Collaborative Learning: Methodology, Types of Interactions and Techniques (Education in a Competitive and Globalizing World)

EDUCATION IN A COMPETITIVE AND GLOBALIZING WORLD SERIES

COLLABORATIVE LEARNING: METHODOLOGY, TYPES OF INTERACTIONS AND TECHNIQUES

No part of this digital document may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means. The publisher has taken reasonable care in the preparation of this digital document, but makes no expressed or implied warranty of any kind and assumes no responsibility for any errors or omissions. No liability is assumed for incidental or consequential damages in connection with or arising out of information contained herein. This digital document is sold with the clear understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering legal, medical or any other professional services.

EDUCATION IN A COMPETITIVE AND GLOBALIZING WORLD SERIES Motivation in Education Desmond H. Elsworth (Editor) 2009. ISBN: 978-1-60692-234-7 The Reading Literacy of U.S. Fourth-Grade Students in an International Context Justin Baer, Stéphane Baldi, Kaylin Ayotte,Patricia J. Gree and Daniel McGrath 2009. ISBN: 978-1-60741-138-3 Teacher Qualifications and Kindergartners‟ Achievements Cassandra M. Guarino, Laura S. Hamilton, J.R. Lockwood, Amy H. Rathbun and Elvira Germino Hausken 2009. ISBN: 978-1-60741-180-2 Effects of Family Literacy Interventions on Children's Acquisition of Reading Ana Carolina Pena (Editor) 2009. ISBN: 978-1-60741-236-6 Nutrition Education and Change Beatra F. Realine (Editor) 2009. ISBN: 978-1-60692-983-4

Reading at Risk: A Survey of Literary Reading in America Rainer D. Ivanov 2009. ISBN: 978-1-60692-582-9 Evaluating Online Learning: Challenges and Strategies for Success Arthur T. Weston (Editor) 2009. ISBN: 978-1-60741-107-9 Learning in the Network Society and the Digitized School Rune Krumsvik (Editor) 2009. ISBN: 978-1-60741-172-7 Rural Education in the 21st Century Christine M.E. Frisiras (Editor) 2009. ISBN: 978-1-60692-966-7

IT- Based Project Change Management System Faisal Manzoor Arain and Low Sui Pheng 2009. ISBN: 978-1-60741-148-2 Reading: Assessment, Comprehension and Teaching Nancy H. Salas and Donna D. Peyton (Editors) 2009. ISBN: 978-1-60692-615-4 Reading: Assessment, Comprehension and Teaching Nancy H. Salas and Donna D. Peyton (Editors) 2009. ISBN: 978-1-60876-543-0 (Online Book) Mentoring: Program Development, Relationships and Outcomes Michael I. Keel (Editor) 2009. ISBN: 978-1-60692-287-3 Mentoring: Program Development, Relationships and Outcomes Michael I. Keel (Editor) 2009. ISBN: 978-1-60876-727-4 (Online Book) Enhancing Prospects of Longer-Term Sustainability of Cross-Cultural INSET Initiatives in China Chunmei Yan 2009. ISBN: 978-1-60741-615-9 Multimedia in Education and Special Education Onan Demir and Cari Celik 2009. ISBN: 978-1-60741-073-7 PCK and Teaching Innovations Syh-Jong Jang 2009. ISBN: 978-1-60741-147-5 Academic Administration: A Quest for Better Management and Leadership in Higher Education Sheying Chen (Editor) 2009. ISBN: 978-1-60741-732-3 New Research in Education: Adult, Medical and Vocational Edmondo Balistrieri and Giustino DeNino (Editors) 2009. ISBN: 978-1-60741-873-3

Approaches to Early Childhood and Elementary Education Francis Wardle 2009. ISBN: 978-1-60741-643-2

Recent Trends in Education Borislav Kuzmanović and Adelina Cuevas (Editors) 2009. ISBN: 978-1-60741-795-8 Expanding Teaching and Learning Horizons in Economic Education Franklin G. Mixon, Jr. and Richard J. Cebula 2009. ISBN: 978-1-60741-971-6 Challenges of Quality Education in Sub-Saharan African Countries Daniel Namusonge Sifuna and Nobuhide Sawamura 2010. ISBN: 978-1-60741-509-1 Developments in Higher Education Mary Lee Albertson (Editor) 2010. ISBN: 978-1-60876-113-5 The Process of Change in Education: Moving from Descriptive to Prescriptive Research Baruch Offir 2010. ISBN: 978-1-60741-451-3 Success in Mathematics Education Caroline B. Baumann 2009. ISBN: 978-1-60692-299-6 Special Education in the 21st Century MaryAnn T. Burton (Editor) 2010. ISBN: 978-1-60741-556-5 Collaborative Learning: Methodology, Types of Interaction Edda Luzzatto and Giordano DiMarcos (Editors) 2010. ISBN: 978-1-60876-076-3 Handbook of Lifelong Learning Developments Margaret P. Caltone (Editor) 2010. ISBN: 978-1-60876-177-7

Voices of Foreign-Born African American Teacher Educators in the United States Festus E. Obiakor, Sunday O. Obi and Patrick Grant (Editors) 2010. ISBN: 978-1-60876-322-1 Delving into Diversity: An International Exploration of Issues of Diversity in Education Vanessa Green and Sue Cherrington (Editors) 2010. ISBN: 978-1-60876-361-0 Adopting Blended Learning for Collaborative Work in Higher Education Alan Hogarth 2010. ISBN: 978-1-60876-260-6 Collaborative Learning: Methodology, Types of Interactions and Techniques Edda Luzzatto and Giordano DiMarco (Editors) 2010. ISBN: 978-1-60876-076-3

EDUCATION IN A COMPETITIVE AND GLOBALIZING WORLD SERIES

COLLABORATIVE LEARNING: METHODOLOGY, TYPES OF INTERACTIONS AND TECHNIQUES

EDDA LUZZATTO AND

GIORDANO DIMARCO EDITORS

Nova Science Publishers, Inc. New York

Copyright © 2010 by Nova Science Publishers, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means: electronic, electrostatic, magnetic, tape, mechanical photocopying, recording or otherwise without the written permission of the Publisher. For permission to use material from this book please contact us: Telephone 631-231-7269; Fax 631-231-8175 Web Site: http://www.novapublishers.com NOTICE TO THE READER The Publisher has taken reasonable care in the preparation of this book, but makes no expressed or implied warranty of any kind and assumes no responsibility for any errors or omissions. No liability is assumed for incidental or consequential damages in connection with or arising out of information contained in this book. The Publisher shall not be liable for any special, consequential, or exemplary damages resulting, in whole or in part, from the readers‘ use of, or reliance upon, this material. Independent verification should be sought for any data, advice or recommendations contained in this book. In addition, no responsibility is assumed by the publisher for any injury and/or damage to persons or property arising from any methods, products, instructions, ideas or otherwise contained in this publication. This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information with regard to the subject matter covered herein. It is sold with the clear understanding that the Publisher is not engaged in rendering legal or any other professional services. If legal or any other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent person should be sought. FROM A DECLARATION OF PARTICIPANTS JOINTLY ADOPTED BY A COMMITTEE OF THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION AND A COMMITTEE OF PUBLISHERS. LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOGING-IN-PUBLICATION DATA Collaborative learning : methodology, types of interactions and techniques / [edited by] Edda Luzzatto and Giordano DiMarco. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-61324-251-3 (eBook) 1. Group work in education--Cross-cultural studies. I. Luzzatto, Edda. II. DiMarco, Giordano. LB1032.C5664 2009 371.3'6--dc22 2009032919

Published by Nova Science Publishers, Inc.    New York

CONTENTS Preface Chapter 1

Chapter 2

Chapter 3

Chapter 4

xi Collaborative Learning in Teaching: A Trajectory to Expertise in Pedagogical Reasoning Julien Mercier, Monique Brodeur, Line Laplante and Caroline Girard Generating Collaborative Contexts to Promote Learning and Development Alejandro Iborra, Dolores García, Leonor Margalef and Víctor Pérez Examining Child Development Theories through Collaborative Learning: Techniques for the Instruction of Early Childhood Preservice Teachers Bridget A. Walsh and Claudia Sanchez Facilitating a Blended Learning Approach to Encourage Collaborative Working on Undergraduate Modules Alan Hogarth

Chapter 5

Collaborative Play in Early Childhood Education W. B. Mawson

Chapter 6

Understanding Computer Supported Collaborative Medical Problem Solving: Diverse Perspectives and Multiple Methods Jingyan Lu

Chapter 7

Are You Talking to Me? An Overview of Techniques to Measure Peer Interactions from Three Perspectives and a Proposal for an Integrative Model Michiel B. Oortwijn, Astrid C. Homan and Nadira Saab

1

47

81

95 135

165

197

x Chapter 8

Chapter 9

Contents The Role of Simulations and Real-Time Applications in Collaborative Learning Maria Limniou, Nikos Papadopoulos and Ioannis Kozaris Design Research on Establishing a Learning Ecology for the Use of a Graphic Calculator During Collaborative Work Dirk J. Hoek

225

257

Chapter 10

Types of Interactions in Science Museum Class Visits Yael Bamberger

281

Chapter 11

Supporting Collaborative Learning by Using Web 2.0 Tools Qiyun Wang and Huay Lit Woo

301

Chapter 12

Using Collaborative Learning Methods to Engage and Empower Undergraduate Students in Science Classrooms Neena Grover

Chapter 13

Chapter 14

Chapter 15 Index

317

Meditative Dialogue: A Method for Engaging with Students in Collaborative Learning Processes Susan A. Lord

331

Case Study of Collaborative Learning in Two Contexts: What Do English Language Learners Gain? Sally Ashton-Hay and Hitendra Pillay

341

The Instructional Design of Online Collaborative Learning Laurie Posey and Laurie Lyons

363 383

PREFACE Fostering teachers‘ use of theoretical knowledge requires models that take into account cognitive processes and knowledge used in novices‘ and experts‘ performance, and how these processes and knowledge evolve over time. The aim of this study is to develop a model of the cognitive processes involved in collaborative pedagogical reasoning across four expertise levels. Cognitive research suggests a pedagogical-reasoning model involving three modules associated with theories of discourse comprehension and production, reasoning, planning and problem solving. Twelve student teachers (second and fourth year) and 6 special education teachers (2 had 5 years of experience and 4 had graduate training) were selected to constitute the sample. Paired participants were asked to plan remedial reading instruction. Process modeling was conducted under the assumption that categories developed for individual cognition can be applied to a dyad‘s functioning as a unified system. Frequencies and conditional probabilities are used to aggregate sample data. Globally, participants spent the bulk of their time performing collaborative pedagogicalreasoning actions. There is no notable difference in the prevalence of categories linked to expertise level. At the level of actions, many differences can be observed. Comprehending the case is relatively more frequent in experts and less frequent in fourth-year students. There is a strong tendency towards putting more time on diagnosis and less time on the elaboration of the intervention as the level of expertise increases. These differences may be explained in part by the high level of difficulty of the case study. Globally, sequential dependency among the various steps increases with expertise. At the level of specific transitions, the sequential results depict collaborative pedagogical reasoning as an unsystematic process, making comparisons between levels of expertise difficult. Results show that experts plan goals about diagnostic, while others plan about comprehension. Experts, in contrast with the other participants, do not go from comprehension to elaborating the intervention. For all expertise levels, comprehension and the elaboration of the intervention are more controlled than the diagnostic process. The absence of clearer patterns may be the result of the added complexity of considering pairs as a unified system instead of two separate individuals. This study is part of a program investigating the role and development of expertise in decision-making, as well as the similarities and differences between individual and collaborative performance in complex domains. This analysis of collaborative performance paves the way to upcoming analyses of the individual contributions to teamwork and to

xii

Edda Luzzatto and Giordano DiMarco

comparisons of co-regulation (in homogeneous and heterogeneous dyads) and self-regulation (in individual performance). Finally, the model developed represents a framework to further investigate knowledge use in problem solving. Chapter 1 - Fostering teachers‘ use of theoretical knowledge requires models that take into account cognitive processes and knowledge used in novices‘ and experts‘ performance, and how these processes and knowledge evolve over time. The aim of this study is to develop a model of the cognitive processes involved in collaborative pedagogical reasoning across four expertise levels. Cognitive research suggests a pedagogical-reasoning model involving three modules associated with theories of discourse comprehension and production, reasoning, planning and problem solving. Twelve student teachers (second and fourth year) and 6 special education teachers (2 had 5 years of experience and 4 had graduate training) were selected to constitute the sample. Paired participants were asked to plan remedial reading instruction. Process modeling was conducted under the assumption that categories developed for individual cognition can be applied to a dyad‘s functioning as a unified system. Frequencies and conditional probabilities are used to aggregate sample data. Globally, participants spent the bulk of their time performing collaborative pedagogicalreasoning actions. There is no notable difference in the prevalence of categories linked to expertise level. At the level of actions, many differences can be observed. Comprehending the case is relatively more frequent in experts and less frequent in fourth-year students. There is a strong tendency towards putting more time on diagnosis and less time on the elaboration of the intervention as the level of expertise increases. These differences may be explained in part by the high level of difficulty of the case study. Globally, sequential dependency among the various steps increases with expertise. At the level of specific transitions, the sequential results depict collaborative pedagogical reasoning as an unsystematic process, making comparisons between levels of expertise difficult. Results show that experts plan goals about diagnostic, while others plan about comprehension. Experts, in contrast with the other participants, do not go from comprehension to elaborating the intervention. For all expertise levels, comprehension and the elaboration of the intervention are more controlled than the diagnostic process. The absence of clearer patterns may be the result of the added complexity of considering pairs as a unified system instead of two separate individuals. This study is part of a program investigating the role and development of expertise in decision-making, as well as the similarities and differences between individual and collaborative performance in complex domains. This analysis of collaborative performance paves the way to upcoming analyses of the individual contributions to teamwork and to comparisons of co-regulation (in homogeneous and heterogeneous dyads) and self-regulation (in individual performance). Finally, the model developed represents a framework to further investigate knowledge use in problem solving. Chapter 2 - We proceed to present in this chapter an active and experiential teaching approach based in the creation of ―collaborative contexts‖. This collaborative approach has been experienced and developed through different educational scenarios from Bachelor‘s to Doctorate‘s degree studies since 2002. Going beyond the application of cooperative techniques we propose the convenience of reflecting about the kind of context that is created all through one course between all the involved participants: teacher and students as a whole. According to this we reflect and present evidence concerning the following topics:

Preface

xiii

developmental demands for teachers and students participating in a collaborative experience; key social skills (communication, managing conflicts and leadership processes); interdisciplinary practices with the coordination of several subjects; coherent evaluation practices promoting learning instead of control processes; competence promotion instead of just content elaboration; optional instead of compulsory contexts; useful connecting processes (the McGuffin project ); real practices instead of faked or simulated exercises and finally integration of new virtual technologies such as wikis, blogs and forums to support the process. After exploring these topics we conclude proposing a typical sequence useful to promote this kind of collaborative approach. Chapter 3 - This chapter presents seven collaborative learning techniques for exploring 10 child development theories with early childhood preservice teachers. The chapter also reports on a content analysis that investigated the frequency with which these theories appeared referenced in a popular early childhood journal. The content analysis serves as a framework for instructors to implement seven collaborative learning strategies in the instruction of preservice teachers, namely, think-pair-share, open discussion, all-you-knowabout technique, visual conceptualizations, the auction game, traveling teams, and extension activities for higher-order thinking. Chapter 4 - The main aim of this chapter is to gain a deeper understanding of the attitudes of undergraduate university students to group work and group based technology and how this adds to the concept of blended learning. To advance this aim organisational culture and group work, group based technology in the work place, students and group work and blended learning were all considered important issues for this research. To begin with group work and group technology were considered in an industry setting as this was seen as an important prerequisite to the study of student group work. Initially the relevant literature was reviewed. Following this an industry survey of Human Resource Managers was carried out in order to enhance the findings in the literature review. Another element of this research comprised of a case study and involved groups of undergraduate students involved in group work. The industry survey was in the form of a two-part questionnaire; Traditional Group Work and Group Based Technology. The main findings are that although industry has facilitated group working for a number of years it is still not confident with group technology. The case study involved investigating two classes of students on two modules involved with a group coursework assessment. Questionnaires and interviews were used for the empirical data. The main findings were that there were problems with both traditional group work assessment and group work assessment undertaken with technology. Students were uncomfortable with some aspects of group work e.g. dynamics, conflict, communication, team building issues. They were also unsure of the need or purpose of group based technology. A major finding was that the students did not receive any guidance or training in how to work in groups or use group based technology. With a view to rectifying this situation a number of models were commended that could benefit students undertaking group work in the university environment. The first is the Conceptual Framework for Student Group Work Guidance and Training shows the main areas to be addressed by universities wishing to aid students with group work. This should include a policy on group work as part of the teaching and learning strategy and this should contain issues identified in the research as important i.e. educational, employment, government and technology. Secondly a Traditional Group Work Skills Integrative Training Paradigm‟ was proposed that highlights the ‗traditional‘ group work training needs of students under three main issues; Culture Change, Social and Educational.

xiv

Edda Luzzatto and Giordano DiMarco

These sections have further detailed sub-headings. The third model, Group Based Technology Skills Integrative Training Paradigm, highlights the training needs for students in group based technology. Three main issues are also included in this model; Culture Change, Social and Educational Technology. It is also recommended that a further study be carried out where the above training models may be applied in a real life setting. To this end further research was undertaken on the possibility of a new and innovative ‗blended learning‘ approach incorporating the findings of the above research. Due to the wider, more diverse student population there is an obvious need for greater flexibility in curriculum design and course delivery, accompanied by innovations in teaching and learning. A more flexible style of teaching and greater independent learning by students is now required to cope with these changes. The answer would appear to be to encourage independent learning by facilitating a ‗blended learning‘ approach. This chapter also discusses a blended learning approach, developed by the authors, to teaching undergraduate modules that encourage students to undertake independent learning in a practical and non-threatening manner. This approach is based on the utilisation of aspects of traditional teaching, VLEs and Web 2.0 technologies. The model discussed in this section is the culmination of the project funded by the ReEngineering Assessment Project (REAP). The benefits of this research of student group working are reflected in its relevance to an important area in both business and educational environments. Its findings offer an understanding of the research area and have helped develop a series of models that others can use to assist their students understand and use group work and group based technology. Chapter 5 - Collaborative play in early childhood education is an under-researched area. This chapter describes and discusses the findings of a two-year research project investigating the nature of young children‘s collaborative play in two New Zealand early childhood education settings. In order to clearly contextualize the study the research method, participants and settings are first described. The findings are then discussed in terms of gender, leadership, themes, and environmental influences. Two aspects, the theme of pretending to be dead, and the nature of leadership in children‘s play are explored in depth in this discussion. Finally, suggestions are offered for strategies to encourage collaborate play in early childhood settings Chapter 6 - Understanding computer supported collaborative problem solving calls for diverse theoretical perspectives and multiple analytical methods. This chapter is divided into five parts. Part one deals with how different theories of learning contribute alternative social, cognitive and technological perspectives on such fundamental features of collaborative learning as scaffolding, problem solving, argumentation and communicative interaction. Part two argues that multiple methods provide resources for analyzing data from social, cognitive and affective perspectives on collaborative problem solving. Part three discusses computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) environments as composed of sets of cognitive tools specially designed to support collaborative problem solving. Part four focuses on an innovative classroom problem solving activity in which a teacher and his third-year medical students simulate authentic medical emergencies in which students are required to stabilize a hospitalized patient whose vital signs have suddenly begun to deteriorate. In mounting, directing and acting in simulations the teacher not only transforms his role as instructor but those of his students as learners. For instance, multiple theoretical perspectives make it possible to focus not only on diverse roles of pedagogical expertise but also on how CSCL based cognitive tools for visualizing and

Preface

xv

formulating tasks, and for managing data can be used in scaffolding collaborative problem solving and decision-making. Multidisciplinary methodologies can support complementary forms of analysis of differently sourced data. Examples of coding, analyzing, and interpreting teacher-student and student-student discourse, medical problem solving, and tool use are provided. Part five discusses potential challenges to and proposals for integrating multiple methods and sources of data. Chapter 7 - A unique aspect of working in small groups is that students have the opportunity to interact with each other about how to solve problems. Research in educational and social psychology has shown that task-related (TR) peer interactions are positively related to performance. The positive relation of task-related peer interactions with performance is influenced by both individual and contextual factors. In this chapter we will give an overview of the current knowledge on methods to analyze task -related peer interactions in three major research fields: the face-to-face, computer-supported, and group decision-making setting. We will outline that there are several methods of interaction analysis in each research field which differ from each other on multiple aspects. In the face-to-face setting the two dominant approaches are: (1) discourse analysis (analysis of interaction patterns), and (2) functional analysis (analysis of aspects of individual statements). In the computer-supported setting, peers communicate through means of computer-mediated communication (CMC). Two types of communication tools can be distinguished: asynchronic communication tools, such as e-mail and discussion forums, and synchronic tools, such as chat. Compared to the face-to-face setting, methods used to code CMC make use of the fact that CMC can be directly logged. In group decision-making settings, group processes are assessed using real-time as well as surveybased measures of interaction quality (e.g., social climates and conflicts) and task progress (e.g., shared mental models and group-level information processing). We will provide a state-of-the art overview of current peer interaction methodologies and illustrate each methodology with case studies from relevant research. Additionally, we will discuss what individual and contextual factors have been found to affect the relation between task-related peer interactions and performance. In doing so, we will draw parallels between educational psychology and social psychology and propose an integrative model to better understand what determines the effectiveness of task-related peer interactions. Chapter 8 - As Computer-Supported Collaboration Learning (CSCL) is the combination of collaborative learning and support by computer technology, the effectiveness of CSCL depends on the kind of collaboration, the technical environment, the learners‘ characteristics, the teachers‘ role and the task demands. The aim of this chapter is to demonstrate the integration of synchronous and asynchronous activity based on real-time application and simulations into chemistry laboratory. In synchronous collaboration students observed the progress of an experiment from their PC and collected and interpreted data as the experiment was on the progress by using a real -time application for control the instrument remotely. Another example for synchronous collaboration was based on simulation program where the teaching procedure was conducted in a computer-cluster. The students performed virtual experiments by using a simulation program on their PC and they shared their measurements, observations and conclusions by using the LAN. In the cases of synchronous collaborations the teacher and the students had a face-to-face communication in computer cluster and the computer

xvi

Edda Luzzatto and Giordano DiMarco

interaction was through LAN. In asynchronous collaboration, students performed virtual experiments by using a simulator and by using the discussion boards of Virtual Learning Environments (VLEs) they shared their experience and discussed the conclusions. In that case the teacher and students had an on-line collaboration and the computer interaction was through VLEs. The results in all the cases were interpreted in terms of the learners‘ characteristics, the teachers‘ role, task demands and learning outcomes. Chapter 9 - Research that goes beyond the numerous effect studies on the influence of the graphic calculator on student achievement shows that the use of this tool in an explorative manner asks for a well-tuned learning ecology. Thus, if the latter is seen as a valuable option, the question arises how such a learning ecology can be developed. To answer this question, a design research project was carried out in two classrooms within schools for vocational education. This study aimed at changing the learning ecology by fostering gradual changes in teacher behavior. As a result of this intervention, teachers changed their teaching style, which resulted in changes in the students‘ way of working together. Teachers developed a more process and group oriented coaching style and students started to work collaboratively, using the graphic calculator in an exploratory and investigative way. This paper will report on the intervention strategy that has been developed as part of the study. Chapter 10 - Exhibitions in science museums stimulate conversations and collaborative learning in different ways. This chapter describes a research method that aims to analyze various types of interactions in relation to these exhibits. Since the museum setting is strongly socio-culturally mediated, the theoretical framework is based on socio-cultural theory, which emphasizes social interactions and stresses the importance of cultural symbols as essential elements in meaning-making. Types of interactions can describe the collaborative learning in class visits to museums, and defined here as: individual, collective and multiple ‗zones of interaction‘. The zones are centered on a single exhibit that encourages interpersonal or intrapersonal interaction. The individual zone occurs when only one student manipulates the exhibit; the collective zone occurs when two or more students share their experience regarding the exhibit; and multiple zone describes a situation in which two or more separate zones occur at the same time and both are centered on the same exhibit. Since learning in museums is mainly interest-driven, this method further characterizes the collaborative learning within the three zones of interaction through evaluation of expressions of curiosity. These expressions of curiosity are manifested in technical, emotional and intellectual ways. In order to elucidate the implementation of the suggested method to study interactions at museums, this chapter presents a study utilizing the framework to evaluate class visits to a science center. Two class visits of eighth graders were observed and videotaped, focusing on student-student and student-adult interactions. The framework suggested in this chapter enables an innovative method for investigating exhibits-centered collaborative learning involving the different types of interactions in science museums. Chapter 11 - The ability to collaborate is becoming more and more important in today‘s world in which tasks are getting more and more interdisciplinary and complicated to accomplish. It is therefore essential to prepare students on collaborative tasks while they are in schools so that they can become competent team workers when they enter the workforce. This chapter presents a theoretical foundation of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) and uses related examples to illustrate how various web 2.0 tools can be used to support collaborative learning. There are three parts in the theoretical foundation: first, the two important pillars of CSCL (individual accountability and positive interdependence);

Preface

xvii

second, the three levels of collaboration (coordination, cooperation and reflective communication) and last, the social constructivist learning theory. The web 2.0 tools presented in this chapter include Weblog, Wiki, Google Docs, Yahoo group, and Facebook. The affordances of these tools for collaborative learning together with examples of using the tools to support teachers and students in collaborative learning processes are also described. Chapter 12 - Much of the traditional science is taught with the idea that students can only begin to participate in the intellectual work of science only after years of classroom learning, primarily through lecture-based methods. Experiential learning is relegated to the laboratory. Thus, it is not a surprise that students equate learning science with memorizing and regurgitating factual information. To attract students with diverse talents into our fields we need to rethink the paradigm of teaching and learning science. Science faculty have access to various pedagogical tools that can facilitate greater interactions among students and engage them with the material in a meaningful way. When students get involved in their own learning, the extent of student and faculty engagement with the material increases significantly. Collaborative work environment inside and outside the classroom increases the quality of work produced by the students. When classroom learning is coupled with dissemination of scientific information to the community, it enhances students‘ commitment and motivation for the work. Whether these students stay in science or not, they become good ambassadors of science. In this chapter, I will discuss various aspects of planning and organization necessary for successful implementation of collaborative learning and provide some examples from my courses with contain various degrees of collaborative-learning and community engagement. Chapter 13 - This chapter offers an in-depth description of a teaching approach that uses meditation and postmodern practices to encourage a sense of joint ownership, collaboration and mutual responsibility for learning in a final Master‘s in Social Work (MSW) practice class at the University of New Hampshire (UNH) in Durham, New Hampshire. It elaborates on practices that have been described elsewhere (Lord, 2007) and that continue to evolve and expand. It delineates processes through which students and instructor aim to become equal partners in developing collective knowledges, participating actively in the collaborative practices that they are learning about as they move from positions of inexpert learners to expert colleagues in preparation for graduation and entry into the social work field. Included is a discussion of current students‘ evaluation of the meditative dialogue method and their views on how it has impacted their learning experience and professional development. Chapter 14 - This paper describes the use of collaborative learning as an approach to enhance English language learning by students from non-English speaking backgrounds. Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) principles were applied to two case studies, one comprising of undergraduate English as Foreign Language learners in Turkey and the other involved English as Second Language learners in Australia. Social constructivism inspired communicative language teaching using collaborative learning activities such as team work, interactive peer-based learning; and iterative stages of learning matrix were incorporated to enhance students learning outcomes. Data collected after the CLT intervention was made up of field notes, reflective logs and focus group interviews which revealed complementarities, as well as subtle differences between the two cases. The findings were summarized as learning dispositions; speaking competence, proficiency and confidence; learning diagnostics and completion deficiencies; task engagement, flow theory and higher order thinking skills; in addition to self efficacy and development of student identity. CLT has the potential to provide

xviii

Edda Luzzatto and Giordano DiMarco

a more inclusive and dynamic education experience for diverse learners through vital outcomes and benefits which resonate with the real world. Chapter 15 - Much has been written about the potential for deep, meaningful learning through shared problem-solving and joint knowledge construction during online collaborative learning (OCL). By requiring the integration of diverse perspectives, collaborative experiences foster critical thinking and can help to move learners beyond what they are able to achieve independently. With these important educational benefits come significant challenges related to team building, participation equity, effective facilitation of critical discourse, student assessment, and the logistical challenges associated with separation of time and place. Perceived and experienced implementation difficulties often inhibit instructor‘s adoption of collaborative learning strategies in online courses. The challenges associated with online collaborative learning can be addressed through careful instructional design. There is an array of educational research exploring the effects of instructional variables on the effectiveness and outcomes of OCL. The prevalence of small, diverse studies focused on specific aspects of collaborative learning makes it difficult for practitioners to draw conclusions to guide instructional practice. The literature includes many descriptions of what effective collaboration looks like, but little specific guidance about how to get there. To bridge this gap, this chapter translates collaborative learning research into practical application. It explores key instructional design considerations for the design and implementation of effective online collaborative learning including technology selection; activity design; group formation and role assignment; team building; scaffolding and facilitation; and learner assessment. A synthesis of research findings related to each of these considerations is presented along with checklists of recommendations to guide the instructional design of OCL.

In: Collaborative Learning: Methodology, Types… Editors: E. Luzzatto, G. DiMarco, pp. 1-46

ISBN: 978-1-60876-076-3 © 2010 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Chapter 1

COLLABORATIVE LEARNING IN TEACHING: A TRAJECTORY TO EXPERTISE IN PEDAGOGICAL REASONING Julien Mercier1*, Monique Brodeur1, Line Laplante2 and Caroline Girard1 1

Département d'éducation et formation spécialisées Université du Québec à Montréal C.P. 8888, Succursale Centre-ville, Montréal (Québec) Canada H3C 3P8 2 Université du Québec à Montréal 3 Départementde didactique des langues Université du Québec à Montréal

ABSTRACT Fostering teachers‘ use of theoretical knowledge requires models that take into account cognitive processes and knowledge used in novices‘ and experts‘ performance, and how these processes and knowledge evolve over time. The aim of this study is to develop a model of the cognitive processes involved in collaborative pedagogical reasoning across four expertise levels. Cognitive research suggests a pedagogicalreasoning model involving three modules associated with theories of discourse comprehension and production, reasoning, planning and problem solving. Twelve student teachers (second and fourth year) and 6 special education teachers (2 had 5 years of experience and 4 had graduate training) were selected to constitute the sample. Paired participants were asked to plan remedial reading instruction. Process modeling was conducted under the assumption that categories developed for individual cognition can be applied to a dyad‘s functioning as a unified system. Frequencies and conditional probabilities are used to aggregate sample data. Globally, participants spent the bulk of their time performing collaborative pedagogical-reasoning actions. There is no notable difference in the prevalence of categories linked to expertise level. At the level of actions, many differences can be *

Corresponding Author: Téléphone: (514) 987-3000, poste 1091, Télécopie : (514) 987- 3430 Email : [email protected]

2

Julien Mercier, Monique Brodeur, Line Laplante et al. observed. Comprehending the case is relatively more frequent in experts and less frequent in fourth-year students. There is a strong tendency towards putting more time on diagnosis and less time on the elaboration of the intervention as the level of expertise increases. These differences may be explained in part by the high level of difficulty of the case study. Globally, sequential dependency among the various steps increases with expertise. At the level of specific transitions, the sequential results depict collaborative pedagogical reasoning as an unsystematic process, making comparisons between levels of expertise difficult. Results show that experts plan goals about diagnostic, while others plan about comprehension. Experts, in contrast with the other participants, do not go from comprehension to elaborating the intervention. For all expertise levels, comprehension and the elaboration of the intervention are more controlled than the diagnostic process. The absence of clearer patterns may be the result of the added complexity of considering pairs as a unified system instead of two separate individuals. This study is part of a program investigating the role and development of expertise in decision-making, as well as the similarities and differences between individual and collaborative performance in complex domains. This analysis of collaborative performance paves the way to upcoming analyses of the individual contributions to teamwork and to comparisons of co-regulation (in homogeneous and heterogeneous dyads) and self-regulation (in individual performance). Finally, the model developed represents a framework to further investigate knowledge use in problem solving.

INTRODUCTION The study reported herein is part of the first phase of the Pedagogical Reasoning Project, which began in 2006. In hope of improving teacher education and teacher professional development, the main outcome of the first phase of the project is a theory accounting for aspects of teachers‘ cognition in terms of problem-solving processes, knowledge and knowledge use. This chapter is the first of a series of publications discussing, from a cognitive point of view, aspects of (1) how teachers think, both individually and cooperatively, (2) the knowledge they possess, (3) how they use this knowledge in teaching, (4) the assessment of expertise in teaching, and (5) the development of expertise in teaching. The present chapter is the cornerstone of the other manuscripts, since it presents in great detail the foundations of the model that is used in the subsequent pieces of work. These foundations hinge on cognitive research that began in the late 1970s and is still going on today. Teacher collaboration is currently an important topic of research on teaching and teacher education. In recent years, researchers have studied collaboration between teachers through the use of information and communication technology (ICT) (Akpinar & Bal, 2006 ; Suntisukwongchote , 2006 ; Winter & McGhie-Richmond, 2005), in context of inclusion (Wallace, Anderson & Bartholomay, 2002 ; Parmar & DeSimone, 2006), the role of collaboration between student teachers in learning to teach (Arvaja, Salovaara, Häkkinen & Järvelä, 2007 ; Seifert & Manzuk, 2006), the role of collaboration between teachers in learning to teach (Meirink, Meijer & Verloop, 2007), the role of collaboration between teacher educators and classroom teachers (Erickson, Minnes Brandes, Mitchell & Mitchel, 2005) and between teachers (Butler, Lauscher, Jarvis-Selinger, Beckingham, 2004 ; Johnson, 2003) on professional development, the role of collaboration between student teachers and

Expertise in Pedagogical Reasoning

3

teacher educators on student teachers‘ learning (Tillema & Orland-Barak, 2006), collaboration between teachers in planning and implementing lessons (Akpinar & Bal, 2006 ; Chen, Cone & Cone, 2007 ; Davison, 2006), and collaboration between teachers and university researchers in curriculum design (Webb, Romberg, Ford & Burrill, 2005). These studies have shown that collaboration can have beneficial effects on teachers‘ learning and production. For example, Erickson, Minnes Brandes, Mitchell and Mitchell (2005) and Chen, Cone and Cone (2007) suggested that collaboration projects involving inservice teachers have enhanced pupils‘ learning. In another study, social support was the main outcome of collaboration between student teachers (Seifert & Manzuk, 2006). However, these studies have also identified challenges inherent to collaboration. Issues of conflict, commitment, control and respect (Erickson, Minnes Brandes, Mitchell and Mitchel, 2005), roles and responsibilities (Winter & McGhie-Richmond, 2005) as well as issues related to individual differences (Seifert & Manzuk, 2006) were raised. Consequently, collaboration in group work may not always represent an added value over individual activity. Arvaja, Salovaara, Häkkinen & Järvelä (2007) call for the study of the reciprocal relationship between individual and collective processes in order to design better collaborative learning tasks. They precisely formulated a fundamental issue: ―what kind of social interaction can be called collaborative and how are the collaborative opportunities and individual abilities matched‖? To help further explore this intricate balance of costs and benefits related to group performance and learning, collaboration has to be studied in the context of well-specified teaching tasks that can reveal group processes as well as individual processes of the individuals forming the group. These processes refer to the executive processes of the group during the performance of a (learning) task, as well as the processes by which each individual attunes his own cognitive processes to the group performance (Tschan, 2002). An important assumption in this study is that the executive processes underlying the individual or group performance can be characterized, at a certain level, using the same categories. Such a study requires a complex task that is representative of a significant portion of daily teaching activity. Instructional or teacher planning was selected as an appropriate task, for a number of reasons. Teacher planning is an important part of teaching. It encompasses almost everything excluding the interactive phase of teaching. That is, it includes decisionmaking before a teaching episode, as well as post-teaching reflection and adjustments. Teacher planning is the principal mean for the development of teacher knowledge (Hasweh, 2005), a function that was formulated intuitively almost 30 years ago by McCutcheon (1980). The planning or design of learning activities implies that the teacher provide answers to a series of questions related to educational issues such as content, learning goals, links with anterior/subsequent content and students‘ prior knowledge, and assessment. Elements of answer to such questions originate either from knowledge that the teacher already has, or from external sources. Teacher knowledge develops from the integration of these elements of answer. As a process involving the integration of internal and external sources of knowledge, teacher planning can be seen as the entry point of choice for best practices. In the teaching process, planning is the main occasion for making decisions regarding alternative practices. In contrast, decision making in the interactive phase of teaching is restricted to the implementation of scripts and agendas previously determined. These reasons, associated with the development of current conceptualizations of teacher knowledge, have led to renewed interest in teacher planning, teacher knowledge and their

4

Julien Mercier, Monique Brodeur, Line Laplante et al.

relation and how to foster the development of these skills and knowledge (McCutcheon & Milner, 2002 ; Milner, 2003; Hasweh, 2005).

1. THE PROBLEM AND ITS CONTEXT In light of the importance of collaboration in teaching and teacher education, the study of teacher cognition should be extended to groups of teachers. Teamwork is widespread in teaching. Most teacher education programs include collaboration as a means to foster student learning. For example, student teachers work collaboratively in university courses. They are also supervised by mentors during teaching practicums. Moreover, current reforms formulate calls for teachers to work collaboratively on educational issues. As a result, teachers work in teams on shared teaching projects. Specialists of various disciplines work together on a pupil‘s AEP. However, how teachers collaborate in their work has not been extensively documented from a cognitive perspective. Indeed, during the last 35 years, the field of teacher cognition has produced many studies of teachers‘ thought processes and knowledge (Clark & Peterson, 1986; Munby, Russell and Martin, 2001). The types and functions of teacher planning, and aspects of the process of teacher planning were studied. Aspects of the knowledge on which teacher planning is based were characterized (Hasweh, 2005; Shulman, 1986). The cognitive research reviewed focused exclusively on individual teachers‘ cognition. As Munby, Russell and Martin (2001, p.894) point out, ―Until learning experiences in university settings evolve to match our understanding of situated cognition, the development of teachers‘ knowledge will continue to be problematic‖. To this end, it is critical that the study of teacher cognition be extended to collaborative contexts in a way that results can be articulated synergistically with a substantial and highly relevant tradition of research regarding individual cognition.

2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK A cognitive model of pedagogical reasoning has to specify the structure of a pedagogicalreasoning episode (i.e. a sequence of pedagogical-reasoning actions). That is, such a model has to postulate what actions can occur in the sequence of actions involved in a pedagogicalreasoning episode. Such actions are conceptualized after pertinent theory of human cognitive performance in complex domains: comprehension, reasoning, planning and problem solving. In addition, the model has to specify how such actions unfold within an episode. This sequence is based on structural constraints inherent to the nature of pedagogical-reasoning constituent components. Moreover, given its hierarchical nature, the model may imply predictions about how episodes of components of the same hierarchical level in the model are linked. Since comprehension, reasoning and pedagogical problem solving are conceived of as the main components of human cognitive performance in a semantically complex domain, these processes can be examined with respect to how they interact with each other. Finally, the model may imply additional predictions about how episodes of different hierarchical levels in the model are linked. The result is a generic theory of pedagogical-reasoning processes that can be used to examine aspects of the performance of individuals and groups in

Expertise in Pedagogical Reasoning

5

a context of instructional planning. The model is based on the theoretical elements presented next: the cognitive processes underlying pedagogical reasoning, the relationship between individual and group performance, and the relationship between pedagogical reasoning and domain knowledge. The presentation of the research questions ends this section.

2.1. Cognitive Processes Involved in Pedagogical Reasoning The processes involved in pedagogical reasoning build on the two major manifestations of human higher-order cognition according to Hatano and Inahaki (2000): discourse comprehension and production, and problem solving. These processes are complementary: comprehension is a coherence-seeking process whereas problem solving is a change-seeking process. An emphasis is also put on reasoning, as an extension to comprehension theories (Hatano and Inahaki, 2000) that focuses on how relations between mental representations are used to make inferences (Rips, 2002). Despite their complementary nature, research to date has not shown how comprehension and problem solving are articulated together. This must be done to some degree for the present model. To this end, the concepts of schemas and mental models, as entities that are manipulated both by comprehension (including reasoning) and problem-solving processes, are discussed in conjunction with each of these processes. Finally, aspects of planning in problem-solving are also articulated in the model, since the production of solution to complex problems involves planning. The comprehension, reasoning, planning and problem-solving processes underlying the model are presented within a knowledgecentered view of cognition based on research on expertise, in which a large portion of variation in cognitive performance is accounted for by the use of knowledge rather than by generic cognitive operations. After a thorough review of relevant literature, each section ends with a specification of the categories present in the model. Those categories are then defined operationally in the presentation of the methodology.

2.1.1. Understanding a situation: Building mental models of the case through discourse comprehension processes The postulated model has to specify cognitive processes by which an individual understands a situation (in this case, on the basis of the description of the case). It must also identify the organisation of the information understood. The model also has to distinguish and articulate the information presented in the case that the individual reads and the information (knowledge) that the individual already had in memory and uses in understanding the case. The construction-integration model of discourse comprehension has been very influential since its creation and development in the early 1980‘s and continues to be so in current research (Foltz, 2003; Zaan & Singer, 2003). In presenting his construction-integration model of comprehension, Kintsch (1998) defines comprehension as the bottom-up construction of an interpretation of information through a constraint- satisfaction mechanism based on spreading activation in memory. Information originates both from the environment and from the memory of the comprehender. More specifically, comprehension can be fragmented in a sequence of four steps: perception, understanding of local propositions (microstructure), understanding of large parts or main ideas of a text (macrostructure) leading to a text-based situation model and finally to a situation model, when the gist of the text is integrated to the prior knowledge of the

6

Julien Mercier, Monique Brodeur, Line Laplante et al.

comprehender. Foltz (2003) reframes the process as two main stages: the construction of representations and their integration with prior knowledge. This cyclical process operates on a few local propositions at a time, the equivalent of a phrase or short sentence. There are two mechanisms involved in the construction-integration model: one that activates the related nodes in the memory network and another one that deactivates the irrelevant ones based on the context. Hatano and Inahaki (2000) argue that the constraintsatisfaction mechanism usually involves more than the automatic spreading activation posited as sufficient by Kintsch (1998). Frederiksen and Breuleux (1990) and Frederiksen, Bracewell, Breuleux and Renaud (1990) argue for a more top-down view of comprehension, in which prior knowledge has a significant impact on the process. Their model is discussed in the upcoming section on mental models and schemas in comprehension.

2.1.1.1. Propositions, microstructure and macrostructure In many theories of comprehension such as Kintsch‘s (1998) and Frederiksen and colleague‘s theory, it is postulated that the information is in the form of propositional representations. Propositions are the smallest unit of meaning that can be conveyed by discourse (Foltz, 2003). A proposition is made of various combinations of predicates (or relational terms), and arguments. It should be noted that propositions are the building blocks of schemas, in which predicates determine the slots and their organisation. A proposition, depending on its level of generality, is organized in relationship to the other propositions as either the microstructure or the macrostructure of the text. The microstructure represents the local information of a text, at the level of sentences. Micropropositions are created by parsing the text. Algorithms for parsing texts are provided by Kintsch (1998) and Frederiksen (1975). The macrostructure represents the global structure of a text by organizing the micropropositions of the text hierarchically. It is a set of propositions that can be either explicit in the text (titles, initial topic sentences, summary statements, etc.) or inferred by the reader. These propositions are organized hierarchically with respect to the level of generality of the information they convey. A perfect summary of a text is a text representing only its macrostructure. Macropropositions are derived from the text using macrorules (Brown & Day, 1983). Propositions in the macrostructure are called macropropositions whereas propositions in the microstructure are termed micropropositions. 2.1.1.2. Textbase and aituation model The distinction between textbase and situation model refers to the origin of the propositions in the mental representation elaborated through comprehension (Kinstch, 1998). On the one hand, the textbase represents the propositions directly derived from the text read. That is, the textbase represents the meaning of the text, independently of its surface structure (its exact wording) (Oostendorp, Otero & Campanario, 2002). On the other hand, the situation model represents the propositions retrieved from the reader‘s knowledge in long-term memory that supplement the information in the text. Since the mental representation of a text is rarely a pure textbase, this mental representation is called the situation model. The situation model thus contains the textbase, which can be incomplete and erroneous with respect to the actual meaning of the text, completed by varying amounts of knowledge from long-term memory (Kinstch, 1998). A situation model contains tokens, a specification of their properties, and a specification of the structural relations among the tokens (Copeland,

Expertise in Pedagogical Reasoning

7

Magliano & Radvansky, 2006). Tokens can be components or goals. These structural relations can be, for example, hierarchical or causal (Whitten & Graesser, 2003). A situation model is created as a function of the task and the comprehender‘s prior knowledge. The process of situation models construction can be decomposed into a temporal sequence involving the creation of current models, integrated models and a complete model (Zwaan, Radvansky, & Whitten, 2002 ; Oostendorp, Otero & Campanario, 2002). A current model is the model being constructed at a particular moment during reading a particular clause or sentence. An integrated model at a particular moment represents the integration of all models previously created. The complete model is created when the whole text is read. Updating a situation model may be impossible in some conditions, depending on the match between a reader‘s capabilities and the amount of restructuring needed. In such cases, a reader can identify the difficulty as a pending problem or explain the anomaly. Updating mental models during reading is critical for comprehension: a reader constructs a sequence of interlocking accounts necessary for understanding subsequent information in the text. It is interesting to note that a reader can formulate inferences that are later validated or invalidated during a subsequent update of an integrated model. This process seems to be related to the view of reasoning that is presented later in this chapter.

2.1.1.3. Mental models and schemas in comprehension The constructs of mental models and situation models are used interchangeably (Whitten & Graesser, 2003). For schemas to be useful in the proposed model of pedagogical reasoning, the postulated model should specify the nature of schemas, how they affect comprehension and how they are activated. The schema is an indispensable theoretical concept in cognitive psychology (Kinstch, 1998; Marshall, 2005). Early views defined schemas as a fixed mental structure that was retrieved when needed and that was used to organize information. The lack of sensitivity to the context, which has a clear adaptive value, led current reconceptualizations of the concept of schemas as algorithms to generate organizational structures in a given context. According to Kintsch (1998), schemas are propositional. They are also part of the comprehenders‘ knowledge held in long-term memory. Propositions can be incorporated in schemas (Foltz, 2003). Since schemas are propositional, it is reasonable to postulate that they are activated by the same mechanisms as those used for the generation of propositions. Since schemas originate from the knowledge held in memory, this mechanism should be the one associated with propositions from the situation model. Finally, since schemas are organizational structures, they should share activation mechanisms related to macropropositions. Major theorists agree that schemas have a top-down influence on the comprehension process. Schemas can facilitate comprehension: they facilitate the formation of the macrostructure of the text, but do not affect the comprehension of the microstructure (Kinstch, 1998). For Kintsch, schemas act as a perceptual filter that admits relevant material and blocks irrelevant information. Schemas also act as an inference mechanism that fills the information that is inevitably missing from the text. For Frederiksen and colleagues, schemas serve a different function (Frederiksen & Breuleux (1990) ; Frederiksen, Bracewell, Breuleux & Renaud (1990). Their multi-layered model of comprehension is organized around three kinds of symbols: language units, propositions and conceptual structures. The model represents a bottom-up transformation of the stimuli (graphemes and morphemes, for

8

Julien Mercier, Monique Brodeur, Line Laplante et al.

discourse) into meaningful utterances and then into knowledge structures such as schemas, as a definitive form stored in memory. The stimuli can take the form of any array of symbols (text, graphical representations, real-world situations like actions and states, etc.) In this model, whereas there is a bottom-up influence of the stimuli on comprehension, top-down control is achieved by means of frame-level rules. Also, comprehenders may employ control strategies based on their goals, the situation, or their prior knowledge.

