You are here

Analyses and diagram of ELearniXML domain model

21 January, 2016 - 14:46

In order to present the actors in a clear way as the tasks and relationships among them, we will present an example which makes use of them. Our example will be related to the new techniques of teaching and learning. Among the different existing methodological proposals. In this section, we will use the puzzle of Aronson (Aronson, Blaney, Stephan, Sikes, & Snapp, 1978; Heller, Keith, & Anderson, 1992) serves to illustrate the use of our proposal. This proposal deference this methodological strategy of other proposals, of group work, is the emphasis with which it is raised in the positive dependence among its members so that the value of an individual action is linked to the group result. For that, the interactions between group members are structured into two types of functions: (1) the investigation of isolated sub-subjects; (2) the re-composition of the full subject. Schematically, the steps of the development of Aronson puzzle are as follows:

The idea of puzzle activity is to organize the class into groups called puzzle teams. Each of the components of the equipment selected and responsible for a different part of the task, thus establishing a new integrated team called research group composed of each of those members of the puzzles teams that have chosen the same part of the task. Once the sub-group members of the research group developed the task, they return to their puzzle group to expose and receive information from the rest of their colleagues, so that the whole work will depend on the mutual cooperation and responsibility among members of puzzle groups.

One of the issues raised by the puzzle of Aronson is the need to redefine the role of teachers. The related tasks to this teaching technique and apprentice are described below and shown at Figure 15.15 and Figure 15.16.

1.Selecting the puzzle group members: the teams are not formed randomly, teachers may use different criteria and this activity will be supported by the technology.

2. Suggest the subject to work: it must be a subject that can be divided into many parts as the number of the members of the puzzle, considering that each of these parties have a similar specific weight, so that there are no inequalities among members of the group puzzle. This activity is made by the teacher or the puzzle group members by the authorization of the teacher. If the group members are physically distributed, their activity also will be supported by technology (communication and coordination mechanisms).

media/image26.png
Figure 15.15 Part of the tasks planning of a puzzle activity modelled with eLearniXML notation 

3. Provide the necessary material: it should be clear the distribution of the subjects allocated to each research group, so that each member of the puzzle group may elect a part. Teachers should also provide guidance on where or how to find the information that every one of the research group’s needs, such as materials or bibliographic work close to the subject.

media/image27.png
Figure 15.16 Part of the used resources by each task of a puzzle activity modelled with eLearniXML notation 

4. Advising each group during the completion of the work: with the cooperative work development, the teacher loses the teaching role, as a direct transmitter of the knowledge, and he convert to an adviser. The student group activities and teacher supervision are supported by technology.

5. The result evaluation: It is undoubtedly one of the most controversial parts of the process, since the criteria and assessment instruments and qualifying must meet the same spirit as that the cooperative learning arises, the emphasis on positive interdependence. One possibility is that proposed by Aronson himself, who affirms that the correct way to qualify is: choose a person randomly from the puzzle group and evaluate him with also a randomly chosen subject. The score obtained by that person will be applied to the other members of the group.