Veletsianos, G., Building Conversational Pedagogical Agent: Design Challenges and Methodological approaches. In Perez-Martin, D., & Pascual-Nieto (Eds.), Converstaional Agents and Natural Language Interaction: Techniques and Effective Practice, 2011. pp. 128-155.
[10] Hennessy, S., & Murphy, P. The potential forcollaborative problem solving in design and technology. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 9(1), pp. 1-36. 1999.
[11] Siemens, G. Connectivism: Learning theory for the digital age. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2(1), January 2005.
[12] Takaoka, R., Okamoto, T. A Design of Interaction Model among Pedagogical Agents in Collaborative Teaching Process. Computer Science and Information Systems, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 23-35. 2005.
[13] Uresti, R. J., & Boulay, B. D. Expertise, motivation and teaching in learning companion systems. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 14, 193-231. 2004.
[14] Veletsianos, G. How do learners respond to pedagogical agents that deliver social-oriented non-task messages? Impact on student learning, perceptions, and experiences. Computers in Human Behavior 28, 275- 283. 2012.