2.1.1.4. Specification of the proposed model In light of the theory, the model postulates a distinction between information contained in the text (Comprehend textbase) and information retrieved from the individual‘s prior knowledge (Supplement textbase with prior knowledge). In addition, the model postulates that question asking (Ask question) reflects breakdowns in the process of situation models construction (Whitten & Graesser, 2003). As discussed earlier, updating a situation model may be impossible in some conditions. In such cases, a reader can become aware of and signal the difficulty by formulating requests for more information. Since the situation model is created during the reader‘s interaction with the text, and the pedagogical-reasoning model postulates that reader‘s knowledge is activated in response to the text, it is argued that comprehension typically starts with comprehending the textbase. Since comprehension theory indicates that knowledge activation occurs both at the microproposition and macroproposition levels, the model postulates that knowledge will be integrated at any moment during reading. Therefore, the conditional probabilities associated with the two links between comprehend textbase and supplement textbase with prior knowledge should be equivalent. As a result of the comprehension step in the model, the individual has created a mental model of the information presented in the description of the case. This mental model ideally contains the gist of this information, supplemented by relevant prior knowledge of the individual(s). A sub-optimal mental model misses a certain amount of crucial information contained in the text, and either contains irrelevant information or misses important information from the individual prior knowledge. Such a model of the case has a critical impact on the other processes of pedagogical reasoning, since a representation of a text (or a situation) constrains problem solving (Whitten & Graesser, 2003) and reasoning (JohnsonLaird, 1983), as discussed in upcoming sections. Without an adequate situation model, the individual(s) will engage in solving the wrong problem. 2.1.2. Making a diagnostic: elaborating and testing diagnostic hypotheses through reasoning processes Since a teaching situation typically provides information without an explicit characterization of what the problem is, and therefore from which the problem has to be formulated, the postulated model has to specify cognitive processes that describe how an individual identifies possible characterizations of a problematic situation and chooses the one that best corresponds to a given reality. 2.1.2.1. Reasoning processes The generation and test of diagnostic hypotheses via reasoning mechanisms has been shown to be spontaneous in both inexperienced and expert diagnosticians (Elstein, Shulman & Sprafka, 2000). The view presented posits that the diagnostic of a pupil‘s difficulty is based

Expertise in Pedagogical Reasoning

9

on abductive reasoning, a combination of deductive and inductive reasoning (Patel, Arocha & Zhang, 2005). Reasoning is a ―goal-directed and constrained step-by-step transformation of mental representation of knowledge‖ (Hatano & Inagaki, 2000, p. 170). Abductive reasoning is a process of elaboration and test of hypotheses. Before examining how reasoning occurs in the elaboration of a diagnostic in a domain such as teaching, a fundamental or generic reasoning mechanism must be posited with respect to how inferences are used to test diagnostic hypotheses. Current reasoning theories can be categorized as rule theories, semantic theories, evolutionary theories and heuristic theories (Leighton & Steinberg, 2003). Rule theories postulate that reasoning operates by means of rules or commands. According to semantic theories, reasoning results from the interpretation of assertions. Evolutionary theories specify domain-specific mechanisms that enable individuals to meet environmental needs. Finally, heuristic theories postulate rules of thumb that are fallible but well adapted to everyday reasoning. Because of their close links to comprehension processes presented in the previous section, semantic theories are preferred as a basis for the present model. Of the two candidate theories, verbal comprehension theory (Polk & Newell, 1995) and mental model theory (Johnson-Laird, 2005 ; 1983), mental model theory is preferred because of its applicability to a wide range of reasoning tasks, as shown by Rips (2002). Johnson-Laird (1983) viewed deductive reasoning as a semantic process. He proposed the mental model theory of reasoning. This theory postulates four main stages: the initial interpretation of premises, the combination of these interpretations into a single model representing a situation (these two stages can be referred to as comprehension and as such posit an explicit link to comprehension processes discussed in the previous section), the formulation of a conclusion (description) and the search for alternative models that might refute the conclusion (validation). Moreover, ―any step in thought from current premises to a new conclusion falls in one of the following categories : (1) the premises and the conclusions eliminate the same possibilities, (2) the premises eliminate at least one more possibility over those the conclusion eliminates, (3) the conclusion eliminates at least one more possibility over those the premises eliminate, (4) the premises and the conclusions eliminate disjoint possibilities, and (5) the premises and the conclusions eliminate overlapping possibilities‖ (Johnson-Laird, 2005, p.185). Categories 1 and 2 represent deduction. Category 3 is induction. Category 4 represents situations in which the conclusion is inconsistent with the premises. The last category represents creative thinking. According to the mental model theory (Johnson-Laird, 2005 ; 1983), reasoning is based on the manipulation of meaningful concrete information. The reasoning process involves three steps. It begins with the construction of a mental model representing a possible situation of a premise. Then, the truth value of the mental model is tested, leading to three possible outcomes : the conclusion is possible if it holds in at least one model, is necessary if it holds in all the models, and impossible if it never holds. The third and final step is the construction of an alternative mental model of the situation in order to verify or disprove the conclusion drawn. Johnson-Laird (1983) identifies three causes of difficulty in syllogistic reasoning. First, the number of models required to make a deduction increases the difficulty. Reasoning with premises leading to a single model of a situation (a quantifier) is easier than reasoning with many valid models. Second, erroneous conclusions are consistent with the premises, that is, reasoners fail to construct all the models required to make the right conclusion. Finally, the

10

Julien Mercier, Monique Brodeur, Line Laplante et al.

general knowledge (beliefs) of the reasoner can affect the process; conclusions in accordance with his beliefs will inhibit the search for alternative models, and inversely. In other words, the plausibility of the conclusion, determined by the reasoner‘s knowledge, affects the validation process. According to the model theory, erroneous conclusions arise from a failure to construct the appropriate model (a typical situation involves premises containing ―some‖ and ―only‖).

2.1.2.2. Reasoning in a semantically complex domain Since no theory of reasoning in teaching is available, the present model borrows from a well-researched domain that shares its main characteristics, medicine. According to Calderhead (1995), teachers and physicians have to make sense of diversified information, and use eclectic theories and evidence, personal beliefs and expectations to modulate their decision-making with respect to diagnostic and subsequent intervention. We suggest that these similarities hold for teacher planning activities and not for interactive teaching (when the teacher is actually in the classroom with the pupil(s)), a context during which very few diagnostic decisions are made, as demonstrated empirically by Putnam (1987). Leinhardt and Greeno (1986) have made the similar point by insisting on the assumptions that both domains involve problem solving in an ill-structured and dynamic environment. All theories of reasoning in medicine characterize diagnosis as an iterative process in which possible explanations of the patient‘s state (hypotheses) are generated and then tested on the basis of their expected consequences (Patel, Arocha & Zhang, 2005). This 2-stage process – hypothesis generation, hypothesis testing – is based on a mechanism of inference generation. Four types of inferences can be generated: abstraction, abduction, deduction and induction. Hypotheses are generated by abstraction and abduction and tested by deduction and induction. The process of abstraction filters data with respect to their relevance for solving the problem. During abduction, plausible hypotheses are related by means of inferences that identify initial conditions from which the abstract representation of the problem originates. Deduction builds up the mental model described by the consequences of each hypothesis in order to test them. The predictions derived from hypotheses are matched to the description of the case through induction, and predictions that do not match the case lead to the rejection of the hypothesis to which they are associated. Patel, Arocha and Zhang (2005) identify one pervasive caveat related to hypothesis testing: the confirmation bias. The confirmation bias is a desire to confirm a preferred hypothesis. The reasoner engages in a search for evidence consistent with a generated hypothesis that often leads to a failure to consider alternative hypotheses. In terms associated with comprehension theory, an inference ―is a transformation of a proposition in which the head element remains unchanged‖ (Groen & Patel, 1988, p.293). For these authors, an inference is a macroproposition in Kinstch‘s (1998) terms. Patel and Groen (1991), in summarizing results of many of their studies on reasoning in medicine, indicate that the elaboration of a diagnosis through reasoning can proceed from data to hypothesis (forward or knowledge-based reasoning) or, inversely, from hypothesis to data (backward or goal-based reasoning). Forward reasoning is heavily dependent on the reasoner‘s domain knowledge to avoid errors due to a lack of legitimacy of the inferences.

Expertise in Pedagogical Reasoning

11

2.1.2.3. Specification of the proposed model The model postulates that the diagnostic process begins with the elaboration of one or more hypotheses (Elaborate a hypothesis). When many hypotheses are formulated, they are organized on the basis of their plausibility (Organize hypotheses). Hypotheses are then related to the data (Test hypothesis) in two alternative manners. They can follow from an analysis of the data that leads to a single hypothesis as a series of conditional paths in the reasoner‘s mental model or be formulated up front, and then confronted with the data as a set of causal paths. Finally, the cognitive processing associated with each hypothesis ends when each of them are either accepted or rejected (Accept hypothesis or Reject hypothesis). It is expected that one hypothesis will be held as valid in order to proceed with the elaboration of a reputedly appropriate intervention. The elaboration of the diagnosis ends when one hypothesis is accepted as representing the educational problem that has to be addressed. This triggers the elaboration of the solution to the problem identified. 2.1.3. Setting up a pedagogical intervention: elaborating the best intervention possible through teacher planning processes Much has been written about categories pertaining to teacher planning. Characteristics of the process, of the knowledge underlying it, and of the actual product of planning were studied. Whereas the debate continues regarding the many and often competing categories describing the knowledge base for teaching (Hasweh, 2005 ; Sherin, Sherin & Madanes, 2000), the consensus regarding those categories that can be applied to the cognitive process of pedagogical planning, however, has remained relatively unchallenged over the last 20 years (Lenhardt & Greeno, 1986; Schoenfeld, 2000). The literature indicates that goals and schemata are central to pedagogical planning. 2.1.3.1. Goals and schemata Conceived of as a cognitive activity, teaching is goal-driven (Leinhardt & Greeno, 1986; Schoenfeld, 2000). According to Schoenfeld (2000), goals are things that an individual wants to accomplish. Specifically in the case of teacher planning, goals may be epistemologically oriented, content-oriented, or socially oriented. They are organized hierarchically, and multiple goals can be pursued at the same time. Goals can be pre-determined as a result of lesson planning or emergent during teacher interactive decision-making, in response to the exigencies of the situation. For the purpose of this study, the notions of schema and action plan refer to essentially the same idea. Leinhardt and Greeno (1986) define a schema as a set of organized or ordered actions used to reach a goal. Similarly, an action plan is a set of intended actions to achieve a given goal (Schoenfeld, 2000). Considering the details of both constructs and their implications, the notion of schema is preferred in the present work for three reasons. Firstly, the notion of schema is more general than the notion of action plan (Schoenfeld, 2000). Secondly, Leinhardt and her colleagues (Leinhardt, 1987; 1989) provided profound insights into teacher cognition (especially teacher knowledge) by studying schemas and scripts to establish expert-novice differences. Finally, its constituting elements were carefully documented and empirically demonstrated by Leinhardt and Greeno (1986).

12

Julien Mercier, Monique Brodeur, Line Laplante et al.

Indeed, in addition to actions, a schema contains other elements associated to these actions (Leinhardt & Greeno, 1986). Consequences and effects of actions are included (as expected results of the enactment of an action), as well as conditions for the enactment of these actions. These conditions are either prerequisites (a condition that must be met before enacting an action), corequisites (a condition that must be met during the enactment of an action), or postrequisites (a condition that must be met to end an action). Classic works by Sacerdoti (1977) and Sowa (1984) were consulted in search for additional primitives that would further characterize schemas for teaching. No additional elements were found to be pertinent. Having set one or more goals, the planner then considers schemata whose anticipated consequences match its current goal (Leinhardt & Greeno, 1986). More precisely, a global schema is chosen on the basis of its fit to the higher-order goal, and then less global schemata are chosen to satisfy more specific goals that are related to the higher-order goal. The result of planning can be formalized in a planning net linking together goals, actions and their conditions and consequences of actions (as indicators of goals). Schemas, as outcomes of planning, are held in memory as a basis for subsequent action. At the time of their enactment in action sequences, schemas can be contingent on the classroom situation. That is, they are also part of a teacher‘s interactive decision-making (Schoenfeld, 2000), and, consequently, manipulated during teaching.

2.1.3.2. The influence of diagnosis on the formulation of goals The basis of goal formulation in planning has to be specified here because of the postulated importance of the diagnostic process, thought of in the pedagogical-reasoning model as a strong determinant of subsequent planning. Most research evidence suggests that the diagnosis of students‘ characteristics is not an important factor in short-term teacher planning. Studies have shown that primary concerns during planning are related to learning content and activities and that student-related factors are relatively unimportant (McCutcheon, 1980 ; Morine-Dershimer, 1979 ; Peterson, Marx & Clark, 1978 ; Sanchez & Valcarcel, 1999 ; Zahorik, 1975). Other studies by Clark and colleagues, although in minority, have shown that students‘ characteristics are among the most important factors in planning (Clark & Elmore, 1979; Clark & Yinger, 1979). Although characteristics of the students are relatively unimportant, interest and attitudes have relatively more weight than aspects related to learning such as academic ability (Taylor, 1970). The importance of the diagnostic process during teaching was also shown to be negligible for interactive teaching (Putnam, 1987). Despite the conclusions of this body of research describing what teachers do, it is argued here that the diagnosis of students‘ difficulties has very important beneficial properties for student learning and that its impact on planning remains or should be significant. This seems particularly important considering recent emphasis on differentiation of instruction (Davies, 2000). The differentiation of instruction is based whether on previous subject-specific learning outcomes or on students‘ ability to learn. Questions about the practicability of differentiation were raised in light of the greater demands on teachers‘ practice. By showing how the contingency of teaching on students‘ needs improves learning outcomes (Wood & Wood, 1999), substantial research in the field of tutoring suggests some reasons why, not only on a moment-to-moment basis during instruction, but for the selection and sequencing of learning activities in the context of teacher planning as well. Student‘s diagnostic in human

Expertise in Pedagogical Reasoning

13

tutoring as well as computer tutoring, emulating or not human tutoring, is mainly based on diagnostic of students‘ antecedents and/or ongoing learning performance. In line with this body of cognitive research, it can be reasonably hypothesized that the goal structure in competent planning of instruction is set as a consequence of the diagnostic hypothesis that was held by the teacher to be true.

2.1.3.3. Specification of the proposed model The previous theoretical considerations put emphasis on two major elements in planning an intervention: the identification of goals and the specification of actions that will presumably help reaching the goals. It can be postulated that planning is initiated by the formulation of one or more goal (Identify goal). When more than one goal are set, they are structured hierarchically and causally (sequentially) (Organize goals). Once the goal structure is created, the construction of schemata begins, with the identification of their main elements: actions (Identify pedagogical action). Conditions (Identify prerequisite, identify corequisite, identify postrequisite) and consequences of actions (Identify consequence and effect) are determined in association with each previously specified action. It is unclear whether conditions or consequences need to be specified first for a given action. 2.1.4. Applying knowledge to complex problem-solving situations: articulating the three components of pedagogical reasoning by means of problem solving processes In a very abstract way, problem solving can be seen as a process of performing the required (cognitive) actions to eliminate the discrepancy between an initial state and the desired state (solving an algebraic equation, solving a criptarithmetic problem, etc.). In classical descriptions of the process (Newell & Simon, 1972), problem solving begins with an initial state, a goal (fragmented in subgoals when one runs into an impasse) and implementation of strategies to attain goals toward a desired state. Problem solving is successful when the desired state is attained. In semantically complex domains, problem solving involves cognitive, emotional, personal, and social abilities and knowledge (Wenke, Frensch & Funke, 2005). Upon presentation of a problem, individuals will use information in the description and prior knowledge to generate an internal representation of the problem. In this process, the application of prior knowledge is done through the generation of inferences (Williams & Noyes, 2007). 2.1.4.1. Problem solving as problem representation and solution Problem solving can be defined as ―the analysis and transformation of information toward a specific goal‖ (Lovett, 2002, p.317). Problem solving can be seen as three main aspects: problem representation, search in a problem space, and problem decomposition and planning. In problem solving, it is important to distinguish between the representation of the problem and the solution of the problem (Novick & Bassok, 2005; Voss & Post, 1988). The process of problem solving starts with the representation of the problem (Novick & Bassok, 2005 ; Hatano & Inagaki, 2000). The problem representation is a mental model of the problem summarizing one‘s understanding of the problem (Novick & Bassok, 2005).This representation includes the initial state, the goal state, a set of actions that change the current problem state, and constraints that restrict the number of solution paths. In knowledge-rich,

14

Julien Mercier, Monique Brodeur, Line Laplante et al.

semantically complex domains, a problem can be represented differently on the basis of the individual‘s knowledge (Hatano & Inagaki, 2000). Research on mental models and schemas in problem solving has provided profound insights in characterizing problem solving, under the assumption that mental models are the objects that are manipulated in problem solving (Johnson-Laird, 2005). Mental models represent a state in the problem space (Newell, 1990). More specifically, they represent entities, individuals, events, processes, and operations of complex systems (Johnson-Laird, 2005). Mental models seem to have a critical role in the representation of the problem, since they can contain and organize the four components of the problem representation discussed by Novick and Bassok (2005): a represented world, a representing world, rules that map the two worlds, and a process that uses the information represented to solve the problem. The representation of the problem affects how the problem is solved: No adequate solution can be elaborated without a representation of the actual problem and all its relevant features. (Novick & Bassok, 2005 ; Whitten & Graesser, 2003). In return, the representation of the problem is affected by two main factors: the context of the problem and the solver‘s knowledge of the domain (Novick & Bassok, 2005). The context of the problem affects the elaboration of the problem representation (Novick & Bassok, 2005). Specifically, the perceptual presentation format of the problem may provide information about the relevant configuration of the elements of the problem. In addition, the objects present in the problem affect the inferences that are created during the elaboration of the problem representation. Finally, the phrasing and narrative of the problem may lead the solver to focus on certain aspects of the problem. Despite the influence of the context on the construction of the problem representation, the solver‘s knowledge of the domain exerts the greatest influence on this process. The solver‘s ability to exploit previous solutions for analogous problems depends heavily on knowledge, in the form of schemas. These schemas can apply for types of problems, types of solution procedures and types of problem representations. These schemas are abstract because they contain information common to multiple problems but exclude information idiosyncratic to particular problems. Finally, experts‘ representations emphasize structural features relevant for the solution such as causal relations, whereas novices‘ representations highlight superficial features irrelevant to the solution. Many fundamental mechanisms for problem solution were suggested over the years, articulated as search for a solution. Among search strategies, a first distinction can be made between algorithmic strategies and heuristic strategies (Novick & Bassok, 2005). Algorithms such as mathematical equations and exhaustive search are procedures that will assuredly yield the solution. However, when the number of possible operations is large and algorithms become impractical, heuristic strategies that are likely to lead to the solution come into play. Search heuristics include hill climbing and means-end. Hill climbing refers to the application of the operator that yields a state closest to the goal state. The means-end search in the problem space is more complex than hill climbing: its aim is to find an action that reduces or eliminates the distance between the goal state and the current state. If the action cannot be conducted, a subgoal has to be set to remove the obstacle (following the test of necessary conditions for the action). Search heuristics are iterative. Complex problems can be decomposed into subproblems that are easier to solve. Planning a solution in terms of a sequence of steps before executing actions accelerates problem solving.

Expertise in Pedagogical Reasoning

15

2.1.4.2. Problem solving in a semantically-complex domain Problems differ depending of the domain in which they are anchored. They can be classified along three dimensions (Lovett, 2002). One dimension is whether a problem involves a routine or non-routine solution. Another dimension is the amount of domain knowledge required to solve the problem. Problems in semantically complex domains such as teaching, medicine or engineering are knowledge-rich problems whereas knowledge-lean problems come from games and puzzles or everyday tasks. A last dimension concerns how well- or ill-defined the problem is. This dimension refers to the level of clarity of what is given and of what constitutes a solution (Novick & Bassok, 2005). It became apparent in the 1970‘s that the processes of problem solving in knowledge-rich or semantically complex domains do not generalize across domains (Wenke, Frensch & Funke, 2005). During the following decades, theories were created for some domains, such as politics, management, law, electronics, medicine, etc. There is apparently no such theory for the case of teaching. Consequently, the present model borrows from the fields of social science and medicine. Studies of teacher‘s planning can supplement a theory from other fields by identifying the components of a plan of actions in teaching. In the contruction of a model in the field of teaching, tt is particularly enlightening to consider the difference between ill-structured and well-structured problems in terms of constraint resolution in the manner of Voss and Post (1988). Ill-structured problems can be characterized as containing a large number of open constraints that have to be structured by the solver. It should also be noted that the amount of constraints may vary during problem solving, depending on where the solver is in the solution process. There are two strategies for problem representation: problem decomposition (identifying the factors causing the problematic situation, finding a solution for each factor or problem component, integrating these solutions into a general solution for the complete problem) and problem conversion (making a statement about the primary cause of the problem, which can be acted upon). The solution process can include making explicit the history of the problem (previously attempted solutions and current state). Problem representation is achieved through a schema-guided search process. This search involves both an external search of the presented information and an internal search for prior knowledge pertinent to the problem. An expert solution typically includes its justification. Pedagogical-reasoning problems share similarities with social science problems. Generally, there is no right answer, but a set of plausible good answers. Since their solution involves planning, the subsequent adoption of a solution is then subject to argumentation. The question of when such a problem is solved is best answered by domain-specific stop rules, which involves a decision by the problem solver. What constitutes a good solution must be judged pragmatically by members of the field, with respect to its quality and usefulness. The quality of a solution is associated with the extent to which it can be rationalized. 2.1.4.3. Specification of the proposed model The pedagogical-reasoning model has to specify how an individual chooses a particular course of action to have a desired influence on an unsatisfactory situation, and on which basis these choices are made. Moreover, the overall coherence of the postulated pedagogicalreasoning model, beyond its constituent processes, has to be established. In light of the theory presented so far, it can be postulated that this coherence is obtained by a high-level control mechanism based on problem-solving processes that controls the elaboration and use of

16

Julien Mercier, Monique Brodeur, Line Laplante et al.

mental models and schemas to complete the task. Consequently, the operators associated with this process are hypothesized to operate exclusively on mental models and schemas. It is expected that this control will necessarily operate at the beginning and end of the pedagogical-reasoning process, and during shifts between its three components, as well as accessorily during transitions among constituents of those components. Because of the complexity of the domain, the problem space for a pedagogical-reasoning problem has a tremendous amount of possible states. For problem representation, it remains unclear from theory whether problem decomposition or problem conversion will be the preferred strategy. Voss and Post (1988) report that problem decomposition was typically used in solving problems in social sciences. Since the strategy of problem decomposition must be based on substantial domain knowledge to avoid inadequate solutions, its use puts an emphasis on the interpretation of the case description and its completion by relevant domain knowledge. Consequently, experts are expected to use the decomposition strategy with more success than novices. For problem solution, it can be hypothesized that pedagogical reasoning is based on the heuristic strategy of means-end search. Means-end search involves the selection of actions that match specified goals (Plan goal). The goals can be related with the problem representation through external and internal search, reasoning and problem solution, that is, planning a course of action with reasonable probability of being successful. Planning problem-solving actions involves organizing how the problem will be formulated, and how an appropriate solution will be constructed. Planning a course of actions to conduct the pedagogical-reasoning process involves taking into account the sequential dependencies linked to the use of outcomes of antecedent actions as constraints for subsequent actions. When necessary conditions for enacting actions are tested and not met (Test conditions), subgoaling takes place in the form of lower-level goal(s) and associated actions (plan goal and plan action). Sequential dependencies among various aspects of the process have to be identified and prerequisites of the actions have to be identified and verified before executing actions (Execute problem-solving actions). During the intermediate steps involved in this type of means-end search solution procedure, it becomes necessary to monitor the problem-solving process, notably by constructing and updating a representation of the problem state (Interpret state). It is hypothesized that the constraints inherent to an ill-structured problem will emerge and get resolved during pedagogical reasoning. In consequence the planning of goals and actions will be recurrent and contingent on those constraints, as they are interpreted. Constraints are numerous, and ultimately refer to educational intentions bearing on policies, resources and many other aspects of a teaching situation. The evaluation of the solution of an ill-structured problem involves checking if a given constraint has been resolved satisfactorily (Evaluate). This evaluation may include the implementation of stop rules which trigger the end of particular actions. These stop rules are associated with the state of constraints that have to be resolved. A good solution that will lead to positive educational outcomes is thought to be adequate if it addresses the student‘s condition, and if it is workable given the available resources. As an optional consequence of the evaluation of the solution, the correction procedure (Correct) involves the modification of a solution component or the addition of a new component.

Expertise in Pedagogical Reasoning

17

Having described the main characteristics of a pedagogical-reasoning model and its theoretical foundations, some comments have to be made about its use in the study of teacher cognition. Indeed, a number of distinctions can be made in the study of group performance in problem solving. One distinction pertains to the relationship between the performance of individuals and the performance of the group. Another distinction is the relationship between the cognitive processes underlying the performance of a task and the domain knowledge in which these processes are anchored. These two distinctions are discussed next to show how a model developed with categories related to individual cognition can be the foundation for integrated modeling of cognition and social cognition (Sun, 2006).

2.2. Relationship between the Performance of Individuals and the Performance of the Group Theories of action regulation are particularly interesting as a unifying framework for the study of individual and group performance. Within this view, the collaboration between the individuals in the performance of a problem-solving task can be examined from the perspective of the functioning of the group and from the perspective of the contribution of each individual to the problem solution. Both perspectives are important and especially interesting to study concomitantly, since, as Wijekumar & Jonassen (2007) assert, ―there is no distribution of cognition without the individual‘s cognition and the individual‘s cognitive structures are important to study‖. To this end, the notion of system levels (Tschan, 2002) is especially useful since it articulates the idea that processes underlying group performance and individual performance are to some extent similar, independently of the size of the group. More specifically, executive processes at a functional level are similar if the group is considered as an ―acting system‖. Tschan‘s (2002) empirical studies suggest that group performance involves two levels: a first level is the self-regulation of each group member, whereas a second level is the coordination between each individual‘s own regulation for group performance. The first level operates within the information-processing constraints of human cognition. The second level can be considered an additional, social layer representing collaborative processes operating within communication constraints. Action regulation at both levels involves the preparation, execution and evaluation of procedures to achieve a given result. Ideally, the performance of each subtask or task component should comprise cycles of preparation, execution and evaluation. Tschan (2002) found that this cycle was associated with the quality of the performance for individuals, dyads and triads. It should be noted that categories associated with these procedures are included in the pedagogical-reasoning model, as the problemsolving level. In complex tasks, these procedures are cycles of action that are ―hierarchically nested and sequential‖ (Tschan, 2002, p. 616) in response to the structure of these tasks. Indeed, complex tasks can be decomposed as a set of subtasks. In the pedagogical reasoning model, a first level of decomposition corresponds to the components. Another level of decomposition is the iterations of the components in response to the multiple elements of the situation. Moreover, the successful completion of given subtasks can represent prerequisites for other subtasks, prescribing that some subtasks be performed in a certain sequential order. Our emphasis on cognitive aspects of performance, including knowledge of the domain, and our consideration of groups as information-processing systems (Arrow, McGrath &

18

Julien Mercier, Monique Brodeur, Line Laplante et al.

Berdahl, 2000) lead us to consider related aspects of information storage, information retrieval and information exchange in groups. The degree of overlap of task-related information held by different members of a group is thought to be a major influence on group functioning (Arrow, McGrath & Berdahl, 2000). There is a strong tendency to discuss information that was available to all members before the group meeting rather than mentioning information available to only one member, resulting in a group‘s propensity to confirm and reinforce previously shared information. Groups‘ use of information is often based on a very incomplete comprehension of the relative importance of various elements of information and their sources. It also depends on the processes by which group members construct a shared understanding of the information. This processing involves the reduction of uncertainty caused by incomplete information and the reduction of equivocality caused by alternative interpretations of the same information. Actions related to group goals can be organized hierarchically in three levels. The higher level is purposeful thought, the intermediate level consists of scripts as discussed before, and relatively automatic behaviour constitutes the lower level (Arrow, McGrath, & Berdahl, 2000). These levels are knowledge based, rule based, and skill based, respectively. The performance of actions can be conceived of as determined by mental goal representations (hierarchical in the sense that some goals are broader in scope than others and sequential since the attainment of given goals serve as conditions for the attainment of other goals) complemented by feedback control (based on information regarding the short-term consequence of action). Feedback control requires some reference values for behaviour against which the short-term consequences of actions must be judged; goals have this function. Since feedback loops are associated with goals and goals are organized hierarchically, feedback loops are organized in levels, resulting in the top-down influence of higher-level feedback loops. Specifically, superordinate loops reset reference values at the next lower level of abstraction. This hierarchical view treats control as simultaneous at all levels of abstraction below the level that‘s guiding the activity, that is, the process of carrying out a high-level act consists of carrying out low-level acts. This model shows how intentions are carried out physically. Lowlevel identifications tend to convey a sense of ―how‖ an activity is done; high-level ones tend to convey a sense of ―why‖. Movement from a lower level to a higher level depends on an emergent property at the higher level: a given lower-level identification can often be absorbed into several alternative higher-level identifications. Attaining an abstract goal requires it to be broken iteratively into subgoals, until the subgoals are sufficiently concrete that they can be attained by the body‘s basic operational mechanisms. How many levels are required is an open question that should be answered empirically.

2.3. Relationship between Pedagogical-Reasoning Processes and Domain Knowledge (Expertise) In a semantically complex domain, problem-solving processes hinge on pertinent knowledge of the domain. How this knowledge is used to perform the task, both individually and collectively, is thought to be largely determinant of the outcomes of the activity. Comprehension, reasoning, planning and problem solving are all hypothesized to be facilitated by the availability of pertinent domain knowledge.

Expertise in Pedagogical Reasoning

19

In comprehension, a situation model constructed using expert knowledge is more complete, contains only relevant information for the problem solution, and contains general ideas. Expertise is related to the selective acquisition and use of information. In terms of comprehension, experts recall more of the information presented in the case that novices do (Patel & Groen, 1991). In the same vein, expert teachers recall more classroom events and rely more on procedural knowledge and principles to analyze interactive teaching than novices (Peterson & Comeaux, 1987). Reasoning takes radically different forms whether expert knowledge is available or not. Without knowledge, the individual is forced into backward reasoning, in which hypotheses are formulated and then verified using available data. In contrast, expert knowledge enables the individual to derive the appropriate hypothesis directly from the data. Patel and Groen (1991) argue that experts use forward reasoning (from data to hypothesis) because they have the necessary domain knowledge to guide the elaboration of the hypothese(s). Novices, because of a lack of knowledge, reason backwards in a hypothetico-deductive manner, verifying hypotheses they elaborate on the basis on the data available. Novices use backward reasoning because their do not have the knowledge required to support forward reasoning (Patel, Arocha & Zhang, 2005). Indeed, data-driven or forward reasoning is likely to lead to errors when knowledge is insufficient. In contrast, hypothesisdriven or backward reasoning increases cognitive load since it requires that the reasoner keeps track of the current goals and hypotheses. Studies of teacher expertise have shown differences in how novices and experts plan instruction (Hogan, Rabinowitz & Craven, 2003). The balance between mentally scripting lessons and written plans is shifting, and the propensity for developing long- and short-term educational goals are modulated by teaching expertise. These differences are attributable to the varying level of complexity of the schemas experts and novices hold. Experts perceive the classroom as a group of unique individuals whereas novices regard the class as a whole, leading experts to ask for more specific information about a classroom before planning instruction. In light of the importance of constraints resolution in solving ill-structured problems as discussed in the model, we interpret this as a need for experts to look for more constraints that are used in elaborating a solution. In addition, experts focus on both long-term and short-term planning, whereas novices focus only on short-term planning. Experts‘ plans include presentation time and pace, and number and types of examples. Novices‘ plans include these elements but also integrate scripted portions such as verbatim of introductions and questions to be asked during the lesson. Finally, novices‘ planning is more influenced by students‘ interest than by students‘ achievement. In their review of the research, Borko and Shavelson (1990) found that experts‘ reported plans are richer than those of novices. Experts‘ plans made greater explicit reference to actions to be performed by students, included test points on students‘ understanding, and contained twice as many teacher instructional moves. In terms of the planning process, experts plan more quickly than novices, are more selective in the information they use and incorporate more relevant information in their decision-making. Smith (2005) studied co-planning between an experienced teacher and a student teacher. This situation can be referred to as a heterogeneous dyad, in opposition as homogeneous dyads in the present study. She found that during the first few co-planning sessions, the mentor verbalizes his way of making lesson plans, in order to make explicit the cognitive process involved in planning instruction while the student teacher assimilates and imitate the

20

Julien Mercier, Monique Brodeur, Line Laplante et al.

process. Later on, there is a shift in the co-planning process, manifest in discomfort between the participants, when the student teacher challenges her mentor by suggesting new ways of planning. In light of the challenges of novice-expert interaction she documents, Smith concludes that participants in such novice-expert dyads need to be taught to interact in a way that fosters the novice‘s learning and the expert‘s innovation. Finally, problem solving is also facilitated by expert knowledge in that this knowledge is essential for the adequate representation and solution of ill-structured problems by the identification and resolution of open constraints. It is therefore postulated that differences in expertise have an impact on the performance of a problem-solving task, at the executive level. Experts and novices use different heuristics in solving problems (Hatano & Inagaki, 2000). Experts represent problems by categorizing them. These categories elicit pertinent knowledge and this knowledge indicates potentially useful solution algorithms. There is a critical synergy between good knowledge and good reasoning skills in the development of expertise (Lohman, 2005). According to this author, reasoning is heavily dependent on good knowledge, and this well-organized knowledge base is acquired through good reasoning. Indeed, data-driven reasoning, which requires a strong knowledge base, is more likely to lead to the acquisition of a schema for the problem (Patel, Arocha & Zhang, 2005). From a developmental point of view, one salient symptom of the role of knowledge in cognitive performance is the intermediate effect (Patel, Arocha & Zhang, 2005). In contrast with the reasonable idea that performance improves with training or deliberate practice, the intermediate effect refers to a drop in performance during the transition between novice and expert levels of expertise. This effect is accounted for by characteristics of the knowledge underlying these levels of expertise. Novices have sparse knowledge to apply to a problem. During an intermediate stage, newly acquired knowledge is not optimally organized and leads to many inappropriate inferences. Experts‘ knowledge is well-organized and improper inferences are eliminated. This discussion of the categories that a cognitive model of collaborative pedagogical reasoning may include from a theoretical point of view is followed by an empirical examination of the extent to which the categories postulated from the theory are useful to account for data and the extent to which the postulated sequences of events are observed in a corpus of data.

2.4. Research Questions Questions related to the elaboration of a cognitive model of teacher collaborative pedagogical reasoning include: (1) what is the prevalence of the cognitive steps involved, (2) how this prevalence is affected by expertise, (3) how the process is typically sequenced, and (4) how this sequencing is modulated by expertise. The aim of this study is to develop and test a model of collaborative pedagogical reasoning by providing elements of answer to these questions. Questions 1 and 2 were answered by compiling time-budget information for each step. Question 3 and 4 were answered by computing transitional probabilities between steps. To examine the typical sequence of steps within a system level, the unit of analysis was a transition from one step to another without considering the individuals within the team at the

Expertise in Pedagogical Reasoning

21

team level. For both set of questions, results for the whole sample are presented, followed by results associated with each level of expertise.

3. METHODOLOGY 3.1. Participants Participants in this study are special education student teachers and teachers. Years of experience and teaching position were the criteria used in the selection of participants in order to maximize variations in teaching expertise. In this study, teaching expertise is understood as the availability of pertinent domain knowledge accompanied by a capacity to apply this knowledge in solving problems in the domain. The sample comprised 6 second-year student teachers, 6 fourth-year student teachers, 2 teachers and 4 specialists in remedial reading instruction. Participants of the same expertise level could volunteer as a dyad, and most did. The other participants were matched in pairs by an experimenter on the basis of compatibility of schedule. Each participant received 25$ as a compensation for the three hours she devoted to this study.

3.2. Task and Setting Modeling group cognitive performance requires a meaningful and authentic task that that can be performed under relatively controlled conditions. Lesson planning corresponds to these criteria. Participants were asked to plan a series of lessons related to remedial reading instruction. Lessons were planned on the basis of a written description of a case of a student displaying difficulties in reading. The description contained the student‘s familial and school history, a phonetic transcription of her reading aloud of a level-appropriate 167-word expository text, the transcription of her free recall of a 259-word narrative text, followed by a transcription of her answers to comprehension questions. A transcription of the student‘s metacognitive reflection concludes the description of the case. The description of the case is 12 pages long. A computer and word processor was provided for the elaboration of the written plan. Following their initial planning session, the six similar participants were gathered in pairs for an additional planning session, in which they were asked to elaborate a common lesson plan on the basis of their initial plans. Working in pairs and the resulting negotiation requires that the participants verbalize elements that could otherwise remain implicit (Mercier & Frederiksen, 2007). Pairs used one computer with both individual lesson plans available in electronic format to produce one common lesson plan.

3.3. Data Collection The collaborative planning conversation was recorded on audiotape. Participants‘ interaction with the word processor was captured by a concomitant video recording of the

22

Julien Mercier, Monique Brodeur, Line Laplante et al.

computer screen. The lesson plans of the sequence of activities were archived as digital files for subsequent analysis.

3.4. Data Analysis Protocol analysis procedures were designed to characterize the processes involved in collaborative pedagogical reasoning. Since the data collected in this study reflect particular thoughts about a specific task, protocols from several comparable dyads need to be analysed to induce more general characteristics of the processes (Olson & Biolsi, 1991). Protocols were grouped according to the level of expertise of the teams.

3.4.1. Process modeling In this study, process modeling serves two main objectives: (1) to examine the prevalence of collaborative pedagogical reasoning activities and how this prevalence is modulated by different levels of expertise (2) to examine the sequential aspect of collaborative pedagogical reasoning and how different levels of expertise are associated with different typical sequences of collaborative pedagogical reasoning activities. Techniques from sequential analysis are used under the assumption that cognitive processes can be decomposed into series of discrete and sequential steps of various grain size (Anderson, 2002). This assumption can be extended to groups, as demonstrated empirically by Tschan (2002). Frequency data was analysed using the SAS CATMOD procedure which provides maximum-likelihood estimations of effects of factors in contingency tables. The detailed significance of tests is reported even for non-significant results, since those results are especially meaningful given the strong statistical power of loglinear analysis in the present context. One important assumption underlying the log-linear approach is the independence of observations. Independence of observations means that chances of an observation being associated with a category are equal, independently of the observations preceding it. This assumption is likely to be violated to some extent in the present study because of the nature of the data. In fact, the objectives of the study consist of assessing the sequential dependence among events, that is, predicting events from past events. Addressing this issue, Bakeman and Gottman (1997) conducted simulation studies and showed that violations of independence have no effect on the use of the log-linear approach in this context. Despite this crucial information, tests with borderline significance will be interpreted conservatively. Sequential data were analysed using the GSEQ 4.1.2 (Generalized Sequential Querier) program developed by Bakeman and Quera (1995). GSEQ is an excellent program designed specifically and exclusively for sequential analysis. Sequential aspects of any type of data, including issues of individual differences and group comparisons, can be analysed using GSEQ. The RELF, CONP and PVAL procedures were used in the present study to obtain relative frequencies, conditional probabilities and statistical test of significance of conditional probabilities. Level of expertise is the only factor in the experimental design of this study. With respect to expert-novice differences, Ericsson (2003) argues that it is possible to identify mediating cognitive mechanisms associated with expert-novice differences and analyse them by means of process-tracing methodology. To face the complexity of these mechanisms, a possible strategy is to identify cognitive subsystems and to identify methods for controlling

Expertise in Pedagogical Reasoning

23

performance. This control of the performance is based on a task analysis, a process that seems especially difficult in the case of knowledge-rich problems like the one used in this study. A first step in explaining differences attributable to domain expertise is to investigate whether or not differences in collaborative pedagogical reasoning are present across levels of expertise. In other words, is there any internal modulation, both in terms of prevalence of given control processes, components or sub-components and in term of their sequential structure, of the pedagogical-reasoning process that would reflect different patterns in pedagogical reasoning that could be attributed to expertise? Both SAS and GSEQ were used to answer those questions.

3.4.2. Coding scheme The categories used in modeling the collaborative pedagogical reasoning process are based on the theoretical framework presented earlier. They are identified and organized hierarchically in Figure 1 to show the decision process associated with coding. Table 1 presents the categories with their operational definitions.

Comprehend situation

Plan goal Plan problem-solving action

Elaborate a hypothesis

Interpret state Test conditions Execute pedagogical-reasoning action Evaluate

Comprehend textbase Supplement textbase with prior knowledge Ask question

Diagnose student’s difficulty

Organize hypotheses Accept hypothesis Reject hypothesis Identify goal

Correct

Organize goals Identify pedagogical action Plan intervention

Identify prerequisite Identify corequisite

Identify postrequisite Identify consequence and effect

Figure 1. Structure of the coding scheme.

Data were coded integrally by a graduate research assistant, after extensive training. During the training, the research assistant coded three transcripts, which were double-coded by the first author. Upon completion of each transcript, the coding was compared and any differences were discussed. When necessary, operational definitions of the categories were refined. The systematic discrepancies in coding were eliminated by the end of the third transcript.

24

Julien Mercier, Monique Brodeur, Line Laplante et al. Table 1. Categories associated with collaborative pedagogical reasoning

Code Plan goal Plan problem-solving action Interpret state Test conditions Evaluate Correct Comprehend textbase Supplement textbase with prior knowledge Ask question Elaborate a hypothesis Organize hypotheses Accept hypothesis Reject hypothesis Identify goal Organize goals Identify pedagogical action Identify prerequisite Identify corequisite Identify postrequisite Identify consequence and effect

Definition Plan the goal to be achieved by this pedagogical-reasoning procedure Plan the pedagogical reasoning action to be carried out Interpret the current problem state in pedagogical reasoning Test critical conditions for applying a procedure in pedagogical reasoning Evaluate the result obtained from applying the pedagogical-reasoning procedure Correct an error or provide a missing component of the solution Derive meaning of the text‘s propositions Provide information not included in the text Diagnose a need for additional information Make inferences to identify the problem in the case In the presence of multiple hypotheses, organize them in terms of plausibility Determine that a hypothesis is supported by the data Determine that a hypothesis is not supported by the data Plan the goal to be achieved by implementing the pedagogical intervention In the presence of multiple goals, organize goals hierarchically Identify an action contributing to the attainment of the pedagogical goal Identify a condition that must be met before enacting an action Identify a condition that must be met during the enactment of an action Identify a condition that must be met to end an action Identify the result of the enactment of an action

Table 2. Does the prevalence of the control processes of collaborative pedagogical reasoning vary? Category Plan goal Plan action Interpret state Test conditions Evaluate results Correct Perform action Total

Frequency 52 251 559 184 69 36 709 1860

Relative frequency 0.0280 0.1349 0.3005 0.0989 0.0371 0.0194 0.3812 1.0000

Table 3. Does the prevalence of the collaborative pedagogical reasoning activities vary? Category Comprehend case Diagnose Elaborate intervention Total

Frequency 475 139 539 1153

Relative frequency 0.4120 0.1206 0.4675 1.0000

Expertise in Pedagogical Reasoning

25

4. RESULTS Results are presented in association with the two main goals, which were: (1) to examine the prevalence of collaborative pedagogical reasoning activities and differences in prevalence across levels of expertise (2) to examine how collaborative pedagogical reasoning activities are sequenced and how levels of expertise modulate this sequencing.

4.1. Prevalence of Collaborative Pedagogical Reasoning Activities Tables 2 and 3 present time-budget information regarding how often pairs of participants engaged in particular pedagogical-reasoning activities. It should be noted that this analysis does not consider the duration of the steps, so that these results are complementary to the sequential results that follow (the frequencies of steps match the frequency of shifts between steps i.e. the frequencies should be interpreted as the number of ―shifts to‖ a given category). The duration is typically much longer in the case of actions, especially since their numerous components were not considered, so that the bulk of the time was spent on the performance of those actions. Globally, there is a significant difference with respect to how often the pedagogicalreasoning activities occur (χ26 = 1098.45, p < 0.0001). As indicated in Table 2, participants more frequently (62%) engaged in steps related to the executive control of the pedagogical reasoning activities. The remainder of their steps (38%) was devoted to performing those collaborative pedagogical-reasoning actions. Among the activities related to executive control, interpreting the current state was the most frequent (30%), followed by planning actions (13%) and testing conditions for action (10%). The planning of goals, the evaluation of results and correction of errors were relatively infrequent (3%, 4%, and 2% respectively). Going down a level in the hierarchy of processes to specific actions, the frequency of the different pedagogical-reasoning activities is significantly different (χ22 = 209.36, p < 0.0001). The elaboration of the pedagogical intervention is the most frequent activity (47%), followed in terms of prevalence by the comprehension of the case (41%). The least frequent activity is the diagnostic of the student‘s difficulties (12%), as shown in Table 3.

4.2. Differences in Prevalence Across Levels of Expertise At the level of the control processes, there is no notable difference in the prevalence of categories attributable to expertise (χ217 = 23.01, p < 0.15). That is, second-year student teachers, fourth-year student teachers, teachers and experts all engaged in pedagogical-reasoning activities in approximately the same proportion of times. The interpretation of results related to question 1 hold across expertise levels. Descriptive statistics are presented in Table 4. At the level of actions, many differences can be observed (χ26 = 105.52, p < 0.0001). As shown in Table 5, comprehending the case is relatively most frequent in experts (48%) and least frequent in fourth-year students (32%). There is a strong tendency to engage more often in diagnosis and less frequently in the elaboration of the intervention as the level of expertise increases, with experts engaging much more often in diagnosis (24%, compared to between 4% and 9% for students and teachers).

26

Julien Mercier, Monique Brodeur, Line Laplante et al. Table 4. Does the prevalence of the control processes of collaborative pedagogical reasoning vary over levels of expertise?

Category Plan Goal Plan Action Interpret state Test Conditions Evaluate results Correct Perform action Total

Second year Freq. Relative frequency 20 0.0382 63 0.1202 152 0.2901 14 0.0267

Fourth year Freq. Relative frequency 17 0.0236 112 0.1553 213 0.2954 10 0.0139

Teachers Freq. Relative frequency 3 0.0169 26 0.1461 49 0.2753 0 0.0000

Specialized teachers Freq. Relative frequency 12 0.0275 50 0.1144 145 0.3318 12 0.0275

55

0.1050

73

0.1012

17

0.0955

39

0.0892

14 206

0.0267 0.3931

37 259

0.0513 0.3592

4 79

0.0225 0.4438

14 165

0.0320 0.3776

524

1.0000

721

1.0000

178

1.0000

437

1.0000

Table 5. Does the prevalence of the constituent components of collaborative pedagogical reasoning vary over levels of expertise?

Category Comp. case Diagnose Elaborate interv. Total

Second year Freq Relative . frequency 135 0.4341 11 0.0354 165 0.5305

Fourth year Freq. Relative frequency 111 0.3162 32 0.0912 208 0.5926

Teachers Freq Relative frequency 52 0.4228 9 0.0732 62 0.5041

Specialized teachers Freq Relative frequency 177 0.4810 87 0.2364 104 0.2826

311

351

123

368

1.0000

1.0000

1.0000

1.0000

Note. Frequency counts do not correspond with those in the ―perform action‖ category in the previous table, because adjacent occurrences of one category are lumped together.

Third order, lag 2 Second order, lag 2 First order, lag 2

Third order, lag 1 : three preceding codes Second order, lag 1 : two preceding codes First order, lag 1: preceding code only Antecedent

Lag 4

Antecedent

Lag 3

Antecedent

Antecedent

Lag 2

Lag 1

Figure 2. An illustration of lag and order in sequential analysis.

