Teacher interviews identified five types of monitored information and, via the Kano method, four highest-priority dashboard indicators for CSCL monitoring¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2019 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? In contextual-inquiry interviews, teachers indicated five types of information or events they act upon when monitoring collaborating dyads. → van Leeuwen 2019 q2 i? Teachers judged four indicators most highly for the dashboard: tries needed, chance of trial-and-error behavior, skill proficiency, and activity over time. → van Leeuwen 2019 (2)

Evidence¶

van Leeuwen 2019¶

van Leeuwen, A., Rummel, N., & van Gog, T. (2019). What information should CSCL teacher dashboards provide to help teachers interpret CSCL situations? International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 14, 261–289. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-019-09299-x

q2 · i? · qualitative · r2

Qualitative pilot interviews with 10 primary school teachers used contextual inquiry so teachers described what they actually do, not what they would like. Teachers named five information types, including "background information about students" and dyads' grasp of materials, engagement, progress, and interaction difficulties.

"Teachers indicated five types of information as sources of information or types of events that they act upon in the collaborative classroom"

van Leeuwen 2019 (2)¶

van Leeuwen, A., Rummel, N., & van Gog, T. (2019). What information should CSCL teacher dashboards provide to help teachers interpret CSCL situations? International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 14, 261–289. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-019-09299-x

q2 · i? · causal · r2

Kano-method ratings with the same teachers on MathTutor-loggable indicators. Excluding background information, the other four types mapped onto "cognitive, metacognitive, and social aspects of collaboration" and the four top-rated indicators became the dashboard's input.

"The following four indicators were judged most highly: 1) the number of tries a dyad needs to solve an assignment, 2) the chance that a dyad displays trial-and-error behavior on an assignment, 3) dyads’ proficiency on fraction skills, and 4) a display of a dyads’ activity over time."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Five learner-valued indicators extend established CSCL frameworks, while six map closely onto existing dimensions — related
• Dashboard support type did not influence detection of CSCL events but did influence teachers' interpretation of the situation — related
• Teacher support with real-time labs requires adaptive expert input that closes cognitive, social, and design gaps — related
• Teachers reported the highest confidence in their situational awareness in the alerting & guiding dashboard condition — related
• Mirroring-condition teachers relied more on indicator views while alerting and advising teachers opened more group overviews — related
• Dashboard-monitoring is a newly observed orchestration type in which the teacher uses real-time AI dashboards to grasp student status and adjust lesson direction and pace (14 of 46 episodes) — related