Consequent

Expertise in Pedagogical Reasoning

27

4.3. Sequencing of Collaborative Pedagogical Reasoning Activities Conditional probabilities represent the probability of a particular process of being followed by another given process. It should be noted that probabilities below 0.15 were not included in the figures for clarity. In addition, transitions between two states are often identified in the presentation of the results as a pair of codes separated by a hyphen to simplify the language. The conditional probabilities in the figures should be regarded as descriptive statistics concerning aspects of the sequential structure of the process. To establish the statistical significance of this sequential structure, a procedure similar to the one widespread in multivariate analysis of variance was followed. First, an omnibus test of the entire table of conditional probabilities was conducted, with structural zeros specified because codes cannot repeat. Although the familiar χ2 was considered, the G2 is used for its common use in the log-linear approach (Gottman & Roy, 1990). If the omnibus test is significant (the familiar 0.05 threshold for the alpha was retained), meaning that there is some sequential dependency among the events, statistics related to specific transitional probabilities (between any two codes) are examined. To this end, z scores computed from a ratio of observed and expected transition frequencies were used, accompanied by their two-tailed p values (again, 0.05 was set as the threshold). A positive value of a z score significant at the 0.05 level indicates that the conditional probability between the antecedent and consequent states is significantly higher than the expected probability based on the base rate of the consequent state. Conversely, a z score with a negative value accompanied by an alpha below 0.05 indicates that the conditional probability is significantly lower than expected. The analysis considered pedagogical reasoning as a first-order Markov process. The order of a Markov process refers to the number of preceding events that are considered in the prediction of a target event (Gottman & Roy, 1990). A first-order Markov process considers only one preceding event for predicting a given event. A second-order Markov process would take into account the two preceding events for the prediction. Higher-order Markov processes can be more precise as a result of the increase in the amount of information used in the prediction, at the expense of added complexity: an increase of one order multiplies the number of combinations of events by the number of categories used in the analysis. As a consequence, data demands for statistical analysis increase dramatically. A very interesting and clear illustration of the concept of order in Markov processes can be found in Gottman and Roy (1990), chapter four. A complementary notion in sequential analysis is the lag. The lag refers to the distance between the events used in the prediction and the events being predicted (Gottman & Roy, 1990). In the present study, sequential analyses were conducted at lag 1, that is, predicting a given event from the event immediately preceding it. Analysis at lag 2 would predict a given event from the event preceding the event immediately preceding it, not considering the event between the two. Considerations of lag are orthogonal to considerations of order in sequential analysis. In other words, the questions of how many past events are necessary to predict a given state and how far in the past useful events are for the prediction can be examined independently. Figure 2 may help clarify the ideas of order and lag, by illustrating how a given consequent in a sequence of states is predicted at lag one and two, either as a first-order or second-order Markov process. In the presentation of the results, specific transitions between states are identified as digrams, in the form of antecedent-consequent pairs of states.

28

Julien Mercier, Monique Brodeur, Line Laplante et al.

Globally for the whole sample, there is first-order sequential dependency between pedagogical-reasoning activities at lag 1 (G255 = 249.96, p < 0.0001). That is, events are at least in part determined by the event immediately preceding them. As shown in Figure 3, most frequent paths are reason-comprehend (.48), correct-interpret state (.41), test conditionsinterpret state (.41), evaluate-comprehend situation (.38), test conditions-comprehend situation (.36), elaborate pedagogical intervention-interpret state (.36), comprehend situationinterpret state (.33). The performance of the three pedagogical-reasoning actions is likely to be followed by interpret state. Those actions are also likely to be followed by evaluation steps, whereas preparation steps are followed by action steps. To a lesser degree, preparation steps are followed by evaluation steps directly. There are no transitions going to reasoning. Control pedagogical0,25 reasoning task Plan goal 0,22+

0,18 0,22

Plan problem0,32 solving action

Test conditions 0,41-

Execute problem-solving action (components)

0,23

Comprehend the 0,33 situation

0,31

0,29

0,36+

0,48+ Reason to elaborate a diagnostic

0,31

Execute problemsolving action

0,15-

0,28

0,38

Interpret state 0,28 Evaluate

0,23

0,19

Elaborate a pedagogical intervention

0,24 0,36

0,29

0,28 Correct

0,41+

Figure 3. Typical sequence of collaborative pedagogical reasoning activities. Note. + indicates a conditional probability significantly biased positively. Similarly, - indicates a conditional probability significantly biased negatively.

Specific conditional probabilities were found to be statistically significantly biased positively or negatively. Precisely, 21 of the 72 conditional probabilities were significantly biased. Of them, 16 are associated with conditional probabilities below .15 and are not displayed in Figure 3. Reason-comprehend situation, correct-interpret state, test conditionscomprehend, plan goal, plan problem-solving action are transitions that occur more frequently than statistically expected, and the path from test conditions to interpret state occur less frequently than statistically expected.

Expertise in Pedagogical Reasoning

29

4.4. Differences in Sequencing across Levels of Expertise The following section presents some results regarding the modulations in the sequential structure of collaborative pedagogical reasoning that are attributable to expertise levels. The typical chronology of the process is presented for each of the four expertise levels in the following figures.

4.4.1. Second- year students For the second-year student teachers, there is sequential dependency among pedagogicalreasoning activities (G255= 80.11, p < .02). The most frequent transitions between activities were interpret state-elaborate intervention, correct-interpret state, correct- elaborate intervention, test conditions-comprehend, reason-comprehend, comprehend-elaborate intervention. Of the six conditional probabilities that were significant, four were below .15 and do not appear in Figure 4. The paths from reason to comprehend and from plan goal to plan action occurred significantly more often than expected statistically. Control pedagogicalreasoning task

0,20

Plan goal

0,30 0,25+

Execute problem-solving action (components)

0,25

Plan problemsolving action

0,27

Comprehend the situation

0,30

0,30

0,34

0,33 0,21

Test conditions

0,36+

0,36

Reason to elaborate a diagnostic

Execute problemsolving action

0,18

0,18 0,18

0,27 Interpret state

0,45 0,24

Evaluate

0,30 0,30

Elaborate a pedagogical intervention

0,30

0,43 Correct

0,36

Figure 4. Typical sequence of collaborative pedagogical reasoning activities – second-year students.

Regarding the sequencing of the pedagogical-reasoning activities, there is a loop between comprehending the case and elaborating the intervention. In addition, there is no path leading to reasoning.

4.4.2. Fourth- year students Sequential dependency in the pedagogical-reasoning process of fourth-year student teacher was also observed (G255= 115.79, p < .0001). The most typical transitions include test conditions-elaborate intervention (.50), interpret state-elaborate intervention (.45), elaborate intervention-interpret state (.43), evaluate-interpret state (.34). Interestingly, interpret state

30

Julien Mercier, Monique Brodeur, Line Laplante et al.

seems to be the attractor in the process in the sense that many paths are going to and coming from this state. More specifically, 12 conditional probabilities were found to be significant ; four of them appear in Figure 5. Reason-comprehend, evaluate-plan problem-solving action, plan problem-solving action-comprehend, and reason-correct occurred more often than expected. Paths involving control processes and pedagogical-reasoning actions predominantly involved the elaboration of the intervention. The elaboration of the diagnostic was followed by comprehension and by correction of perceived errors.

Control 0,29 0,24 pedagogicalreasoning task Plan goal 0,18

(components) Execute problem-sol

0,22+

0,32 Plan problemsolving action

ving action

0,32 Comprehend the situation 0,32 0,16

0,20 0,20

Test conditions 0,50

0,34+ 0,34 Reason to elaborate a diagnostic

Execute problemsolving action

0,16+ 0,31

0,16 Interpret state Evaluate

0,16

0,45 0,30

0,34

Elaborate a 0,15 pedagogical 0,43 intervention 0,16+

0,23+ 0,32

0,27

Correct

Figure 5. Typical sequence of collaborative pedagogical reasoning activities – fourth-year student teachers.

4.4.3 Teachers In the case of teachers, the sequence of pedagogical-reasoning activities did not display dependency between temporally adjacent events (G241= 52.44, p < .11). That is, the conditional probabilities among activities only reflect probabilities related to their frequencies. Figure 6 presents the sequential statistics. Since the omnibus test is not significant, the individual conditional probabilities were not examined for significance. 4.4.4 Expert teachers In the case of experts, there is sequential dependency between pedagogical-reasoning activities (G255= 143.35, p < .0001). The most frequent paths were test conditions-conprehend (.58), reason-comprehend (.56), correct-interpret state (.57), interpret state-comprehend (.46), plan problem-solving action (.42), comprehend-interpret state (.33). Of all the 72, 15 conditional probabilities were significantly biased. Six of them appear in Figure 7, all positively biased: correct-interpret state, plan problem-solving action-interpret state, comprehend-reason, plan goal-plan problem-solving action, test conditions-evaluate, and plan problem-solving action-comprehend.

Expertise in Pedagogical Reasoning Control pedagogicalreasoning task0,33 Plan goal

0,33

0,33

0,17

Plan problemsolving action

31

Execute problem-solving action (components)

0,25

Comprehend the situation 0,31

0,46

Test conditions

0,31 0,21

0,33 Reason to elaborate a diagnostic

Execute problemsolving action

0,33

0,33

0,31 Interpret state

0,45 0,38

Evaluate

Elaborate a pedagogical intervention

0,33 0,35

0,38 0,50

Correct

0,50

Figure 6. Typical sequence of collaborative pedagogical reasoning activities - teachers. Control pedagogicalreasoning task

Execute problem-solving action (components)

Plan goal 0,27

0,27+ Plan problemsolving action

0,20+

Comprehend the situation

0,20

0,28+

0,42+

0,33

0,24

0,58

Test conditions

0,56 Reason to elaborate a diagnostic

0,25+ Execute problemsolving action

0,16

0,20

0,46 Interpret state Evaluate Correct

0,30 0,22 0,24

0,17

Elaborate a pedagogical intervention

0,24

0,57+

Figure 7. Typical sequence of collaborative pedagogical reasoning activities - experts.

32

Julien Mercier, Monique Brodeur, Line Laplante et al.

Frequent and positively biased paths among control activities go from preparation steps to evaluation steps. Preparation steps are also frequently followed by the execution of pedagogical-reasoning actions. In turn, this execution, when followed by control actions, leads to aspects of evaluation of the procedures (interpret state). The typical sequence of pedagogical-reasoning actions includes a loop between comprehend and reason, with elaborate an intervention relatively isolated from the two others.

4.4.5. Global difference in sequential dependency across levels of expertise An important finding regarding expertise differences is that as expertise increases, the general orderliness of transitions between pedagogical-reasoning activities also increases, as reflected by the correspondingly increasing G2 obtained. Pedagogical reasoning in experts appears more strategically driven than in novices. Globally, the sequential results depict collaborative pedagogical reasoning as a relatively unsystematic process for some expertise levels. In contrast, collaborative pedagogical reasoning appears more systematic in the case of experts. For example, results from fourth-year students include a great number of transitions with reasonable probability. Because of this difficulty of characterizing the process, comparisons between levels of expertise are difficult to make at the level of specific transitions. Experts also plan goals about diagnostic, while others plan about comprehension. Experts, in contrast with the other participants, don‘t go from comprehension to elaborating the intervention. For all expertise levels, comprehension and the elaboration of the intervention are more controlled than the diagnostic process.

5. DISCUSSION The main goal was to accurately describe what is going on, cognitively speaking, during pedagogical reasoning in the hope that this description of the process will make possible studies of knowledge and other factors that bear on teaching effectiveness and teacher education.

5.1. Prevalence of Collaborative Pedagogical Reasoning Activities In the sample studied, a significant difference was found regarding how often the different pedagogical-reasoning activities were executed. Frequency data, not considering the length of a specific activity, suggest that episodes of pedagogical-reasoning actions (which may be relatively long) are frequently interspersed with planning and evaluation procedures. This finding is consistent with the expectation from theory that this control of the performance was necessary at the beginning and end of the pedagogical reasoning process, and during shifts between any of its constituent actions. Participants were (attempting to be) purposeful or strategic by piloting their performance. The extent to which they succeed is not explicit from frequency data, and would require an examination of the nature of those categories because the potential of success and failure is intrinsic to the enactment of any of the steps in the model. Of the control procedures, interpret state was by far the most prevalent step. Interpreted as a frequent need to make sense of the current state in the performance of the task, this may be due to the

Expertise in Pedagogical Reasoning

33

considerable complexity of the problem or the complexity of the domain. Those two influences may be difficult to distinguish, but a difference in the prevalence of interpret state attributable to expertise would be an indication of the impact of the complexity of the problem and the domain. The scarcity of occurrence of goal planning, evaluation of results and correction of mistakes may be related to the ill-structured nature of pedagogical-reasoning problems. If we agree with the literature that such problems represent difficulties in establishing what the problem is, which steps are required for a solution and what constitutes an appropriate solution, such difficulties may be reflected in the data. Again, expertise differences examined next may corroborate or infirm this supposition by providing evidence of the impact of the required knowledge which experts presumably have to address such issues and perform those steps successfully. Indeed, despite the influence of the context on the elaboration of a representation of the problem, pertinent knowledge of the domain exerts the greatest influence on this process. If experts know from experience that planning a solution in terms of a sequence of steps before executing actions accelerates problem solving, as shown in previous research on problem solving, this is a strong incentive to engage in adequate planning, since this planning is enabled by their knowledge. Finally, experts‘ representations emphasize structural features relevant for the solution such as causal relations, whereas novices‘ representations highlight superficial features irrelevant to the solution. At the level of the pedagogical-reasoning actions, diagnostic was shown to be less prevalent than comprehension and the elaboration of the intervention. One possible explanation is the possibility that diagnostic naturally and relatively effortlessly follows from an adequate comprehension of the case whether as backward or forward reasoning, which in this study is designed to present information more or less associated with the primary difficulty. This scarcity of diagnostic could alternately be attributable to the difficulty of making a diagnostic, which could be corroborated or not from the examination of expertise differences.

5.2. Differences in Prevalence across Levels of Expertise The data revealed an absence of difference in prevalence of pedagogical-reasoning activities across expertise levels. At the higher level, this uniformity in prevalence across expertise levels could mean that domain knowledge has no impact on the implementation of the different pedagogical-reasoning actions in terms of frequency, but it could have an impact on the nature of the actions implemented, as well as on the relative length of episodes of given activities. These issues have to be further examined using complementary analytical strategies. However, a significant difference across expertise levels was found at the level of actions. In a semantically complex domain, problem-solving processes hinge on pertinent knowledge of the domain. How this knowledge is used to perform the task, both individually and collectively, is thought to be largely determinant of the outcomes of the activity. Comprehension, reasoning, planning and problem solving are all hypothesized to be facilitated by the availability of pertinent domain knowledge. More specifically for planning, differences in prevalence of actions seem to corroborate many aspects of literature on teacher planning: less intervention in experts suggest that they possess in memory more compiled schemas for intervention that either don‘t need to be created and/or explicitly detailed. One

34

Julien Mercier, Monique Brodeur, Line Laplante et al.

needs to be careful though about the nature of the data under scrutiny by not equating frequency and length of episodes. Globally, these differences can be explained in part by the level of difficulty of the case study (a real pupil). Experts seem to be challenged by the case in order to adapt the intervention, whereas novices seem to abandon taking into account the case, apparently turning to the elaboration of a relatively generic intervention in reading instruction. In terms of analysis, the absence of differences in prevalence at the higher level makes comparison of conditional probabilities involving exclusively those categories between levels of expertise more directly interpretable. Transitions involving actions should be compared using standardized indices.

5.3. Sequencing of Collaborative Pedagogical Reasoning Activities For the sample under study, pedagogical reasoning was shown statistically to be a firstorder Markov process. Although all 72 conditional probabilities can contribute to some extent to the overall dependency between pairs of steps, 21 of them were statistically significant individually. This finding is in line with many other models based on problem-solving theory, which postulate the occurrence of steps on the basis of the steps immediately preceding them. In his synthesis of available data about the human cognitive architecture, Newell (1990) interpreted human cognition as state determined, meaning that future cognitive behavior is determined by its current state. The current state may be constructed from states at the same level (strong level) or at lower levels (weak level). The reason-comprehend transition can be interpreted as either an indication of forward reasoning or a need to go back to the case for retrieving information that was not memorized adequately during the initial reading of the materials. According to the view presented, the diagnostic of a pupil‘s difficulty is achieved through abductive reasoning, a combination of deductive and inductive reasoning, specifically that hypotheses are generated by abstraction and abduction and tested by deduction and induction. This distinction is orthogonal to the difference between forward and backward reasoning. Forward reasoning is heavily dependent on the reasoner‘s domain knowledge to avoid errors due to a lack of legitimacy of the inferences. Because of the impact of knowledge on the reasoning process, the level of expertise must be taken into consideration in interpreting this transition. Correct-interpret state is consistent with theory, since interpret state may involve testing the conditions for the application of stop rules. Test conditions-comprehend may be interpreted by the assumption that comprehending the case is a prerequisite to the diagnostic and subsequent intervention, so that the participants, having determined this, engage in the first step of the process. The transition between plan goal and plan problem-solving actions is consistent with the theory stating that goal setting has to be followed by a plan of actions to attain those goals (Tschan, 2002). The infrequent test conditions-interpret state path is an instance of all those paths not supported by theory that should occur less often than expected statistically. Those paths are many (consider those 16 below .15). It appears that statistics from sequential analysis are misleading in those cases, since low-frequency paths, because of their low frequency, are likely to be detected statistically as departing from expected values. The common pattern of preparation, execution and evaluation found among the more detailed categories of the model is in line with classic problem-solving theories and recent

Expertise in Pedagogical Reasoning

35

empirical investigations by Tschan (2002). In particular, the performance of actions followed by interpret state and the observation that interpret state is also a very likely consequent of correct and test conditions seem to indicate the complexity of the pedagogical-reasoning process by the need to make explicit the various steps in the process. Finally, the recursive loop between evaluate and comprehension may be interpreted as an indication of comprehension monitoring.

5.4. Differences in Sequencing across Levels of Expertise The presence of first-order sequential dependency among pedagogical-reasoning processes was established statistically for three of the four levels of expertise considered in this study. Indeed, pedagogical-reasoning activities in teachers were found to be unrelated sequentially. These results are discussed separately for each levels of expertise in the following sections.

5.4.1. Second-year students The recursive loop between comprehend and elaborate in addition to the absence of paths going to reason can be seen as an indication that the focus on elaboration is accompanied by considerations of the case in terms of presented information or a diagnosis of rather limited quality, and not in terms of the complete and thorough diagnosis for which a transformation of this information is required. This could be an indication that the diagnostic is not satisfactorily achieved, perhaps even skipped, despite the frequent path from reason to comprehend suggesting that hypotheses are being tested in light of the information in the case. Second-year student teachers may lack the domain knowledge necessary to avoid a lack of legitimacy of the inferences, which are responsible for errors in diagnosis. Novices use backward reasoning because their do not have the knowledge required to support forward reasoning (Patel, Arocha & Zhang, 2005). The reasoning activity occurs but is not preceded by any statistically distinguishable step. Is it followed, though, more often than expected by comprehend. However, hypothesis-driven or backward reasoning increases cognitive load since it requires that the reasoner keeps track of the current goals and hypotheses. Cognitive overload may be the cause of this frequent path from reasoning to comprehend. This assertion is based on the assumption that hypotheses are being formulated, which would have to be corroborated by a further analysis of the categories in the model constituting the lower level of the activities. Plan goal-plan action is a transition expected from theory (Tschan, 2002). The two most common targets of the most frequent transitions were elaborate intervention and comprehend. These two actions seem to serve as attractors around which the pedagogical-reasoning process is organized. 5.4.2. Fourth-year students Interestingly, elaborate intervention and interpret state seem to be the attractors in the process in the sense that many very frequent paths are going to these two states. Among those paths that reached significance, evaluate-plan problem-solving action seems to indicate a need to make explicit upcoming procedures, in the case of a positive or negative evaluation of the performance. Reason-comprehend can be seen as backward reasoning, in which hypotheses

36

Julien Mercier, Monique Brodeur, Line Laplante et al.

are elaborated and then tested against information from the case. Plan problem-solving action-comprehend is probably a by-product of the fact that comprehension of the case is a prerequisite to the other actions and that an initial task analysis by the participants leads to the comprehension of the case being performed first. The reason-correct transition is intricate because the object of the correction is not identifiable from the sequential data: it is not clear whether it is the diagnostic or the intervention (as the most frequent consequent of a correction procedure).

5.4.3. Teachers The present results indicate that sequential structure of teachers‘ pedagogical-reasoning process could not be established statistically. The possibility that this can be due to low frequencies of certain transitions can be ruled out: From a probabilistic point of view, it is more likely for a conditional probability to depart from the expected frequency as the unconditional frequencies of the antecedent and consequent categories are low. Thus, it is likely that this statistical sequential independence among steps is real. 5.4.4. Expert teachers Sequential structure in experts‘ pedagogical reasoning is characterized by many very frequent paths pointing to comprehend and interpret state, including a loop between the two. Comprehend-reason can be interpreted tentatively as forward reasoning (Patel & Groen, 1991). Statistically biased paths among the control steps can be thought of as a capacity to be strategic and efficient in elaborating a solution to the problem by optimally organizing the constituent actions. Paths among activities seem to reflect the structure of the pedagogicalreasoning task: activities seem to start with the diagnosis supported by information extracted from the case, which, when done, leads to the elaboration of the intervention. 5.4.5. Global difference in sequential dependency across levels of expertise In addition to the results associated with each expertise level, it was also found statistically that first-order sequential dependency in pedagogical reasoning augmented as the level of expertise increased. The three G2 that were comparable (excluding the teachers) enlarged with expertise. That is, experts appear to be more systematic in their sequencing of pedagogical-reasoning steps. Pedagogical-reasoning processes in experts appear to be more strategically driven than in novices. These results represent additional empirical support to the importance of pertinent knowledge of the domain for successful problem solving in a semantically complex domain.

5.5. General Discussion The analyses presented in this chapter put a particular emphasis on the executive control of the pedagogical-reasoning activities. Future analyses should further examine each of the three main activities postulated, by considering their constituents. To make this task minimally tractable conceptually and statistically, the activities pertaining to the control process should be aggregated into preparation, execution and evaluation steps, more parsimoniously than the six categories used in this chapter.

Expertise in Pedagogical Reasoning

37

The absence of clearer patterns in the data may also be the result of the added complexity of considering pairs as a unified system instead of two individuals. Future analyses include the modeling of the contribution of each individual in a pair to highlight the coordination of the performance, as well as the comparison of the present results with results from a companion study of individual performance. Future and ongoing research include the study of pedagogical reasoning by heterogeneous dyads (an expert and a novice) in tutoring situations and the study of pedagogical reasoning in authentic settings instead of a laboratory task. Globally, these analyses could contribute to our understanding of more general issues in considering groups as informationprocessing systems such as information storage, information retrieval and information exchange in groups. Comparisons of the functioning of homogeneous and heterogeneous dyads could further test the theoretical assumption that the degree of overlap of task-related information held by different members of a group is thought to be a major influence on group functioning (Arrow, McGrath & Berdahl, 2000). These theoretical frameworks coupled with modern analytical strategies could lead to interesting insights in the application of an information-processing framework within a social-cognitive science view (Sun, 2006). By showing differences in pedagogical reasoning related to the level of expertise, the results suggest that more emphasis should be put on the diagnosis of student‘s difficulties in initial training, especially if this diagnosis is seen as a foundation for differentiated instruction. More analyses considering the modeling of the domain knowledge evoked during pedagogical reasoning and associated to each process are needed to explain these differences.

6. CONCLUSIONS The contributions and implications of this study are presented first. The strengths and limitations of this work and future research conclude this chapter.

6.1. Contributions and Implications This study is the second of a series of studies investigating teacher decision-making in the specific context of lesson planning for a specific student, the relations between teacher knowledge and teacher decision-making, as well as the differences between solitary and collaborative performance. A cognitive model of pedagogical reasoning was developed from theory and then used for the analysis of conversation data. It was developed as a general framework for the research program. It evolved from general ideas of regulation of the performance and general theories chosen on the basis of elements of task analysis of the pedagogicalreasoning process. Since the model includes unavoidable executive aspects of the performance, it can be used to study individual and group differences in pedagogicalreasoning performance. It also makes possible uncommon and less straightforward comparisons between different contexts such as group, dyad, and individual performance.

38

Julien Mercier, Monique Brodeur, Line Laplante et al.

The study of cycles of pedagogical reasoning over an extended period of time is also possible. The strongest claims made to date concern the categories that were included in the model. Aspects of their sequencing were also discussed among sets of categories that were discussed in the literature as groups, such as problem solving, reasoning, and planning. Since the model builds on sets of theoretical categories that were not previously considered together, these links will have to be established empirically using many different samples. Most of the transitions could not be specified from theory. In this study, the model was considered as a closed set of theoretically-driven categories and therefore was not modified to reflect the data. However, definitions of categories were refined during the coding process. More studies are needed on the validation process. Empirical validation is complex given the interest of having a generic model, applicable to various settings and populations. The expected outcome of the development of the model is a unified set of stable categories. Through empirical investigation, these categories will be identified as more or less prevalent for specific populations and in specific contexts. Transitions among steps will also be specified empirically, considering and comparing various performance contexts and different populations. Aside from these considerations of the development of the model, the strategy used for the analysis of coded data has strengths and limitations that are complementary to a more qualitative approach. The focus on sample results underlying the statistical approach used led to a specification of generalizations to the whole samples and indications of similarities and differences across categories related to expertise. This strategy provided accurate descriptions of the process. These descriptions should be confirmatory but are treated descriptively or as exploratory in the sense that these interpretations have to be treated mainly as hypotheses that have to be tested by other means. Most of these results can be explained by the theory underlying the model, but in order to be robust, these explanations would greatly benefit from a qualitative study of the protocols of specific pairs of participants. The nature of the processes characterized by the results as well as specific transitions (the actual sequence of steps performed by a pair as opposed to aggregated transitions) has to be examined to explain those descriptions. These considerations also apply to the categories pertaining to the third level in the model that were not fully examined in this study and for which both the quantitative and qualitative work has to be undertaken. As Arrow, McGrath and Berdhal (2000) suggest, characteristics of the products of the pedagogical-reasoning process can be tracked during their elaboration and be put in relation with the coordinated actions that resulted in these productions. In so doing, important information could be gained regarding how certain characteristics of the pedagogicalreasoning process are related to the efficacy of the production. The development of an assessment procedure using scoring rubrics is a prerequisite to such analyses. A pervasive claim in this chapter regarding the impact of knowledge as being largely determinant of the outcomes of the activity has to be verified by such analyses. As such, this model can be coupled with other models either representing executive aspects of complementary tasks such as interactive teaching, or representing other levels in the performance of pedagogical reasoning such as a social layer or the use of tools . Knowledge underlying the performance should also be modeled. Appropriate models of

Expertise in Pedagogical Reasoning

39

decision-making in interactive teaching include those suggested by Peterson and Clark (1978) and Shavelson and Stern (1981). Aspects of a social layer applicable to dyad and group data include Seale‘s (1979) classic conversation acts framework, which emphasizes the functional aspect of speech. Modeling the use of tools can be either achieved inductively or within a cognitive tools framework (Lajoie, 2000). Many knowledge modeling procedures exist (see Olson and Biolsi, 1991). A conceptual graph approach (Sowa, 1984) could be particularly useful in investigating the links between elements of knowledge and performance, and is the object of ongoing research. However, these knowledge models are very powerful in categorizing and organizing knowledge elements using sets of primitives but are relatively incompatible with the aggregation of data from multiple units of analysis. Nevertheless, used in conjunction with appropriate data collection and analysis procedures, these models could be powerfully combined to investigate a broad range of issues regarding cognition and social cognition. Finally, the proposed cognitive model, as a way to characterize proactive decision making, complements models of interactive decision-making. This complementarity represents potential for future studies examining discrepancies between teacher planning and classroom processes in terms of how they arise and how they are resolved. This discrepancy is linked to important findings of earlier studies (Morine-Dershimer, 1978-79) and has implications for the transfer of theory into practice since teachers‘ interactive decision-making and information-processing is highly influenced by it (Morine-Dershimer, 1979). Initial investigations are leading to descriptive models of teachers‘ pedagogical reasoning.

6.2. Strengths and Limitations of This Work and Future Research Choices that were made in this study concerning the sampling and analysis strategies each translate into strengths and limitations. Sampling four expertise levels made it possible to make comparisons but led to a limited number of units of analysis per category (pairs). Focusing on group prevalence and sequential aspects led to results that generalize very well across the sample, but neglected individual differences within categories. This quantitative approach to data analysis, while providing reliable results about likely events and sequences of events, also neglected critical events in the performance of individual pairs of participants. These critical events would be likely unveiled by case studies in the form of a (qualitative) protocol analysis. These two approaches are complementary and should be both undertaken for the present data set. Statistical results in this study need to be interpreted as generalizability to the sample under study. Therefore, generalizing results to the populations requires either additional studies of comparable samples or a study involving parametric samples of participants (more than 30 pairs for each expertise levels). Finally, this chapter highlights some benefits and challenges regarding the methodology of sequential analysis for the study of cognition and social cognition. Sequential analysis, with its focus on transitions between steps in a process, seems a sound strategy for extending the tracing methodologies to larger samples of participants, instead of traditional case studies. The possibility of pooling data over multiple participants and performance episodes while taking into account factors in an experimental design, complemented by robust statistical

40

Julien Mercier, Monique Brodeur, Line Laplante et al.

procedures such as log-linear analysis, can provide reliable information possibly with more generalizability, about how cognitive processes unfold. However, the analysis presented also reveals major difficulties related to the level of details included in the model under study. Cognitive theory reviewed in this chapter led to the elaboration of a model comprising 22 categories organized hierarchically in three levels. Because of the combinatory increase in the number of possible transitions as a function of the number of categories considered, the analysis of this model as a whole appears to be an intractable endeavor. The strategy employed was to collapse the categories of the lower level at the expense of a loss of information, deferring the examination of constituents of the pedagogical-reasoning actions to a subsequent paper. Even then, these constituents will have to be examined in relative isolation: projected analysis consists of detailing one of the action (comprehension or reasoning or elaborating the intervention) while the other two remain collapsed, so that aspects of the transitions between actions remain visible. Another complementary strategy is to collapse the 7 control actions into three more general categories: preparation, execution and evaluation. The benefits of shifting part of the emphasis from the problem solving to constituent actions could be relatively high, especially since the details related to these categories were presented in the present chapter. After the necessary study of component actions, the results should be then further interpreted in relation, because of their functional interdependency. No matter the strategy used, minimizing the number of categories seems unavoidable. Most examples in classic books on sequential analysis are based on categorical systems of approximately 2 to 4 categories, and the maximum number of categories found in examples was 7. Occasionally, categories are organized hierarchically, typically in two levels in such cases. Sequential analysis of multi-level processes represents another source of possible challenges. To the best of our knowledge, it is not possible to compute transitions between categories organized in more than two levels in a single analysis, since this would lead to flawed unconditional frequencies. Consequently, statistical tests of sequential dependency associated with more complex models cannot be obtained. Such parsimony could permit more complete analyses, such as statistical tests of higherorder Markov processes, and group differences related to specific transitions. More complex experimental designs could also be exploited. It should be noted that the gain in generalizability associated with sequential analysis is accompanied by a loss of information regarding how specific pairs of participants performed. Taking into account individuals within pairs would also contribute to the number of transitions as they generate transitions are not part of the experimental design (although the comparison between individuals in pairs and individuals working alone would be an experimental factor). Future research should investigate at least two important issues: the nature of knowledge and knowledge use in pedagogical reasoning, and how to teach pedagogical reasoning abilities. Regarding the first issue pertaining to knowledge and knowledge use, Novick and Bassok (2005) insist on the importance of conducting educationally relevant research on problem solving, especially in the context of knowledge-intensive problems that are socially critical such as those in science, medicine and technology. We add education to this list of domains. A model that describes teacher knowledge and how they use it in teaching is needed to study teacher collaboration in order to, among other things, assess its quality and its outcomes in a multiplicity of situations. Many important questions remain to be explored in the

Expertise in Pedagogical Reasoning

41

development of such a model: (1) what knowledge is involved during these cognitive steps, (2) how knowledge from each teammate gets integrated into a common problem space, and (3) how this knowledge drives the collaborative pedagogical-reasoning process. Elements of answer to these questions could contribute to explain the differences found in the present study. Question 1 could be answered by constructing a conceptual graph of the knowledge evoked in the protocol of each pair of participants. To answer question 2, the conceptual graphs could be annotated with indications regarding which participant contributed each of their components. For question 3, the conceptual graphs can be graphically integrated with the corresponding traces of the pedagogical-reasoning process, for each pair and individual. Given the predominant role of knowledge in ill-structured problems, conceptual representation theory may contribute to our understanding of problem solving (Voss & Post, 1988). Schema knowledge for problem solving consists of identification knowledge, elaboration knowledge, planning knowledge, and execution knowledge (Marshall, 2005). Identification knowledge is concerned with the recognition of patterns. Elaboration knowledge intervenes in deciding whether the elements necessary for the solution of the problem are provided, after the pattern has been recognized. Planning knowledge is used to set goals and selecting associated operations. Execution knowledge consists of algorithms that are executed step-by-step, at the service of the plan. Regarding the second issue of developing pedagogical reasoning skills in novices, as Hogan, Rabinowitz and Craven (2003) concluded, research is needed to determine whether novices can be taught the skills of experts in teaching, as it has been shown to be possible in other domains such as physics and statistics. The activities hypothesized to be of particular value for the development of teaching expertise are the preparation of instructional materials, the mental and written planning of instructional activities and strategies, the formative and summative evaluation of student progress using graded written work, observation of performance, and teacher-made tests. Since the first two of these activities are directly related to pedagogical reasoning as conceived of in the present model, it seems likely that this study could lead to specific indications regarding a pedagogy of teaching skills. Future studies will examine teacher knowledge as used in pedagogical reasoning and teaching strategies for developing pedagogical-reasoning skills. Ultimately, these models may develop into more prescriptive models that could be integrated in teacher education programs. More specifically, empirically validated models of pedagogical-reasoning skills determine, on the one hand, the nature of teacher pedagogical reasoning skills that should be taught. On the other hand, they serve as a basis for studies investigating the design of methods for teaching and assessing these skills. Since traditional models of teacher planning focused on processes and neglected content (Hashweh, 2005), analysis of the outcomes of planning should be undertaken. Hashweh‘s (2005) review of recent handbooks with respect to topics of teacher knowledge and teacher thinking reveals a certain impermeability of the two lines of research. This is even more critical since thinking in complex domains is heavily determined by knowledge. The interest of examining novice-expert differences in terms of curriculum scripts was established a long time ago by Putnam (1987). Cognitive models such as the one developed in this study can be used to study change in teacher cognition across time (Sherin, Sherin & Madanes, 2000). These models can be used either transversally (as was done in this study) or longitudinally, and this is a matter of research strategy. More generally, this study will add to the growing literature in cognitive science about the study of collaboration in authentic and complex situations (Elstein, Shulman & Spafka,

42

Julien Mercier, Monique Brodeur, Line Laplante et al.

2000). How to design learning activities in order to optimize cooperative learning and how to organize work in order to optimize performance remain empirical questions that need to be addressed domain by domain.

REFERENCES Anderson, J. R. (2002). Spanning seven orders of magnitude: a challenge for cognitive modeling. Cognitive Science, 26, 85-112. Arvaja, M., Salovaara, H., Häkkinen, P. & Järvelä, S. (2007). Combining individual and group-level perspectives for studying collaborative knowledge construction in context. Learning and Instruction, 17, 448-459. Akpinar, Y. & Bal, V. (2006). Student Tools Supported by Collaboratively Authored Tasks: The Case of Work Learning Unit. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 17 (2), 101-119. Arrow, H., McGrath, J. E. & Berdahl, J. L. (2000). Small groups as complex systems: Formation, coordination, development, and adaptation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Bakeman, R. et Gottman, J. M. (1997). Observing interaction : An introduction to sequential analysis. New-York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Bakeman, R. & Quera, V. (1995). Analysing interaction: Sequential Analysis with SDIS and GSEQ. New-York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Borko, H. & Shavelson, R. (1990). Teacher decision making. In B. F. Jones, & L. Idol (Eds). Dimensions of thinking and cognitive instruction. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Brown, A. L. & Day, J. D. (1983). Macrorules for summarizing texts : The development of expertise. Journal of Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 1-14. Butler, D. L., Lauscher, H. N., Jarvis-Selinger, S. & Beckingham, B. (2004). Collaboration and self-regulation in teachers' professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education. 20 (5), 435-455. Calderhead, J. (1995). Teachers as clinicians. In L. W. Anderson (Ed). International Encyclopedia of teaching and teacher education (2nd ed.), 9-11, Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science. Chen, W. L., Cone, T. P. & Cone, S. L. (2007). A collaborative approach to developing an interdisciplinary unit. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 26 (2), 103-124. Clark, C. M. & Elmore, J. L. (1979). Teacher planning in the first weeks of school (Research series no. 99). East Lansing: Michigan State University, Institute for research on teaching. Clark, C. M. & Yinger, R. J. (1979). Three studies of teacher planning. East Lansing: Michigan State University. Copeland, D. E., Magliano, J. P. & Radvansky, G. A. (2006). Situation models in comprehension, memory, and augmented cognition. In C. Forsythe, M. L. Bernard & T. E. Goldsmith (Eds). Cognitive systems: Human cognitive models in systems design. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. Davies, P. (2000). Differentiation: processing and understanding in teachers‘ thinking and practice. Educational studies, 26(2), 191-203.

Expertise in Pedagogical Reasoning

43

Davison, C. (2006). Collaboration Between ESL and Content Teachers: How Do We Know When We Are Doing It Right? International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 9 (4), 454-475. Elstein, A. S., Shulman, L. S. & et Sprafka, S. A. (2000). Medical problem solving : a tenyear perspective. Evaluation and the Health Professions, 13, 1, 5-36. Ericsson, K. A. (2003). The acquisition of expert performance as problem solving. In J. E. Davidson & R. J. Sternberg (Eds). The psychology of problem solving. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Erickson, G., Minnes Brandes, G., Mitchell, I. & Mitchel, J. (2005). Collaborative teacher learning: Findings from two professional development projects. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21 (7), 787-798 Foltz, P.W. (2003). Quantitative cognitive models of text and discourse processing. In A.C. Graesser, M. A. Gernsbacher, & S. R. Goldman. (Eds). Handbook of discourse processes. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. Frederiksen, C. H. (1975). Representing logical and semantic structure of knowledge acquired from discourse. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 317–458. Frederiksen, C. H. & Breuleux, A. (1990). Monitoring cognitive processing in semantically complex domains. In N., Frederiksen, R, Glaser, A. Lesgold & M. Shafto (Eds.), Diagnostic monitoring of skill and knowledge acquisition (pp. 351-392). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Frederiksen, C. H., Bracewell, R. J., Breuleux, A. & Renaud, A. (1990). The cognitive representation and processing of discourse: Function and dysfunction. In Y. Joanette & H. H. Brownell (Eds.), Discourse ability and brain damage: Theoretical and empirical perspectives. New York: Springer-Verlag. Gottman, J. M. et Roy, A. K. (1990). Sequential analysis : a guide for behavioral researchers. New-York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Groen, G. J. & Patel, V. L. (1988). The relationship between comprehension and reasoning in medical expertise. In Chi, M. T. H, Glaser, R. & Farr, M. (Eds). The nature of expertise. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Hashweh, M. Z. (2005). Teacher pedagogical constructions: a reconfiguration of pedagogical content knowledge. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 11, (3), 273-292. Hatano, G. & Inagaki, K. (2000). Knowledge acquisition and use in higher-order cognition. In K. Pawlik & M. R. Rosenzweig (Eds). International handbook of psychology. pp. 167190. London, England: Sage Publications Ltd. Hogan, T., Rabinowitz, M. & Craven, J.A. (2003). Representation in teaching: inferences from research on expert and novice teachers. Educational Psychologist, 38(4), 235-247. Johnson, B. (2003). Teacher collaboration: Good for some, not so good for others. Educational Studies. 29 (4), 337-350. Johnson-Laird, P. N. (2005). Mental models and thought. In K. J. Holyoak & R.G. Morrison (Eds). The Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning. New York, N Y: Cambridge University Press. Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models: Towards a cognitive science of language, inference, and consciousness. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension : A paradigm for cognition. New-York: Cambridge University Press.

44

Julien Mercier, Monique Brodeur, Line Laplante et al.

Lajoie, S. (2000). Computers as cognitive tools: no more walls. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Leighton, J. P. & Steinberg, R. J. (2003). Reasoning and problem solving. In A. F. Healy & R. W. Proctor (Eds). Handbook of psychology: Experimental psychology, Vol. 4. (623-648). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Leinhardt, G. (1987). Development of an expert explanation: An analysis of a sequence of subtraction lessons. Cognition and Instruction, 4(4), 225-282. Leinhardt, G. (1989). Math lessons: A contrast of novice and expert competence. Journal for Research in Mathematics Instruction, 20, 52-75. Leinhardt, G. & Greeno, J. (1986).The cognitive skill of teaching. Journal of educational psychology, 78, 2, 75-95. Lohman, D. F. (2005). Reasoning abilities. In R. J. Sternberg& J. E. Pretz (Eds). Cognition and intelligence: Identifying the mechanisms of the mind. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Lovett, M. C. (2002). Problem Solving. In H. Pashler, & D. Medin (Eds). (2002). Steven's handbook of experimental psychology (3rd ed.), Vol. 2: Memory and cognitive processes. (pp. 317-362). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Marshall, S. P. (2005). Schemas in problem solving. New-York, NY: Cambridge University Press. McCutcheon, G. (1980). How do elementary school teachers plan? The nature of planning and influences on it. Elementary school journal, 81, 4-23. McCutcheon, G. & Milner, H. R. (2002). A contemporary study of teacher planning in a high school English class. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 8, (1), 81-94. Milner, H. R. (2003). A case study of an African American English teacher‘s cultural comprehensive knowledge and self-reflective planning. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 18 (2), 175-196. Mercier, J. & Frederiksen, C. H. (2007). Individual Differences in Graduate Students‘ HelpSeeking Process in Using a Computer Coach in Problem-Based Learning. Learning and Instruction. 17, 184-203 Meirink, J. A., Meijer, P. C. & Verloop, N. (2007). A closer look at teachers' individual learning in collaborative settings. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 13 (2), 145-164. Morine-Dershimer, G. (1979). Teacher plan and classroom reality: the south bay study: part 4 (Research series no. 60). East Lansing: Michigan State University, Institute for research on teaching. Morine-Dershimer, G. (1978-79). Planning in classroom reality: and in-depth look. Educational Research Quarterly. Munby, H., Russell, T. & Martin, A. K. (2001). Teachers‘ Knowledge and How It Develops. In V. Richardson (Ed.) Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed.). American Educational Research Association. Washington, DC. Newell, A. (1990). Unified theories of cognition. Cambridge, Mass : Harvard University Press. Newell, A. & Simon, H. T. (1972). Human problem solving. Prentice Hall. Novick, L. R. & Bassok, M. (2005). Problem solving. In Holyoak, & Morrison, R. G. (Eds). The Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Expertise in Pedagogical Reasoning

45

Olson, J. R. & Biolsi, K. J. (1991). Techniques for representing expert knowledge. In K.A. Anderson & J. Smith (Eds). Toward a general theory of expertise: prospects and limits. Cambridge, N Y: Cambridge University Press. Oostendorp, H. Otero, J. & Campanario, J.M. (2002). Conditions of updating during reading. In M Louwerse & W. van Peer, (Eds). Thematics: Interdisciplinary studies. Converging evidence in language and communication research, vol. 3. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Parmar, R. S. & DeSimone, J. R. (2006). Facilitating Teacher Collaboration in Middle School Mathematics Classrooms with Special-Needs Students. In M. Montague & A.K. Jitendra (Eds). Teaching mathematics to middle school students with learning difficulties. What works for special-needs learners. (pp. 154-174). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Patel, V. L., Arocha, J. F. & Zhang, J. (2005). Thinking and reasoning in medicine. In K.J. Holyoak and R. G. Morrison (Eds). The Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning. New-York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Patel, V. L. & Groen, G. J. (1991). The general and specific nature of medical expertise: a critical look. In K.A. Anderson & J. Smith (Eds). Toward a general theory of expertise: prospects and limits. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press. Peterson, P. & Comeaux, M. (1987). Teachers‘ schemata for classroom events: The mental scaffolding of teachers‘ thinking during classroom instruction. Teaching and Teacher Education, 3, 319-331. Peterson, P. L., Marx, R. W. & Clark, C. M. (1978). Teacher Planning, Teacher Behavior, and Student Achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 15, 417-432. Polk, T. A. & Newell, A. (1995). Deduction as verbal reasoning. Psychological Review, 102(3): 533-566. Putnam, R. (1987). Structuring and adjusting content for students: A study of live and simulated tutoring of additions. American Educational Research Journal, 24(1), 13-28. Rips, L. J. (2002). Reasoning. In D. Medin & H. Pashler (Eds). Steven‟s handbook of experimental psychology (third edition). New York, NY: Wiley & Sons. Sacerdoti, E. (1977), A Structure for Plans and Behavior, Elsevier North-Holland, Amsterdam and New York. Sanchez, G. & Valcarcel, V. M. (1999). Science teachers: Views and practices in planning for teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, (4), 493-513. Schoenfeld, A. H. (2000). Models of the teaching process. Journal of mathematical behaviour, 18, 3, 243-261. Shavelson, R. J. & Stern, P. (1981). Research on teachers‘ pedagogical thoughts, judgments, decisions, and behavior. Review of Educational Research, 51, 455-498. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 4-14. Seifert & Manzuk, (2006). Student cohorts in teacher education: support groups of intellectual communities? Teachers College Record, 108 (7), 1296-1320. Sherin, M. G., Sherin, B. L. & et Madanes, R. (2000). Exploring diverse accounts of teacher knowledge. Journal of mathematical behaviour, 18, (3), 243-261. Smith, E. R. (2005). Learning to Talk Like a Teacher: Participation and Negotiation in Coplanning Discourse. Communication Education, 54(1), 52-71. Sowa, J. F. (1984). Conceptual structures: information processing in mind and machine. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

46

Julien Mercier, Monique Brodeur, Line Laplante et al.

Sun, R. (2006). Prolegomena to integrating cognitive modeling and social simulation. In R. Sun (Ed.). Cognition and multi-agent interaction. New-York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Suntisukwongchote, P. (2006). Testing Models of Collaboration among High School Science Teachers in an Electronic Environment. The High School Journal, 89 (3), 22-33. Taylor, P. H. (1970). How teachers plan their courses. Slough, Berkshire, England: National Foundation for Educational Research. Tillema & Orland-Barak, (2006). Constructing knowledge in professional conversations: The role of beliefs on knowledge and knowing. Learning and Instruction, 16 (6), 592-608. Tschan, F. (2002). Ideal cycles of communication (or cognitions) in triads, dyads, and individuals. Small Group Research, 33 (6), 615-643. Voss, J. F. & Post, T. A. (1988). On the solving of ill-structured problems. In M. T. H. Chi, R. Glaser & M. Farr (Eds). The nature of expertise. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Wallace, T., Anderson, A. R. & Bartholomay, T. (2002). Collaboration: An element associated with the success of four inclusive high schools. Journal of Educational & Psychological Consultation, 13 (4), 349-381. Webb, D. C., Romberg, T. A., Ford, M. J. & Burrill, J. (2005). Teacher Collaboration: Focusing on Problems of Practice. In: T. A. Romberg, T. P. Carpenter, & F. Dremock (Eds). Understanding mathematics and science matters. Studies in mathematical thinking and learning. (pp. 231-251). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. Wenke, D., Frensch, P. A. & Funke, J. (2005). Complex problem solving and intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Pretz (Eds). Cognition and intelligence: Identifying the mechanisms of the mind. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Whitten, S. & Graesser, A. (2003). Comprehension of text in problem solving. In J.E. Davidson & R. J. Sternberg (Eds). The psychology of problem solving. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Wijekumar, K. K. & Jonassen, D. H. (2007). The role of computer tools in experts‘ solving ill-structured problems. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 664-704. Williams, D. J. & Noyes, J. M. (2007). Effect of experience and mode of presentation on problem solving. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 258-274. Winter & McGhie-Richmond, 2005). Using computer conferencing and case studies to enable collaboration between expert and novice teachers. Journal of computer assister learning 21, 118-129. Wood, H. & Wood, D. (1999). Help seeking, learning and contingent tutoring. Computers & Education, 33, 153-169. Zwaan, R. A. & Singer, M. (2003). Text comprehension. In A.C. Graesser, M.A. Gernsbacher, & S. R. Goldman. (Eds). Handbook of discourse processes. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. Zahorik, J. A. (1975). Teachers‘ planning models. Educational Leadership, 33, 134-139. Zwaan, R. A., Radvansky, G. A. & Whitten, S. N. (2002). Situation models and themes. In: Louwerse, M & van Peer, W. (Eds). Thematics: Interdisciplinary studies. Converging evidence in language and communication research, vol. 3. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

In: Collaborative Learning: Methodology, Types… Editors: E. Luzzatto, G. DiMarco, pp. 47-80

ISBN: 978-1-60876-076-3 © 2010 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Chapter 2

GENERATING COLLABORATIVE CONTEXTS TO PROMOTE LEARNING AND DEVELOPMENT Alejandro Iborra1*, Dolores García2, Leonor Margalef 3 and Víctor Pérez4. 1

Departamento de Psicopedagogía y Educación Física. Universidad de Alcalá. 2 Departamento de Didáctica. Universidad de Alcalá. 3 Departamento de Didáctica. Universidad de Alcalá. 4 Departament d'Educació Física i Esportiva. Universidad de Valencia.

ABSTRACT We proceed to present in this chapter an active and experiential teaching approach based in the creation of ―collaborative contexts‖. This collaborative approach has been experienced and developed through different educational scenarios from Bachelor‘s to Doctorate‘s degree studies since 2002. Going beyond the application of cooperative techniques we propose the convenience of reflecting about the kind of context that is created all through one course between all the involved participants: teacher and students as a whole. According to this we reflect and present evidence concerning the following topics: developmental demands for teachers and students participating in a collaborative experience; key social skills (communication, managing conflicts and leadership processes); interdisciplinary practices with the coordination of several subjects; coherent evaluation practices promoting learning instead of control processes; competence promotion instead of just content elaboration; optional instead of compulsory contexts; useful connecting processes (the McGuffin project ); real practices instead of faked or simulated exercises and finally integration of new virtual technologies such as wikis, blogs and forums to support the process. After exploring these topics we conclude proposing a typical sequence useful to promote this kind of collaborative approach.

*

Corresponding Author: E-mail: [email protected]

48

Alejandro Iborra, Dolores García, Leonor Margalef et al.

1. INTRODUCTION We have been deeply committed in the exploration of cooperative and collaborative methodologies during the last six years. Along this time-span, we had the opportunity of performing and developing four innovative research projects in the general frame of PsychoPedagogical Studies in Alcalá University (Spain). These innovative projects were performed and even tested in different educational levels: Bachelor studies (Fourth and Firth Course of Psycho-pedagogy) and Doctorate studies. The performing of the different methodologies was also supervised by several teachers belonging to this Faculty which finally created a research group named as FIT1. In short this is a story about how we made a transition from cooperative techniques towards a more open collaborative and experiential based methodology. Through this transitional experience we had the opportunity of progressively introduce and share interdisciplinary projects. We also could discuss and reflect about our own dilemmas about how to manage and evaluate the group dynamics we intended to facilitate. This was a key element for us since as teachers we were an included part of this process instead of an objective and detached element. Furthermore this is the story of how we introduced step by step technological tools in order to manage the collaborative processes we were developing. So as part of this general methodological transition we can include a technological element, which supported the class dynamics extending them in different virtual settings. According to this we introduced progressively the use of different tools including virtual platforms (Web-Ct, Blackboard, Zoho Project) forums, web-blogs and wikis. Although the technological tools have been an important part of the general collaborative dynamic, we want formally emphasize how meaningful it was for us to develop a special sensibility to the different contexts we were creating. In relation to this we were very cautious about three different motivational ingredients: (1) the kind of social relationships and other affective elements which appeared during the classes, (2) the learning outcomes in terms of conceptual and competence achievements and finally (3) the possible impact or meaningfulness of the experience and its relationship with the promotion of the participant‘s development. Attending to this kind of emergent and ‗pattern-like‘ processes was a very important aspect for all of us. In the following sections we will develop these ideas in order to discuss our approach to collaborative learning. We will provide theoretical support and empirical examples in order to illustrate our arguments.

2. EVOLUTION OF OUR THEORETICAL BACKGROUND When we began our project of innovating our teaching through the introduction of new collaborative methodologies, we really didn‘t differentiate between cooperation from collaboration. We had a general understanding of ―cooperative learning‖ as a teaching1

Formar (Educating), Innovar (Innovating), Transformar (Transforming). http://www2.uah.es/fit/inicio.htm

Generating Collaborative Contexts to Promote Learning and Development

49

learning strategy where students had to collaborate between themselves in order to complete a shared learning outcome previously established (Marchesi y Martin, 1998; Johnson & Johnson, 1999). Cooperative learning was just differentiated from competitive and individualist methodologies. In the competitive setting only a group achieves the objective or the specific external recognition. In the individualist one it is not required to interact with other students in order to get the learning tasks done. The inclusion of more distinctions such as grade of mutuality and equality helped us to discriminate both approaches from other possibilities such as peer tutorials (Damon y Phelps, 1989;Marchesi y Martín, 1998; Duran, Torró y Vila, 2003). Equality describes the range of symmetry of the roles performed by the participants during the process. Mutuality is related with the sense of connection or bonding maintained between those participants. Participants in peer tutorials have asymmetrical roles or knowledge or skills while the mutuality values can fluctuate. Cooperative learning would imply in contrast a high level of symmetry and a medium value in mutuality, depending on those responsibilities, roles and tasks distributed among the members of a team. Finally Collaborative learning would present the highest levels of both variables. According to McCarthey and McMahon (1992) peer tutorials stress a knowledge conception based on a transmission metaphor which goes in just one direction. In Cooperative and Collaborative learning knowledge is constructed in a multidirectional sense. All relationships flow dynamically while everybody shares the same kind of information. An operative definition we began to handle at this moment was the following: cooperative learning involves the mutual implication of the members belonging to a group which coordinates the tasks of its members with the purpose of constructing some knowledge. In this constructing process every individual learns more compared with what he would learn alone as a consequence of the collaborative learning. Every member is directly responsible of his own learning but also indirectly responsible of the learning of the others members of the group (Iborra, Izquierdo, Cruz, 2005). During this period we had the opportunity of exploring the introduction of cooperative techniques such as Jigsaw (Aronson, 1978) in several subjects belonging to different studies (Psycho-pedagogy, Knowledge Management Studies, Economy). The experience was very useful in order to understand how differently the same technique could be performed by a group of teachers. In general all teachers who participated in this first project organized their subject lectures taking into account the Jigsaw structure. The process began with the formation of groups in the class. Once these first groups were formed they distributed their members between new groups which were going to specialized themselves focusing on a part of the subject. Once this was completed these members of the specialized groups came back again to their previous groups in order to share their learning. After this it was the moment to include a case, problem or project in order to apply and verify the constructed knowledge, all groups working with the same issue. Although this was the methodology used by all the teachers, there were differences in the way every teacher performed and interpreted the sequence of the Jigsaw procedure. These differences in performance showed more subtleties between cooperative and collaborative learning. For example we could verify following Ruiz and Shailor (2004) that using a Jigsaw procedure stressed the teacher point of view (for example his preferences) instead of those naturally developed or preferably chosen by the students. In addition it paid more attention to the products elaborated for the students during the process instead of the process itself. The differences found between the teachers were related to how close they followed the structure

50

Alejandro Iborra, Dolores García, Leonor Margalef et al.

of the Jigsaw procedure. In this sense we could introduce a collaborative bias if the attention was focused on the group interactions and the process of a shared construction of conceptual and attitudinal knowledge instead of just following the Jigsaw procedure and the resulted products. This collaborative ‗inclination‘ emphasized the students as active members of the learning community created in the class of one particular subject. Although all teachers employed the same cooperative structure in their classes, they did not share the same collaborative principles, what contributed to make a difference in the quality of the experience. From this we found more distinctions between cooperative and collaborative approaches. Some scholars (Panitz, 1996) understand collaborative learning as a general approach to teaching instead of a group of possible techniques oriented towards the achievement of learning results. In collaborative learning the authorship and responsibility of the process is shared between the teacher and students. In cooperative learning it is the teacher who directly leads all the process from outside, even though the teacher suggests what to do he does not take a direct part in the process. Collaborative learning maintains an idea of Education as a transformative potential for all the participants (teacher and student as a whole). Cooperative learning stress an idea of Education directed towards the transmission of information in order to promote learning. Wiersema (2001) summarizes these ideas in the following quote: “Collaboration is more than co-operation. I would say that co-operation is a technique to finish a certain product together: the faster, the better; the less work for each, the better. Collaboration refers to the whole process of learning, to students teaching each other, students teaching the teacher (why not?) and of course the teacher teaching the students too”. Some revisions analyzing different methods of cooperative and collaborative learning (Davidson, 2002; Johnson, Johnson and Stanne, 2000) support this difference between more cooperative and collaborative methods. For example Johnson et al (2000) analyzed 10 methods ordered in a continuum from the most direct and technical to the most conceptual methods2. First methods situated at the beginning of the continuum consisted of detailed techniques, easy to learn and make into practice. On the other hand more conceptual methods situated at the end of the continuum were general indications instead of concrete ‗step by step‘ techniques. They were more difficult and complex to learn and practice. However they were internalized easier and could be adapted to changing situations. After reviewing 158 studies the mentioned authors concluded that conceptual methods produced better results compared with the more direct ones. This idea agrees with other formulations stated in our context such as Durán et al. (2003, p.37): “the training of teachers in the use of collaborative learning has to move away from direct and prescriptive approaches so typical of technicians who simply apply 2

The order from more directivity towards less are the following: Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition (CIRC) (Stevens, Madden, Slavin & Farnish, 1987); Team Assisted Individualization (TAI)(Slavin, Leavey & Madden, 1982); Cooperative Structures (CS) (Kagan, 1985); Students Teams Achievement Divisions (STAD) (Slavin, 1978); Teams-Games Tournaments (TGT) (DeVries & Edwards, 1974); Jigsaw (Aronson, 1978); Group Investigation (Sharan & Sharan, 1992); Complex Instruction (Cohen, 1994); Academic Controversy (Johnson & Johnson, 1979); Learning Together (Johnson & Johnson, 1999).

Generating Collaborative Contexts to Promote Learning and Development

51

techniques ordered in steps. The training of teachers has to be closer to strategic approaches which allow adjust their methods to the conditions, students and general needs”. From this more general collaborative perspective the conditions which make possible an effective collaboration are well known (Johnson, Johnson and Holubec, 1999): promoting positive interdependence, interactions, individual responsibility, social skills and group selfreflection. The conceptual and philosophical approach which underlies the collaborative methodologies mentioned above implies the necessity of promoting and following the creation and maintenance of these five conditions. According to the authors positive interdependence can be achieved by establishing shared group objectives, complementary roles, defining a group identity and recognizing all member contributions. Without interactions collaboration would be impossible. However some interactions could help the process more than others. Some of these interactions deal with motivating, supporting, assisting and interchanging information and experience with other members of the group. Promoting the individual responsibility tries to prevent the diffusion of responsibility that typically appears in the context of group dynamics. Some of the recommendations mentioned by the authors imply using individual evaluations, randomly choosing a spokesman, correcting personal reports or portfolios and combining all this with group evaluations. If interacting is needed to generate the context to collaborate, social skills are required despite of being formally trained or not, in order to interact efficiently. Some of the most typical social skills mentioned concern with fluent communication, resolving conflicts, negotiation and shared leadership. Finally last condition suggest the importance of promoting the reflection of the group members about their processing in order to achieve the objectives, the distribution of roles and tasks, the managing of time with the purpose of learning how to adapt to changing situations. Taking into account all these collaborative remarks, in the second phase of our attempt of innovating our teaching processes we left behind the cooperative procedures to explore the direct application of collaborative processes. We continued working in groups every class but in a more natural way. Instead of following any of the techniques mentioned by Davidson, (2002) and Johnson, et al (2000) we worked more with the own group dynamics at same time paying attention to the specific content of each subject. We did not divide the class into fixed and defined groups as we had done previously. Some problems we had had such as that not all people came to all the class sessions (what affected to the work of the specialized groups) and the own heterogeneity of responsibilities held by the students, took us to explore more open ways of organizing the class. For example the themes belonging to the course were introduced sequentially what meant that we all worked the same topics in the same moment, while exploring them working in groups, trying to change these groups whenever it was useful in terms of promoting that everybody worked, shared information and knew all others member of the class. We realized that even the most conceptual types of collaborative learning such as Group Investigation (Sharan & Sharan, 1992), Complex Instruction (Cohen, 1994), Academic Controversy (Johnson & Johnson, 1979) and Learning Together (Johnson & Johnson, 1999) had a ―cooperative‖ bias in terms of the general context that was created in the class. Despite of its place in the continuum suggested by Johnson et al. (2000) all these modalities of learning finally were very structured, technical, separated the teacher from the students

52

Alejandro Iborra, Dolores García, Leonor Margalef et al.

maintaining a clear hierarchical structure and were oriented towards the completion of learning tasks and objectives, what finally led to the promotion of a sense of learning based in the more elaborated transmission of information. All this was clearer after reviewing the constructionist and postmodern work of Anderson (1997). According to her collaborative learning goes clearly beyond following predefined steps or the mere establishment of five conditions (positive interdependence, interactions, individual responsibility, social skills, self-reflection of the group dynamic) which could be present but not giving place necessarily to a collaborative context. According to this author there are more elements that need to be introduced in order to set the conditions for the emergence of a collaborative context. Some of them are suggested in the following quote which refers to her teaching to promote complex competences necessaries to be a therapist: “the objective of the teacher is not exporting what he knows (a predetermined content), neither providing a recipe to do therapy ( a manual of techniques) or telling the student what to do, or correcting mistakes. His objective is giving to the student the opportunity of participating in a shared research of the topics treated at hand and the shared search of a conclusion (…). This requires that the teacher trusts in the initiative of the other persons, in the process and their relationship” (p.322-323). In contrast with the previously ideas about collaborative learning, we find in this quote some key differences. First of all it emphasizes the creation of an open process of research and exploration whose results will depend on the interaction of all the participants. The point is this creation of a research context. What is at stake is the process of ‗exploring‘ in itself and not so much the final result of this search (although it is important it is not the most important thing). Besides, in order to create the research process, the teacher has to trust in the students. For us this was quite important due to this idea reversed the subtle hierarchy maintained in the previous examples of both cooperative and collaborative learning. When you trust in other participants and most important in the relationship between all the participants the teacher cannot maintain a separated place in the process. He is part of the process although with a different role, but not stressing a difference in authority. This authority remains in all the participants who are responsible of the success or failure of the process. As a final idea the process is clearly differentiated of the contents and privileged over them. In support of this, the teacher maintains a position of ―not knowing‖ instead of one position of expert. As the author states: ―a teacher does not know beforehand what it is important for a student, he does not know his goals (standardized learning). An anticipated knowing could bother the development of an ambient of learning and joining in a team.” (p.324). This general attitude of not knowing (and wanting to know) stimulates the process of shared research. A conception of collaborative learning like this really emphasizes the potential of transformation inherent in learning. One is transformed (teacher included) thanks to be involved in the research process and not so much for learning any concrete content or even skill. As Anderson suggests

Generating Collaborative Contexts to Promote Learning and Development

53

“all participants (teacher and student, supervisor and supervised) learn and change because every one constructs something new and different from sharing, exploring, connecting and entwining own voice with others” (p.325). As part of this transformation students get a higher sense of autonomy and authorship. As a consequence of sharing their learning students begin to recognize and value their own knowing, competence and talent. We will extend this idea in another section of this chapter but we can anticipate that from a development psychology point of view this mentioned transformation is quite related with what some authors refer to as relativity stages (Perry, 1970; Perry, 1981) or self-authored students in at least a fourth order of consciousness (Kegan, 1994). The key point is that collaborative learning can promote the developmental transformation of the students participating in the process in terms of promoting higher autonomy and self-reflective capabilities. For Anderson this transformation takes place thanks to the involvement of all participants in a dialogical practice. The transfer of any learning resulted from this interchange of ideas or conversations cannot be forced by a formal assignation of tasks to do beyond the classes. Although the most important learning will take place out of the formal class this is a consequence of what happened in the class which acted as an invitation to go on reflecting, thinking, considering, wondering and researching ideas. This emphasis in the exploring nature of learning has also been maintained by others authors from constructivist traditions such as von Foerster (2003, p.71) who states following this line of thought: “Turn the teacher who is supposed to know into a researcher who is eager to know! And if you continue along these lines, the so-called pupils and teachers become collaborators who create knowledge together starting from a question that is fascinating to both of them”. The acquisition of these ideas meant a turn in our approach which also was supported and enhanced by the introduction of new electronic and virtual technologies, the web-blogs which acted as shared portfolios. However despite the use of any new technology this change towards generating true collaborative learning scenarios moving away from cooperative learning was the key point at this stage. Although there were more additions like preparing interdisciplinary experiences, shared with others teachers and subjects, the main change had already been introduced. This had consequences not just in how we prepared the sessions and programmes of our subjects but also in our form of evaluating them in order to be coherent. Furthermore this added a new sensibility towards noticing what kind of contexts we were creating or failing to create. In the following sections we will develop some of the distinctive features of our collaborative approach.

3. WHAT KIND OF CONTEXT ARE WE GENERATING? As mentioned in the previous section one of the particularities of our approach highlights the fact of noticing what kind of contexts we are generating. The idea of context is a concept very abstract. It also has been used in the literature with many varied meanings (Magnuson and Stattin, 1998). Our conception of context involves taking into account a situation, the

54

Alejandro Iborra, Dolores García, Leonor Margalef et al.

tools, people who participate in that situation and their relationships and finally the interpretations and meanings constructed between all of them (Baars, 1989; Otani, 1994). According to McWhirter (2002) and taking into account the previous ideas, we could manage the idea of context attending to three different contextual perceptive positions: objective, subjective and contextual perspective. Thus from an objective point of view there will be common elements recognized and shared by all the participants such as the physical or virtual scenario where the classes are happening. Even the educational nature of the activities which take place in a class or virtual platform as part of a building called faculty, which also belongs to a bigger institution called University, would be more objective and easily shared and recognized by all the participants. Other objective contexts are given by the name of the subject and the teacher and department responsible of it. Although unconscious in nature all this objective elements conform internal scripts and rules which all the participants will follow naturally. So it is expected that in a building called Faculty X there will be classes with teachers specialized in that matter. It is also expected that all participants will go there in order to learn, whatever it means. In the class of the teacher Y it is expected to be sat down listening and taking notes while in class of the teacher Z it is expected to be discussing actively with other students. In both scenarios there exist different objective contexts which shape the behaviour and expectancies of all the participants. As a general educational context one behaves differently in a Faculty that in a Restaurant, a Market, a Discotheque or a Hospital. However despite of these objective contexts we can take notice of more subjective contexts which will have a great responsibility in the meaning of the actions performed in the class by all participants. As examples of these subjective contexts we can find the specific expectations held by any student in one subject as a consequence of the reasons they have to be there and the purposes they want to achieve. So a student could attend a class because he needs to conclude the career in order to be independent from his family. Another student attends the same class because he wants to make a difference in his training and find a better job. Another student attends that class because his best friends are there as well and just want to have fun. Another student is there with the purpose of filling some conceptual and competence gaps he finds in his formation. Another one maybe is just there following the inertia of just attending one more boring class and so on. Any of these students maintains subjective reasons and purposes which will contextualize their actions, motivation, relationships and attention because of the different meaning of the situation. Of course the teacher will have his reasons and purposes acting as his own subjective context: he‘s there teaching just because he is paid for it, or because he‘s committed with the idea of inspiring their students, or because it is part of a research or because he is forced to be there in order to go on doing more interesting research practice. All these reasons and purposes will contribute to the emergence of particular subjective contexts for all of them. An interesting subjective context emerges from the special relationship created between the participants. So there could be competitive relationships for getting the highest grades or collaborative relationships in order to help everybody to learn the most. There will be friendly and unfriendly relationships, confident and distrust relationships, boring and amazing relationships, pragmatic and relationships for the rest of the life, etc… and all of them will also influence what does it mean for the participants to be there in that class in spite of its objective characteristics (in Faculty X, virtual or not, etc…).

Generating Collaborative Contexts to Promote Learning and Development

55

A different kind of context is that one which is more directly and subtlety involved with the creation of meaning, we could call it ‗contextual contexts‘ because of this. They are very subtle but will frame all the objective and subjective contexts mentioned so far. Of special interest for us is the creation of a research context, a curiosity context, a developmental context, a learning context, a search context. These contexts are an intrinsic part of collaborative learning but could be taken for granted instead of being promoted explicitly. Different contexts which could also be created (consciously or not) are passive contexts, ―just get the answers‖ contexts, stagnation contexts, security contexts, control contexts, etc… Evaluation is probably one of the best ways of communicating unconsciously what kind of contextual context is generated in one class. For example an evaluation based in a final exam that has to be passed, frames the activities performed in a class very differently compared with an evaluation which privileges what students think they have learnt and developed during the semester. Evaluation frames and contextualizes all the actions held in the class. Those meanings of one subject will come from these subtle frames: a subject full of tasks which are all punctuated quantitatively shapes a very different context compared with a subject where all tasks are voluntary and receive qualitative feedback but never are punctuated. In the first example the context created is one which values the achievement of tasks and completion of products. In the second example the context created is one which highlights the process of learning and the responsibility of students in that learning. In both cases there are products and processes but the meaning and potential meaning of the activities are not the same, for example the meaning of mistakes. In this sense we consider two contexts as very important: optional towards compulsory contexts. One of the main differences we found between collaborative and cooperative classes had to view with whether the tasks and actions were free based or in contrast were forced. Because of this we use to enhance the optional nature of most of the activities suggested in our subjects for many reasons. First, if it is optional you have to choose it and if you choose it the responsibility comes from you instead of from the teacher. Second, if it is optional you can choose what you do according to your own interests and motivations. Third, if it is optional you can also notice a sense of trustfulness in your own way of deciding by part of the teachers and the other students. Even though one could decide wrongly and not to do anything at all, finally everyone is confronted with a self-evaluation taking the class achievement as whole standard. The interesting part of all this, according to our experience, is that students do their best compared with the students who belong to subjects which force to attend to classes, or participate in forum discussions, or read X articles, or write X reports per week, etc… The context generated when the activities are freely chosen is definitively different in contrast when there is a sense of doing something just because there were external norms for that. This does not mean that we never order compulsory tasks, readings or activities. What is at stake is what general context has been created which frames every task or activity. As a relationship frames the meaning of a joke about you (you will not interpret it the same if the person who says the joke is a close friend or an unknown), the context created frames and makes possible all activities taking place during a class. Noticing what kind of contexts emerge during a class or subject and whether they are consistent and coherent with the contexts we are interested to promote is one of the most important elements of our approach. Objective, subjective and contextual contexts are thus very important distinctions to notice.

56

Alejandro Iborra, Dolores García, Leonor Margalef et al.

4. THE MCGUFFIN PROJECT One specific way of playing with the generation of contexts with the purpose of promoting exploration, connection and research processes and its effects on creating challenge and curiosity for knowing, is what we called the McGuffin project. The McGuffin project was born by chance. It emerged during the subject of ―Learning Disabilities‖ belonging to the Psycho-Pedagogical Studies, and it is still open to new applications. It became a joke for labelling some topics discussed during the classes that shared some particularities: 1. They were neither a central issue of the subject nor were explicitly stated in the program. 2. Although topics were not a central issue, and maybe because of this, they called attention on themselves. 3. As an example of their peripheral nature, they were never completely and exhaustedly covered. 4. Actually they seemed more an excuse to work something else, a mean to get an end, but a mean that seemed intriguing enough to evoke interest and attention. 5. They could appear just once or from time to time as if they wanted to recall their presence. In this sense there were two different types: occasional McGuffins which appeared just once or transversal ones which were developed in parallel with the subject. 6. McGuffins helped to start processes of exploration which led to different places which coincided with explicit goals of the subject. 7. Many students began to think outside the class about the nature of the McGuffins and their connection with other McGuffins or the goals of the subject. It served then to initiate hypothetical reasoning so typical in abductive thought. In general McGuffin helped to gain attention, to evoke questions in the student minds and to prepare the possibility of connecting classes, concepts and practices. In essence finally it implied going beyond the content of the subject to promote something more important, the processes that we were trying to practice as students of that subject. Generally these processes involved the discussion or participation of small groups or the whole class as a group. As we realized it was one way of promoting the work of competences due to it paid attention to the processes performed by the students instead of contents they had to learn. Furthermore McGuffins usually were presented erratically during the classes. For example after a short or long explanation or the question of one student, the teacher could add like diminishing its importance: ―well but this is just a McGuffin‖. This short sentence could call the attention of students towards the previous explanation in a different way, reframing it as a special explanation, not an ordinary one: ―Is it what?‖

Generating Collaborative Contexts to Promote Learning and Development

57

Of course the name of the McGuffin is in itself a strange word for the major part of the students unless they are interested in the cinema and know the movies of Alfred Hitchcock. Interviewed in 1966 by François Truffaut, Alfred Hitchcock illustrated the term "McGuffin" with this story3: "It might be a Scottish name, taken from a story about two men in a train. One man says, 'What's that package up there in the baggage rack?' And the other answers, 'Oh that's a McGuffin.' The first one asks 'What's a McGuffin?' 'Well' the other man says, 'It's an apparatus for trapping lions in the Scottish Highlands.' The first man says, 'But there are no lions in the Scottish Highlands,' and the other one answers 'Well, then that's no McGuffin!' So you see, a McGuffin is nothing at all." More succinctly, Hitchcock defined the McGuffin as the object around which the plot revolves, it is a plot device that motivates the characters and advances the story, but has little other relevance to the story. For us the strange name works as an invitation to define it, to explore its meaning, it suggests a mystery to be resolved (Cialdini, 2005). Instead of the content of the McGuffin, the idea of McGuffin could be in itself a McGuffin as well. Some examples of McGuffins worked during our classes are the following: -

-

-

-

The idea of digital immigrant and digital native (Prensky, 2001), could be connected to our students? Or better said, are our students digital natives while we as teachers are digital immigrants? How is this separating us? What could be taken into account of these two ‗cultures‘ in order to communicate people belonging to them? What is the difference of dynamic VS static ways of evaluating aptitudes? How can be done something dynamically or statically? What is a process? How is a process related with the dynamic evaluation? How can we track processes though time when working with an individual or a group? What is an inference? How do we construct meaning of the world? What does it mean to mean something? How is this related to deductive, inductive and abductive reasoning? What is abductive reasoning? What processes are involved? What is a context? How many contexts could we differentiate? How is the context connected to motivation, social skills or even learning disabilities? What is the connection between context and meaning? What is a pattern? Why it was so famous the sentence of Bateson ―the pattern that connects‖? What is the relationship between pattern and process? And with meaning?

After reading these few examples of McGuffin you could understand the typical headache of many students but also the awakening of a new class of wondering process. As you can also notice the McGuffin are better expressed with questions which could orient our attention towards a new scenario, a new possibility. Besides it enhances the need of creating connections. McGuffins are not isolated structures, neither isolated processes. They can 3

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McGuffin"

58

Alejandro Iborra, Dolores García, Leonor Margalef et al.

connect with different McGuffins and above all with the themes, topics and activities worked and presented during one or more subjects, which are not neither isolated nor independent. With the purpose of objectifying this dynamic we have discussed about McGuffin in blogs, forum and wikis4.

5. INTERDISCIPLINARY EXPERIENCES Another example of connecting concepts, topics, competences, collaborative work, motivations and contexts is the creation of interdisciplinary experiences. First interdisciplinary experiences involved the act of coordinating several subjects in order to work one topic from different points of view but simultaneously. The main purpose of this, once more, is to promote the connection between different subjects, and even the connection of different students, between students and teachers, and even students belonging to different studies. Three examples will clarify this point. In 2006 we analyzed a new educational law from the perspective of its pedagogical Curriculum features; the learning strategies it promoted or not and the developmental principles that were underlined. Students had to make only one work valid for three subjects, collaborating with students who belonged to their class and also different classes. One of the specific dynamics was related to the performance of a Trial to the law, with lawyers, one judge, public prosecutors, witnesses, jury and so on. The second example was quite similar. In 2007 we coordinated four subjects (Curriculum, Learning Strategies, Developmental Psychology and Family Studies) in order to reflect about the suitability of a new subject for the Spanish Public Secondary Education: Citizenship Education. This new subject was presented as an alternative to traditional subjects such as Religion (from a catholic perspective) and its development had been preceded by many debates in mass media. Once again all students belonging to every subject worked collaboratively the same topic trying to generate just one integrated perspective. The third example coordinated two subjects belonging to different studies: Psychopedagogy and Sport Sciences. First subject was directed towards developing Social Skills Programs. Second subject was directed towards the creation of physical activities in natural scenarios. Examples of these activities were to cross a river with a bridge made ad hoc with strings, orientation in a mountain using maps and compasses, taking and interpreting animal footprints, etc… Students of Psycho-pedagogy acted as students for the students of Sport Sciences in the performance of their practice. One month later Sport Science students participated in a social skills program created for them by the students of Psycho-Pedagogy. This promoted the real practice of knowledge and competences worked during the classes. Once again it stressed the connection of class dynamics learnt in a familiar context of

4

The following links illustrate attempts to define what a McGuffin is (http://dapsicouah.wikispaces.com/ and http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=ES&hl=es&v=s2IcOtspGSw ).

Generating Collaborative Contexts to Promote Learning and Development

59

practice, with the performance of those dynamics, competences and knowledge in a context of unfamiliar context of real application. The search of interdisciplinary experiences has demonstrated its efficacy in order to situate learning in more real contexts which go beyond formal classes. Besides they highlight the need of collaborating with others in order to create a shared meaning of the experience and also using it. As an example of collaborating learning the knowledge which results goes beyond the one that could emerge from isolated subjects.

6. EXPERIENTIAL LEARNING A key element of our approach privileges an important characteristic of learning: experience. As a matter of fact what is implicit in the McGuffin Project, the interdisciplinary examples we gave in the previous section and the idea of taking into account the concept of context, is the importance of sharing and living meaningful experiences and being able to learn from them. In part our conception of experiential learning is related to the idea of creating conditions of situated learning focused on the students and their active participation during the learning process (Miller, 2000; Jonasen, 2000). From this perspective the task of the teacher would imply designing ―problem situations‖ which could facilitate the construction and elaboration of meaning. One characteristic of ―problems‖ in a collaborative context is that all the examples of ―problems‖ such as projects and analysis of cases, are formulated in order to lead learning instead of merely serve as illustration or application of previously taught theory. The key idea is that students will learn any content needed as a consequence of the task of resolving their problem. As Schank states (2000, p.183) “the most effective way of teaching is creating situations for students where to achieve the learning goals, they need the knowledge and techniques we want to impart”. The key one more is the idea of needing the theoretical content or technical procedures because it is related to our purpose of dealing with a general meaningful problem. For example as we read in the previous section the students who had to prepare a social skill program for a group of students coming from another faculty, or the students who participated in the experience of judging an Educational Law, all of them needed theoretical contents, procedures and practice competences in order to achieve their complex and challenging task. Even more they had to collaborate with others. In this sense learning implied fundamentally to learn to situate and create meanings for one specific field. To understand meanings involves thinking carefully about the concrete situation and field we are. We agree with Schank (2000, p. 177) when he states that “unless students know what to do with their knowledge they will forget easily what they learnt”. On the other hand our approach to experiential learning is specifically oriented towards the exploration of processes (Ingarfield, 2007). In contrast to the classical approach of Kolb (1984) we are not so focused on the content of the experience but in the processes which lead

60

Alejandro Iborra, Dolores García, Leonor Margalef et al.

to that experience. According to Ingarfield (2007) and following the systemic approach of the psychologist John McWhirter DBM, (Developmental Behavioural Modelling) this is the general outline of many of our experiential sessions: 1. The teacher or trainer introduces one topic, an open set up to have a general idea about that topic. For example: what does it mean to communicate? 2. Participants explore without an aprioristic idea. For example different ways of communication, how does it differ in different situations, possible elements, how do they communicate while exploring it, etc… Or 3. Participants check what they are getting from their exploration. 4. Participants share in groups and with the whole group their variety of experiences. 5. From the feedback of the participants the teacher / trainer can then introduce a formal model. For example Watzlawick, Bavelas and Jackson (1967) axioms on communication. 6. Participants check that formal model with their previous and ongoing experience. 7. Both participants and teachers or trainers identify the results, limits and possibilities of the model. 8. Repetition of the process. This experiential learning which takes place enhancing the exploration of different topics is designed with some purposes in mind such as promoting the active participation of students, developing competences, creating gaps in the understanding of the topic, stimulating curiosity, promoting reflection and critical learning, etc… This approach of experiential learning has also been very useful for exploring and training one meaningful element of collaborative learning, this is social skills.

7. THE IMPORTANCE OF SOCIAL SKILLS As we mentioned in previous sections, social skills have been considered a fundamental element of collaborative learning. We take into account social skills directly only in one of the subjects we lecture which deals with developing social skills programs. However we attend indirectly to social skills in all our subjects. In general people have to work in groups all along the classes. These groups can be formed by known and familiar people but we also stimulate the creation of groups formed by unknown or less familiar members. In both contextual groups (familiar-unfamiliar) three social skills are very important: communication flowing between the members of the group; the emergence of conflicts and finally processes of leadership. Communication, conflicts and leadership are the three social skills more direct or indirectly trained in the work groups. However the same skills appear in the process with the whole group including the teacher who has to communicate, deal or even create conflicts and follow / lead his students. Very early in our classes, students understand their active role because they have to communicate between each other and with the teacher in order to learn and share their

Generating Collaborative Contexts to Promote Learning and Development

61

learning. This is made possible in the class through different conversations held with the classmates in different groups or the whole group (the teacher included). The communication concept we are basing ourselves on was stated in Watzlawick, et al. (1967) theory on communication, which derived from the work of Gregory Bateson (1972). The five axioms of communication are the following: Table 1. Axioms of Communication (Watzlawick et al. 1967) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

One Cannot Not Communicate Every communication has a content and relationship aspect such that the latter classifies the former and is therefore a metacommunication. The nature of a relationship is dependent on the punctuation of the partners communication procedures. Human communication involves both digital and analog modalities. Inter-human communication procedures are either symmetric or complementary.

As traditionally has been stated (Watzlawick et. al 1967) ‗One Cannot Not Communicate’. This means that in any social interaction there will appear communication processes, even the supposedly absence of communication, for example generating silence or just listening what the teacher dictates, are examples of communication. Traditionally social skills programs stress the element of transmission involved in any communication process: how to transmit in the clearest way our ideas, arguments, feelings and so on. This metaphor of transmission focuses above all on the content of the communication. In this sense information should be clear, structured, organized, convincing, not confusing, not ambiguous, etc… However we take in account very seriously some constructivist premises such as all information and communicative act have to be interpreted by the participants. One very important aspect of communication involves thus distinguishing between information and meaning. Even though all members in a group can share the same information this does not mean that they will have the same understanding of that information. There will be an influence of the previous knowledge of all members and how do they connect the new information with the old one; it will be important who gave the information and his status in the group (depending of this it can be listened carefully or just quickly forgotten); it will be important the interest and motivation of the members to attend to the information, etc… Of special interest for us is the quality of the relationships which emerge as part of the communication. As we know from Watzlawick et al (1967) and its second axiom on communication “Every communication has a content and relationship aspect such that the latter classifies the former and is therefore a metacommunication”. In this sense any communication has two main components: content and relationship, working the latter as a context for the former. The same sentence will communicate different meanings depending on the relationship perceived by whom is that said, for example in terms of power, trust, admiration, friendship, fear, boredom, rivalry, etc… All these examples create different relationships, being one of the most important who is up or down in the relationship. Or how is the pattern of the relationship, symmetrical or complementary. To be sensible to these relationship differences is one of the most important aspects for us in order to generate

62

Alejandro Iborra, Dolores García, Leonor Margalef et al.

communication processes which make easier to collaborate. For example the content elaboration will be very important but creating a relationship between the members that promote trust, respect, flexibility instead of rigidity, familiarity, interest, etc… is even more important for us. Managing conflicts is the second of the social skills we pay more attention to. Going beyond a negative connotation of the term conflict, for us it is a key element for learning. Conflict is generally understood as something that has to be coped with and solved. From a developmental point of view, however, we expect that conflict helps us ―to solve ourselves‖ instead. This means that conflict is considered a chance for personal development. The conflict can be internal (new knowledge that confronts previous one) or interpersonal (for example getting along with someone who tries to impose his ideas or way of doing things all the time). There are many authors who have elaborated different kinds of conflicts in terms of his structure or form (identity conflicts; knowledge conflicts, power conflicts, etc…) but in our approach once again we prefer to privilege a process orientation. According to Selman (1980) ―perspective taking‖ is the ability to assume the perspective of another person in order to understand their thoughts and feelings. This ability evolves from the age of three till 15 through four different stages. Children of 10 and 11 are situated between stages 2 and 3. Stage 2 is called ―Reflexive Perspective Taking‖. It implies for example that a child understands that any individual knows the perspective of others and this influences the point of view that one has about the others. To take another‘s perspective is one way of evaluating other‘s intentions, purposes and behaviour. A child can create a sequence of perspectives but at this stage he cannot coordinate and integrate all sequences as a whole. It is at stage 3 ―Reciprocal Perspective Taking‖ when teenagers understand that individuals can perceive themselves as a whole. This implies going beyond oneself and the other in order to perceive the relationship from the point of view of a third person. The fourth and last stage means going beyond the relationship to include social conventions or rules and the general context where the interaction is taking place. Teenagers at this stage understand that a reciprocal perspective taking does not provide a complete understanding of a situation if there is a lack of this social context where social interaction gets its full meaning. In order to understand oneself one must first understand the others. Then the individual must determine how he or she is both similar and different from others. As Markstrom (1992, p. 183) states “social perspective taking establishes such a process by allowing the individual to reflect upon the self from the perspectives of other individuals, other groups and society as a whole.” An overemphasis on the perspective of others is said to lead to rigidity, while too much emphasis on the self‘s perspective may lead to egocentrism. Thus dealing effectively with challenging relationships and interactions requires the ability to perceive and integrate a number of different perspectives. Natural conflicts that emerge during our classes help to integrate many of the topics mentioned so far: the communication processes maintained by all participants in the collaborative experience, the quality of their relationship and also the different contexts that give meaning to the learning situation. Finally the last social skill we include formally is leadership. It could be widely accepted that leadership is one of the most researched and trained social skills. Many different theories

Generating Collaborative Contexts to Promote Learning and Development

63

of leadership have evolved the last thirty years focusing on different variables of leadership such as personal traits, situational interaction, function, behaviour, power, vision and values, charisma, and intelligence among others. A common trend on current literature on leadership concerns with the idea of balancing the figure of the leader with the follower. According to this, and in relation to the third axiom of communication mentioned above5, a leader would not exist without followers, and followers would not be needed unless there is someone leading them (Reicher, Haslam and Hopkins, 2005; van Knippenberga, van Knippenbergb, De Cremer and Hoggd, 2004). Thus in order to complete the theories of leadership it could be appropriated to include a theory of ‗followership‖. According to this, our approach pays more attention to the processes involved in the act of leading and following as whole. It has been very useful for us to differentiate between active and passive ways of leading and following. Furthermore we take into account whether the leaders and followers attend to themselves (this is their reasons, needs, purposes and motives), other‘s (reasons, needs, purposes, motives) and the context(s) in order to perform their leadership and followership. For example when we as teachers and assumed leaders in a collaborative class ask students for their expectations, reasons and purposes, we are enhancing processes of actively following as a form of leading the group. In the same way students who express their concerns, worries, expectations, reasons and purposes for participating in the subject are leading the process actively. Those students who just keep silent are passively following their classmates and their teacher. That teacher who waits until their students present the results of their inquiry process is leading them passively and making then possible their active instead of passive ―followership‖. Beyond the variables traditionally studied in connection to leadership (power, charisma, vision, personal and situational traits, etc…) these distinctions have helped us to track the collaborative processes that take place between all the participants in a class from an subjective experiential point of view. These distinctions make easier to understand how is something happening and as a consequence it is even easier to notice why some experiences designed to create a collaborative context fail while others succeed. In connection to the idea of contexts we mentioned above, when a teacher forces their students to do a task or even to attend his classes, he is actively leading them to do that task and even to attend his classes but he is also probably promoting a ―passive followership‖ due to it is externally maintained. This ‗obligation context‘ will prevent in our opinion the fulfilment of real collaboration practices. Communication, managing conflicts and leadership-followership are three key social skills that should not be taken for granted in the process of generating collaborative learning. As we will see in brief this will demand in return more developmental challenges for the teachers who are willing to collaborate with their students with the purpose of learning together. We want to highlight once again that these social skills could be worked direct or indirectly. In relation to this topic we support the idea of developing social kills as a consequence of participating in a collaborative experience through the elaboration of meaningful and real tasks. It is quite common in literature about cooperative learning the idea of training social skills beforehand the beginning of the authentic cooperation practice (Slavin, 1983, Leon, 2006). In contrast to this we support the idea of developing these skills 5

The nature of a relationship is dependent on the punctuation of the partners communication procedures.

64

Alejandro Iborra, Dolores García, Leonor Margalef et al.

in parallel to the progress of the collaborative experience. Social skills would be then contextualized in a concrete and meaningful task what would ease its transfer to new learning and personal contexts. As a consequence of this we also defend the idea of working with the ongoing and real experience of the participants in the course instead of with simulated or faked dynamics so typical in the role playing and simulations that integrate so many social skills programs following cognitive-behavioural methodologies (Iborra, 2004). So we don‘t simulate conflicts in our classes to work the need of taking different perspectives in order to understand their complexity. Otherwise we make use of the real conflicts that emerge naturally or that we even create consciously as an opportunity to understand this phenomenon and ourselves in a deeper way. For example it is quite common that students have conflicts and discussions in the process of developing a social skills programs for other students, or in the process of analyzing a case and planning an intervention. The teacher just needs to notice these situations and use them during the situation providing time and distinctions to reflect about them. Acting like this situates social skills in real practices.

8. THE DEVELOPMENTAL DEMANDS AND CONSEQUENCES OF COLLABORATION All along the chapter we have alluded several times to the connection between collaborative learning and development. In section two we contrasted cooperative with collaborative learning. One of the differences we mentioned explicitly concerned with the idea of transformation. In cooperative learning underlies a principle of transmitting knowledge working in groups which follow a structured script that a teacher created intentionally. By the other hand in collaborative learning underlies a principle of transforming all the participants in the learning process. Interestingly there are no many concrete references in collaborative literature to what is going to be transformed. According to our approach we defend the idea that collaborative learning will promote the development of all their participants, students and teachers included. The transformation, if it takes place, has to deal with epistemic changes which emerge as a consequence of achieving higher levels of autonomy, responsibility, capacity of managing relationships and adopting multiple perspectives or points of view, of constructing a sense of identity, of identifying contexts and adapting to them without loosing oneself in the process, of thinking in a more relativistic way which understands that there are many answers and possibilities to the problems inherent in the process of learning and living, etc… Collaborative learning is not free, neither for the students nor for the teachers. It demands specific developmental challenges for all the participants. According to some authors we could add that it implies for students to achieve a fourth order of consciousness (Kegan, 1994) and for teachers to operate at least from a fourth order of consciousness but still better if they have achieved a fifth order of consciousness or (Kegan, 1994, Perry, 1970). Taking this into account we can understand why is collaborative learning so challenging and demanding. But one point we want to remark before describing in more detail these epistemic changes is the idea of challenge. It is the challenging context involved in the process of collaborating what can promote the development in all their participants. According to Kegan (1994), however,

Generating Collaborative Contexts to Promote Learning and Development

65

the challenge is not enough unless it appears in a context which provides emotional support and trust for committing with a process of exploration. The developmental demands for those students who participate in a collaborative learning can form a hidden curriculum of the classroom where students are expected to “take initiative; set our own goals and standards; use experts, institutions and other resources to pursue these goals; take responsibility for our direction and productivity in learning” (Kegan, 1994, p.303). These learning tasks implied in collaborative learning require the developmental capacity of a ―self authoring mind‖ (Kegan, 1994). The problem with this hidden curriculum which involves the developmental demand of a self authoring mind is that research indicates that only 20% to 30% of adults reach that stage (Bar-Yam, 1991). Teachers are likely to encounter many students operating primarily out of the previous Interpersonal stage also termed as Socialized Self (Erickson, 2007). Those operating from this Interpersonal stage are embedded in or subject to relationships, roles and rules. They understand another‘s point of view, even when it might be different from their own. They can subordinate their own point of view to the relationship and to another‘s point of view. In this sense there is an interpersonal way of knowing valuing the social bonds above individual needs. Great stress may be experienced when interpersonal people are required to think outside of their traditions or when they must deal intimately with those whose values and beliefs differ from their own. They do not yet have the capacity to carefully weigh the differences and develop their own value system (Eriksen, 2006). It is easy to note that those operating out of this interpersonal stage still need an authority-base experience. The demands of many students asking for clear and quick answers for their questions, clear resolutions for the cases analysis, to know exactly what they have to do, what should they write in their diaries or blogs, what do you think as teacher about what they are doing in order to get a self-evaluation, etc.. All these examples are probably examples of this interpersonal epistemic way of meaning making. These students will be more comfortable following the clear and straight forward scripts of cooperative techniques but in order to move towards a self-authoring stage, teacher should challenge their way of knowing urging them to think about why they are doing what they are doing, asking them to have creative initiatives based on their own standards and criteria and establishing a separateness from others‘ definitions. Put in other words, to be self reflective. As Eriksen (2006) states people operating primarily from an interpersonal balance may be motivated to do such internal work when confronted with naturally occurring ambiguous situations but teachers might also create ambiguous training situations (eg. ethical dilemma discussions; ambiguous situations they have to interpret) so as to challenge the interpersonal person toward the new self-authored balance. In order to challenge students who are likely situated in this interpersonal stage to move towards the following self-authored stage, it is important to note a previous stated idea. The teacher himself should be established at least in that following stage. Although a collaborative context could lead all the participants (teacher included) towards a more complex and independent way of functioning, because of the demands hidden in its curriculum, it would be very difficult to tolerate. In words of Kegan that experience could go in over the heads of all participants.

66

Alejandro Iborra, Dolores García, Leonor Margalef et al.

Those who are in a self-authored or institutional stage can manage their relationships, roles and values. They are embedded in or subject to the institutions of which their roles are a part, to their jobs, and to the values or theories about how to regulate their roles and relationships. The institutional self does not ignore being influenced by the relationships but is bigger than that influence and not identical with it. Institutional knowers act on the belief that there is a higher value than the relationship even if acting on the higher value hurts and upsets another person. This bigger vision includes “values about values” or “systems by which we can choose among our values when they conflict” (Kegan, 1994, p.90). Teachers or students operating from this stage invent their own work. They are selfinitiating, self-correcting and self-evaluating. They take responsibility for what happens to them. Thus they demonstrate increased autonomy, self-authored and owned behaviour; selfdependence and a clear identity which can remain constant across contexts (Eriksen, 2006). However, there is also an important limitation connected to this stage which is very important to note for collaborative teachers: they will feel vulnerable to whatever challenges their constructed self-system. There is a growing understanding that their theory or system about life, relationship, work does not reflect all of who they are and does not work in all situations. Thus to move beyond this stage they should question their previously held ways of making decisions. As Eriksen (2006, p.295) states: “they find themselves yearning for challenges from other systems, for negative feedback that allows them to think about, re-evaluate, or make object their own system”. Paradoxically they can commit themselves to transformation but fail to see that the product of these transformations is just as replaceable as the previous self-system. Obviously to go beyond this fourth stage it is important to transcend one‘s previous identity. It is not so important who you are but who you can become. The fifth order of consciousness, the Inter-individual stage which deals with multi-system complexity, is quite related with the idea of collaborative learning expressed by Anderson (1999). The following characteristics summarized by Eriksen (2006, p. 296) from the work of Kegan (1982) express the theoretically ideal description of a teacher capable of managing successfully a collaborative context: they (a) orient toward relationships, dynamisms, and tensions among systems of deciding (eg. relationships between quantitative and qualitative ways of knowing) rather than forcing decisions between one or the other, (b) believe such relationships are prior to the systems themselves; (c) envision motion, process and change… as the irreducible and primary feature of reality; (d) are nourished by contradiction; (e) become responsible for systems rather than to systems; (f) become more tentative and less certain about their theory, seeing that any system of operating is temporary, preliminary, and self-constructed and (g) transcend allegiance to the product “in favour of an orientation to the process that creates the product” (Kegan, 1982, p.248).

Generating Collaborative Contexts to Promote Learning and Development

67

Interindividual people can maintain an open, incomplete stance, admitting that they might be wrong, take a one-down, not knowing position that says to other people ―let‟s co-construct our experience together‖ (Eriksen, 2006, p. 296). As if it was adopted a collaborative motto, the interindividual person shift away from the new products of transformation onto the process of transformation itself, onto the conversations between systems, onto the whole or community or other-as-part-of-self. All along these seven years we have promoted different changes in our students and in ourselves as teachers. The following excerpts illustrate some opinions and evaluations of the training process. They express not only their opinions about the classes and the learning process. For us they are interesting because provide different meaning-making examples as it would be proposed by Kegan. The students who wrote them were situated in different epistemic positions. Our purpose is to illustrate a variety of different ways of attending to our classes from interpersonal towards more self-authoring perspectives. It also serves to reflect about how a collaborative-experientially based approach can promote a transition from dependent ways of knowing towards more autonomous ones. Narratives have been selected from three different courses. During course (04-05) we introduced cooperative learning (an elaborated Jigsaw structure) for the first time. Next course (05-06) we added the use of web-blogs and a virtual platform (Web-Ct) in order to promote the reflection and sharing of learning in progress, we also introduced interdisciplinary experiences through the coordination of several subjects belonging to Psycho-pedagogy studies. Finally in course 08-09 we added a more explicit work to promote key competences in our subjects. We have selected three different narratives for every course. They come from the students‘ self-evaluations with the exception of the last three narratives of course 08-09 who were written after one month of beginning the classes. The narratives belonging to every course have been ordered on purpose. They represent three people expressing themselves from different developmental positions: from a more interdependent towards a more self-authored perspective. Course 2004-2005 Excerpt 1. I knew already this methodology but I had never taken it into practice. I think that the idea of this proposal is very good but in my opinion, it is a system that finally does not work. It is quite pleasant and participative but if students do not respond it isn‟t worthwhile because finally as in any typical group work, only work the same people. You have the risk that someone in your group will not understand his part and as a consequence the rest will not understand that part either. Excerpt 2. I think that this subject didn‟t focus on getting knowledge but also some skills such as watching, teamwork, being autonomous and not depending always on someone who tells you how to do everything. Excerpt 3. All I‟ve learnt is not something that completes my training from a theoretical point of view, it also helped me to rethink my ideas, I mean, it has provoked an intrapersonal conflict that has influenced not only my academic and professional development, but also my personal development. This is due to learning

68

Alejandro Iborra, Dolores García, Leonor Margalef et al. came from any individual, his feelings and relationships and interactions with the rest of classmates. Course 2005-2006 Excerpt 4. The web-blog was the worst issue for me- as you can notice I have not written, because I don‟t‟ like the idea that my classmates can read my notes, when I do not know if they are correct. Besides it was a problem not having a script about what to write even though I think that the idea is good because you can go on reflecting with your classmates out of the class. Excerpt 5. If you had asked me that question6 two weeks before finishing the course, my answer would have been quite different that this one I am going to give you today. Now I can tell you yes, I‟ve learnt, and a lot. I‟ve understood that we have to pose a meaningful goal, that the real achievement is not to do what teachers tell you to do, but understanding what do you want to do. I think I began to learn when I realized that there was something in the subject related to me. When I discovered something that is helping me to analyze the world we live in, and when I realized that the most part of times I get bored in a class or that I am discouraged with my studies, it is because of I‟m just attending passively to information, without working with it. Even it could seem as if I‟m liar, the time I dedicated to read the texts grew since then. I have gone deeply into them and I have reflected a lot about everything, but my satisfaction with what I got from the texts is much bigger. Excerpt 6. We should not look for the answers in your comments but in ourselves, trusting in our own competence as knowledge creators, without waiting that your comments will give us the certainty we demand. We must attend to our creation process, trust in our own voice and competence. Achieved this, the need of your certainty, of your comments will vanish. Course 2008-2009 Excerpt 7. The classes are very new for me from a methodological point of view, it distress me to feel myself lost and not knowing how to answer questions such as “what do you think we are going to do today/tomorrow?” “In your terms, why have we done this activity?” So in conclusion, right know I‟m a bit pessimistic, not about the subject but about my learning possibilities. I hope it will change “tomorrow”. Excerpt 8. I consider that I‟ve learnt many things up to now: the ideas we express in the class, the meetings with different groups make me understand different perspectives which help me to reorder and increase the information I have (…) The truth is that at the end of any class I remain still thinking about what we did for a while because it seems to me a very different way of lecturing, we reflect and it is ok with me, though some times there are some aspects which are not very clear but in the following classes we inquiry more on that.

6

Have you ―learned‖ during the course? How and why?

Generating Collaborative Contexts to Promote Learning and Development

69

Excerpt 9. The methodology followed during the classes, leaving many questions in the air, is helping me to reflect and having the sensation of “remaining thinking…” Finally, I would like to add that all we have talked in the class, be it good or not, provokes the creation of an unavoidable relation with my personal life, what could help me to know myself better. Excerpts 1, 4 and 7 express a higher interest on content (what is learnt) instead of attending to the process of learning collaboratively. The emotions expressed are related with nervousness with the open process they are participating in. They are not used to create their own learning. They would prefer instead to follow clear specifications of what to do and what to know. They pay more attention to the idea of correct answers and not of correct processes and feel their work evaluated by the others. Excerpts 2, 5 and 8 reflect for us ―transitional‖ students. In general they understand that they are learning more than just a theoretical content. They can attend to the followed process and how they self-managed through it. They understand they have an active role in creating their own learning collaborating with the teacher and their class-mates. They understand they can self-author their learning, their motivation, and trust in the general process of inquiry. Excerpts 3, 6 and 9 are example for us of a higher self-authored perspective. They are not only more autonomous in their learning, they also collaborate more actively with their classmates and the teacher. Beyond the subject content and even processes, they are conscious of their own personal changes. They are connecting the content and processes worked during the subject with themselves and the knowledge they have about themselves. They are more aware of the personal changes they are achieving. In general all narratives show us the heterogeneity of our students participating in the collaborative contexts we have tried to create during our subjects. This developmental point of view has helped us to follow and understand better the process of our students. And of course it has been fundamental in order to understand our own experience as collaborative teachers. Knowing the complex demands involved in the creation of a collaborative class has helped us to facilitate the process for all the participants, we included as part of the process. As Smith and Sparkes (2005) suggest in the context of qualitative inquiry analysis possibilities “life stories need to be subjected to multiple forms of analysis. If lives, stories, bodies, identities and selves (...) are multidimensional, constructed, complex and changing in time and with context, then researchers might seek forms of analysis that are sensitive to, and respectful of, this complexity and multiplicity” (p.214). We could exchange the word ―teachers‖ where it appears ―researchers‖. This idea of being sensible and respectful with the complexity, multiplicity and rhythm of our students is very important for us. Referring to academic objectivist research and their scientific reports, Bochner (1997) observed that “the sad truth is that the academic self frequently is cut off from the ordinary experiential self. A life of theory can remove one from experience, make oneself feel unconnected” (p.421 in Sparkes, 2003, p.61).

70

Alejandro Iborra, Dolores García, Leonor Margalef et al.

Once again we want to connect this idea with the teacher profession. Collaborative learning could prevent teachers of being unconnected from themselves and others since connection and relationships are one of the intrinsic aspects of collaboration. Finally we want to highlight that knowing the theoretical ―epistemic stages‖ of our students and ourselves is very important to include a developmental and transformational bias in our approach to collaborative learning. But it would not be enough unless we had more accurate distinctions to track the process we are generating. According to this some distinctions we have borrowed from the systemic approach of John McWhirter have been crucial for us in order to generate a collaborative experience and make a better use of that experience. We have referred to them in previous sections but we want to remark some of them once more: the perceptual positions we attend from (subjective perspective) to different objects (objective perspective) in a multiple variety of contexts (contextual perspective), the processes of leading and following active and passively, the emphasis of taking into account the process and even the patterns that emerge from that process, etc… In the following section we will introduce the idea of pattern as one of the key competences we tried to work with.

9. PATTERNS TO PLAY WITH The recent introduction of the concept of competence has promoted the revision of many teaching practices in the university education. The project ―Tuning Educational Structures in Europe‖ is one of the best examples of the competence turn in Education. In connection to the typical role of collaborative teachers, an Education whose goal is the development of competences focuses on students rather than on the teachers who becomes a mediator figure with an attitude of openness, flexibility, tolerance and a high level domain in meta-cognitive and reflexive skills (Margalef, Iborra and Canabal, 2006). There have been a vast number of articles interested in proposing descriptive taxonomies of competences (Bajo, Maldonado, Moreno, Moya and Tudela, 2007) like basic competences (such as specific knowledges, to analyze and synthesize, planning and organizing, decision making, learning to learn, achievement motivation, etc…), intervention competences (applying knowledge into practice, adapting to new situations, creativity, working autonomously, teamwork, social skills, leadership, diversity appreciation, etc…) and specific competences (oral and written communication, second languages, use of technologies, managing information). Beyond these descriptive taxonomies, from a pedagogical point of view, competences are understood as the capacity of engaging cognitive resources in order to cope with a specific situation (Perrenoud, 2004). A person is competent when is capable of reordering his learning to transfer it to new situations and contexts. The competence only demonstrates itself in practice. This practice far of being isolated and meaningless is completely adapted to a concrete situation. This notion of competence is quite close of previous ideas mentioned in the chapter when referring to experiential learning and the need of creating real and specific learning contexts. But even though we agree with this general approach aimed to the promotion of competences we think it is too descriptive to be useful. To go beyond general descriptive taxonomies of competences or even endless lists of concrete competences, we need to study those processes

Generating Collaborative Contexts to Promote Learning and Development

71

and principles which are really needed to learn and practice a concrete competence instead of taking it for granted. So for example one key competence included in our approach in many of the subjects we have participated involves perceiving and constructing patterns. A vast array of learning activities such as interpreting a case from tests, narratives or movies, creating and applying a social skill program adapted to a specific group of people, connecting different texts and activities in order to construct a macrostructure (Kintsch and Rawson, 2005), following and comparing different lines of thought so typical in the McGuffin project, integrating the different contribution of participants in an interdisciplinary group, etc… demand the creation of complex patterns. A pattern is a type of theme of recurring events or objects, sometimes referred to as elements of a set. These elements repeat in a predictable manner. The most basic patterns are thus based on repetition and periodicity. A formal feature of patterns is its integrity independent of the medium by virtue of which you have received the information that it exists (Fuller, 1975). Typical examples of patterns are the chemical elements, fractals, recurring decimals, chemical composition in minerals such as crystals, fashion, music styles and from a psychological point of view, each individual style of learning, habits, beliefs, identity and so on is in itself a pattern integrity evolutionary and not static. We are interested in patterning as an example of competence because of its relationship with the construction of meaning and as an extension with contexts. According to Bateson (1979) we create meaning through patterns of connections with our world. Such patterns of connections comprise the context or contexts that provide the possibility of generating meaning. Bateson (1979) summarized succinctly the relationship between contexts and meaning as follows: “„Context‟ is linked to another undefined notion called „meaning‟. Without context, words and actions have no meaning at all… it is the context that fixes the meaning” (p.15). In order to create a meaning for something or even to identify a context, we need to create or differentiate a special pattern, a type of recurring events or objects. For example when a group of students are collaborating to make an inquiry project focused on analyzing a special case of a dyslexic child, they need to construct patterns. The underlying basic process to patterning is to connect. They need to connect all the elements or information available about that case: different tests, information obtained through interviews with the child, with their parents, with their teachers with their classmates. Any of this elements isolated provide information, but only taken as a whole can be connected to understand the big picture. Besides they have to connect all this information with more information they have obtained from theoretical and specialized books, articles, lectures in class, blogs, forums and even the discussions maintained with their companions in the group and other groups. Besides this could be even more complex if this case is part of a bigger project which involves students from other subjects and classes who are analyzing the same case from different approaches (Curriculum, Developmental Psychology, Family interactions and Learning Strategies). They will have to make more connections to understand the meaning provided by their companions coming from all those different classes. Interestingly the possible meanings of that project will be different depending on what contexts are being

72

Alejandro Iborra, Dolores García, Leonor Margalef et al.

created. Every subject and discipline would create a different context. More contexts could also influence the meaning of the participation. Participating in that project could be optional for those students who just are willing to learn more about theoretical concepts worked in their formal classes. But they could be forced to participate because they will be formally evaluated with a final exam about the experience. Even though these two contexts are not directly related with the task (a specific case) will influence the general meaning of the task. What does it mean for every student to participate in that task and how is that influencing in the quality of his involvement? It is clear that this example highlights a spiral structure or pattern (Pareja, 2008) which includes multiple perspectives and loop processes giving as a result increasingly complex and cyclical patterns of connections. Bateson (1994) suggests that learning occurs when various experiences and ideas interconnect as they spiral together over time. Such an approach can be established by providing students with opportunities to engage in learning experiences and lines of inquiry arising from common over-arching topics or questions According to Bloom (1999) this view of learning is based on non-linearity of thought processes and on variation, with the purpose of creating (1) more cohesive and elaborate understandings, (2) an emphasis on meaning rather than de-contextualized contents, (3) an emphasis on creativity, (4) a greater sense of connection to the learner's world and (5) the development of a sense of ownership over what is learned. To create a pattern it is necessary to connect elements to go beyond. There are different ways of connecting but the key processes involved require comparing elements. Different elements or events (being chapters, ideas, exercises, cases, subjects, opinions, etc…) can be contrasted in order to focus on their differences or compared in order to add their similarities as well. Noticing differences and similarities, and differences and similarities with these differences is the background process needed to create a pattern. Because of this we present different information grouped in sets of at least three events, experiences or other kind of element. The Mcguffin project is just one example of this process. It can be just an excuse for comparing classes, ideas or readings in search of a common hidden theme, but also with its transversal structure, it implies an invitation to connect those peripheral issues with the most central one‘s in order to lead beyond our understanding of one topic. In both cases we encourage our students to practice this idea of connecting elements because then there will likely emerge new patterns of meaning.

10. CONCLUSION It is not easy to define an experiential, non-linear way approach of collaborative learning. Because of this we hope that the reader will have now a better idea of our way of dealing with collaborative learning in the frame of graduate and postgraduate studies. As it has been stated all along the chapter the key for creating such a special kind of learning is based on the idea of context and its relationship with meaning. We are very interested in leading the creation of contexts which promote the development of our students inviting them to be more self-authored and autonomous while having to collaborate with other students and the teacher in order to carry out a learning task usually related with inquiry processes. Managing social skills and promoting complex competences like the creation of patterns are special elements needed to make easier the whole collaborative process.

Generating Collaborative Contexts to Promote Learning and Development

73

Although we make use of many available technological options such as virtual platforms, web-blogs, forums and wikis, we don‘t consider them a central aspect of our approach. Undoubtedly new technologies make easier the supervision of many individual and group activities, transcending the usual limits of a class in terms of both space and time. And the generation of networks of blogs is also one of the most interesting features of our approach. However new technologies represent just one more alternative of action of what we do. They don‘t add so much to other interesting levels of how to do something and why doing it. Specifying methodologies and their processes involved and the epistemologies and their principles implied is more challenging than merely relying on technological alternatives. Although of course they are an interesting part of our general approach they don‘t represent its essence. Attending to the nature of our relationships with our students and the special context that emerge from that based on principles of open collaboration are more salient features of our approach. The following table summarizes a list of possible suggestions which have the purpose of serving as general indications to reflect on how to perform a collaborative experience. These general suggestions are an example of an open calibration process. As in any calibration process the key is the information obtained from the multiple feedbacks and what is done from there. A key assumption for us, as it was stated when referring to leadership, is that it is needed to follow our students in order to lead them. Making use of their feedback provides an opportunity of following them instead of just imposing content, explanations, exercises and practices that are disconnected of the possible emergent process. Besides students have the opportunity of leading the process through their active participation in the process and explicitly in the feedback moments. It is then when they can make questions, ask for clarifications, provide summary and examples of their own understanding, etc… Taken as a whole both teachers and students become involved in a systemic collaborative process that develops through time. We would like to conclude the chapter with a final excerpt with summarizes many of the ideas expressed in the previous sections. It is a text written by a student of doctorate studies, published in her web-blog at the end of a collaborative process this current course. She is reflecting about her learning process in connection to a final evaluation task consisting in a short movie filmed and acted by her work group. The idea of how did the group decide to be evaluated was the beginning of this final project. They decided to film a short movie where they could reflect and show many processes and knowledge worked during the subject.7

7

The students prepared also a trailer which was uploaded in you tube: http://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=zviTrkeECCU

74

Alejandro Iborra, Dolores García, Leonor Margalef et al. Table 2. Suggestions to promote a collaborative learning experience based on calibrating processes. 1. Consider what is the content you have to work with and ask yourself a. Why is it interesting according to your discipline?. b. What are the main competences related to that content or subject? c. What can you do differently in comparison with your students when applying the topics of that subject? What are the main processes involved? d. Once identified the main process or processes, how could you work or practice them? What could be considered a good example of practice? 2. Consider and ask your students about a. The reasons for attending to your class? b. Their purposes and goals beyond passing the subject? c. Their tacit knowledge about the general topic and even their previous competences and skills in relation to that topic. 3. Initiate the class presenting a big question or challenging problem which underlies the subject (in the context of your discipline from a theoretical or professional point of view). This big question could be an example of McGuffin (it will never be answered completely) but a good starting point. 4. Connect when possible that big question with some goals or purposes expressed by your students. 5. Begin the exploration of some topics related with that big problem. Before presenting any formal information or model how could it be possible to explore that topic? 6. Listen carefully the feedback of your students from their exploration attending to their understanding in that moment. From there consider what would be more interesting in that moment in order to advance through the exploration process a. Reading some theoretical texts? b. Providing a formal explanation to some point? c. Suggesting a practice, new exercise or experiment? 7. Put into practice your previous decision and wait until you have a new feedback from the exploration work of your students and repeat step 6. A first loop possibility or research cycle begins here. 8. Compare the inquiry process followed by your students and you in terms of your previous considerations exposed in step 1. Are you separating too much from there? Is it good or not? Are you following it too strictly? Is it good or not? Is the main content being covered? Are the main skills being practiced? 9. Attend to the performance of your students. a. Are they coming to your class? b. How do they look like? Interested? Lost? Careless? Committed? Intrigued? Bored? c. How do they look like working in groups? Would it be interesting changing the natural groups they make? Would it be interesting mixing them? d. Is it needed to explore directly with your students about their own learning process? e. According to this feedback can you change something in step 6? Is it worth adding new content, exercise, question? 10.From feedback coming from steps 9, 8 and 7 go on calibrating the whole process revising the direction framed at the beginning and even considering the appropriateness of that direction. 11.Consider when it would be useful to begin to finish the exploration process in order to present a more objective product as a result of that process. Initiate convergent processes to finish instead of opening new divergent lines of thought.

“It seems incredible that a process like this can change someone, it seems exaggerated to say that maybe I‟m not completely the Mary I used to be. I don‟t pretend to say that I‟ve changed radically, that I‟ve seen the light… ha ha ha…But yes, in that moment I had my opportunity of expressing what had changed in me

Generating Collaborative Contexts to Promote Learning and Development

75

during the process (…)From my point of view when we began to work I was quite square minded. Look, after telling to myself that it is important to respect every person rhythm, that it is important to discover being helped by others, that we have to change our minds to evaluate that situation that will take us to another one where everything would be clearer… after saying all that to myself I realized I wasn‟t respecting neither my time nor others‟ time and of course I was collaborating with my classmates, only if they had the same idea about the work than me. I‟ve realized that the theory we worked with in the classes, the ideas I got from texts or discussions, even the reflections that suggested me the opinions of my classmates, from blogs, all what I had learnt was conditioning was I wanted to do, the way I was doing it and why I was doing like this. I realized that I needed to make explicit what I had learnt for not letting aside none of the distinctions we had been talking about and that influenced so much how we learnt, how we developed, how we made meaning of things. Because of that I began step by step. I began trying to collaborate, interchanging impressions, ideas… but very early I had doubts. Were all of us sharing the same goals? Were we listening to each other? What were we attending to? How were we doing all this and why? All these questions disappointed me at first. I did not understand how we were going to collaborate if we were not collaborating at all or better said… to collaborate as I understood we had to collaborate. To be sincere I don‟t know how it happened but one day I simply let myself go and decided not worrying so much about whether what we were doing coincided with our original purposes or my own purposes. I decided to come back again to learn and just experiment the sensation of working, listening to others and lowering the pressure of big theories and ideas we had worked so much during the classes. I decided to trust in the group. I decided that for achieving good results things have not to be necessarily as I think they should be. It was not easy but I also trusted that our final result would be even better that my original idea. (…) I dared! Yes…(…) Now looking back I realize of a couple of things. I think that I would have never understood collaborative learning unless I had decided to “let myself go”. Now I realize that all those ideas, knowledge and theories we had been working, discussing, constructing were included in the process. It was not needed to make them explicit. What I needed was living them (…)Of course when I relaxed I found that there were many situations I could understand, now having more tools than before, I mean, through different situations I was conscious of different ways of interpreting them, giving sense to them, for achieving information and using them to influence positively the group development. In some moments I made them explicit. Some others I didn‟t. However all that gave me the opportunity of going beyond, to think about it and noticing those limitations that worked as a blindfold of my eyes. I believe that before objectifying something one has to understand it, to feel it, to live it. But not living it during one class, not out of context without using them on purpose. Of course without those formal sessions I would not have been able to reflect about that experience. (…) I‟m not proud only of the work but of how we did it. I‟m proud of people, of their involvement, of my own involvement. I can say I feel more responsible and owner of a work as I never had been. I thought that as a consequence of sharing it and,

76

Alejandro Iborra, Dolores García, Leonor Margalef et al. constructing it we could notice every particular contribution. But that was not the case. This work is not mine, neither of Lara, Val, Angelica, Itziar, Maite, Dori or Dani. This work is a synergy of all of us. (…) I think I‟m somebody more open to listen new proposals, to look beyond, to work with others.. I‟m all of this but I‟m also defending this approach in the class, through critical reflection, in one blog. Yes it could be said I am collaborative.”

In this last excerpt it is possible to notice many issues mentioned along the chapter that will serve to conclude it. This student expresses what meant to her to participate in a collaborative process. We would like to highlight three final ideas. First one concerns the developmental changes she perceives in herself. In terms of Kegan‘s theory we could say that she is expressing the typical initiative, responsibility, commitment and critical ideas belonging to self-authoring ways of functioning, and even in the process of going beyond towards the Inter-individual stage. Second idea deals with how she is giving sense of these changes as a consequence of participating in a collaborative learning experience. Only when she dares to go beyond her autonomous and independent way of learning which implied imposing to the others her way of understanding the task, she can truly collaborate. The collaborative context promote this kind of transcending one‘s own way of doing, understanding things in order to integrate other‘s point of view. It is a good example of transcending fourth order institutional self. The expression of ―letting myself go‖ is a good metaphor for expressing the underlying process. Only when she trusts in the group and the processes they were creating, the true collaboration takes place. Third idea is related to the importance of creating a real experiential context in order to put into practice and make real all the theoretical and process distinctions that we had been working with previously. It is another good example of situated learning and how meaningful learning can emerge from freely chosen tasks. Finally it is not the experience by itself what can promote so many changes. It is also needed to provide useful process distinctions to reflect on that experience such us the nature of the contexts involved in the situation or what kind of patterns can emerge 9. The following table summarizes some of the distinctions we have been using along the chapter: We read once a quote, supposedly said by Brian Eno, the famous music producer, concerning with his relationship with David Bowie. He mentioned the following idea: ―Every collaboration helps you grow. With Bowie, it's different every time. I know how to create settings, unusual aural environments. That inspires him. He's very quick‖. We would like to finish with this idea. As music producers we would like to create familiar or unusual settings which could inspire our students and ourselves, in order to grow. Maybe our students, as Bowie, will demonstrate how quick they are when challenged by this kind of special learning context we would like to encourage.

9

For example she realizes about her own changes because she can compare how she used to behave before in contrast with how she had behaved during the experience. From the comparison of at least these two different examples of ways of working in groups, she can have a different conception about herself and her learning options.

Generating Collaborative Contexts to Promote Learning and Development

77

Table 3. Main distinctions mentioned during the chapter (from McWhirter, 1999). Why

Context

Attending in

Pattern

Principle

How

Subjective

Attending from

Process

Policy

What

Objective

Attending to

Protocol

Procedure

Open collaboration, learning together, development, social constructionist, etc… Perceptual processing, communication processes, leading and following active and passively, comparing attending to sameness and difference, etc… Curiosity, commitment, selfauthoring.. Cooperative techniques, formal scripts or instructions

REFERENCES Anderson, H. (1997) Conversation, Language and Possibilities: A Postmodern Approach to Therapy. New York: Basic Books. [Trad. Cast. Conversación, lenguaje y posibilidades. Buenos Aires: Amorrortu. 1999] Aronson, E., Blaney, N., Sikes, J., Stephan, C. & Snapp, M. (1978). The jigsaw classroom. Beverly Hills, CA:Sage. Baars, B. J. (1989). A cognitive theory of consciousness. New York: Cambridge University Press. Bajo, M. T., Maldonado, A., Moreno, S., Moya, M. & Tudela, P. (2007). Las competencias en el nuevo paradigma educativo para Europa. Vicerrectorado de Planificación, Calidad y Evaluación. Universidad de Granada. Bar-Yam, M. (1991). Do women and men speak in different voices? A comparative study of self-evolvement. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 32, 247-259. Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an Ecology of Mind: Collected Essays in Anthropology, Psychiatry, Evolution, and Epistemology. University Of Chicago Press. Bateson, G. (1979). Mind and nature: A necessary unity. New York: Bantam Books. Bateson, M. C. (1994). Peripheral visions: Learning along the way. New York: Harper Collins. Bloom, J. W. (1999). Patterns that connect: rethinking our approach to learning and thinking. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, April. Bochner, A. (1997). It‘s about time. Qualitative Inquiry, 3(4), 418-438. Carlozzi, B., Carlozzi, A. & Harrist, S. (2004). Developmental considerations in universityschool collaborative research. The Qualitative Report, 9(3), 375-391. [Retrieved on 2nd of March 2009, from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR9-3/carlozzi.pdf ] Cialdini, R. (2005). What‘s the best secret device for engaging student interest? The answer is in the title. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 22-29. Cohen, E. (1994). Designing groupwork: Strategies for the heterogeneous classroom. New York: Teachers College Press. Damon, W. & Phelps, E. (1989). Critical distinctions among three approaches to peer education. International Journal of Educational Research, 58 (2), 9-19.

78

Alejandro Iborra, Dolores García, Leonor Margalef et al.

Davidson, N. (1994). Cooperative and collaborative learning: an integrative perspective. En Thousand, J., Villa, R. & Kevin, A. (Eds). Creativity and Collaborative Learning (pp. 181-195). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing. DeVries, D. & Edwards, K. (1974). Student teams and learning games: their effects on crossrace and cross-sex interaction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 66, 741-749. Durán, D., Torró, J. & y Vila, J. (2003). Tutoría entre iguals: un mètode d‟aprenentatge cooperatiu per a la diversitat. Barcelona: Servei de Publicacions de la UAB. Davidson, N. (1994). Cooperative and collaborative learning: an integrative perspective. En Thousand, J., Villa, R. & Kevin, A. (Eds). Creativity and Collaborative Learning (pp. 181-195). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Eriksen, K. (2006). The Constructive Developmental Theory of Robert Kegan. The Family Journal, 14 (3), 290-298. Erickson, D. (2007). A Developmental Re-Forming of the Phases of Meaning in Transformational Learning. Adult Education Quarterly, 58 (1), 61-80. Foerster, H. & Poerksen, B. (2002). Understanding systems. Conversations on Epistemology and Ethics. New York: Kluwer Academic. Fuller, R. B. (1975) Synergetics explorations in the geometry of thinking. Collier Macmillan Publishers, London. Iborra, A. (2004). Diferentes perspectivas en la gestión de conflictos. En: M. J. Criado & J. González (Coords). Educar en la no violencia. Ed. CCS, Madrid, pp. 105-139. Iborra, A. Izquierdo, M. & y de la Cruz, O. Es posible evaluar el Aprendizaje Colaborativo? Propuesta de tres fuentes de evaluación: El proceso, el contenido y el producto grupal. Oral paper presented at the XII Congreso de Psicología de la Infancia y la Adolescencia: ―Nuevos contextos psicológicos en educación: dando respuestas‖. Santander, April, 2005. Ingarfield, T. (2007). Manual del Curso de Habilidades de Gestión y Aprendizaje Experiencial en las Organizaciones. Curso de Especialización del Programa de Estudios Propios de la Universidad de Alcalá. Convocatoria, 06-07. Johnson, D. W. & y. Johnson, R. (1999). Learning together and alone: cooperative, competitive and individualistic learning. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. & y. Stanne, M. B. (2000). Cooperative learning methods: a Meta-analysis. [Retrieved on 13th september, 2008, http://www.co-operation.org/pages/ cl-methods.html ] Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. & Holubec, E. (1999). El aprendizaje cooperativo en el aula. Barcelona: Paidós Educador. Johnson, D. W. & y Johnson, R. (1979). Conflict in the classroom: controversy and learning. Review of Educational Research, 49, 51-70. Jonasen, D. (2000). El diseño de entornos constructivistas de aprendizaje. En Ch. M. Reigeluth (Ed.). Diseño de la Instrucción: Teorías y Modelos. Parte I (pp. 225-250). Madrid: Aula XXI Santillana. Kagan, S. (1985). Cooperative learning resources for teachers. Riverside, CA: University of California. Kegan, R. (1994). In over our heads: the mental demands of modern life. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Kintsch, W. & Rawson, K. 2005. Comprehension. En Snowling, M. & Hume, CH. (Eds.), The Science of Reading. A Handbook (pp. 209-226). Victoria: Blackwell.

Generating Collaborative Contexts to Promote Learning and Development

79

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential Learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Leon, B. (2006). Elementos mediadores en la eficacia del aprendizaje cooperativo. Entrenamiento previo en habilidades sociales y dinámica de grupos. Anales de Psicología. 22 (1), 105-112. Magnuson, D. & y Stattin, H. (1998). Person-Context interaction theories. En W. Damon & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Volume 1: Theoretical models of human development (pp. 685-759). Jon Wiley & Sons Inc. Marchesi, A. & y Martín, E. (1998). Calidad de la enseñanza en tiempos de cambio. Madrid: Alianza. Margalef, L., Iborra, A. & Canabal, C. (2006). Transformar la docencia universitaria: una propuesta de desarrollo profesional basada en estrategias reflexivas. Perspectiva Educacional, Nº 48, 2006, pp. 73-89. Markstrom-Adams, C. (1992). Factors in Identity Formation. In Adams, G., Gullotta, T. & Montemayor, R. (eds). Adolescent Identity Formation (pp.173-192). NewBury Park: Sage. McCarthey, S. J. & y McMahon, S. (1992). From convention to invention: three approaches to peer interactions during writing. En Hertz Lazarowitz, R., & y Miller, N. Interaction in cooperative groups. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. McWhirter, J. (1999). Re-Modelling NLP. Part 4. Basic structures and processes. Rapport (46) [retrieved on 10th March of 2009 from http://www.sensorysystems.co.uk/ RemodellingNLPPart4new.pdf ] McWhirter, J. (2000). Re-Modelling NLP. Part 5. Planning, problem-solving, outcomes and achieving. Rapport (47) [retrieved on 10th March of 2009 from http://www.sensorysystems.co.uk/RemodellingNLPPart5%20.pdf] McWhirter, J. (2002). Re-Modelling NLP. Part 13. Re-Modelling Perceptual Positioning and Processing. Rapport (58) [retrieved on 10th March of 2009 from http://www.sensorysystems.co.uk/RemodellingNLPPart13PartC.pdf ] Miller, L. (2000). La resolución de problemas en colaboración. En Reigeluth (Ed.). Diseño de la Instrucción: Teorías y Modelos. Parte I (pp. 251-278). Madrid: Aula XXI Santillana. Otani, A. (1994). A Cognitive Contextual Theory and Classification of Milton H. Erickson's Hypnotherapeutic Techniques. En Stephen R. Lankton & Kristina K. Ericsson (Eds.). The Ericksonian Monograph Number 9.The Essence of a Single Session Success (pp. 36-53). Phoenix: Milton H. Erickson Foundation, Inc. Panitz, T. (1996). A definition of Collaborative VS Cooperative Learning. Deliberations. [retrieved on 15th December of 2008 from http://www.lgu.ac.uk/deliberations/ collab.learning/panitz2.html ] Pareja, N. (2008). Reconstruir el currículo, transformar la práctica. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Universidad de Alcalá. Perrenoud, P. (2004). Diez nuevas competencias para enseñar. Barcelona: Garo. Perry, William G. Jr. (1970), Forms of Intellectual and Ethical Development in the College Years: A Scheme New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Perry, William G. Jr. (1981) Cognitive and Ethical Growth: The Making of Meaning. En Arthur W. Chickering and Associates, The Modern American College. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass (pp. 76-116).

80

Alejandro Iborra, Dolores García, Leonor Margalef et al.

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon Vol. 9 No. 5, October 2001. Reicher, S., Haslam, S. A. & Hopkins, N. (2005). Social identity and the dynamics of leadership: leaders and followers as collaborative agents in the transformation of social reality. The Leadership Quaterly, 16, 547-568. Ruiz, C. & y Shailor, J. (2004). Aprendizaje Colaborativo y e-Learning. Análisis de un Proyecto de Innovación en la Universidad. Comunicación presentada en el IV Congreso Internacional de Psicología y Educación ―Calidad Educativa‖. Universidad de Almería. pp. 2027-2034. Schank, D. L., Berman, T. R. & y Macpherson, K. A. (2000). Aprender a través de la práctica. En Ch. M. Reigeluth (Ed.). Diseño de la Instrucción: Teorías y Modelos. Parte I (pp. 173-192). Madrid: Aula XXI Santillana. Selman, R. L. (1980). The growth of interpersonal understanding. New York: Academic Press. Sharan, S. & Sharan, Y. (1992). Group Investigation: Expanding cooperative learning. New York: Teacher‘s College Press. Slavin, R. E. (1978). Student teams and comparison among equals: effects on academic performance and student attitudes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 70 (4), 532-538. Slavin, R. E. (1983). When does cooperative learning increased student achievement? Psychological Bulletin, 94, 429-445. Slavin, R. E., Leavey, M. B. & Madden, N. A. (1984). Combining cooperative learning and individualized instruction: effects on student mathematics achievement, attitudes, and behaviours. Elementary School Journal, 84 (4), 409-422. Smith, B. & Sparkes, A. (2005). Analyzing talk in qualitative inquiry: Exploring possibilities, problems, and tensions. Quest, 57 (2), 213-242. Sparkes, A. C. (2003) Bodies, identities, selves: Autoethnographic fragments and reflections. In J. Denison & P. Markula (Eds) Moving writing : Crafting Movement and Sport Research (pp. 51-76). New York: Peter Lang. Stevens, R., Madden, N., Slavin, R. & Farnish, A. (1987). Cooperative integrated reading and composition: Two field experiments. Reading Research Quaterly, 22, 433-454. Van Knippenberg, D., van Knippenberg, B., De Cremer, D. & How, M. A. (2004). Leadership, self and identity: A review and research agenda. The Leadership Quaterly, 15, 825-856. Watzlawick, P., Bavelas, B. & y Jackson, D. D. (1995). Teoría de la Comunicación Humana: interacciones, patologías y paradojas. Barcelona: Herder. Wiersema, N. (2000). Deliberations. How does Collaborative Learning actually work in a classroom and how do students react to it? A Brief Reflection [retrieved on 15th December of 2008 from http://www.londonmet.ac.uk/deliberations/collaborative-learning/wiersema. cfm].

In: Collaborative Learning: Methodology, Types… Editors: E. Luzzatto, G. DiMarco, pp. 81-94

ISBN: 978-1-60876-076-3 © 2010 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Chapter 3

EXAMINING CHILD DEVELOPMENT THEORIES THROUGH COLLABORATIVE LEARNING: TECHNIQUES FOR THE INSTRUCTION OF EARLY CHILDHOOD PRESERVICE TEACHERS Bridget A. Walsh and Claudia Sanchez Texas Woman‘s University

ABSTRACT This chapter presents seven collaborative learning techniques for exploring 10 child development theories with early childhood preservice teachers. The chapter also reports on a content analysis that investigated the frequency with which these theories appeared referenced in a popular early childhood journal. The content analysis serves as a framework for instructors to implement seven collaborative learning strategies in the instruction of preservice teachers, namely, think-pair-share, open discussion, all-youknow-about technique, visual conceptualizations, the auction game, traveling teams, and extension activities for higher-order thinking.

INTRODUCTION The early childhood education perspectives and traditions are value driven and are continually evolving with new knowledge and practices (Spodek & Saracho, 2003). Without explicit theoretical frameworks, professionals may encounter challenges in identifying and articulating the traditions that serve as the basis for their educational practice. In the search for quality practices, the different theoretical ideologies in the field of early childhood education should be considered. The terms theory and practice are intimately related, and as such, demand interaction. Carlgren (1999) stated the following:

82

Bridget A. Walsh and Claudia Sanchez Theory as well as practice are involved in research work as well as in teachers‘ work, two kinds of practices involving different kinds of theories. In both practices there is thinking as well acting. Etymologically, ‗theory‘ and ‗practice‘ can be connected by ‗seeing‘ and ‗doing‘. Seeing and doing represent two different ways of knowing – and result in different kinds of knowing. The practice of research aims at developing ways of seeing while other practices aim at other things (for example, developing good schooling and learning environments). (p. 51)

It is essential that prospective early childhood educators have a solid understanding of child development theories. For early childhood educators, it is professionally responsible to have an understanding of child development theories that direct their practice. In addition, it is the obligation of early childhood teacher training programs to fuel pre-serve teachers‘ knowledge of child development theories. Theory is broadly defined as ―an explanation of how the facts fit together‖ (Thomas, 2005, p. 3). Theory or theories of child development provide a framework about particular views of children and their developmental process and growth. In Comparing Theories of Child Development, Thomas (2005) spotlighted 10 developmental theories: Freud‘s Psychoanalysis, Erikson‘s Psychosocial theory, Skinner‘s Operant Conditioning, Bandura‘s Social-Cognition theory, Piaget‘s Cognitive Development theory, Vygotsky‘s theory, Information Processing theories, Bronfenbrenner‘s Bioecological theory, Kohlberg‘s Moral Development theory, and Gilligan‘s Compassionate Caring. The present chapter outlines seven collaborative learning techniques to explore child development theories with preservice teachers. Before presenting the techniques, we report on a content analysis we conducted that provides a framework for discussion on child development theories. The content analysis highlighted 10 popular theories germane to early childhood education. In the next section, we describe the method used to conduct our content analysis and the results of the analysis. An overview for each of the 10 target theories considered in the current content analysis appears in Appendix A. After the content analysis, we detail seven techniques to explore child development theory through collaborative learning activities in child development and teacher training courses.

CONTENT ANALYSIS A content analysis examines the occurrence of words and language (Lewins & Silver, 2006). ―Because journal articles tend to mirror the value and interests of authors, journal editors, and the field at large, content analyses offer insight into the values that drive scholarly activities during a certain period‖ (Nilsson, Love, Taylor, & Slusher, 2007, p. 357). Specifically, the current analysis aims to investigate the frequency and percentage of occurrence of explicit employment of 10 child development theories, if any, in articles published in the Early Childhood Education Journal (ECEJ), a popular journal in the field of early childhood. At present, one other content analysis has been published scrutinizing articles in this journal. Specifically, the frequency of early childhood education approaches (e.g., Reggio Emilia) in the ECEJ was investigated (Walsh & Petty, 2007).

Examining Child Development Theories through Collaborative Learning

83

THEORY AND CONTENT ANALYSIS A dearth of interplay between theory and research can have indelible effects on the purpose and outcomes of research (Taylor & Bagd, 2005). As a result of this threat, Taylor and Bagd (2005) investigated the explicit employment of theoretical perspectives in the published literature by analyzing a prominent journal in the family field. Similar to content analyses of other journals (e.g., Arredondo, Rosen, Rice, Perez, & Tovar-Gamero, 2005; Walsh & Petty, 2007), Taylor and Bagd reviewed articles published in a 10-year period, specifically 1990-1999. In their analysis, Taylor and Bagd (2005) examined the explicit mention of 29 macrotheories representative of family or human development theories. Prior to their analysis, they generated a list of 29 theories based on the extant literature. The 29 selected theories all explicitly appeared in the searched articles. In addition, Taylor and Bagd coded theories named after individuals and coded when no explicit mention of a theory was made in the article. More than one third of empirical articles published in the focus family journal did not include explicit mention of a theory anywhere in the article (Taylor & Bagd, 2005).

THE PRESENT CONTENT ANALYSIS As previously mentioned, we investigated the frequency and percentage of occurrence of explicit employment of 10 child development theories in the text of ECEJ articles. To conduct this, articles published from 1999-2008 were analyzed. The current analysis is the first of its kind analyzing articles published by the Early Childhood Education Journal. Child development spans the first two decades of life, which includes the period of early childhood. Thus, it seems reasonable to state that the fields of child development and early childhood education are inextricably linked. As already established, Thomas (2005) emphasized 10 child development theories in his text Comparing Theories of Child Development. All of Taylor and Bagd‘s (2005) selected theories explicitly appeared in their analyzed articles. In light of the aforementioned information, we predicted that a journal that underscores early childhood would include the explicit appearance of the 10 target child development theories at least once and beyond that to varying degrees. We also expected with the present analysis, similar to Taylor and Bagd‘s (2005) analysis, that overall there would be a lack of explicit theorizing.

METHOD Data Source The primary readership of ECEJ, the target journal for this analysis includes university faculty and students, early childhood teachers, and related services professionals (Gargiulo, Jalongo, & Motari, 2001). The content of ECEJ includes empirical research articles, including qualitative articles, literature reviews, and practical articles (Gargiulo et al., 2001).

84

Bridget A. Walsh and Claudia Sanchez

For the present analysis, several electronic resources were utilized. One university library electronic database system was used to derive access to the full text of articles. Early Childhood Education Journal (ECEJ) was accessed via SpringerLink. Articles published in the ECEJ were opened through Adobe‘s Portable Document Format (PDF) version 8.0. Microsoft Excel was used to enter all data. The researchers created a data sheet for the current review. The data sheet housed information about explicit theoretical employment of child development theories. Specifically, data tables were created to list and record the occurrences of the 10 target theories. We constructed three additional categories, these were: no explicit target theory, single explicit target theory, or multiple explicit target theories. In addition, the year, volume, issues, and page numbers of each article were recorded.

Procedure The ten child development theories searched for in the text and title of each article included: Freud‘s Psychoanalysis, Erikson‘s Psychosocial theory, Skinner‘s Operant Conditioning, Bandura‘s Social-Cognition theory, Piaget‘s Cognitive Development theory, Vygotsky‘s theory, Information Processing theories, Bronfenbrenner‘s Bioecological theory, Kohlberg‘s Moral Development theory, and Gilligan‘s Compassionate Caring. The sample consisted of 537 ECEJ articles published from 1999 to 2008. The articles analyzed over this 10 year time span were published in Volumes 26- 36. Titles and the entirety of texts were searched for explicit mention of the 10 target child development theories. The references of each target text were not searched and guidelines for prospective contributors were excluded in the analysis. The search words: Freud, Erikson, Skinner, Bandura, Piaget, Vygotsky, Information Processing, Bronfenbrenner, Kohlberg, and Gilligan all served to provide starting information about the explicit acknowledgement of the 10 target child development theories. When an article contained explicit mention of a target child development theory or theories a check mark was given on the electronic data coding sheet for that article. Alternatively, if the search revealed no appearance of a theory in an article, the first researcher entered a mark on the data sheet for the category no explicit target theory mentioned.

RESULTS In the searched articles (N = 537), 101 theories appeared in total. Vygotsky‘s theory appeared the most and Gilligan‘s theory appeared the least. Piaget, Bronfenbrenner, and Bandura also frequently occurred. See Figure 1.

Examining Child Development Theories through Collaborative Learning

85

Figure 1. Bar graph of the number of times each child development theory appeared in the ECEJ across the target decade.

In total, 12.48% or 67 articles included the target child development theories. Forty-seven articles utilized a single theory, while 20 articles utilized multiple theories. Regarding the multiple theory usage, the range of articles included two to five theories. Alternatively, 470 articles did not include a theory or theories. See Table 1. Table 1.Quantity of articles with the number of occurrences of theories Number of Theories Five theories Four theories Three theories Two theories One theory No theory Note. N = 573.

Number of Articles 3 1 3 13 47 470

The year 2007 had the highest total frequency with 19 occurrences of theory. In light of the combination of a recent three year span of 2008, 2007, and 2006 the total frequency occurrence was 48, which is more than double that of the total frequency combination in 2001, 2000, and 1999. See Figure 2 for yearly comparisons.

Bridget A. Walsh and Claudia Sanchez

20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

2 0

1999

Frequency of Total Number of Theories

86

Year of Publication Figure 2. Bar graph of the frequency of total occurrences of targeted child development theories per year.

EXPLORING EARLY CHILDHOOD DEVELOPMENT THEORIES THROUGH COLLABORATIVE LEARNING The recommendations for collaborative learning made in the remainder of this chapter are intended to be implemented after early childhood preservice teachers have read the introduction and featured content analysis. Specifically, prior to the collaborative learning activities described below, instructors should assign students to read the introduction and the current content analysis, providing them with a copy that excludes the results. Reading an assignment passively produces poorer learning than reading with an activity in mind (McKeachie & Svinicki, 2006). To promote students‘ reading with an activity in mind, use one or all of the following tasks: 1) provide students with a practical scenario with children and ask students to apply two theories to the scenario; 2) to find one article, either practical or research, that employs one (or multiple) child development theoretical approach (or approaches); and 3) ask students to predict the results of the content analysis (what theory or theories do they think appeared the most and the least in the content analysis?).

Collaborative Learning Techniques To prepare for collaborative learning techniques, instructors should know about collaborators‘ skills and abilities, and determine if collaborators will be grouped in heterogeneous groups representing different strengths or homogeneous groups. Also, prior to reading the content analysis and participating in the collaborative learning activities, students will need to have the skill of distinguishing between research versus practical articles and

Examining Child Development Theories through Collaborative Learning

87

primary versus secondary sources. In addition, they will need to have a basic understanding of what theory means and some prior knowledge, introduction, or experience with the target child development theories.

Think-Pair-Share In class ask students to predict the results of the content analysis. After students have formulated their predictions in small groups, share the results of the content analysis and ask students how their predictions match up to the results. Encourage students to further process the meaning of the results by facilitating think-pair-share. First, ask the students (collaborators) to think about the actual results of the content analysis in comparison to their predictions, why their predictions may have been accurate or inaccurate, and why the actual results may have appeared this way. Then ask the students to write their thoughts for about 2 minutes, and then share their thoughts with a neighbor. After think-pair-share, students often feel more at ease to participate in a general discussion (McKeachie & Svinicki, 2006). Open Discussion Questioning is the most common discussion opener method (McKeachie & Svinicki, 2006). The instructor may opt to organize the discussion around collaborators‘ questions, pose his or her own questions, or employ a combination of collaborators‘ questions and instructor questions. The following questions are examples of different types of questions that may be posed by the instructor to the class:    

What do the results of the content analysis mean? Why is explicit employment of a theoretical lens or lenses important to research articles? Why is this important to practical articles? Why would researchers or practitioners employ multiple theories in their articles? Why do you think Vygotsky‘s theory and Piaget‘s theory appeared the most in the content analysis? Do these theories account for a better understanding of children than other theories?

All-You-Know-About Technique Another technique to promote collaborative learning may be initiated by displaying (e.g., on a Microsoft PowerPoint slide) a list of groups of about five collaborators formed by the instructor. In the first author‘s child development courses, she displays a slide with names of team members and then the collaborators find their group members, a location, and select a team name that symbolizes a key person or unique concept in child development. An alternative method to forming teams for collaborative learning groups is to have the students create candidacy statements (Rotenberg, 2005). These are short, one paragraph statements in which students respond to the prompt: If selected for your team, I would bring the following strengths and qualities to our efforts (Rotenberg, 2005). We encourage the students to include their experiences with research, practical experiences with children, team and leadership skills, and technology skills. Team captains could be assigned by the instructor and meet as a group and take turns selecting group members based on the candidacy statements (Rotenberg, 2005).

88

Bridget A. Walsh and Claudia Sanchez

Once the groups are established, the instructor should assign each group a theory from the content analysis and ask the groups to list as many words associated with a theory as possible. For example, when assigned Bandura‘s theory a group may generate the terms of social learning, social cognitive, modeling, intrinsic reinforcement, Bobo doll, and selfregulating. In more advanced classes, groups may then switch the list and add terms to lists created by the group that started the list for that theory. For less experienced groups, students may turn their list into a K-W-L Chart, a method developed by Ogle (1986). That is, groups record what they ―Know‖ about the theory (i.e., the list they created), what they ―Want to know‖ about the theory, and what they have ―Learned‖ after perusing secondary or primary sources available in the classroom during the activity.

Visual Conceptualizations With the information they have garnered and the article (research or practical) from their homework that demonstrates the application of theory or theories, collaborators will be assigned to create something new with the acquired ideas and information. Collaborators will have the problem of creating a visual conceptualization that demonstrates knowledge of a theory and the application of it. The first author gave basic parameters of the assignment to students in her child development course. First, when the group is ready to make the conceptualization, the collaborators should use technology to assist them. For instance, the first author found that groups in her child development course utilized Microsoft Word, Microsoft PowerPoint, or Adobe InDesign to visually display their work. In addition, the conceptualization must include less than 15 words (excluding their group name in small print on the bottom of the conceptualization) and the visual should be able to stand alone for others to make meaning of it. It is beneficial to request a progress report from each group prior to the assignment due date (Rotenberg, 2005). When the presentation was due, each group was allowed 10 minutes during class to present their finished product using the overhead projector or computer set-up in the classroom. Each group provided the instructor with a hard copy of their one-page conceptualization. After collecting the hard copy of the conceptualization you can assess it with a rubric. Often giving students a rubric prior to the collaborative learning project limits their experimentation (Rotenberg, 2005). The instructor may also have each group evaluate another group‘s work in hard copy (McKeachie & Svinicki, 2006). Explain to the evaluating groups to write helpful comments as well as an evaluation (McKeachie & Svinicki, 2006). Each group may also evaluate their own work. The instructor may then collect and evaluate all of the conceptualizations and evaluations before returning them to the collaborators evaluated. At the end of a collaborative activity, students should assess what remaining questions they have about theory, the successes, and shortcomings of their group work. One consideration is to decide ahead of time whether you want to attempt to evaluate individual effort or assign the same grade to the group (Rotenberg, 2005). The instructor will want to be clear about whether the product or the process is being assessed (McKeachie & Svinicki, 2006). The Auction Game The second author uses this technique to promote engaging competition among groups. Before the game, the instructor needs to prepare a list of statements related to the 10 theories the students explored in the content analysis. A number of the statements need to be false, and

Examining Child Development Theories through Collaborative Learning

89

the rest of the statements need to be true. For instance, a true statement could be: Erikson‟s psychological crisis of the preschool years is initiative versus guilt. An example of a false statement could be: According to Piaget‟s theory of cognitive development, the 3-year-old who explains that the sun is angry at the clouds and has chased them away has demonstrated conservation. The statements are to be shown one at a time on a PowerPoint file or on poster paper. To play this game, tell the class each group will have $2000 to spend at an auction of statements. Warn the students that statements can be ―fake‖ or ―genuine,‖ as is the case with many items in typical auctions. What the groups should aim to do is get the higher number of genuine items or statements they can and keep the largest amount of money by the time all statements are auctioned. Direct the auction. One by one, present the statements, give groups a few seconds to determine the quality of the ―items‖ and decide on their bids. Auction all your statements and have a volunteer help you keep track of the money groups are spending and the fake or genuine nature of their goods on the blackboard. If a group gets a fake item, have another group explain why the item in question is fake and then move to the next item. For instance, in the above false statement example, the group could explain that the child demonstrated animism not conservation. The winning group or groups are those who have the highest number of genuine items and the largest amount of money left. Reward the winning groups.

Traveling Teams Traveling teams is another strategy the second author uses often in her classes. To implement this technique, form small groups of three or four members. Then figure out the number of groups you will have and add 4. For example, for a class of 21 students, we would have seven groups of three students. We add 7 + 4 = 11. Eleven is the number of brief tasks (10-15 minute tasks) the instructor describes in separate sheets of paper (one per student). Some examples of tasks associated with the 10 theories explored in the content analysis may include: (a) match the theorist with theory (e.g., Bronfenbrenner to Bioecological Systems Theory) and complete brief quiz-type questions, (b) examine real-world pictures (e.g., child crying as parent leaves to go to work) and ask students to apply a theory to help explain what is unfolding in the pictures, and (c) ask students to recall playing the ―hot and cold‖ game as children to find an object and ask them to explain instances of shaping in this game, such as positive reinforcement, extinction, and punishment. The instructor prepares 11 envelopes (with needed materials for the tasks) with 21 copies outlining the steps for each of the 11 tasks, identifies 11 stations across the room for groups to work together, assigns each of the 7 groups to a station, asks students to start traveling across the room as a group once they are finished with their first task, and asks the group to finish all 11 tasks. Seven stations will be used at any given time, and the four extra stations allow teams to not overlap in a given station. As groups travel, upbeat background music can be played to stimulate movement. Extension Activities for Higher Order Thinking Some extension activities from the content analysis and collaborative activities that promote the use of higher order thinking skills may include (a) assigning groups to write a ―Discussion‖ section to the featured content analysis, (b) encouraging the evaluation of the theory selection for the current content analysis and decide what theories should be added or removed in a future content analysis, (c) asking groups to determine what they would do

90

Bridget A. Walsh and Claudia Sanchez

differently or keep the same regarding the current content analysis in order to get a useful view of theoretical approaches employed in the literature.

Suggested General Materials for Recommended Collaborative Activities       

Copy of the content analysis without the results for each student to read prior to class Power point slide or other visual of teacher assigned groups with 3 to 5 students in each group Space for students to work in groups A classroom that has technological accessibility for presentation purposes Poster board or large paper Primary and secondary sources that include pertinent theory information Rubrics for the assessment of group projects

CONCLUSION Knowledge is socially constructed (Berger & Luckmann, 1966), and as a result, learning becomes a social phenomenon that does not take place in isolation, but through human interaction. This chapter presented seven ideas for examining early childhood development theories through collaborative learning. By sharing the content analysis featured in this chapter, instructors provide pre-service teachers with a framework for the implementation of think-pair-share, open discussion, all-you-know-about technique, visual conceptualizations, the auction game, traveling teams, and extension activities for higher-order thinking. These techniques have a two-fold purpose: to encourage learning through teamwork and to engage students in meaningful tasks that combine diverse intelligences and learning styles. Cooperative learning is a critical strategy that increases concept understanding and promotes thinking skills. The experiences future teachers will share with their students will undoubtedly mirror those in which they participated as learners in their teacher preparation classrooms. Therefore, teacher educators should bear in mind that pre-service teachers will implement cooperative learning in their future teaching situations to the extent that they engage in effective collaborative strategies.

REFERENCES Arredondo, P., Rosen, D. C., Rice, T., Perez, P., & Tovar-Gamero, Z. G. (2005). Multicultural counseling: A 10-Year Content Analysis of the Journal of Counseling & Development. Journal of Counseling & Development, 83, 155-161. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 2, 75-78 Berger, P. L. & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.

Examining Child Development Theories through Collaborative Learning

91

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Carlgren, I. (1999). Professionalism and teachers as designers. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 31, 43-56. Erikson, E. H. (1963). Childhood and society. New York: Norton & Company. Freud, S. (1950). The ego and the id. London: Hogarth Press. Freud, S. (1964). An outline of psycho-analysis. In J. Strachey (Ed. & Trans.), The standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud (Vol. 23). London: Hogarth Press. Gargiulo, R., Jalongo, M. R., & Motari, J. (2001). Writing for publication in Early Childhood Education: Survey data from editors and advice to authors. Early Childhood Education Journal, 29, 17-23. Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Kohlberg, L. (1969). Stage and sequence: The cognitive-developmental approach to socialization. In D. A. Goslin (Ed.), The handbook of socialization theory and research (pp. 374-480). Chicago: Rand McNally. Lewins, A., & Silver, C. (2006). Choosing a CAQDAS package (5th ed.). Retrieved November 15, 2008 from http://caqdas.soc.surrey.ac.uk/ChoosingLewins&SilverV 5July06.pdf McKeachie, W.J., & Svinicki, M. (2006). McKeachie‟s Teaching Tips: Strategies, research, and theory for college and university teachers (12th ed.). New York: Houghton Mifflin. Nilsson, J. E., Love, K. M., Taylor, K. J., & Slusher, A. L. (2007). A content and sample analysis of quantitative articles published in the Journal of Counseling & Development between 1991 and 2000. Journal of Counseling & Development, 85, 357-363. Ogle, D. (1986). K-W-L: A teaching model that develops active reading of expository text. The Reading Teacher, 39, 564-570. Piaget, J. (1969). The child‟s conception of physical causality. Totowa, NJ: Littlefield, Adams. Piaget, J. (1972). The psychology of intelligence. Totowa, NJ: Littlefield, Adams. Rotenberg, R. (2005). The art & craft of college teaching: A guide for new professors & graduate students. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press. Skinner, B. F. (1974). About behaviorism. New York: Knopf. Spodek, B., & Saracho, O. N. (2003). ―On the shoulders of giants‖: Exploring the traditions of early childhood education. Early Childhood Education Journal, 31(1), 3-10. Taylor, A. C., & Bagd, A. (2005). The lack of explicit theory in family research: The case analysis of the Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1990-1999. In V. L. Bengston, A. C. Acock, K. R. Allen, P. Dilworth-Anderson, & D. M. Klein (Eds.), Sourcebook of family theory & research (pp. 22-25). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Thomas, R. M. (2005). Comparing theories of child development (6th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. In M. Cole, V. JohnSteiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman (Eds.), Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (pp.79-91). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

92

Bridget A. Walsh and Claudia Sanchez

Walsh, B. A., & Petty, K. (2007). Frequency of six early childhood education approaches: A 10-year content analysis of Early Childhood Education Journal. Early Childhood Education Journal, 34, 301-305. Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89-100.

APPENDIX A Theories in Early Childhood Education Sigmund Freud and Psychoanalysis Sigmund Freud (1856-1939), an Austrian physician, neurologist, and psychiatrist, was the founder of psychoanalysis. Freud believed that there are two divisions of mental life, either conscious or unconscious (Freud, 1950, 1964). Freud also suggested that preconscious thought may exist. Freud posited that the mind includes three basic structures: the id, the ego, and the superego (Freud, 1950). The id is largely unconscious and operates in terms of the pleasure principle. On the other hand, the ego is mostly conscious and is governed by the reality principle. The final structure, the superego, is mostly unconscious and is overseen by the idealistic principle. Freud‘s stages of psychosexual development include: (a) oral (approximately birth to 2), (b) anal (approximately ages 2-4), (c) phallic (approximately 4 to middle childhood), (d) latency (approximately middle childhood to puberty), and (e) genital stages (approximately adolescence through adulthood). Erik Erikson and Psychosocial Theory Erik Homburger Erikson (1902-1994) was a Danish-German-American of the neoFreudian ilk. Ego qualities emerge from periods of development, known as the eight stages of man (Erikson, 1963). His eight stages include: (a) trust versus mistrust (approximately ages 01), (b) autonomy versus shame and doubt (approximately ages 2-3), (c) initiative versus guilt (approximately ages 3-6), (d) industry versus inferiority (approximately ages 7-12), (e) identity versus role confusion (approximately ages 12-18), (f) intimacy versus isolation (approximately 20s), (g) generativity versus stagnation (approximately late 20s-50s), and (h) ego integrity versus despair (approximately 50 and beyond). B. F. Skinner and Operant Conditioning Burrhus Frederic Skinner (1904-1990), an American psychologist, was most interested in environmental contingencies and behavior. In the Skinnerian view, inner states existed, but could not be empirically studied. As a result, Skinner believed that the experimental analysis of behavior should be studied in terms of emitted behavior as a function of environmental contingencies (Skinner, 1974). Skinner primarily studied animals that underwent conditioning experiments often known as Skinner boxes. Nevertheless, he argued that principles, such as reinforcement and punishment, utilized with rats and pigeons could be applied to shape human behavior.

Examining Child Development Theories through Collaborative Learning

93

Albert Bandura and Social Cognitive Theory Albert Bandura (b. 1925) a Canadian psychologist asserted that children learn many pleasing and unpleasing responses from the world around them (Bandura, 1977). In this learning process, Bandura emphasized the importance of the mother-child relationship, the imitation of models, and cognitive processes. Social Cognitive Theory distinguishes among three different forms of human agency (Bandura, 2000). These are: personal, proxy, and collective (Bandura, 2000). For the most part, theorizing and research has focused on personal agency (Bandura, 2000). That is, people believe that they can spawn desired effects and forestall undesired ones via their actions, otherwise there is no incentive to act (Bandura, 2000). Also, central to Bandura‘s work is the concept of modeling which is often used synonymously with imitation or observational learning. Jean Piaget and Cognitive Development Theory Jean Piaget (1896-1980) was a Swiss psychologist as well as a natural scientist and genetic epistemologist. Piaget (1969, 1972) posited that children actively construct knowledge from the world around them and that cognitive development involves four discrete stages. These stages are: the sensorimotor (approximately birth to age 2), the preoperational (roughly 2 to 7 years), the concrete-operational (approximately ages 7 to 12 years), and the formal-operational (approximately 11 or 12 years onward). Some never reach the formaloperational stage (Piaget, 1972). Each of the aforementioned stages includes unique hallmarks. For instance, in the preoperational stage the child begins symbolic thought in that she can think about an object that is not physically present. Lev Vygotsky and Sociocultural Theory Lev Semenovich Vygotsky, a Russian psychologist, posited the sociocultural perspective and made major contributions to developmental and educational psychology. This theory maintains that learning is the product of socially meaningful activity of the child within the environment (Vygotsky, 1978). Social interaction is important in the learning of complex skills (Vygotsky, 1978). Along this line, Wood, Bruner, and Ross (1976) employed the term scaffolding to describe how adults support children‘s learning. Scaffolding occurs in the zone of proximal development, a tenet of Vygotsky‘s sociocultural theory. The zone of proximal development is where an embryonic state of a child‘s competence may reach maturation with guidance and social mediation of a more advanced other (Vygotsky, 1962).

Information-Processing Theories Information-processing theorists evaluate how people perform mental operations. Several theorists include George Miller, Friedrich Hayek, Abraham Moles, Frieder Nake, Robert Kail, Mark Ashcraft, Robert Siegler, Richard Atkinson, Richard Shiffrin, Fergus Craik, Robert Lockhart, Thomas Bidell, and Kurt Fischer. The main analogy behind information processing is that the mind and brain are likened to a computer. Information-processing theorists consider the variety of mental processes that persons use to manipulate information.

94

Bridget A. Walsh and Claudia Sanchez

Urie Bronfenbrenner and Bioecological Systems Theory Urie Bronfenbrenner (1917-2005) was a Russian-born American developmental psychologist. Bronfenbrenner‘s (1979) bioecological systems theory describes complex interacting influences that affect development of the individual. The individual is the center and is shaped and is a shaper of five contextual systems. These include: (a) the microsystem (e.g., home, school, and neighborhood), (b) the mesosystem is the interaction of two or more microsystems (e.g., parent-teacher conferences), (c) the exosystem (e.g., parents‘ workplace, transportation system, school board), (d) the macrosystem (e.g., cultural patterns), and (e) the timing of events within the individual and those that affect the individual or the chronosystem (e.g., puberty, recession). Lawrence Kohlberg and Moral Development Theory Lawrence Kohlberg (1927-1987) was an American psychologist. Moral development in Kohlberg‘s theory is somewhat reminiscent of Piaget‘s theory of moral judgment. Kohlberg (1969) asserted three levels, comprised of two stages each, of moral reasoning throughout the lifespan. Level 1 is preconventional morality (approximately ages 4 to 10), where people act out of external controls. Level 2 is conventional morality (approximately obtained after age 10), in which notions of good boy/good girl and other concerns about pleasing others are worked out to maintain social order. Level 3 is postconventional morality (approximately adolescence and adulthood), in which people use the ideas of right and justice to make their own judgments, while being cognizant of moral standards. Carol Gilligan and Compassionate Caring Theory Carol Gilligan (b. 1936) is an American feminist, ethicist, and psychologist. Gilligan‘s (1982) Compassionate-Caring theory is based on the idea that males and females use essentially different approaches to morality. Female morality encompasses a responsibility orientation (Gilligan, 1982). The three stages of female moral development are: (a) Selfish with doing what is right for individual survival (approximately in early childhood), (b) Social with doing what is right for others (approximately in middle childhood/adolescence), and (c) Principled with doing what is right for self and others and based on truth (approximately in adulthood).

In: Collaborative Learning: Methodology, Types… Editors: E. Luzzatto, G. DiMarco, pp. 95-134

ISBN: 978-1-60876-076-3 © 2010 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Chapter 4

FACILITATING A BLENDED LEARNING APPROACH TO ENCOURAGE COLLABORATIVE WORKING ON UNDERGRADUATE MODULES Alan Hogarth* Strategy, Innovation and Enterprise, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, Scotland, UK

INTRODUCTION The main aim of this chapter is to gain a deeper understanding of the attitudes of undergraduate university students to group work and group based technology and how this adds to the concept of blended learning. To advance this aim organisational culture and group work, group based technology in the work place, students and group work and blended learning were all considered important issues for this research. To begin with group work and group technology were considered in an industry setting as this was seen as an important prerequisite to the study of student group work. Initially the relevant literature was reviewed. Following this an industry survey of Human Resource Managers was carried out in order to enhance the findings in the literature review. Another element of this research comprised of a case study and involved groups of undergraduate students involved in group work. The industry survey was in the form of a two-part questionnaire; Traditional Group Work and Group Based Technology. The main findings are that although industry has facilitated group working for a number of years it is still not confident with group technology. The case study involved investigating two classes of students on two modules involved with a group coursework assessment. Questionnaires and interviews were used for the empirical data. The main findings were that there were problems with both traditional group work assessment and group work assessment undertaken with technology. Students were uncomfortable with some aspects of group work e.g. dynamics, conflict, communication, team building issues. They were also unsure of the need or purpose of group based technology. A major finding was that *

Corresponding Author: Tel: +44 141 331 3968, Fax: 44 141 331 3193, Email: [email protected]

96

Alan Hogarth

the students did not receive any guidance or training in how to work in groups or use group based technology. With a view to rectifying this situation a number of models were commended that could benefit students undertaking group work in the university environment. The first is the Conceptual Framework for Student Group Work Guidance and Training shows the main areas to be addressed by universities wishing to aid students with group work. This should include a policy on group work as part of the teaching and learning strategy and this should contain issues identified in the research as important i.e. educational, employment, government and technology. Secondly a Traditional Group Work Skills Integrative Training Paradigm‟ was proposed that highlights the ‗traditional‘ group work training needs of students under three main issues; Culture Change, Social and Educational. These sections have further detailed sub-headings. The third model, Group Based Technology Skills Integrative Training Paradigm, highlights the training needs for students in group based technology. Three main issues are also included in this model; Culture Change, Social and Educational Technology. It is also recommended that a further study be carried out where the above training models may be applied in a real life setting. To this end further research was undertaken on the possibility of a new and innovative ‗blended learning‘ approach incorporating the findings of the above research. Due to the wider, more diverse student population there is an obvious need for greater flexibility in curriculum design and course delivery, accompanied by innovations in teaching and learning. A more flexible style of teaching and greater independent learning by students is now required to cope with these changes. The answer would appear to be to encourage independent learning by facilitating a ‗blended learning‘ approach. This chapter also discusses a blended learning approach, developed by the authors, to teaching undergraduate modules that encourage students to undertake independent learning in a practical and non-threatening manner. This approach is based on the utilisation of aspects of traditional teaching, VLEs and Web 2.0 technologies. The model discussed in this section is the culmination of the project funded by the ReEngineering Assessment Project (REAP). The benefits of this research of student group working are reflected in its relevance to an important area in both business and educational environments. Its findings offer an understanding of the research area and have helped develop a series of models that others can use to assist their students understand and use group work and group based technology.

DRIVERS FOR GROUP WORKING AND COLLABORATIVE TECHNOLOGY The working environment of many business organisations has changed significantly over the last ten years. To be successful in a rapidly changing environment companies have to undergo continual transformation by creating cultural and technological structures that both facilitate this transformation and support corporate collaboration [10]. Currently one of the most popular organisation innovations is the transformation of traditional hierarchical organization to a flat structure of self-managing, participative teams or work groups [7]. However, without due care in managing such organisational change this can lead to social and cultural upheaval in organisations. In addition new collaborative technologies such as groupware have been introduced into organisations. This is proving problematical as

Facilitating a Blended Learning Approach to Encourage Collaborative Working…

97

organisations are often still trying to adapt to group working practices. Furthermore, many organisations soon discover that attempts to solve a problem with a technology-based solution alone, is rarely successful. The real problem often lies in the culture of the organisation and the way people work, rather than in the technology itself. As such, an organisation‘s culture may be a major barrier to the changes caused by introducing group working and collaborative technology. However, although the introduction of groupware technology can trigger organisational change, it can also, once implemented, be used as an agent of organisational change. This section will argue that consideration of an organisation‘s culture is a critical driver for effective implementation of both group working practices and collaborative technology. Further, if implemented sympathetically not only can these new ways of working be of benefit for collaboration and the distribution of knowledge in organisations, it can also be used to enhance organisational learning. To this end a review of the literature has been undertaken and a survey of Human Resource managers from various organisations in Scotland has been conducted.

Group Work and Groupware The drive for group work is rooted in how companies organise their work force. The shift towards group work is fuelled by the increasing demands placed on organisations to change in order to meet global challenges. Globalisation, social diversity, information and knowledge explosion and technology are major forces revolutionising organisations around the world. Barker [7] states that,‟ A significant shift is taking place in organisations throughout the world …This shift involves increasing the emphasis on the group or team‟. Even without these forces, others have found simply harnessing the potential power of the group can have a dramatic effect on productivity and job satisfaction. Yet research by some author [30] finds that few organisations and few individuals in them are particularly ready for group working let alone express satisfaction with the way groups are being implemented. The study of organisational culture is also important for research into group work. This is because when group work is introduced it is generally as a new mode of working and as such it will affect the organisational culture. As such changing the organisational culture to one of group working has to be done with a degree of caution. Christiansen [19], when considering culture change, states, „What is important for long-term organisational success may not be a particular type of organisational culture per se, but the ability to effectively manage and change the culture over time to adjust to changes in the situation and needs of the organisation.‟ Kets De Vries [53] offers another view in that, „research has identified effective group work as one of the fundamental elements of highperforming business. Businesses that continue to perform successfully rely on group work as an essential basis for everyday operations‟. However, these authors tend to view the ‗people‘ element in the drive for group work, in a lesser light than the strategic view. For others the rationale for group work is simpler than that. Aspects such as better communication and employee morale are seen as important. For example, Hayes [33] states that, ‗Productivity, quality improvements, client focus, flat management structure, efficient and effective communication, and increased employee morale are the selling points of team-oriented

98

Alan Hogarth

businesses‟. Vaughan [70] takes a similar stance when he says, „Successful teamwork tends to create loyalty, close friendships, and cohesiveness‟. Another important driver is the requirement from industry for employees with group or team work skills. As group working increases in popularity firms have begun to concentrate on finding people with or who are developing team skills. Tarricone and Luca [68] say that, „Employers consistently mention collaboration and teamwork as being a critical skill, essential in all working environments.‟ These authors‘ views are borne out by a number of industry surveys. For example an employer survey by Skillset [67] identified particular gaps in generic competencies, „General ICT literacy; personal and communication skills and teamwork and people skills‟. Furthermore, one of the results of the Future Skills Scotland [28] identified team working skills in short supply. It states, „A number of „softer‟ core skills were mentioned by around half of work places with skill shortages. These were team working skills -48%‟. Also the introduction of technology has brought significant repercussions for the way group work in organisations is perceived and for the way that group work is carried out in organisations. Tung et al [69] argue that, ‟Like the business environment they are in, work groups are changing constantly, to. Groupware being the supporting technology for groups at work needs to be able to assist groups in meeting the challenges posed by the dynamic business environment‟. However, Alexander [3] recognises social issues when he states that, ‗While the proliferation of teamware and virtual conferencing tools has drawn attention to the technological aspects of collaboration the social factors cannot be ignored‟. So there are significant drivers for groupware. However, introducing collaborative technology without the proper rationale and cultural shift is also dangerous. Rifkin [61] offers a note of caution when he says, „Companies that drop collaborative technology into cultures unaccustomed to sharing are in for serious disappointment if they fail to address organisational demands up front…Ultimately, the success of groupware projects depends on people not technology…Its incredible how few companies seem to understand this‟. Despite this cautionary note it appears, from both literature point of view and from the industry sector, the drive for group work and groupware appears to be strong.

Groupware and Organisational Change Essentially groupware technology has been designed to provide the shared space employees require to exercise such values as collaboration, knowledge sharing and teamwork. As such the assumption is that investment in such technology will successfully change organisational communication processes. However many organisations soon discover that attempts to solve a problem with a technology-based solution alone, is rarely successful. The real problem often lies in the culture of the organisation and the way people work, rather than in the technology itself. When an organisation decides to introduce technology such as groupware then organisational change is an inevitable result [2]. Therefore an organisation‘s culture may be a major barrier to organisational changes such as the introduction of group working practices and groupware technology [45], [46]. However, it is how an organisation deals with such change that is important. If it has never been part of an organisation‘s culture to encourage group working then it may be difficult to introduce groupware at least until the working practices have been adapted accordingly. Implementing groupware can be so difficult that some organisations have simply opted to postpone implementing it until they've

Facilitating a Blended Learning Approach to Encourage Collaborative Working…

99

reengineered their processes, reorganised into teams, and solved their organisational issues, [54]. Without considering these changes to the organisational culture, people find little use for groupware technology that reflects new and different cultural assumptions. Therefore, as organisations start to implement groupware, they start seeing people resist, and even sabotage, the groupware project. Another reason why people resist groupware projects is when companies try to use them after downsizing to replace people and to improve productivity. Employees will believe that groupware is just another ploy by the organisation to not only get more out of them, but to even siphon off their knowledge before the next wave of downsizings. It's crucial for employees to know that the organization is implementing groupware to help and support them. Despite this the emphasis on technological aspects when introducing groupware has remained paramount, with cultural aspects still being a secondary consideration. Therefore it is important to change work practices and systems designs together, rather than adapt work practices to Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) that were imposed in organisations [27],[41]. Many organisations still develop systems in ways that lead to a large percentage of implementation failure and few organisations design systems that effectively facilitate peoples‘ work. Nonetheless research is showing that those organisations which introduce ICT systems while considering the cultural impact are more productive than those who do not. It is therefore essential to address all these people issues, and more, before the technological aspects are even considered. One way of resolving these issues is through learning and education. One such study undertaken by this author [41] on educational groupware usage has indicated similar findings. Several groups of undergraduate students, using Blackboard ‗Groups‘ for a group coursework assessment, were asked to complete a questionnaire on their attitude to using such educational groupware. The findings in general indicated that, although they were not averse to such technology, they felt that it was unnecessary for on-campus students, it should not be used by students unfamiliar with ‗traditional‘ group working and that training or guidance was essential.

Encouraging Organisational Learning with Groupware The previous section touched on the issues that lead to resistance to groupware. This section will consider how groupware can not only improve collaboration but also organisational learning in the business environment. For years, an autocratic style of management has been predominant. Today, managers must empower their employees and let them make their own decisions. Companies have finally started to realise that knowledgeable employees are good for business. Managers are letting employees make decisions, expecting them to work together and to accomplish more than individuals. If introduced with due care groupware technology promises to foster new collaborative links and eliminate many of the barriers that have hindered productive communication in the past. Indeed, technology experts are beginning to discern groupware's enormous potential to encourage organisational learning. Until recently institutional education has been the main area where computers have been used for supporting learning while less attention has been paid to learning support in the working environment. However, an early researcher, Zuboff, [73] states, ‗Learning is no longer a separate activity that occurs either before one enters the work place or in remote classroom settings…Learning is not something that requires time out from being engaged in productive activity; learning is the heart of productive activity.‟ Guthrie [31] takes this further when he identifies that, ‗Individual

100

Alan Hogarth

behaviour is recursively related to organisational culture, organisational culture shapes behaviour and behaviour influences and reinforces the culture itself‟. In building a leaning organisation, staff behaviours and the organisational culture must be embedded with the principle of the learning organisation. He summarises this in his Organisational Learning Model, shown in Figure 1. He further argues that groupware would be a suitable tool for constructing a learning organisation. Since learning has become an inseparable part of working, it should be supported in the workplace. The growing use of groupware is a potential resource to support learning at work. Group working practices have increased dramatically and more and more work is now being carried out co-operatively. As such learning in the work place should also be a co-operative task. While groupware obviously offers companies a great many technical capabilities, it is the possibility of transforming organisational behaviour through learning, something groupware can facilitate, that deserves the most attention. Coleman [9] argues that,‟ A lot of people focus on the software side or, at least, initially they did. What they are finding is that it's the group issues--the people issues--that are more critical and more difficult. The focus is turning toward how to deal with these organisational and social issues‟. What is most striking about the technology is not its ability to disseminate existing information, but rather, its potential to facilitate the creation of new knowledge in a collaborative context and help companies better manage their intellectual assets. Such capabilities, say close observers, are the keys to highly effective organisational learning. Scharge, [65] argued that,‟ One of the most important things that these kinds of technologies and infrastructures are doing is that they are making people aware of the difference between the transmission of information--the sharing of expertise--and behavioural change…‟. Scharge then believes companies still tend to treat learning primarily as a static transfer of information from experts to non-experts rather than a dynamic, collaborative effort to add new value and create new knowledge. The previous sections have discussed the effect of groupware on organisations and how, if used innovatively, groupware can act as an agent of change and be used to instigate organisational learning in the business environment, and comment has been made on author‘s views in these areas. Organisational Goals and Objectives CEO‟s Vision

Departmental Goals

Staff Behaviour

Tools and Programs for Organisational Learning

Manager‟s Vision for Obtaining Objectives

Organisational Culture

On-the-ground results

Figure 1. Organisational Learning Model (Source: Guthrie, 1996)

Facilitating a Blended Learning Approach to Encourage Collaborative Working… 101

Human Resource Managers Case Study The argument posed by this paper is that organisational structure and culture and learning are critical to effective implementation of groupware. Group or team working practices must also be present prior to groupware implementation. Although the introduction of groupware technology may trigger organisational change, once implemented it could be used as an agent of change by utilising it as an organisational learning tool. To this end an industry survey has been carried out with Human Resource Managers from various organisations in Scotland from both the private and public sector. 50 questionnaires were sent to these organisations via the postal service. 20 Human Resource managers responded. 20 completed the first part of the questionnaire and 18 completed the second part. The survey questionnaire was designed to elicit information on firstly; „traditional‟ group working practices. The second part of the questionnaire is designed to discover to what extent ICT/ Groupware has been introduced to these organisations and what effect it has had on their working cultures. The Traditional Team Working questionnaire included ten questions. Eight of these questions are of a Yes, No or Unsure nature and the other two offered a series of five options. The respondent is asked to circle their preferred answer. The second part of the questionnaire included nine questions. Eight of these questions are of a Yes, No or Unsure nature and the other one offered a series of 7 (ICT/groupware) options. The respondent is asked to circle their preferred answer. This survey is part of an on-going PhD thesis undertaken by the author. The main argument is that cultural developments are just as important when implementing groupware. Furthermore, group or team working practices and experience must also be present prior to groupware implementation. In addition, employees should be educated in both group working practices and groupware technology. Although the introduction of groupware technology may trigger changes in the learning process technologically due attention must be paid to the social and cultural aspects also. This Human Resource Managers survey investigates these aspects in a real world setting. A summary analysis of the results in Tables 1 and 2 indicates the response rate to the questions from the 20 organisations who returned the questionnaires.

„Traditional‟ Team Working Practices There appears to be widespread use of group/team working practices (all organisations surveyed), however there is some debate as to how effective these practices are. The majority does find it essential and successful, but only six adhere to some form of group work framework. Less than 65% of organisations felt there was no resistance when team working was introduced and few organisations used any specific team working guidelines. It was interesting to note that the majority of organisations had introduced team working over the last 10-15 years as indicated and this is borne out by the trends indicated in the literature. However, only seven of the respondents think their employees see it as essential while the majority thinks their employees see it as worthwhile or only useful. Another important finding was that the vast majority of organisations, 18, indicated that they expected graduates to have been trained in team working prior to working for them although eight respondents did indicate that they offered some form of in-house training. Yet surprisingly for HR managers two were unsure about this.

102

Alan Hogarth Table 1. Summary Findings of ‘Traditional’ Team Working Practices.

„Traditional‟ Team Working Practices Responses Question 1-5 Yes No Unsure Use team working? 20 Team work essential? 17 3 Team work successful? 19 1 Team framework? 6 10 4 Meet resistance? 3 13 4 Questions 7 15y 10y 5y < 5 Unsure Implemented? 4 4 4 1 7 Question 8 Impressions? Essential Worthwhile Useful Unnecessary Unsure 7 7 5 1 Questions 9 & 10 Yes No Unsure Graduates trained? 18 2 In-house training ? 8 10 2

Table 2. Summary Findings of Team Working Technology Practices.

Team Working Technology Responses Question 1 ICT for team work? e-mail chat rooms video-conf. 17 1 5 Internet Intranet none Unsure 8 14 1 1 Question 3 –9 Yes No Unsure Use ICT/Groupware? 6 5 7 Any restructuring ? - 10 8 Integral ? 6 8 4 Successful? 7 2 9 Resistance? 3 4 11 Graduates experience?12 2 4 In-house training? 7 4 7

Facilitating a Blended Learning Approach to Encourage Collaborative Working… 103

Team Working Technology (ICT/Groupware) Practices In general the respondents seem confused as to what ICT/Groupware is. Seven organisations were unsure as to whether it was used, contradicting some Question 1 responses. Question 1 asked specifically what technology was used, a few respondents used more than one on the list, but mainly e-mail was used with intranets being next most popular. Surprisingly only 8 used the Internet for team working activities. 50% of organisations that use some form of this technology seem confused as to whether its introduction did cause some form of change to organisational routines and activities. More than 50% felt that ICT/Groupware was not integral to team working (then why use it?). Further only seven respondents felt that it had been successful. Only 25% felt there had been no resistance to introducing ICT/Groupware. Almost 75% of the respondents felt that graduates should be trained in ICT/Groupware prior to working for them. Four respondents were unsure about this policy which again is surprising in that HR managers may be expected to be involved in such practices. Only six respondents offered any in-house training. Seven respondents were unsure and again training courses would have been expected to be within the remit of HR managers. This does not augur well for using groupware technology for organisational learning. These results should be of interest to businesses who are considering either introducing group working, or if they already have a group work culture, introducing groupware technology. Both the discussion in the literature review and the survey results have shown that group working and consequently group based technology are on the increase. However, when implementing these new ways of working not only technological issues but also cultural ones must be considered prior to following such a course of action. To ignore these cultural aspects can lead to the failure of employees or stakeholders to embrace group work and groupware technology as part of their working practices. This in turn may affect the organisations overall performance. Furthermore the issue of adapting groupware to enhance organisational learning was highlighted. Implementing group work and groupware technology may cause a culture change in an organisation. As such, managing change is an important part of any groupware project. Before implementation, the concerns of those who will take part in the project must be addressed. Failure to do so may cause the implementation to fail. Employees must be allowed to participate in the implementation of this technology and hopefully will then see its worth. Once groupware is in place this can help industry educate their employees when change to the workplace culture is necessary or inevitable. Given that organisations appear to want students who have been previously trained in group technology the next section consider group working and technology in the higher education environment with a view to establishing student interest in such technology.

The Social and Cultural Effects of Using Groupware for Collaborative eLearning Currently one of the most popular organization innovations is the transformation of traditional hierarchical organization to a flat structure of self-managing, participative teams or work groups [7]. While the number of businesses that have adopted group working techniques reflects the depth of this penetration into the business world, even more important is the need for teamwork to be encouraged at university level in an attempt to prepare students for a

104

Alan Hogarth

business environment that emphasises teamwork skills. However, despite this, research suggests that there is little formal recognition and value attached to the acquisition and development of collaborative skills in higher education institutions [44], [42]. Employers want graduates who can communicate and collaborate, and they expect universities and colleges to provide training in these skills. Kuiper [55] suggests that teaching total quality management (of which teamwork is an essential component) exposes „students to practices they are likely to experience when they enter the work force‟ and that the praxis of teamwork concepts in the classroom „can empower students to take a more active role in the teaching/learning process‟. Other authors recommend the use of electronic mail to facilitate teamwork in classrooms: „Email can help make group projects more practical and effective by allowing individuals to interact continuously independently with one another‘ [4]. Whereas, Ciborra [20] suggests that the use of groupware, of which electronic mail is one component, enables teachers to „help their students adapt to a workgroup environment‟. He further suggests that, in order to prepare students for participation in the business world, tutors should facilitate „frequent collaboration among persons in a work group‟, and should promote „techniques and procedures requisite to being effective team members and leaders‟. Teamwork must be taken seriously as it can alter the culture and social structure of some university classrooms affecting the very ways in which knowledge is conveyed. Furthermore, new technology is becoming central rather than peripheral to higher education, as new elearning materials are developed and further change is inevitable. Indeed, the Dearing Report [24] into higher education in the UK emphasises the need for 'communication and information technology' to be the new framework upon which the 'learning society‘ will be built. This section will consider not only the technological, but also the social and cultural changes that collaborative technologies may bring about in the university environment. To progress this investigation a case study was carried out with a group of 3rd year undergraduate ‗campus based‘ students at Glasgow Caledonian University to elicit their views on group technology for learning. To this end the Blackboard VLE ‗Groups‘ facility was used.

Engendering Collaborative Working Skills in the Educational Environment The terms collaborative learning and cooperative learning are important for this research. However, defining the differences could prove difficult, but an attempt should be made in order to clarify aspects of this paper in regard to group working in the educational environment. Panitz [60] states that, ‗Collaboration is a philosophy of interaction and personal lifestyle whereas cooperation is a structure of interaction designed to facilitate the accomplishment of an end product or goal‟. Whereas, Myers [59] asserts that, ‗Supporters of cooperative learning tend to be more teacher centred...collaborative learning advocates distrust structure and allow students more say in forming friendship and interest groups‟. Rockwood [62] states that, ‗Most importantly, in cooperative, the authority remains with the instructor… in collaborative, the instructor, once and the task is set, transfers all authority to the group. Many authors have debated this issue; however for the purposes of this paper this author proposes the following working definition of collaboration: „Collaborative learning respects and highlights group members‟ abilities and contributions. The underlying premise of collaborative learning is based upon consensus building through co-operation by group members. The interpersonal and interactive nature of small groups make them a challenging

Facilitating a Blended Learning Approach to Encourage Collaborative Working… 105 vehicle for engaging students in their own learning. Furthermore there is strong historical evidence from some students themselves that they benefit from and enjoy the experience in a range of different ways [58], [48]. These issues are emphasised in the Dearing Report into higher education and by Cubie when he states that „across all sectors employers do highlight weak communication skills, lack of commercial awareness, poor team work, lack of motivation…. as the major weaknesses of graduates‟ [24]. As Cubie [23] shows, group skills such as collaboration, reliability and creative problem-solving are seen as important and relevant by students and employers, yet research by Rust (ed.) [64] and Hogarth [42], [43] indicates that students and lecturers have still to be persuaded and assisted in giving academic credit for such skills. As such it is surprising then that few universities train students in how to work in groups or even train academic staff in how to manage student project groups. The next section considers the issues associated with group working and technology.

Group Working with Collaborative Technology How is group working automated? Is it merely the adding of technology to the application of those traditional group theories and approaches to group work advocated by such author as Belbin [9], [10] and Katzenbach [51]? There are many perceived views of what exactly is collaborative technology. For example is it e-mail, the Internet, videoconferencing or groupware? It can be seen that defining how collaborative technology functions can be difficult. However, a common definition of Groupware is computer software designed to facilitate the work of groups. Brinck, [15] highlights the most common reasons people use Groupware technology and Coleman [21] simplifies this when he defines groupware as „computer-mediated collaboration that increases the productivity or functionality of person-to-person processes‟. The emphasis on technological aspects when introducing groupware has remained paramount, with social and cultural aspects still being a secondary consideration. Research is showing that those organisations which introduce groupware systems while considering not only technical aspects but also the social and cultural impact are more productive than those who do not [42], [43]. This emphasis on technical aspects is also reflected in educational establishments where Virtual Learning Environment (VLE) packages such as Blackboard and WebCT are being introduced in an ad hoc basis with little regard as to how these may affect the learning environment. However as the next section will demonstrate the pressure is on universities to implement these VLEs as speedily as possible.

Collaborative Learning with Virtual Learning Environments (VLEs) VLEs are essentially tools, which are being encouraged for teaching and learning in a technological environment. The groupware element of VLEs allows students to work on projects in small, collaborative groups; engage in classroom discussion; access their own discussion board and virtual or real-time chat facilities e.g. Blackboard Groups facility; access reference materials and meet their instructor for individual conferences. This opens up the potential for collaborative projects and communications between different groups of learners. Despite the emphasis on the technological aspects of VLEs they are now recognised

106

Alan Hogarth

as a key component within any learning and teaching strategy in Higher Education. However they are not without their problems.

The Problem of Virtual Learning Environments (VLEs) Classroom teaching is structured both spatially and temporally the lecturer‘s presence and voice are powerful devices for focusing attention and directing activity. However, on-line tutors do not have the automatic structure that regular classroom meetings have and the unity that comes from meeting in the same physical cannot be recuperated in a distance setting. There are a number of reasons as to why VLEs have been utilised in many institutions. Ever increasing student numbers is one aspect of Higher Education where it is claimed VLEs can help. In terms of widening participation VLEs can provide support and resources to say, part time students who can‘t always travel to the campus. However there are also ‗political‘ motivations in using these products. The British government wishes an increase in ICT for learning and funding is given to institutions for VLE technology and these products are purchased. Unfortunately in many cases they are purchased without much consideration given to how they will be actually implemented. Thus many institutions at present use these products such as Blackboard or WebCT as mere repositories for lecture ‗handouts‘. What appears to be lacking in institutions are proper requirements studies, resources for staff and follow up training for staff and students on how to use these products [53], [33]. In order to choose a VLE you must therefore draw up a list of requirements and reasons for using the technology. Unfortunately in most cases this requirements process seems to be being ignored.

Possible Benefits of Using Groupware (in VLEs) for Student Project Groups Student groups may experience some perceived benefits when they use Groupware. For example, the software may facilitate communication, thereby increasing group efficiency. Group members may share problems they encounter during a project at any time, not just when they meet physically. In addition keeping group members aware of the project‘s progress in real time may lessen the consequences of problems. Group members may be more likely to succeed at group tasks if difficulties are easily shared and requests for help are considered by all group members eg. group members who might not be willing to ask a question in a meeting might be more willing to ask via Groupware; group members who might not be willing to share their knowledge in a meeting might be more willing to help out via Groupware. All of these potential benefits make the concept of Groupware for students very appealing. However, while exposure to new technologies such as Groupware is expected to be helpful to students, the extent to which it decreases group problems in a classroom setting depends on whether or not students embrace the technology. The results of the following case study indicate that not all students are convinced by this technology. The next sections will introduce Blackboard and then discuss and analyse the results of the groupware technology survey based on students‘ views of the technology.

Facilitating a Blended Learning Approach to Encourage Collaborative Working… 107

Blackboard „Groups‟ Facility Case Study Coupled with the above literature search in order to progress this research a case study survey has been carried out with a group of ‗campus based‘ 3rd Year Business Information Management Students from Glasgow Caledonian University. This survey considered the effect of groupware technology in an educational setting (Blackboard „Groups‟), specifically for managing and developing a coursework task. The survey questionnaire is designed to elicit information on technology (hardware/software) access, availability and usage; group working experience; experiences in using groupware technology. The main argument here is that not only technological but also social and cultural developments are important to the collaborative learning environment. And are critical to effective implementation of educational groupware. Group or team working practices and experience must also be present prior to groupware implementation. In addition, personnel (students and staff) must be educated in both group working practices and groupware technology. Although the introduction of groupware technology may trigger changes in the learning process technologically due attention must be paid to the social and cultural aspects also. The Blackboard VLE has been gradually introduced to Glasgow Caledonian University over the past two years. Currently it is still mainly being used by students as a repository for lecture notes, seminar material and assessment material. Staff has the option of attending a number of training courses. To date the Groups facility has not been used extensively nor have any student views been elicited on this group technology until now. A case study survey has been carried out with 27 ‗campus based‘ 3rd Year Business Information Management Students from Glasgow Caledonian University. The sample comprises 3 males aged 18-25; 21 females aged 18-25; 1 female aged 26-34 and 2 females aged 35 and above. Previous research by the author has included case studies on ‗traditional‘ group working with students [38] and group working and group working technology with business [41]. This survey now considers the effect of groupware technology in an educational setting (Blackboard „Groups‟), specifically for managing and developing a coursework task. The survey questionnaire is designed to elicit information on technology (hardware) access, availability and usage; group working experience; experiences in using groupware technology (‗Groups‘). The following is a discussion of the results of the aforementioned case study and are depicted in Table 1, Table 2 and Table 3. Initially 25% of the students state that they did not find working in groups a beneficial experience at all. When asked how the group contacted each other during the project there was a mixed response. However the majority, 22, said they met in person, with 16 saying the contacted members by text message. It was interesting to note that only 8 used e-mail. When they did meet in person their preferred times were midmorning, 16, and early afternoon, 20. These responses appear to indicate that the groups met when they had free time between formal classes. When asked if they had difficulty arranging meetings only 4 students said they had, 5 students stated they had difficulty finding time to meet with their group and 7 felt they had difficulty finding a place to meet. The majority of students obviously felt happy about the above situations, however if even one student has problems with these issues then that could lead to problems within the group. It is for these students that the use of „Groups‟ could be beneficial. In Section 2 of the questionnaire the students were asked about the technology and the procedures pertinent to their use of Blackboard „Groups‟.

108

Alan Hogarth Table 1. Summary Findings of Section 1of Questionnaire

Section 1a: General questions Response 1: Have you worked on Group projects before 2: Was it beneficial? Section 1b: Questions Related to MBIS Coursework 3: How did you normally contact group members? In person Phone Calls Texting e-mail 22 6 16 8 (Some groups used more than one means of contact) 4: When was the best time for the group to meet? Mid morning Early afternoon Evenings Weekends 16 20 0 0 (Some groups met on both morning and afternoon) 5: Did you have difficulty arranging meetings with other members? 6: Did you have difficulty finding a common meeting time? 7: Did you have difficulty finding a common meeting place? 8: Did you find it difficult to exchange files?

Yes 24 20

No 3 7

Yes 4

No 3

5

22

7

20

2

25

Table 2. Summary Findings of Section Use of Blackboard ‘Groups’ Section 2: Access to/time spent on Blackboard „Groups‟ 9: How do you gain access to a computer? Home PC Computer Lab Laptop Other 21 23 4 0 (Some groups used a combination) 10: Did you use e-mail to contact group members? 11: Until this coursework project had you ever used any groupware products such as Blackboard ‗Groups‘ for group project work? 12: Did you have difficulty getting access to a computer in order to use Blackboard ‗Groups‘? 13: How often did you use ‗Groups‘ Regularly Daily Weekly Monthly 11 4 9 3

Yes 10

No 17

20

7

20

7

Facilitating a Blended Learning Approach to Encourage Collaborative Working… 109 A variety of responses were given to question on how they accessed a computer for their group coursework. The majority, 23 students, either used the Computer lab or a Home PC, 21 students, or both. The computer lab usage tends to bear out that the groups met or worked on their coursework between formal classes. However the fact that 21 had access to a Home PC might have indicated they may have found „Groups‟ useful. However only 10 students in total indicated that they used e-mail to contact group members while the majority, 17 students, did not. When asked if they had used a groupware product before for project work, surprisingly, 20 said yes, but 20 also responded that they had difficulty getting access to a computer in order to use „Groups‟. This seems to contradict the earlier responses where the majority of students claimed to have either access to a computer lab or a Home PC. (All students are attached to Blackboard for their modules and are allocated lab time so access should not have been a problem.). When specifically asked the frequency of use of „Groups‟ 11 students used it as required, 4 on a daily basis, 9 on a weekly basis and 3 on a monthly basis. The next part of the questionnaire concentrates on „Groups‟ facilities. Only 33% of students said they used Discussion Board. However, most of them, 8 out of 9, did think it useful. Only 8% of respondents, 2 students, said they used Virtual Classroom‟, but again they found it useful. It is surprising that as many as 25 students did not use this facility as it is core to „Groups‟. One reason could be that, as the majority of respondents stated earlier, they mostly contact each other by physically meeting or by texting. In response to the use of File Exchange only 16% of students said they used it. Again this could be because they meet physically to exchange material. Oddly enough when asked if they used 'Send e-mail‟ over 50% said that they did. Despite the lack of usage of some of the facilities 66% of students felt comfortable meeting other group members electronically. However, that does leave a sizeable minority, 33%, who were uncomfortable with this medium. Furthermore less students, 56%, felt comfortable. Whereas a slight increase, 44%, felt uncomfortable using „Groups‟. Despite these responses it appears that a majority, 59%, of students felt „Groups‟ helped them communicate better. In regard to eliminating the problems of physical location and times for meetings the majority 59% felt that „Groups‟ did not particularly help. The next question asked students whether „Groups‟ should be used more for student project work in the university. Given some of the earlier responses it was surprising to note that 81% of the students replied that it should. When asked why not 19% commented that it should not. This set of responses to Q22, as shown in Figure 2, appears to correspond to the earlier responses in relation to time and place of meetings. Essentially if students see each other regularly on campus then they do not see a use for facilities such as „Groups‟. The next question asked the students to summarise what they saw to be the benefits and pitfalls of using ‗Groups‘. Some comments are shown in Figure 3. The set of responses to Q23 in Figure 3 sheds some light on the earlier yes/no answers. In general the students appear to think that „Groups‟ is a good thing particularly for communication when members may be ill or unable to attend face to face meetings. However, as most of these students are ‘on campus‘ they do not see the need to use „Groups‟ extensively as they are in contact with other group members on a daily basis. Difficulty in getting access to computer equipment is also seen as a pitfall. The next question asks if they felt that groupware in general enhances student group working. 78% of respondents felt that it did, but when asked if they would want groupware technology to replace face-to-face student group meetings only 11% viewed this favourably. The majority, 89%, was against this idea. Nonetheless, when the students were asked if training in „Groups‟ would be beneficial, the majority, 89%, replied that it would be beneficial.

110

Alan Hogarth Table 3. Summary Findings of Section 3 of Questionnaire:Use of ‘Groups’

Section 3: Use of Blackboard „Groups‟ Facilities 14: Did you use ‗Group Discussion Board‟ for coursework project? Useful? 15: Did you use ‗Group Virtual Classroom‟ for coursework project? Useful? 16: Did you use ‗File Exchange‟ for coursework project? Useful? 17: Did you use ‗Send e-mail „ for coursework project? 18: Overall did you feel comfortable meeting with Members of your group electronically? 19: Did you feel comfortable using Blackboard ‗Groups‘for your coursework project? 20:Do you feel that ‗Groups‘ helped the group communicate better when carrying out the Coursework? 21: Did using ‗Groups‘ specifically alleviate the problems associated with arranging meetings at specific times in specific physical locations? 22: Do you think ‗Groups‘ should be used more for Project work in the university? If No why not? (See comments later). 23: Briefly Summarise what you perceive to be thebenefits or pitfalls of using Groups‘ for group project work? (See comments later) 24: Do you think Groupware enhances student group working 25: Would you want Groupware technology to replace face-toface student group meetings? 26: Do you think training in ‗Groups‘ would be beneficial?

Yes 9

No 18

8 2

1 25

2 4 4 14 18

25 23 23 13 9

15

12

16

11

11

16

22

5

21 3

6 24

24

3

The problem in conceptualising group learning is to identify and maximise the pedagogical possibilities that distinguish it from traditional group work in the classroom. This is also the challenge in using VLEs such as Blackboard for group working: to avoid the temptation to replicate the traditional group environment and instead to focus on realising the teaching and learning experiences that VLEs make possible. Encouraging students to use VLEs, particularly the groupware elements, cannot be taken lightly. Firstly the students must see a need for this type of technology. If they do not they will not see its worth and refuse to use it. As such this technology cannot be introduced without first thinking of the social and cultural consequences of group working. Introducing technology into an unstable group working environment may make things worse. The results of the above case study have demonstrated that students are not averse to technology such as „Groups‟ being introduced, but again they must see a need for it. However, it is also evident that this might not be the best technology for on campus students. Action that academic institutions must take prior to

Facilitating a Blended Learning Approach to Encourage Collaborative Working… 111 introducing such technology is carrying out a requirements study with those students that they wish to use the technology. The majority of organisations expect graduates to have been trained in both group working and in groupware prior to them being employed. This indicates that these organisations do not appear to appreciate the benefits of groupware for facilitating organisational learning. Essentially groupware should not be introduced into an organisation that is not used to a group work culture. Training should not only be about how to use the technology, but also how such technology can alter the working culture of the organisation.

Comments: 1„Our group preferred meeting face-to-face‟ 2„If you are in the same classes as your group members then you have the same time off to meet up. The only reason it could be useful is if one member was off for a long period of time‟. 3„The main (Blackboard) discussion board is more helpful, as you have feedback and discussion from the entire course of student than just the limited group who meet regularly anyway. Blackboard is useful as a means of gaining coursework and discussion boards, „Groups‟ not as useful.‟ 4„Find meeting face-to-face more productive.‟ We (the group) didn‟t use the groupware as we saw each other on a daily basis.‘ 5 „ I found the use of „Groups‟ very good. I was unable to meet up with the group due to illness however, I was still able to be part of the meeting, by using my PC at home.‟

Figure 2. Sample Responses to Q22

Figure 2: Sample Responses to Q22

Comments: 1Not seeing people face to face, met up everyday didn‟t need virtual classroom, couldn‟t always find a computer to do the work.‟ 2Used to meeting personally in same classes so we might not need iCan be difficult to use „Groups‟ when your not used to itCould be good when people can‟t meet‟ 3„Positive – if not able to meet in person, groups a good way to exchange info. Negative - when group members do not know how to access and operate „ „groups!‟ 4„Easy to communicate; Not many people know how to use it so you are better arranging face-to-face meetings‟ 5„I think it could be beneficial for groups who do not see each other on a daily basis. However as we were saw each other every day we did not feel the need to use „Groups‟ very often.‟ 3. SampleResponses Responses to Q23 Figure Figure 3: Sample to Q23

112

Alan Hogarth

The next step is to fully integrate these results with the other theoretical and practical research findings. The original outcome of this research will, after the analysis and synthesis of the results of these findings, be a conceptual framework that will allow for the inclusion of stakeholders in the implementation (including training guidelines) of groupware technology into business organisations and educational institutions. New Conceptual Paradigms for Introducing Group Work and Group Based Technology in the Higher Education Environment As can be seen from the previous sections the area of group work and group based technology research is of value in that group and team work skills are seen as important to both industry and education. However, the research also shows that there are major issues that have to be considered when introducing group work to organisations. These issues which include cultural, social, technological and educational are considered within this research. The purpose of this research was to gain a deeper understanding of the attitudes of university students to group work and group based technology. Group work and group technology was also considered in an industry setting as this was seen as an important pre-requisite to the study of student group work. The outcome of this section is, based on the findings and recommendations, to propose a series of conceptual models for the introduction of group work and group based technology into the Higher Education environment. The resulting paradigms include a Conceptual Framework for Student Group Work Guidance and Training, a Traditional Group Work Skills Integrative Training Paradigm and a Group Based Technology Skills Integrative Training Paradigm. The conceptual frameworks proposed in this paper are the results of the author‘s original research into group working and group based technology

RESEARCH CONCLUSIONS Although the original objectives of this research were; Investigate the theory and practice of group work and group based technology in industry; Critically assess the rationale and barriers to student group work and group based technology; Investigate the attitudes of students‘ to the implementation of group work and group based technology in the university environment; Make recommendations on the cultural and technological impact of group work on students in the university environment, this section will not only refer to, as stated above, the author‘s literature survey [47], [44] and the empirical work [41], [40] but also the bulk of the discussion in this paper will comprise the findings, conclusions and recommendations of the author‘s research into this area and offer a way forward in the form of conceptual paradigms. The next section will discuss the empirical findings and offer conclusions based on those findings. Firstly, from the literature review, [38] it was established that the use of group working and group based technology are increasing in both the business and educational sectors. This research highlighted a number of issues. These included the definition of group work and group based technology (this was difficult to achieve, but based on his research the author proposed his own definitions) rationale for group work (strategic issues, work place issues, employers‘ requirements and technology developments), group work culture, team building, group roles and member interaction and group based technology (groupware, social and

Facilitating a Blended Learning Approach to Encourage Collaborative Working… 113 cultural issues and virtual teams). It was also highlighted that both employees‘ and students‘ attitudes to group working are major factors in the success or failure of group working. To this end it was emphasised that a study of group working in the business environment be undertaken as a necessary prelude to researching student attitudes.

Conclusion 1 The first conclusion that can be made relates to group work in industry. The literature [38] recognises that a number of issues are important when considering implementing a group work culture. However, they are not universally adopted by business organisations. This was demonstrated in the responses from the Human Resource managers‘ survey in that although many of the organisations did facilitate some form of group work practice and also applied some form of group technology there was evidence of a lack of confidence. For example, some organisations experienced resistance to change and the majority expected students to be trained in group work (and its technology) prior to working for them. It can be concluded that some of the important aspects of group work identified and emphasised in the literature do not always hold out in practice. Therefore the main conclusion that can be drawn on these issues is not that group work is flawed as an approach to working, but that, „Confusion and misunderstanding exists as to how group working practices and group based technology should be introduced into organisations from a social, cultural and a technological point of view‟. This research has shown that, in both theory and practice, group working and group based technology, have been introduced into certain organisations without due care and attention.

Conclusion 2 The drivers that support the introduction of group working in HE include educational (learning, teaching, and assessment), government policy, industry requirements and technological advancements. Yet in practice, when investigating the attitudes of students‘ to the implementation of group work and group based technology they were largely unaware of the importance of these issues. Many students, although unhappy with certain aspects of group working, felt they had no choice and accepted that group working was part of their course. They were involved in group working for assessment, group work was compulsory and only certain students had used group technology (this was not compulsory). They were also unclear as to the exact purpose of this technology in relation to their coursework. They were also unaware of the drive to introduce such technologies even though there is much literature on the drive for the introduction of this type of technology [49], [35]. In terms of the rationale for student group working there is a contradiction between the literature, industry and what students actually think of group work and group based technology. Therefore, the conclusion that can be drawn from the findings on the issue of a rationale for student group work is that, ‗A lack of understanding of the need for group work and group based technology, from a cultural, educational and employment point of view, is the reason why students do not fully embrace group working‟

114

Alan Hogarth

Conclusion 3 There are many possible barriers to student group work in Higher Education (HE). These barriers include organisational culture, communication, team roles, conflict, groupthink and technology. Added to these are barriers specific to the educational environment such as pedagogy, collaborative or cooperative learning, tutor involvement (or lack of), student team building and socialisation. However one of the most important barriers to the acceptance of student group work and its technology was the lack of training or guidance offered to students in collaborative learning. They were basically left to build the team themselves without any guidance. When conducting the first section of the case study (Group Development Questionnaire, Generic Groupware Questionnaire) and Group Interviews with the student groups many of the responses confirmed that the aforementioned barriers did hinder group success. Even one disaffected student in a group can upset the group dynamics and this was inherent in a number of groups. Complaints about the non-participation of other members, dominant personalities, lack of planning and focus on the assessment goal, inability to meet in time or place, lack of effective group decision making and the problems of technology access were typical responses that led to disagreement and conflict. The results of this section of the case study with respect to barriers to student group working, is that it cannot be taken for granted that students will automatically work in groups without any prior knowledge of group work practices. Therefore, the conclusion that can be drawn from this research into barriers to student group working is that, „The main barrier preventing successful student participation in group work is a lack of a detailed training and guidance model. Such a model requires training and guidance in cultural, social and educational aspects of „„how to work in groups‟‟. In this section of the case study student responses indicated that they were unsure as to how to conduct themselves when in a group work culture. The responses also indicated students felt that training was necessary and desirable.

Conclusion 4 Barriers to the introduction of group based technology for assessment were also identified in the literature review. These included traditional group issues such as team building, team roles, socialisation and communication, but with the added dimension of having to be implemented online. The move from traditional face-to-face meeting to online conferencing was seen as a major culture change. Issues of communication and socialisation online were identified as major barriers in this environment and that they must be addressed prior to implementing this technology. The responses of the students to the Blackboard Groups Questionnaire highlighted that barriers to the use of such technology still exists [41]. Virtual Learning Environments (VLEs) were advocated as one of the main drivers in encouraging online collaborative learning. Yet research in the literature shows that many of these products such as First Class and WEBCT are not being utilised effectively and often viewed as unnecessary by students. The majority of students felt that they would prefer a blended approach of traditional group activities e.g. meeting face-to-face as well as the technology. However, the majority also indicated that they needed training in the use of this technology. There is no training offered at GCU in VLEs. Therefore, the conclusion that can be drawn from this research into barriers to student group working is that, „The main barrier preventing

Facilitating a Blended Learning Approach to Encourage Collaborative Working… 115 successful student appreciation of group based technology is a lack of a detailed training and guidance model that should include cultural, social, educational and technological perspectives, for preparing students how to, not only use group based technology, but also to understand the educational benefits of utilising this technology‟. Furthermore, trying to introduce group based technology into an HE institution where the students are not familiar with a culture of traditional group working practice could be seen as remiss. In the next section a series of conceptual paradigms developed by author are proposed.

RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE FINDINGS In this section recommendations based on the findings of this research are offered. It was particularly important that consideration should be given to social, cultural, educational and technological issues. Therefore from conclusions 1 and 2 the first recommendation is that ‗management and university tutors should make employees in business organisations and students in educational institutions aware of why group working and consequently group based technology are being introduced‟. In other words justify the rationale for these modes of working in a clear and unambiguous manner. This recommendation would accrue a number of benefits. It would remove any misunderstanding about organisational intentions (in the business world) and teaching, learning and assessment issues (in the education environment). They would also feel part of the process and offer less resistance to the implementation of these working practices. From conclusions 3 and 4 it is recommended that the main barrier, causing a negative attitude to and preventing successful student participation in group work and group based technology, be removed by the introduction of a training and guidance model. This would be aimed at helping students prepare for these modes of teaching and learning from the earliest stages of their degree course. Topics to be covered would include educational rationale, group culture, socialisation in groups, and technology issues.

Proposed Conceptual Frameworks These recommendations are shown in Figure 4 Conceptual Framework for Student Group Work Guidance and Training and impart the core of the conclusions and recommendations. The diagram highlights that each of the recommendations flows to offer a model that HE institutions can implement to help their students prepare for group working and group based technology. The model would be integrated into the university‘s teaching and learning strategy. As a starting point the university should produce a detailed policy on student group working including group based technology. This policy should include the rationale for group working (educational, employment, government requirements and technological). Coupled with this a document should also be produced highlighting the training and guidance in group working skills that will be offered to students. Containing guidance for students on working in a group culture, socialisation in groups, educational advantages of group work and group based technology (teaching and learning issues and practical use (Blackboard)). A section of this document should then contain specific training

116

Alan Hogarth

activities under the sub-sections Traditional Group Work Skills and Group Based Technology Skills. These are illustrated in Figure 5 and Figure 6 to include the important issues highlighted in the literature review and the empirical research.

Possible Business Benefits As established, group work and group based technology are important for both business and academia. As such the findings in this paper coupled with the proposed frameworks should be of interest to both business organizations and educational institutions. The main findings of the research are that although industry has facilitated group working for a number of years it is still not confident with group technology. This was demonstrated in the responses from the industry survey. It can be concluded that some of the important aspects of group work identified in the literature do not always hold out in practice. It was found that students were also uncomfortable with some aspects of group work e.g. dynamics, conflict, communication, team building issues [41]. They were also unsure of the need or purpose of group based technology. These drivers for group work were highlighted as important in the literature review [38]. Yet in practice, when investigating the attitudes of students‘ they were largely unaware of their importance. Many students felt they had no choice and accepted that group work was part of their course. They were also unaware of the drive to introduce VLEs. The many possible barriers to student group work in an HE institution were also identified and discussed. Therefore the frameworks proposed by the author should help students, employers and employees appreciate the benefits of group work and group based technology leading in turn to more efficient and cost effective use of teams and prepare graduates for the teamwork ethos. It is acknowledged that the size of the samples may considered small, but the concept of relatability can be applied whereby the findings of these samples may be used by others conducting similar studies. The Conceptual Frameworks produced provides new knowledge on the issues considered to be essential to encourage the involvement of students in the group learning process in an HE institution.

Technology Enhanced Learning in Higher Education As established previously the area of learning, teaching and assessment in education and industry has historically been facilitated by traditional classroom teaching by a teacher in a face-to-face setting. However, the introduction of learning technology is altering the way in which students learn (and tutors teach). With the increasing use of Virtual Learning Environments (VLEs) a more student-centred approach is being encouraged. However, this in turn leads to a change in the learning and teaching culture from the classroom student to one of, on the one hand, the ‗independent elearner‘ and on the other, ‗the group worker‘. Either way the student has to adapt to a new way of learning and teaching. However not all institutions, organisations and students are prepared for this change. Some have taken active steps to train staff and students in this technology whereas others have not. One institution that has encouraged the use of VLEs is Glasgow Caledonian University (GCU). However, VLEs are not the only tools available. This section considers an idea by the author and considers how this may be realised. To this end an innovative proposal is posited. It discusses

Facilitating a Blended Learning Approach to Encourage Collaborative Working… 117 how a traditionally taught module may be converted to an eLearning format using some form of ‗blended learning‘ by adopting facilities such as groupware, vidcasts, podcasts, eSeminars and Blogs as well as VLEs in tandem with traditional face-to-face teaching. This project was funded by the Re-Engineering Assessment Project (REAP) and initially involves a pilot questionnaire survey of a group students who are undertaking the traditional module.

GCU Teaching and Learning Strategy

……..

Educational

Employment

Traditional Group Work Skills

Publicise Student Group Work Policy

……..

Rationale

Government

Student Group Work Guidance and Training

Technology

Group Based Technology Skills

Figure 4. Conceptual Framework for Student Group Work Guidance and Training

118

Alan Hogarth Traditional Group Work Skills Training

Culture Change

Manage Change

Team Building

Social

Assessment & evaluation

Group Dynamics & Roles

Group formation

Educational

Communication

Trust v Conflict

Collaborative & Cooperative Learning

Product & Process

Individual v Group

Figure 5. Traditional Group Working Skills Integrative Training Paradigm Group Based Technology Skills Training

Social

Culture Change

Manage Technology change

Virtual Team Building

Face-to-face v online communication

Educational technology

eLearning

Using VLEs

Online Assessment

Student Involvement

Socialisation

Hiding and Lurking

Collaboration online

Figure 6. Group Based Technology Skills Integrative Training Paradigm

Issues in Utilising Learning Technologies The objectives of this section are to consider the issues of concern in producing and using an innovative technology based ‗blended learning‘ mode of teaching compared to traditional teaching practices. Based on this the author proposes an approach for developing and implementing a framework for a teaching module. The purpose of the proposed project then is to attempt to enhance the student learning experience by encouraging ‗independent learning‘ either individually or in groups and to introduce staff to an alternative mode of teaching. To this end it is necessary to consider not only the findings of the research, but also

Facilitating a Blended Learning Approach to Encourage Collaborative Working… 119 review the literature in the area of online learning systems and their impact on HE provision. The findings for this research should hopefully benefit a number of stakeholders including students, staff and also business organisations that employ training schemes as the methods and techniques applied should have a universal benefit. There are many technologies being researched that can be used to facilitate and stimulate online education. These include Blogging, WiKi, podcasting, Compendium software and Web 2.0 in general. The effect of these approaches was recently discussed at ‗The Shock of Social‟ workshop at Oxford University in March 2007. However, despite these the most common tools applied for eLearning in universities are Virtual Learning Environments (VLEs). Barajas and Owen, [6] define VLEs as,‟ any combination of distance and face-to-face interaction, where some kind of time and space virtuality is present‟. Coupled with this technology, particularly with collaborative work, they must also involve communication and socialisation. Laister and Kober [56] state that,‟ Successful virtual collaborative learning and working generally depends on the combination of formal, social and technical skills‟. However, there are issues, just like in a face-to-face environment, in a given conference, some students may lack the confidence to assert themselves in public, some may not have studied the assignments and some may be afraid they will embarrass themselves. Therefore a social environment online is necessary. This is emphasised by Abell [1] when he notes that, „A rich online social environment minimises feelings of isolation and supports effective collaboration. Trust and comfort are pre requisites for creating a rich social environment‟. However, taken separately, communications, content delivery and even assessment can be delivered via the Web without the need for a VLE. Since a VLE ties all these technologies into one product (environment) and coordinates the information seamlessly it is argued that it should be able to offer more than any of the individual technologies. Nonetheless, this need not always be the case. The next section considers the reasons for VLEs in HE and considers some alternatives.

Drivers for Learning Technologies As identified in previous sections there are a number of factors in Higher Education which it is argued VLEs can help with and these include, increasing student numbers, automated assessment, widening participation and improved access to limited resources. The British Government has encouraged all universities to implement VLEs such as Blackboard and WebCT this was partly driven by the findings of the Dearing Report [24] which emphasised the need for 'communication and information technology' to be the new framework upon which the 'learning society‟ will be built‟. However, the most important driver suggested for choosing a VLE is that it will give enhanced benefits to traditional faceto-face teaching and learning. Based on the author‘ own experiences, VLEs can be viewed as online domains that permit synchronous, collaborative interaction among instructors and students, while also providing asynchronous learning resources for individualised use by students at any time. At GCU students have used Blackboard for some time, but at varying levels of functionality depending on staff preparation and enthusiasm. However, the main problem is that the introduction of such learning environments was a fait accompli with lecturing staff and students having no say in the management decision to facilitate this technology [39]. The author is obliged to use Blackboard at GCU and because of this are not

120

Alan Hogarth

encouraged to use any other learning technology. This was a major factor in the author‘s decision to consider the possibility of introducing a less formal alternative eLearning approach that could be of more benefit to students and staff.

Cultural Concerns with Learning Technology Cultural and social problems may occur online because traditional classroom teaching is structured both spatially and temporally. The very fact that students and instructor meet together in the same room at the same time establishes coherence and identity for the class that serves as the infrastructure for virtually every aspect of the course. Therefore, a more obvious deterrent to VLEs and other learning technology is that tutors becoming online will not have the automatic structure that regular classroom meetings confer on a course. The loss of face-to-face presence is, understandably, one of the most contested issues in online learning. Hara and Kling [32] note that, „Human communication is inherently ambiguous but that these ambiguities are generally resolved adequately in face-to-face contexts‟. Garrison et al [29] agree but comment further when they state, ‟In face to face interaction communication can be entrusted to habit or instinct…communicators in a virtual environment have to „think‟ about their metacommunication‟. The problem then in conceptualising online learning is to identify and maximise the pedagogical possibilities that distinguish it from traditional classroom learning and lead to independent learning. The term ‗independent learning‘ is not new, but it does encourage debate on an exact definition of what it is. Discussions on ‗independent learning‘ are awash with synonyms to describe this term. Kesten [52] lists them as, „autonomous learning, independent study, self-directed learning, student initiated learning, teaching for thinking, learning to learn, self instruction and life-long learning‟. Moreover, this proliferation of terms is made worse by the fact that many author use the same term to mean different things. As Broad [16] says, ‟confusion exists due to the number of terms and possible interpretation of those terms‟. Furthermore, recent reports highlight the fact that undergraduates, „struggle to cope with the independent and self directed style of learning expected by higher education tutors‟, [72]. It can then come as no surprise to discover that students are uncomfortable with independent learning. However the hope of the author in producing their proposal is that the technology involved will encourage the students to at least be more amenable to concept of independent learning. Fundamentally, in encouraging independent learning by implementing teaching and learning in VLEs or other technologies needs competence, by both staff and students, in technological and organisational aspects as well as new skills in facilitating the relevant instructional methods. As such given the other technologies now available for eLearning it may be the case that some form of ‗blended learning‘ could be productive. In his support for this approach Masie, cited in Rossett [63] states that, ‗We are, as a species, blended learners‟. Julian and Boone [50] agree when they argue that, „The importance of a blended approach to learning is that it ensures the widest possible impact of a learning experience…‟ Furthermore, Carman [17] identifies five key ingredients for blended learning including, Live events, Self-paced Learning, Collaboration, Assessment and Performance Support Materials. The author‘ preferred view is that of Whitelock and Jeffs‘[71] who state that blended learning is „the integrated combination of traditional learning with web-based online approaches‟. The next section will discuss the case study which specifically concerns the proposed conversion of a

Facilitating a Blended Learning Approach to Encourage Collaborative Working… 121 traditionally taught third year undergraduate module to one where independent learning is facilitated in a blended learning environment.

The Re-Engineering Assessment Project (REAP) This paper is based on a case study funded by the REAP project within Glasgow Caledonian University. The author‘ proposal is to convert the existing third year undergraduate module from a traditional face-to-face format into a format based on eLearning/blended technologies. The existing module format comprises of 12 lectures, 12 seminars, a clinic and a lab and is of 12 weeks duration. The current assessment is in two parts, group coursework (50%) and a final examination (50%). In general it is envisaged that the changes would encourage independent learning by the students and instigate some degree of online assessment. It is envisaged that some form of ‗blended learning‘ would be involved using Blackboard, Compendium software and social networking technology.

Initial Student Survey and Discussion of Questionnaire Responses Prior to the implementation of the above suggested changes it was deemed essential to elicit an initial student perspective on the proposed changes. To this end a questionnaire was issued to those students currently undertaking module in its traditional mode. The results are shown in Table 4. The response to Q1 is very encouraging where the vast majority (41) of students would support the idea of video lecture. This is somewhat surprising given that so many students are familiar with the traditional face-to-face lecture. Once again the responses to Q2 were encouraging with 35 students supporting the idea of eSeminars. However, a sizeable minority of 10 students, do not support this and this should be considered in the design of the eSeminars. In response to Q3 again the majority of student responses were positive with only 7 against. (It may be assumed that these 7 were part of the 10 who responded negatively to Q2). In response to Q4 the majority, 35 students supported the idea of monitoring individual student contributions to seminars for assessment. Again this should be borne in mind when designing the module. In response to Q5, 42 responded favourably to the concept of a clinic/e-clinic. This may not be surprising as it does offer the students the familiarity of a face-to-face meeting with their tutor. The responses to Q6 were more evenly balanced with 24 students supporting a change of assessment methods to an online format whereas 20 students preferred the traditional approach (group coursework, exam etc.). One student was unsure. Q7 asked those students who responded positively to Q6 to suggest the kind of assessment that they would envisage as being suitable in the eLearning format. The responses were mixed, but in general quite positive. For example some students preferred the idea of multiple choice questions online, S1 „Multiple choice‟; S2 „Multiple choice with class tests throughout the year‟. Others preferred coursework, S11„Coursework rather than exams, assessment would have to be monitored and treated strictly, group work monitored to prevent people not contributing‟; S7 „Group report online‟. Some others suggest a combination of coursework and multiple choice, S10 „Online presentations, submit an online group report, multiple choice timed‟; S9 „Instead of a 4000 word report have 2x2000 0r 4 x1000 (smaller

122

Alan Hogarth

reports encompassing more areas), regular online tests to assess understanding‟. Others are not so sure of coursework online, S16, „not sure about group work assessments‟. Accepting that the questionnaire was not too rigorous there does appear to be general support for the proposed changes to the module from those currently undertaking it. They support the idea of video lectures and seminars, but appear to be less confident in suggesting the most appropriate type of assessment for this mode of learning and teaching.

Proposed Teaching and Learning Structure Based on the author‘ original ideas and enhanced by the student responses the proposed, ‗blended learning,‘ eLearning module structure would be: 12 (online video) lectures, 12 eSeminars (allocated groups of 5 students max, online for ½ hour), and 1 weekly Clinic. Lectures: The lectures would be pre-recorded video presentations (live video when broadband capacity allows) in ‗bite sized chunks‘ of 5-10 minutes duration and would also include PowerPoint Slides, relevant websites, podcasts (of say a case study in the topic area from a practitioner‘s perspective) and seminar material to form the Package for Independent Learning and (PILAT) See Figure 7. The intention is to utilise Compendium software which allows for content management of videos, podcasts etc. Table 4. Student Responses to Questionnaire eLearning Student View questionnaire Results Yes Question 1: Would you support the introduction of video lectures? To replace face-to-face lectures? Question 2: Would you support the introduction of e-seminars (facilitated by Blackboard ‗Groups‘ or similar) to replace traditional seminars? Question 3 Each e-seminar group would comprise of 5 students, would you support this option? Question 4: Would you support the monitoring of student participation in e-seminars to be used as part of the assessment process? Question 5: Would you support the introduction of a clinic/e-clinic where students could still meet their tutor face-to-face? Question 6 Would you support the introduction of online assessment as opposed to traditional methods?

No

41

4

35

10

38

7

35

1

42

3

24

20

(1student unsure) Question 7 If the answer is YES to Q6, what kind of assessment would you envisage as being suitable in this e-learning environment?

Facilitating a Blended Learning Approach to Encourage Collaborative Working… 123 eSeminars: The eSeminars would have to be clearly and logically prepared. For example if there were 100 students on MBIS then they would initially be split into the ‗traditional‘ seminar groups (each of these groups are allocated a tutor). In this scenario there would be 5 groups of 20. Then each of these seminar groups would be sub-divided in to 4 sub-groups of no more than 5 students (eLearner circles). As such each of these sub groups would be attached to Blackboard ‗Groups‘ and allocated a specific time slot where they would be expected to participate in the online seminar discussion. The tutor would act as facilitator and the students‘ participation/contribution will form part of their overall module assessment. It is anticipated that these e-Seminars would run for approximately ½ hour each and as a prerequisite lab times would have to be allocated. However students should be able to participate in the eSeminar regardless of location e.g. home, Internet Café etc. It is hoped that it will be during these eSeminars that ‗independent learning‘ will be most noticeable. See Figure 8.

Pre-recorded video lecture

Powerpoint Slides or (Review notes)

Blackboard (and Compendium) E-Seminar Material Podcasts

Pertinent Websites

Figure 7. Package for Independent Learning and Teaching (PILAT) Figure 7: Package for Independent Learning and Teaching

Clinic: In keeping with the blended learning (PILAT)philosophy it is expected that some manner of regular face-to-face contact remains via the tutor and students the Clinic would be for advice and assistance with any aspect of the module and would be held to maintain a personal link with the students. It is expected that the tutor allocated a group of twenty students (their 4 eSeminar groups) will meet them at this clinic. The university policy dictates that the platform to facilitate the above proposal will be Blackboard (+ Compendium). However, many students are now familiar with collaboration technologies such as internet chat rooms, social spaces such as MySpace, YouTube and ‗mobile‘ technologies used with iPods and mobile phones. This in turn may lead them to expect a similar level of functionality with their online learning and this must be borne in mind when creating and managing the module content.

124

Alan Hogarth

Proposed Assessment Multiple Choice Questions (MCQ) for summative assessment will not fulfil the learning requirements of this level of student. For summative assessments, like examinations, using more powerful software such as Questionmark Perception could be a better option. Blackboard provides some functionality for supporting online assessments, but it also has some limitations when compared to specialist software tools that are devoted entirely to assessment. It is envisaged that part of the assessment would be based on student participation online in the eSeminars. Additionally, given that the majority of student responses to Q7 seem to indicate that they would prefer some form of coursework, a diary/blog could be kept by the students of their online coursework activities that could also be included in the assessment coupled with some form of online presentation (podcast/Webinar) of the results. A suggested marking scheme could be Diary/Blog, 20%; Online Presentation/Webinar, 30%; Final Written Report, 50%. This assessment coupled with perhaps one online MCQ to elicit general understanding of the module content in week 12 of the module should meet assessment criteria for the module. However, at present these are merely proposals, but as assessment may be deemed most important part of the module in the student‘s view more research and experimentation will necessarily be undertaken in order that the most suitable form be presented to the students.

eMBIS: Role,100 students

Five ‗trad‘ seminar groups for admin purposes

Sem 1 Sem 2

Sub group 1

Sub group 2

Sub group 3

Sem 3 Sem 4

Sub group 4

Sem 5

Four sub-groups (e-Learner Circles) of 5 students for Practical eSeminars (one tutor for four sub-groups) – each eSeminar ½ hour duration

eLearner Circles

Figure 8. eSeminar Groups/Activity

This section has considered the issues surrounding the introduction of ‗blended learning‘ into an environment where traditional learning, teaching and assessment methods have been practiced. The use of technology to facilitate independent learning, both individually and in groups, was also discussed from a number of perspectives including the cultural change and the drivers required for such learning technology. The author then proposed a structure for a

Facilitating a Blended Learning Approach to Encourage Collaborative Working… 125 new eLearning based module for third year students. The next phase of the project will be to actually implement and test the proposals. The next section discuses the creation of the blended learning prototype.

A BLENDED APPROACH TO TEACHING UNDERGRADUATE MODULES Due to the wider, more diverse student population there is an obvious need for greater flexibility in curriculum design and course delivery, accompanied by innovations in teaching and learning. A more flexible style of teaching and greater independent learning by students is now required to cope with these changes. The answer would appear to be to encourage independent learning by facilitating a ‗blended learning‘ approach. This paper discusses a blended learning approach, developed by the authors, to teaching undergraduate modules that encourage students to undertake independent learning in a practical and non-threatening manner. This approach is based on the utilisation of aspects of traditional teaching, VLEs and Web 2.0 technologies. The model discussed in this section is the culmination of the project funded by the Re-Engineering Assessment Project (REAP) which initially involved the questionnaire survey of a group students who were undertaking the traditional module from which a proposal for the ‗blended learning‘ model was posited. The initial research and idea for a prototype was undertaken in 2006/2007 and the prototype proposed in this paper was developed, based on that research, in the summer of 2007. The next objective is that the findings for this research should hopefully benefit a number of stakeholders including students, staff and also business organisations that employ training schemes as the methods and techniques applied should have a universal benefit. Another objective for any research is to define the terms used in that research. As such it is important to derive a working definition of the main terms in this research, namely ‗independent learning‘ and ‗blended learning‘. The ‗blended learning‘ model should ultimately alleviate the time, space and geographical location problem of accommodating large numbers of students.

The Importance of Independent Learning and Blended Learning The term ‗independent learning‘ is not new, but it does encourage debate on an exact definition of what it is. Discussions on independent learning are awash with synonyms to describe this term. Kesten [52] lists them as, „autonomous learning, independent study, selfdirected learning, student initiated learning, teaching for thinking, learning to learn, self instruction and life-long learning‟. Moreover, this proliferation of terms is made worse by the fact that many authors use the same term to mean different things. As Broad [16] says, ‟confusion exists due to the number of terms and possible interpretation of those terms‟. Furthermore, recent reports highlight the fact that undergraduates, „struggle to cope with the independent and self directed style of learning expected by higher education tutors‟, [72]. Given this it can then come as no surprise to discover that students are uncomfortable with independent learning. However the hope of the authors of this paper is that the technology involved in their model will encourage the students to become independent learners. In order

126

Alan Hogarth

that independent learning is successful it will be important that staff and students are competent in VLEs and other learning technologies. Coupled with this they will need new skills in facilitating the relevant instructional methods. There are many views on what blended learning is. However, like so many terms within this field it remains ill-defined. For example, Whitelock & Jeffs [71] offer three definitions, „the integrated combination of traditional learning with web-based online approaches; the combination of media and tools employed in an e-learning environment and the combination of a number of pedagogic approaches, irrespective of learning technology use.‟ Also, in his support for this approach Masie, cited in Rossett [63] states that, ‗We are, as a species, blended learners‟. Julian and Boone [50] agree when they argue that, „The importance of a blended approach to learning is that it ensures the widest possible impact of a learning experience…‟ The authors of this paper tend to support Valiathan‘s view of blended learning when he states that, „Blended learning is also used to describe learning that mixes various event based activities, including face-to-face classrooms, live elearning and self-paced learning‟. This view of blended learning is enhanced by three models, skills driven, attitude-driven and competency-driven. However, the problem is that the breadth of interpretations means that almost anything can be seen as blended learning, and consequently this is confusing for academic staff, students and business practitioners. The next section will consider how the utilisation of Web 2.0 technologies for blended learning can encourage independent learning.

Blended Learning and Web 2.0 Technology There are a number of areas in Higher Education where, it is argued, that blended learning can help and these include, increasing student numbers, automated assessment, widening participation and improved access to limited resources. However, the most important driver suggested for choosing a blended learning approach is that it will give enhanced benefits to traditional face-to-face teaching and learning and facilitate independent learning. As online tools become more ubiquitous inside and outside the classroom, and the growth of distance learning continues, educational researchers have begun to focus on how best to harness new technologies. As such there are many technologies being researched that can be used to facilitate and stimulate online education including what is referred to as Web 2.0 [26]. This term encompasses a variety of different meanings that include emphasis on user generated content, data and content sharing and collaborative effort together with the use of various kinds of social software such as Second Life, Blogging, WiKis, social book marking, pod casting, vidcasting and (in our case, Compendium software). However technology must not be the driver of blended learning. Technology should never be used simply to substitute face-to-face learning, but must clearly offer an improved educational benefit. Also, coupled with Web 2.0 technology students must involve communication and socialisation and it is here where ‗social networking‘ activity if applied correctly could prove beneficial. The loss of face-to-face presence is, understandably, one of the most contested issues in online learning. Hara and Kling [32] note that, „Human communication is inherently ambiguous but that these ambiguities are generally resolved adequately in face-to-face contexts‟. Garrison et al [29] agree but comment further when they state, ‟In face to face interaction communication can be entrusted to habit or instinct…communicators in a virtual environment have to „think‟ about their metacommunication‟. Therefore a social environment online is necessary. As such, this

Facilitating a Blended Learning Approach to Encourage Collaborative Working… 127 situation could be improved through the use of social networking tools such as WiKis and web logs. On reviewing the available technologies associated with web 2.0 the authors were impressed by the possibilities for their own model. The next section will discuss the activities that led to the development of the blended learning prototype. The proposal was to convert the existing third year undergraduate module from a traditional face-to-face format into a format based on eLearning/blended technologies. The existing module format comprises of 12 lectures, 12 seminars, a clinic and a lab and is of 12 weeks duration. The current assessment is in two parts, group coursework (50%) and a final examination (50%). In general it is envisaged that the changes would encourage independent learning by the students and instigate some degree of online assessment. The model has incorporated ‗blended learning‘ features including face-to-face, Blackboard, Compendium software and social networking technology. The methodology adopted for the original project included a literature search and a survey. This in turn produced a proposal for the development of a blended learning prototype. The methodology for this paper was essentially based on this proposal. The proposal was to convert traditional lectures and seminars to an online format using a combination of the Blackboard VLE, the Open University‘s ‗Compendium‘ software, Web 2.0 technologies and some element of face-to-face communication. This has now been completed with the production of the prototype which will be highlighted in this paper. A student survey was previously undertaken where the questionnaire comprised a series of yes/no questions and one opinion based question. Overall the responses were in favour of a ‗blended‘ approach and this led to the proposal (See Figure 7) and a framework on the way forward for the project. The prototype discussed in the paper was based on that proposal. When developing the blended learning prototype it was considered from two perspectives; pedagogy and technology. From a pedagogical perspective independent learning and blended learning aspects were incorporated and from a technological perspective how best to encourage the students to access the model were considered. As such a variety of technology platforms were used to build the prototype, however the main vehicles were Compendium software for content management and Blackboard for the group communication element and formative assessment.

Figure 9. eMBIS Lecture on Blackboard

128

Alan Hogarth

Other Web 2.0 technologies such as Blogging and podcasting are also incorporated in the prototype. Based on the authors‘ original ideas and enhanced by the student responses to the questionnaire [37] the prototype incorporates many features both in Blackboard (See Figure 9) and by the innovative use of the Compendium software (See Figures 10 – 14 for examples of the developed content). Compendium‘s advantage is that it allows for the incorporation of all manner of content such as the video lectures, podcasts, Powerpoint slides, seminar material etc., (See figure 6), that the students can access online on a weekly basis (i.e. each teaching week) thus cutting classroom time (and room allocation) and encouraging independent learning. However, access to the tutor will always be available at the weekly clinic to deal with any issues that may arise. The video presentations were recorded with Movie Maker Pro and are of 5-10 minutes duration; podcasts were recorded with Audacity (links to practitioner podcasts are also attached); links to relevant subject websites were included as were PowerPoint slides and seminar material for the lecture topic. Eseminars are facilitated in Blackboard‘s Virtual Classroom and students‘ participation will be monitored (contribution rates can be logged in BlackBoard) and this will form part of the module assessment.

Figure 10. Initial Screen Option for eMBIS in Compendium

Figure 11. Set up screen for text instructions

Facilitating a Blended Learning Approach to Encourage Collaborative Working… 129 The weekly face-to-face Clinic will be timetabled for all students for advice and assistance with any aspect of the module and would be held to maintain a personal link with the students. Assessment instruments are also catered for in the prototype (See figure 14). Formative assessment using BlackBoard Multiple Choice Questions (MCQ) can be facilitated. Blogging software is to be used for keeping a diary of issues and developments and web based presentations will be assessed. The final examination will be held in a traditional format, thus adding to the blended learning ethos. The blended learning prototype is a work in progress and further work will be required. It does however currently demonstrate how the teaching module will function in this blended learning mode. The lessons learnt from this research project thus far are that developing such a prototype is very time consuming (the authors worked on the project while still maintaining a full teaching commitment) and although constrained by time and minimal funding the authors have managed to produce a working prototype. Essentially the next phase of the project will be to fully convert and set up the full ‗content‘ of the eMBIS module (even completing the prototype was very time consuming) before going live.

Possible Benefits for Business According to Michael Clouser of eCornell business take up for eLearning for Continual Professional Development (CPD) is increasing by 25% a year. Coupled with this many business organisations have also adopted blended learning and recognise this as an important component of their overall strategy. For example BUPA have hired Brightwave to train their 2,500 employees. Claire Shell [66], elearning manger at BUPA states that, „Working with Brightwave... has shaped our use of elearning and blended learning‟. County Durham Primary Care Trust [22] have also utilised blended learning to, ‗provide a training programme that combines face–to-face and elearning‟. Furthermore, blended learning programmes are increasing within business organisations. According to research by Balance Learning and Training Magazine [5] ,‟blended learning is now used by 55% of organisations‟ and in a further study,‟81% of organisations surveyed believe blended learning is an effective means of learning‟. Given that many business organisations are already familiar with the concept of blended learning then the prototype developed by the authors will not only encourage independent learning amongst university students, but will also provide such business organisations with an easy to use and adaptable approach to teaching and learning. It is expected that the blended learning model will go live in October 2008, when a group of third year undergraduates will be asked to participate. It is envisaged that they will be issued with either a CD or USB flash drive containing the content for the model. These students will then be able to offer their views on the model via questionnaires and interview sessions and the results will be compared with responses from a group of students who did not use the new model. Given that we receive a positive response from the students then initially the idea would be to offer it to other courses and departments via training sessions. The model will hopefully alleviate the issues of increasing student numbers, encourage automated assessment, allow for widening participation and improved access to limited resources.

130

Alan Hogarth

Figure 12. First Screen showing all Lectures and Assessments

Figure 13. Content of an eMBIS lecture

Figure 14. Clicking on the icons will access the assessment task

Facilitating a Blended Learning Approach to Encourage Collaborative Working… 131

CONCLUSION In the literature, in business and in educational institutions it has been recognised that collaborative working is now essential. Furthermore, technology enhanced collaboration tools in the form of groupware and Virtual Learning Environments for education have become integral to the success of group working. However it is recognised that the introduction of group working practices and subsequently group technologies should not be taken lightly. It was seen as essential that organisations‘ culture must also be taken into account prior to introducing collaborative working. To this end a framework was developed by the author to aid in the introduction of group working and its technology. In education blended learning is being driven by technology and this in turn should enhance independent learning. However, there is some confusion over which technology may be the most suitable to encourage such independent learning. Furthermore some businesses, tutors and students are wary of the change in traditional teaching approaches and as such do not wholly embrace the idea of elearning for all aspects of teaching. However given that blended learning incorporates elements of traditional teaching with those of elearning technology this approach could be the solution to those concerns. To this end the author h developed a ‗blended learning prototype‘. Although the model is currently just that, a prototype, the next phase of the project is to test the product with a group of students and evaluate its effectiveness. Depending on the results of this research the blended learning model structure could then be exploited for any module on any course and also be used/adapted in the business environment for training courses. Given our experiences with this project the authors suggest that utilising Web 2.0 technology and Blackboard facilities, with some aspects of traditional teaching, in our blended learning model offers an attractive approach for students and should encourage independent learning.

REFERENCES Abell, M. (2000). ‗Soldiers as Distance learners: What army trainers need to know‘, Online at http://tadlp.monroe.army.mil/abell%20paper.htm Agre, P. E. & Schuler, D. E., (Eds) (1998). Reinventing technology, rediscovering critical studies in computing as social practice. , Norwood, N.J. Alexander, S. (2000). Virtual Teams Going Global. InfoWorld, 22(46), 55-56. Baker, M. J. (1994). A model for negotiation in teaching-learning dialogues. Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 5(2), 199-254. Balance Learning and Training (2004). „Blended Learning in the UK‟, Survey 2004, Balance Learning and Training Magazine. Barajas, M. & Owen, M. (2000). ‗Implementing virtual learning environments: looking for a holistic approach‘, Journal of Educational technology and Society, 3(3) Barker, J. R. (2000). The discipline of teamwork. Sage Publications, London Barker, J. R (1999). Tightening the iron cage: Concertive control in self-management teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, pp408-437. Belbin, R. M. (1981). Management teams: Why they succeed or fail. London, Heinemann. Belbin, R. M (1993). Team roles at work London: Butterworth, Heineman

132

Alan Hogarth

Bennett, C. and Hammond, N. (2002). ‗Enhancing small group teaching and learning with C and IT‘, Poster presented at the Pathways to Excellence Conference, University of York. Berg, G. A. (2001). ‗Towards a learning theory for educational technology‘, Webnet Journal, 2, 1. Biggam, J. (2004). Preparing for Elearning in Higher Education: Drivers, Barriers and Pedagogical Issues. PhD thesis, Glasgow Caledonian University. Biggam, J. (2003). ‗Identifying and capturing knowledge for website usage: a platform for progress‘, International Journal of Electronic Business, 1(3), ISSN: 1470-6067. Brinck, T. (1998) online at. http://www.usabilityfirst.com/Groupware/intro.html. Broad, J. (2006). Interpretations of independent learning in further education. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 30, 2 May. Carman, J. M. (2002). Blended Learning Design: Five Key Ingredients. Knowledgenet. Cheney, G. (1995). Democracy in the work place: Theory and Practice from the perspective of communication, Journal of Applied Communication Research, 23, pp 167-200. Christiansen, C. M. (1997). The Innovator Dilemma- When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail, H.B.S. Press 1997, and Boston. Ciborra, C. U. (1996), What does groupware mean for hosting IT? In Ciborrra, C.U. (ed.), Groupware and Teamwork, Wiley, Chichester. Coleman, D. (1998). Groupware the changing environment, online at, http://www.collaborate. com/publications/section1.html County Durham PCT (2007), County Durham PCT opts for blended learning‖ online at: http://www.trainingreference.co.uk/news/b1071008.htm Cubie, A. Glasgow Herald Article, Sept 7th, 2002) Dearing, R (1997). Online at. http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/ncihe/ Fisher, K., Phelps, R. & Ellis, A. (2000). ‗Group processes online: teaching collaboration through collaborative processes‘, Educational Technology and Society, 3(3). Franklin, T. and Van Harmelen, M (2007). “Web 2.0 for Content for Learning and Teaching in Higher Education”, Report funded by JISC, Franklin Consulting, May 2007. Fulk, J. & De Sanctis, G. (1998), Articulation of communication technology and organisational form. Shaping organisational form: Communication, connection, and community. Newbury Park: Sage. Future Skills Scotland (2003) Scottish Employers Skills Survey. Online at http://www.futureskillsscotland.org.uk/ Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T. & Archer, W. (2001). ‗Critical thinking, cognitive presence and computer conferencing in distance education‘, American Journal of Distance Education, 15, 1, pp7-23. Goodall, K. & Roberts, J. (2003). Only connect: teamwork in the multinational. Journal of World Business, 38(2), 150-164. Guthrie. (1996). Transforming an existing organisation into a learning organisation. GDSS Working Paper online at http://www.gds.com/wp/transform.htm Hara, N. & Kling, R. (2000). ‗Students‘ frustration with a web based distance education course: a taboo topic in the discourse‘, First Monday, 4(12), pp1-34. Hayes, J. (2002). The Theory and Practice of Change Management. Basingstoke, Palgrave. Higher Education Academy, (2004). Online at http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/

Facilitating a Blended Learning Approach to Encourage Collaborative Working… 133 Higher Education Academy, (2004). Online at http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/ Hiltz, S. (1998). ‗Collaborative learning in asynchronous learning networks: building learning communities‘, Web 98 Symposium, Orlando, Florida. Hogarth and Biggam (2007), ―Technology Enhanced Learning in Higher Education: A REAP Case Study‖, in Proceedings of eChallenges 2007, The Hague, Holland. Hogarth, A. (2006). An Exploration of Student Attitudes toward Traditional and TechnologyBased Group Work Culture in the University Environment‟, PhD Thesis, Chapter 2, Glasgow Caledonian University Hogarth, A (2006), ―New Conceptual Paradigms for Introducing Groupwork and Group Based Technology in the HE Environment‖, in Proceedings of eChallenges 2006, Barcelona. Hogarth, A. (2005). Drivers for Group Working and Collaborative Technology: A Survey of human Resource Managers. In proceedings of eChallenges 2005, Ljubljana, Slovenia. Hogarth, A. (2004). The social and cultural effects of using groupware for collaborative eLearning: A Blackboard ‗Groups‟ case study. In proceedings of eChallenges 2004, Vienna, Austria. Hogarth, A. (2003). Change Management and Collaborative Technologies: An Industry Survey, In Proceedings of IADIS WWW-Internet Conference, Algarve, Portugal. Hogarth, a. (2002). Adopting Socio-Technical Concepts for Eliciting Groupware Requirements in the Educational Environment, In Proceedings of ETHICOMP 2002, Portugal. Hogarth, A. (2001a). Managing the social and cultural consequences of introducing groupware technology into the group learning environment. Education and Information technologies, 6(3). Hogarth, A. (2001), Enhancing the flexible learning environment: the social and cultural aspects of introducing groupware, Proceedings of Online EDUCA, 7th International Conference on IT Supported Learning and Teaching, Berlin. Hogarth, A. & Biggam, J. (2002). Adapting the socio-technical paradigm to facilitate the introduction of groupware into the organisational environment Systemist: Journal of UK Systems Society, Hogarth, A. & Biggam, J. (2000). ‗The social and technical effects of introducing GroupWare into the educational environment‘, In Proceedings of ED-ICT 2000, Vienna, Dec, ACM, pp161-71. Houston, S. K. & Lazenbatt, (1996). A peer-tutoring scheme to support independent learning and group project work in Mathematics, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 21(3). Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC). (2002). ‗Inform Issue 1: Reviewing our use of technology‘, Online at: http://www.jisc.ac.uk/index.cfm?name=pub_inform1 Julian, E. H. & Boone, C. (2001). Blended Learning Solutions: Improving the Way Companies Manage Intellectual Capital online at:http://sunned.sun.com/US/ images/final_IDC_SES_6_22_01.pdf Katzenbach, J. R. & Smith, D. K. (1993). The wisdom of teams: Creating the highperformance organization. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Kesten, C. (1987). Independent learning: a common essential learning: a study completed for the Saskatchewan Dept of Education: University of Regina.

134

Alan Hogarth

Kets De Vries, M. (1999). High-performance teams: lessons from the pygmies. Org. Dynamics [2]. Kling, R. (2000). Learning about information technologies and social change: The contribution of social informatics, The Information Society, 16(3). Kuiper, S. (1999).Transition into Business, editor. NJ: Prentice Hall. Laister, J. & Kober, S. (2002). ‗Social aspects of Collaborative Learning in Virtual Learning Environments‘, online at: www.shef.ac.uk/nlc2002/proceedings/papers/19. htm. London Times Article, 4th February 2006, Student Skills.‘ Luker, R. (1989). Effective Teaching in Higher Education. London: Routledge Myers, J. (1991).Co-operative learning in heterogeneous classes. Co-op. Learning, 11. Panitz, T. (1996). Getting students ready for co-operative learning. Co-operative learning and College Teaching, 6(2). Rifkin, G. (2002) in O‘Dwyer, Collaboration and Communication: Utilizing Groupware to Enhance your Effectiveness online at http://www.fuzhen.com Rockwood, R. (1995). Co-operative and collaborative learning. NT &L Forum, 4(2). Rossett, A. (ed.) (2002). The ASTD E-Learning Handbook. New York, McGraw-Hill. Rust, C. (Ed) 2003 Improving Student Learning 10: Improving Student Learning Theory and Practice 10 years on. Proceedings of the 2002 10th International Symposium. Oxford. Scharge, M. (1999), Shared Minds: The new technologies of collaboration, Random House. Shell, C. (2007), Blended Learning supports BUPA project, online at: http://www. trainingreference.co.uk/news/b1070201.htm Skillset, (2004). Employers Survey Report. Online at, http://www.skillset.org/ interactive Tarricone, P. & Luca, J. (2002). Employees, teamwork and social interdependence: A formula for successful business teams. Team Performance Management, 8(3, 4), 54-59. Tung, L. L., et al. (2000). Adoption, implementation and use of Lotus Notes in Singapore. International Journal of Information Management, 20(5), 369-382. Vaughan, J. (2004), Teamwork: A Dynamic Model. Online at http://www.culturebuilding.com Whitelock, D. & Jeffs, A. (2003). Editorial: Journal of Educational Media Special Issue on Blended Learning, Journal of Educational Media, 28(2-3). Wilde, C., Wright, S., Hayward, G., Johnson, J. & Skerrett, R. (2006). Nuffield review of higher education in focus groups preliminary report. Oxford University. Online at: http://www.nuffield14-19review.org.uk/files/news44-2.pdf Zuboff, S. (1988). In the Age of the Smart Machine. Basic Books, New York.

In: Collaborative Learning: Methodology, Types… Editors: E. Luzzatto, G. DiMarco, pp. 135-163

ISBN: 978-1-60876-076-3 © 2010 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Chapter 5

COLLABORATIVE PLAY IN EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION W. B. Mawson Principal Lecturer, School of Science, Mathematics and Science Education Faculty of Education The University of Auckland.

Collaborative play in early childhood education is an under-researched area. This chapter describes and discusses the findings of a two-year research project investigating the nature of young children‘s collaborative play in two New Zealand early childhood education settings. In order to clearly contextualize the study the research method, participants and settings are first described. The findings are then discussed in terms of gender, leadership, themes, and environmental influences. Two aspects, the theme of pretending to be dead, and the nature of leadership in children‘s play are explored in depth in this discussion. Finally, suggestions are offered for strategies to encourage collaborate play in early childhood settings

THE NATURE OF COLLABORATIVE PLAY The importance of collaborative play is a strong belief among early childhood educators and recent curriculum developers. Te Whaariki (Ministry of Education, 1996), the New Zealand early childhood curriculum is a socio-culturally oriented learning document that emphasizes the place of reciprocal relationships in children‘s learning. Children‘s collaborative play is a key element in this process (Tudge, 1992) However, little is understood about the factors that encourage young children to play together in a collaborative manner (Carr & May, 2000). There is a reasonably large body of literature related to the benefits of collaborative play within general early childhood textbooks, but little specific research-based literature. Most of the research literature is concerned with peer collaboration in specific learning tasks with primary and secondary school students (Fawcett & Garton, 2005; Murphy & Faulkner, 2006). There is evidence that children who are involved in high levels of peer interactive play demonstrate more competent emotional-regulation, initiation, self-determination, and

136

W. B. Mawson

receptive vocabulary skills, and are less likely to be aggressive, shy or withdrawn. They have greater cognitive, social, and movement coordination outcomes (Black & Hazen, 1990). There have been a number of frameworks developed to classify the collaborative play behaviours of children during the last twenty years. Roskos (1990) outlined a taxonomy of pretend play which had a hierarchy of increasingly complex play that moved from individual play with objects through to ‗episodes‘ which she conceptualised as having three main elements, a readying stage, directing the play and the players, the play resembling a kind of story complete with setting, characters and plot, and object of repetition in the play. Verba‘s (1994) description of collaborative play was based on two principles, collaboration and coherence. She identified three essential aspects of collaborative play. These were cognitive aspects (developing the goal, linking ideas), transactional aspects (developing mutual understanding, agreeing on ideas and intentions, resolving conflict) and management aspects (evaluation, intervention, decision making). Verba derived three functional categories from her analysis of the actions and behaviours of the children she studied. These were the elaboration of activity and coordination of purpose, sharing focused on interest in the partner and development of inter-comprehension, and management using self-monitoring of the activity and guiding strategies Shim, Herwig and Shelley (2001) identified three categories of collaborative play. These were Interactive-functional play (when two or more players engage in complementary repetitive or active physical movements), Interactive-constructive play (when two or more players create or construct something together), and Interactive-dramatic play (when two or more players engage in complementary fantasy actions or vocalizations and role playing). They described eighteen behaviours that could be used by observers to identify children‘s cooperative play. Broadhead (2004) formulated a social play continuum for the analysis of the nature of children‘s play interactions. The four broad categories within her framework are the Associative domain, the Social domain, the highly social domain, and the Cooperative domain. The cooperative domain is where fully collaborative play is situated. Broadhead has suggested a number of criteria that need to be met for play to be within the cooperative domain. These are offering/accepting objects that sustains/extends the play theme, sustained dialogue is activity related and clear theme(s) emerge, explanations/descriptions are utilised, new ideas/resources extend and sustain play, children display a shared understanding of goals, they offer and accept verbal and physical help which is often combined, problems are jointly identified and solved, and sustained dramatic scenarios are enacted and linked to play theme(s). The Shim, Herwig, and Shelley (2001) and the Broadhead (2004) frameworks were used as the starting point for identifying episodes of collaborative play in the research.

THE RESEARCH PROJECT METHODS The overarching purpose of this interpretivist (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2007) case study was to investigate the question ‗Which factors appear to inspire and to maintain collaborative play between young children in Early Childhood Education settings?‘ Case study research involves the study of an issue within a bounded system (Creswell, 2007). The first site, in 2007, was an all-day privately owned centre and involved 22 three and four-year-

Collaborative Play in Early Childhood Education

137

old children. The second site, in 2008, was the morning session of a kindergarten and involved 47 children four-year-old children. The cohesive nature of the groups and the confined setting (early education centres) lent itself to a case study approach. Because of the diversity of early childhood education settings the setting of this case study can only be regarded as reflecting children‘s play within these Auckland early childhood centres. However, it is expected that the reader will find some resonances with their own contexts and experiences in the stories of these children. In both cases I spent one morning a week from the beginning of March until the end of November in the early childhood settings. When an episode of collaborative play began I recorded it. Shim, Herwig, and Shelley,‘s (2001, p. 154) modification of the nested PartenSmilansky play scale and Broadhead‘s characteristics of cooperative play (Broadhead, 2004, p. 49) were used to identify collaborative play experiences. My role was purely as an observer and I did not participate in any of the episodes observed, nor did I interact with any of the children involved in the play. Only those episodes that arose from the children‘s own interests were observed. I did not record any collaborative play episodes occurring around activities the teachers had set up, and I stopped recording any episode whenever a teacher intervened in the play in any way. During 2007 85 episodes were observed in the all day privately owned centre. During 2008 69 episodes were observed in the sessional public kindergarten. The episodes were documented using a mix of field notes, videotape and audiotape recordings, and digital photographs. Not all episodes that occurred were recorded. While observing inside I could not monitor play that was occurring in the outside area, and the reverse also was true. Where two episodes were occurring simultaneously in the same setting normally the episode involving the more complex themes and interactions was more closely observed, and the other episode monitored to record the main themes and direction of the play. Teacher participant feedback was obtained by means of a weekly meeting to discuss the data. If children approached me during a play episode to tell me what was happening I recorded this, but I did not break into the play, or interrupt the play that followed to question them about the episode I had just recorded. I would make available to the children photos taken of previous play episodes for them to talk about if they wanted to.

SAMPLE AND SETTING The research took place in two Auckland early childhood settings. Although geographical separate within Auckland City they were very similar with regard to the ethnic and socio-economic composition of the children and the qualifications and teaching experience of the three staff responsible for the children at each centre. The privately owned setting was open from 7.30am until 6pm and catered for children from six months of age up to five years of age. The research involved the three and four year old group. At various times in the privately owned daylong setting (2007) 22 children were participants in the research project. Initially there were 15 children (6 girls, 9 boys) in the group. During the year three children left to go to school, and 6 children moved up into this group from a youngerage group within the centre. In November there were 18 children in the group (8 girls, 10 boys).

138

W. B. Mawson

The kindergarten was sessional, with a group of 45 four-year-old children who attended five mornings a week for a total of seventeen and a half hours, and a group of 45 three year olds who attended for three afternoons in a two and a half hour session. The research involved the morning group. There were originally 35 children (23 girls, 12 boys) in the participant group. During the year 25 children left the group and 18 children entered it. By November the participant group consisted of 28 children (16 girls, 12 boys). The children in both settings were predominantly of New Zealand European ethnicity from middle-class families.

ANALYSIS All field notes, audiotapes and videotapes were transcribed and the 154 episodes over the two settings yielded a considerable amount of data for analysis. Originally analysis was done using categories of gender, theme, type, play area (e.g. blocks, home area). Other categories emerged from analysis of the data itself. Examples of these were leadership roles, friendship groupings, communication strategies, and successful/unsuccessful strategies for moving into other‘s play episodes. The data is reported in regard to the episode it occurred in. The first two digits are the day, the second two the month, the next two the year, and the last two the number of the episode. 08/03/07.04 represents the fourth episode that was observed on the 8th of March, 2007. The research had ethical approval from the University of Auckland Human Participants Ethics Committee. Pseudonyms are used for all children in this chapter.

ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS Research with young children poses a number of important ethical issues that need to be addressed. Although the children, aged three and four-years-old were not able to give fully informed consent, which was gained from the parent/care giver, care was taken to explain to the children in terms that they could understand what was being observed and to make clear that they could ask not to be observed at any time. I also looked for non-verbal indications that children were withdrawing their consent. As parental consent was gained for all children in the privately owned setting the exclusion of non-consenting children was not normally a concern when collecting data. However this became more problematic in the kindergarten setting where parental consent varied from 75% to 66% of the children during the year. If non-participating children were playing with participant children then only field notes were used to record the play event, and the field notes only related to the participant children. Care was also taken to ensure that non-participant children were not captured in any video footage or digital photographs.

FINDINGS DOMINANT THEMES As the play themes reflected the children‘s interests and were not the result of teacher provocations or interactions then the content of the children‘s play may be seen as reflecting

Collaborative Play in Early Childhood Education

139

the funds of knowledge learnt in home and community settings (Gonzalez, Moll, & C., 2005). One area of fundamental inquiry focussed around exploring what it means to be part of a responsible family and community. This was reflected in the high incidence of domestic scenarios acting out family responsibilities such as caring for babies and pets, preparing meals and ensuring that naps were taken by those participants taking the role of children within the group play. Preparing for and enjoying parties and picnics was another theme that was acted out with considerable enjoyment A second area of interest that was explored was the role of adults outside the family circle. In particular the work of doctors, firemen and policemen proved a rich area of dramatic play for the children. Although these themes were enjoyed for the highly dramatic events of life-saving medical operations, chasing, capturing and jailing burglars, and of rescuing people from fires, they also served an important purpose of allowing the children to explore and refine their understanding of these adult roles. Monsters were incorporated into a range of scenarios, as there were a number of ways the theme could be acted out. At times the monster was the protagonist, and the plot revolved around being chased and captured, and then escaping or being rescued. At other times the children set themselves in the roles of the protagonist and the monster became the prey Other activities within the centre would occasionally become incorporated within children‘s collaborative play, although these themes would normally be quite short-lived. In the private centre, a special pirates day lead to pirate scenario‘s emerging in the boys collaborative play during the next week, but the interest was not sustained after that. Similarly, a puppet performance in the kindergarten led to the staging of a number of puppet plays by a small group of mainly girls. Again this theme soon petered out. Contrary to what might have been expected, superhero play was not the theme of any of the 154 episodes recorded in the two centres during the two-year period of observation. Occasionally one or two boys would wear a superhero costume, most often Spiderman, but Superman and Batman costumes were also recorded. Even when wearing the costumes, the play episodes entered into by the children were not related to the superhero characters. The themes described above were found in both early childhood centres and made up about the same proportion of the play episodes. There were two play themes that were context-specific. In the private-all day centre ―pretend I‘m dead‖ appeared in 21 of the 85 episodes recorded, but did not occur once in the 56 episodes in the kindergarten setting. On the other hand gun play did not appear in the private centre, but was a significant element in the play of the boys in the kindergarten. A key factor in this would seem to be the presence of one dominant child in both settings for whom the theme was of pretending to be dead, or making guns and shooting baddies was a recurring scenario that other children would join in.

Pretend I‟m dead, eh” – An Example of a Theme of Children‟s Collaborative Socio-Dramatic Play. Most of the literature on the theme of death in children‘s socio-dramatic play is related to Play Therapy and is focussed on using play to assist children to deal with actual death (Gil, 2006; Keith & Whitaker, 1981; Wilson, Kendrick, & Ryan, 1992). Within child development literature violent fantasy play has been explored (Dunn & Hughes, 2001; Howe, C.M.,

140

W. B. Mawson

Jennings, & Petrakos, 2002) but the focus has been on the development of social and moral understandings rather than as an integral element of children‘s positive collaborative play. There appears to be little written about children‘s pretence of death as a theme in young children‘s play. What literature there is suggests that this theme is common within European cultures. James, Bearne and Alexander (2004) observe that the weaving of the fundamental issues of life and death with everyday concerns was a recurrent theme throughout their research in England. They report an episode in which children plan for dog's death and decide who will play the role. In a second reported scenario a boy plays a dead father, who is soon dragged back to life. Guss (2005) in her research in Norway notes that a child acting as a wolf dying and coming back to life was continuous theme in play studied. In the United States West (1996) records a child introducing new theme of being turned into a dog, being poisoned and pretending to be dead. Danger and death was the most recurrent theme in the play she observed, being present in all six site visits made to the kindergarten during the research. Sellares and Bassedas (1995) state that death was a theme strongly present in young children‘s play in their Spanish research. Although playing dead occurred on twenty-one occasions, one child, Jenny, consistently initiated it. She normally used it as means to focus the play on herself, to move from the periphery of the play to the centre, or to move into the play of others. Occasionally the two other girls in her particular friendship group, Claire and Sally, would initiate the theme, but invariably it was Jenny who was to play dead.

Establishing the Rules On nearly every occasion it was made clear that it was only a pretend death. For instance Jenny came back into the area where Claire and Sally were playing, said ―and pretend I was dead eh‖ and laid the floor pretending to be dead (15/3.07). On another occasion Jenny entered a family scenario involving Sally, Susan and Sasha and said ―Pretend kitty‘s dead‖ and rolled over on her back. Sally responded ―Oh look, kitty‘s dead‖ and the dead kitty was incorporated into their family play (05/04.15). The dead person/animal was always brought back to life during the play episode. This was done in a number of ways. Often the dead person was regarded as waking up as though she had been asleep. This theme was consistent revisited. A typical example of this is contained in the following exchange. Sally who gets up and moves over and pushes Jenny saying ―Wake up, wake up!‖ Jenny responds, ―No I‘m dead‖ Simon: ―You have to tell her to wake up now. Sally starts jumping up and down, calling ―Wake up sister, wake up sister.‖ Jenny wakes up. Sally ―She‘s waking up, hip hip hooray, hip hip hooray, hip hip hooray.‖ (15/03.07) Another common method of coming alive was associated with medicines and being sick. This was clearly expressed by Jenny when she stated, ―I‘m sick now eh because after you are dead you are sick.‖ (05/04.15). On another occasion Simon has been pretending to be dead. When Sally returns to the tent Claire says to her, ―Sh, he‘s dead eh‖. After a short time J says,

Collaborative Play in Early Childhood Education

141

―pretend he‘s alive eh.‖ After some seconds Sally finally gets into the tent and says, ― and I‘m going to make a new medicine so I can wake him up.‖ (15/03.07) Often coming alive was associated with being treated by a doctor or going to the hospital. Sally. ―Mary, and we turned into doctors, and she‘s going to be ok.‖ (30/08.62). After a fight between their toy animals Chris says to Simon ―Now King Kong is dead from the bat, and King Kong goes to hospital, eh‖ (01/03.01). Sasha looks at Jenny lying on the floor and says ―She‘s dead, doctor.‖ Sally responds ―Can you take her to the hospital‖ and Jenny is carried to the hospital to become sick.‖ (22/03.11). The most unusual way of coming back to life was to become younger. Jenny had introduced death into the scenario giving the reason as ―Pretend I‘m dead because I‘m 20 eh.‖ Later in the play episode the following exchange occurs. Jenny ―I can‘t come alive for ever and ever‖ Sally ―And Jenny, your parents came to see you‖ Jenny ―And when I turn back to 19 I come alive eh‖ (09/08.56).

Directing the Play As well as normally initiating the dead person scenario Jenny would often move in and out of role in order to keep the play going. Jenny has been lying on the floor pretending to be dead and the group has started to get sidetracked attending to a doll with a syringe. Jenny then directs the attention back to her. Jenny ―Someone has to carry me, someone has to carry both of my arms. No, two people, only Sally, carry me this way eh, you take me feet eh, no Sasha takes my feet.‖ Jenny is then carried over to the hospital and becomes the centre of attention as they work over her, the doll forgotten and discarded (22/03.11). On another occasion Jenny not only directed the dead play, but also carried on a separate conversation with her friend who was not part of the play episode while pretending to be dead. Susan, ―I‘m doing this because Jenny is dying and we‘re playing doctor.‖ Jenny, ―I‘m the big sister and I‘m dead.‖ George, ―Mum and dad are the doctors because that‘s their work.‖ Jenny, ―I don‘t need the eyeballs in here anymore, but I‘m still dead eh.‖ George continues to doctor Jenny in the fireplace as she directs him what to do. Claire crawls to the fireplace and Jenny stands up. Claire ―Hey, Jenny.‖ Jenny, ―Hey sister, but I‘m dead eh.‖ Jenny lies down again and Claire goes behind the curtain and they start to talk quietly to each other (09/08.56).

142

W. B. Mawson

Areas of Resistance Rarely did children kill each other in the play scenario. On the occasions where this happened it was invariably connected with a conflict over leadership of the scenario between two close friends, Sally and Claire. Sally and Claire were playing a sick baby scenario and were having a conflict over who would be the doctor. At that stage Simon entered the space, picked up the syringe from where Sally had left it, and began thrusting it toward the girls in an aggressive manner. Claire called out ―Kill her, kill her Simon‖ and he shot Sally with the syringe (15/03.07). In another example Sally had started the game by saying to Susan ―We‘re doctors, eh? And we have to go to the hospital.‖ Sally goes over to the chimney, ―There is an accident, come on doctors. You have to come in the ambulance, there‘s been an accident.‖ Claire joins in the game at this point and Sally said to her ―And you‘re dead and you‘re sick.‖ Claire ―And I‘m the kitty and you‘re my mum, eh.‖ Sally comes back and says, ―You‘ve got to pretend you‘re dead.‖ She leaves the fireplace once more and says, ―You stay in there, stay in there‖ before returning with a basket. Claire then tries to introduce a new element to the game. Claire ―Every time I‘m alive I turn into a monster, eh.‖ Sally ―But you‘re not alive, you‘re dead.‖ Claire ―I‘m a monster.‖ Sally ―But when I shoot you you‘re dead‖ and she pretends to shoot Claire with a piece of wood. ―You have to be dead.‖ Claire stands up. Sally ―Are you playing with me?‖ Claire ―I‘m not now‖ and she leaves the space (16/08/57). Being killed was acceptable if agreement was reached with the other person first. Claire said to Jenny ―I‘m going to poison you, pretend that you are dead when I do this.‖ Claire injected Jenny with the syringe. Katy moved over to the tent and said to Claire, ―Do that to me, I want to be dead. But don‘t do it hard because I will cry ok‖ and Claire then injected Katy (15/03.07). Occasionally being dead was resisted. Claire said, ―Pretend he killed everyone and pretend they were dead, but when I call everyone like this (touching Katy and Sally gently on the chest) they are dead.‖ Claire touched Sally who fell on to the floor. Claire then touched Katy who resisted. Claire said, ―No, when I do that you‘ve got to be dead.‖ Katy still resisted saying ―No, you‘re not allowed to do that to people, then they‘ll hurt theirselves‖ and she pushed Claire‘s hand away (15/03.07).

Developing the Theme Once the theme of being dead was incorporated into the play episode, the play then could develop in a number of ways. The most common was for the play to move into a doctor/hospital scenario. The death theme normally was introduced first and the doctor theme emerged as a way to deal with the dead person. On one occasion having established that they would pretend that the mother was dead, Sally then said, ―Mary, and we turned into doctors,

Collaborative Play in Early Childhood Education

143

and she‘s going to be ok.‖ (30/08.62). On another occasion Chris said, ―Now King Kong is dead from the bat, and King Kong goes to hospital, eh‖ (01/03.01) Once the doctor had arrived, or the dead person was taken to hospital, often by ambulance, the children would undertake a number of remedies. There was frequently a focus on stopping the bleeding and bandaging the patient. Susan, ―There‘s blood, urh.‖ Sasha, ―We need to put a bandage on it don‘t we.‖ Medicine was normally administered by injecting the patient, although at times it was seen as being a substance of some kind, ―A special cleaner to make you be not dead‖ (Sasha, 09/08.56). The special nature of these substances was made clear by Sally, ―We need some magic cream.‖ (22/03.11). The role of the ambulance often featured highly in these doctor scenarios. Sally in particular liked to introduce an ambulance into the play action, being careful to observe the appropriate safety precautions. Sally, ―No she‘s dead, I think the ambulance is here.‖ Susan pretends to ring on the phone. ―Hello, hello, call the ambulance.‖ Sally, ―The ambulance is already here. We‘re the ambulance.‖ Sally sits in the chair and says, ―Let‘s sit in the car.‖ She makes a siren noise and then says, ―Click, click, click Susan, click your seatbelt, click Sasha.‖ Sasha, ―I have clicked.‖ Sally pretends to drive the ambulance. Sally, ―we‘re here, we‘re here.‖ Sasha, ―We‘re at the doctors aren‘t we.‖ (19/07.50) Family scenarios where a second common context for pretend dead play. This was particularly so when only girls were involved in the play. Death and loss were combined in some scenarios. ―Mummy!‖ cried Claire, taking a train from inside the ramp. Sally looked around the house and said, ―she‘s lost, she‘s dead.‖ Claire got to her feet calling, ―mummy, mummy, mum, mummy.‖ Sally turned to her and said, ―I think she‘s locked in the gaol.‖ She looked in the ramp saying, ―No, no, where‘s she gone?‖ (08/03.04). There was no particular family member who was the focus of pretend dead play. At various times the mother, the father, the sister, the baby, and the kitten were all subjects of pretend dead scenarios. On no occasion was a brother the subject, and this seems related to the apparent reluctance of the boys to pretend to be dead. That occurred only twice in the twenty-one episodes. On one occasion Simon had been a monster and was killed to protect the baby. On the other occasion Alex had been playing with Chris in the block corner when he said, ―Pretend I‘m dead and you can fix me‖ (11/10.69) and the block building play moved into doctor play for a short time. A third common element was the introduction of monster characters into the play episode. This normally was used to explain how the death occurred and often led to a hiding from/being chased by the monster, particularly when boys were involved in the play episode. Sally calls out ―Save us Sasha, Sasha here comes the monster.‖ Simon comes out of the tent and tries to wake Claire who has been killed by the monster. Sally gives the syringe to Sasha and says, ―We kill the monster with this.‖ Katy says to Sasha, ―we are playing monster games.‖ (15/03.07) There were occasions when the impact of death on the other characters was recognized, and ways of dealing with this were built into the play scenario. Ben, Claire and Peter were

144

W. B. Mawson

playing a family scenario with the doll‘s house when Claire said, ―My cat died dad. When my cat died my kitten cried.‖ Simon immediately responded ―But the baby will miss her mum. Ok she can be dead, but only for a little while, not long, only this much. She can‘t be dead for 10 minutes, only this much.‖ (11/10.71) ―Pretend I‘m dead, eh‖ was a regular element of the collaborative play of this group of children. It was a long-term interest, occurring as often in October as it had in March when the observations began. The majority of the children in the group were involved in at least one observed episode during the year. Although Jenny was the lead character in many of the episodes recorded she was not particularly interested in the concept of being dead, but more in using a scenario which she knew would be picked up by the other children as a means of entering or taking the leadership of the play scenario (Ghafouri & Wein, 2005). The theme continued to occur regularly in the children‘s play after Jenny‘s departure for school in midAugust. There appeared to be no real interest in the concept of death by any of the children. Having one of the group play dead was a means of bringing other more interesting elements, particularly playing doctors, into the play action. At no time was there any discussion about what it meant to be dead. Being dead was given no more importance than being the mum, the dad, or the kitten. In none of the twenty-one episodes was pretending to be dead the main focus of the play. None of the episodes started from a ―pretend I‘m dead‖ statement, this element was always introduced into an existing collaborative play situation, and served primarily to provide a stimulus to extend and enrich the play. It was a narrative that allowed them to explore other social and work relationships (Guss, 2005). It did seem important to the children that they clearly established that playing dead was a pretend situation, and that the ‗dead‘ player was brought back to life before the play episode was finished (Ma & Lillard, 2006). This was clearly different from the situations in the boys ‗shoot the baddies‖ game in which the ‗dead‘ object was an inanimate object and not one of the group. Although it was usually introduced by the girls, and featured a girl as the ‗dead‘ player ―pretend I‘m dead‖ provided an opportunity for boys to become involved in the girls collaborative play. There were 22 mixed gender episodes of collaborative play recorded in the period March to October and on 10 occasions the pretend dead element was part of the play. Invariably the boys assumed the role of the monster or defender against the monster or became a doctor, roles they appeared to feel appropriate for boys to assume (Parsons & Howe, 2006). There was clearly a greater use of language in the play episode by the boys when playing in mixed gender settings than was evident when they were playing collaboratively in boy-only scenarios. Pretending to be dead was one of the main strategies used by this group of children to maintain collaborative play episodes. It was a consistent theme within the play of Sally, Claire and Jenny over an eight-month period. As a theme it appealed to most of the children and at one time or another they participated in one of these play episodes. The death itself was inconsequential; it was a mechanism for introducing new scenarios and roles into a play episode. There was no morbid fascination with death, everyone knew it was pretend, that the dead character would wake up, the monster be chased away, and that someone else would die again tomorrow.

Collaborative Play in Early Childhood Education

145

LEADERSHIP IN COLLABORATIVE PLAY There does not appear to be a large body of research literature on leadership roles in children‘s collaborative play. Much of the research literature involves paired children working on adult set tasks that are aimed to provide data on specific aspects of children‘s collaborative work. Lee, Recchia and Shin (2005) discuss the importance of relational and contextual elements to explain both style of leadership and nature of other children‘s interactions. They identified four leadership styles, the director, the free spirit, the manager, and the power man. In their study a clear gender difference in leadership style was also evident. Further publications from that on-going research study have looked at teacher interactions with child leaders (Mullarkey, Recchia, Lee, Shin, & Lee, 2005) and also at the way in which three children, identified as leaders by their teachers, manipulated and influenced not only the play of the other children, but also the teacher‘s practice (Lee & Recchia, 2008). These influences were both positive and negative in terms of their impact on the classroom community. Ghafouri and Wien (2005) identified four kinds of social literacy that frequently and successfully sustained play in their study. These were leading and following the roles in play, supporting emotional well-being among the participants, collaborating by including others in play by sharing or adding props, and conflict resolution skills, both among participants and between participants and intruders. They found that leadership and power negotiation are important in both developing and sustaining play Apart from seven children who consistently preferred to play and work by themselves joint play was the normal pattern of play for all 75 children in the study. Friendship was the key factor in determining whom they played with, and the nature of the play. However, most of these joint play episodes were of social and parallel play, and regular collaborative play was confined to a small group within both settings. The crucial element underpinning collaborative play seemed be the existence of a leader within the friendship group. Within each setting there was quite a marked difference in the amount of collaborative play undertaken by individual children, and this discussion focuses on those children for whom collaborative play was a common experience as leadership issues were more evident in their play. The narratives are reported separately for each of the settings so that any impact the setting may have had can be identified. In the kindergarten there were four clear social groupings (two dyads of boys and two dyads of girls) that consistently were involved in collaborative play when the data collection began at the beginning of March. During the year, as children left the group to go to school and new children came in to replace them both the boys and girls groups coalesced to form larger collaborative play groups. As membership changed and the groups came together, leadership and control patterns changed within the group. Unlike the kindergarten there were no fixed groupings of boys collaborative play groups in the privately owned centre. The boy‘s groupings depended more on particular interests on the day than on friendship ties. Two boys however did tend to assume leadership and control when involved in collaborative play. John had a dictatorial leadership style while Colin had a more directorial style. Colin was more able than any other boy in the group to move into and be accepted into girls play. There was a group of three girls (Clare, Meg, Jenny) who consistently played together. They provided a core group that several other children moved in and out of from episode to episode. The play was invariably of a socio-cultural nature with

146

W. B. Mawson

a focus on domestic relationships and enactments of school life. Within the three there were conflicting leadership styles and control of the play fluctuated among them both between and within individual play episodes.

Boy‟s Collaborative Play In both settings there was a very hierarchical structure to the boys collaborative play with the dominant boy using a very dictatorial approach to maintain his control of the play scenario. Control was established through a mixture of aggression and intimidation. Leaders tended to be bigger and more aggressively oriented than the other boys. The use of loud voice, repeated demands, exclusion from the play episode, standing over the others, and if need be physical struggle were the common elements of this style of leadership. One boy, John, was the uncontested leader of the boys play during the year in the privately owned centre. The membership of the play group varied from episode to episode, and friendship was not an important element in this, the action and plot being more significant in attracting participants. John relied on his size and physical presence to assume control of any collaborative play episode he was involved in. It was rare for other boys to challenge his domination of the play script or of his right to have the policeman‘s hat and coat or builders helmet and jacket when playing games with those roles in them. Whether playing in a boat or in the police car, John was always the driver or the captain (10/05/07.26). John tended to direct the play using gesture rather than words, and a feature of the collaborative play episodes he was involved in were the long silences while the boys worked together on a common task. His decision on whether other children could join the play was always the binding one. It was rare for him to get involved in mixed gender play but when this occurred it was normally with Clare who was able to direct John‘s involvement is subtle ways that did not challenge his need to assert his position of primacy. In the kindergarten, where there was a much greater movement in and out of the group, leadership was always an area of contestation. In March the two pairs of boys (Barry and Henry, Peter and James) tended to play with each other for the whole of the morning session between the end of mat time and the beginning of clean up time. At times they would drift off to other activities or allow other children into their play, but essentially they were selfcontained units. At this stage of the year Henry and Barry would at times move into the play of Peter and James, but the reverse did not occur. The social dynamics within each pair of boys were quite different. Leadership and control of the play was nearly always a contested zone with Barry and Henry. Rejection of the play situation was a common process used when this occurred. When working with other children both Barry and Henry were prone to respond to challenges to their leadership with some act of physical force. When Nathan objected to what Henry was doing while playing together in the home corner Henry reaction was to twist Nathan‘s arms (27/03/08.04). Barry was one of the biggest boys in the kindergarten, and he had a minor speech impediment that often made it difficult to understand what he was saying. He would frequently resort to physical action in frustration when he couldn‘t get his point across. This would usually lead to the end of the play episode.

Collaborative Play in Early Childhood Education

147

Barry and Henry would often use exclusion of other children as a way to emphasise their leadership and control. They were in the sandpit making poisoned wombat stew when Terry came over. The following exchange took place. Terry, ―Can I help? Henry, ―No!!‖ Terry, ―Can I?‖ Henry, ―I‘m in charge.‖ Barry, ―No, we‘re in charge of our one, we‘re in charge of our one. You‘re not allowed over.‖ (04/04/08.08) James and Peter spent virtually all their time at kindergarten in the sandpit. They had a number of common themes to their play and did not talk very much as they work together. They tended to share leadership and their play was marked by very little conflict. When playing with other children outside the sandpit both were content to share leadership and control of the play with others. On one occasion James and Peter were involved in a very complex scenario focussed around policemen and firemen with Mary and Barry. The play episode lasted for 57 minutes and during that time Mary, Peter and James offered suggestions to maintain and develop the scenario that were accepted without question by all the other children. However, when Henry joined in the play he instigated a physical conflict over possession of a seat in the police car and then of the rope to tie up the baddies as he sought to establish his place in the play hierarchy (08/05/08.14). The close friendship of James and Peter was threatened in early April by the move of Fred into the morning session of kindergarten. James and Fred had been close friends in the afternoon session and Fred quickly moved into the group. This changed the dynamics quite dramatically as Peter and Fred competed for James‘s attention. James now became the dominant person in the play, assigning roles and determining the script. Fred had entered the morning session on April 11th, and by the end of May Peter had left the group and the sandpit and was looking for new playmates inside. Although James made an effort to revive the friendship, saying to Peter on 20th June ―Excuse me Peter, I do want to be your friend‖ (20/06/08.32) the friendship and joint involvement in collaborative play was not fully reestablished before Peter left for school at the beginning of July. No longer needing to compete with Peter for James‘s friendship allowed Fred to become more assertive. As time passed Fred became the dominant partner, firstly with James and later with the wider group of boys. The assertion of Fred‘s leadership in his play with James was not uncontested, and was normally associated with possession of objects associated with the play. In these dispute‘s increasingly Fred came to be the winner. After Henry went to school toward the end of June Barry started to become a regular member of James and Fred‘s play episodes. Barry was not predisposed to accept Fred‘s leadership and take a subordinate role in the group play. The battle for power commenced the first week after Henry departure when Fred, James, Andrew, Peter and Barry were in the sand pit. Fred, James, Andrew, Peter had dug one hole looking for treasure and Barry had dug another close by it. A joint leadership of the large group had been established, with Andrew saying to James ―You‘re doing all the right stuff. And me and you and Fred are all in charge.‖ Fred came back with some water and Barry attempted to gain some leadership and

148

W. B. Mawson

control of the play by firstly saying ―Look at my hole, he brings water to me too‖ and when that failed by trying to change the direction of the play saying ―We can put the poo in there‖ and putting liquid sand into James and Fred‘s hole. Andrew rejected this change of theme responding, ―We was making poo last week.‖ Barry tried another approach saying, ―Join them together‖ referring to the two holes they have dug. Fred responded to Barry‘s leadership challenge by introducing a new theme, ―We‘re going to poison all the people in the lake.‖ Barry persevered with his idea; ―We‘re making poo, not poison.‖ Faced with this continuing challenge James and Fred left the sandpit and starting playing at the water trough leaving Barry to direct Andrew and Peter in the sandpit (04/07/08.35). The competition between Barry and Fred for prime leadership in the wider group of boys continued for a couple of months. It was characterised by heated arguments, conflict over possession of play artefacts and attempts to exclude the other from the play. However, they would always unite to prevent other children attempting to direct the play. The paramount leadership of Fred in the eyes of the other boys was clearly established by the beginning of October. This is clearly illustrated by incidents within a play episode in the sandpit. A group of six boys were digging a waterfall in the sandpit. Luke was about to pour water into the hole but Carlos stopped him saying, ―don‘t pour it in the hole until Fred comes.‖ The boys moved away from the hole and two girls took possession of it. Some time later Carlos came back and saw the girls digging in the hole and the following conversation took place. Carlos, ―Stop that, that‘s Fred‘s hole.‖ Elizabeth, ―We‘re making it deeper so the baddies will fall in.‖ Carlos, ―That will make Fred angry‖ and he goes back inside to tell Fred what is happening to the hole. Elizabeth, ―We‘re going to keep digging, we‘re going to.‖ Alf comes out with Carlos and says, ―Stop digging the hole, Fred will be really angry.‖ Carlos, ―Yeah, we told him.‖ Alf, ―He will be very angry and he will push you in the hole‖ (26/09/08.56).

Girl‟s Collaborative Play In both settings girl‘s collaborative play was characterised by co-operation and leadership was exercised in a more benign and directorial manner than was the case with the boy‘s play. There was more conflict within the dominant threesome in the privately owned centre than among the pairs in the kindergarten. This was due to there being two competing leaders among the three, and a two-on-one situation would sometimes eventuate when two competing scenarios were being advanced. In the kindergarten initially there were two pairs of girls (Wendy and Pat, Sarah and April) who regularly played together. Two other girls May (April‘s twin sister) and Susan sometimes were part of the play of both groups. Wendy and Pat‘s play was closely associated with the home corner and family play, nearly all their play episodes began there before extending the scenario into the wider kindergarten setting. Sarah and April‘s play tended to have a literacy or fantasy theme. In both these dyads the leadership of one girl (Sarah and

Collaborative Play in Early Childhood Education

149

Wendy) was clearly recognized by the other friend and when conflict arose a negotiated solution was normally attempted and achieved by Sarah and Wendy. The leadership was based on Sarah and Wendy‘s creativity in setting up and developing interesting scenarios for the play. Sarah and Wendy also had better-developed fine motor skills than April and Pat and would often provide help in making things. Sarah and April had made cars out of cardboard boxes, and when April‘s broke it was Sarah who she looked to fix it (18/04/08.13) Developments within a scenario where normally couched in terms of a suggestion and a positive response. Sarah, April and Flora had playing family role-playing game that moved into pretending to be a train and chugging around the kindergarten. As the train was moving along Sarah said, ―Let‘s play hospitals.‖ Flora responded, ―Yes, lets play hospitals‖ and the three girls quickly moved into a scenario with nurses and patients in the hospital (04/04/08.07). A typical example of this accepted power and leadership in the girl‘s relationship can be seen in this episode involving Sarah, April, and May. Sarah had established her and April‘s role as sisters and proceeded to give May her role. Sarah to May, ―You‘re the baby.‖ May, ―I‘m the cat.‖ Sarah ―No, you have to be the baby.‖ Sarah ―April, pretend you‘re in the fairy dress and you can blow out the candles.‖ April ―I‘m just excited about the cake.‖ Sarah ―We‘re going to have party games, first we will play statues.‖ Sarah ―Do you want to come to the play school with us?‖ On the way to school Sarah shows April how to dance, saying ―Put your hands on your hips – skip, skip, skip‖ as she demonstrates the steps. April ―Now we‘re big sisters.‖ Sarah ―You sit down because I‘m going to be the teacher‖ and she showed April a book and began to read it to her (01/08/08.38). The dominant leadership role of Wendy is evident in this block area interaction with Pat. Wendy and Pat moved to block corner and started to build a tower-like construction. Wendy was in control. Wendy said, ―It‘s done, it‘s done, Pat‖ and stopped Pat from putting more blocks on the tower. Then Wendy said ―We need more blocks‖ and Pat put another block on the tower. The two girls continued to build up the tower. As Pat put each block on top she looked to Wendy for approval. Wendy said, ―We need more, we need more of those‖ pointing to the small blocks they had been standing on end and followed this with, ―Start making the side bits‖ indicating that enclosures should be made for the animals. As the play continued Wendy continued to direct the building and created a story involving dinosaurs, elephants and sharks to provide a purpose for the construction (07/08/08.43). At the end of May the two groups of girls slowly began to coalesce. This was only an occasional event at this time, but by September their play together was an established practice. From the beginning there was an acceptance of joint leadership. Rather than competing for leadership Wendy and Sarah worked harmoniously together to direct the play of the enlarged group. Both offered suggestions for roles and for themes and it was rare for one of them to challenge or refuse to accept the suggestion of the other. Each recognized the other‘s particular strength, whether it was Sarah‘s ability to make crowns (12/09/08.51) or

150

W. B. Mawson

Wendy‘s expertise in organizing and directing family and cooking scenarios in the sandpit later that morning (12/09/08.52). In the privately owned centre there was a group of three girls Clare, Meg, Jenny) who consistently played together. Within the three there were conflicting leadership styles and control of the play fluctuated among them both between and within individual play episodes. Meg was more inclined to want to dominate the play and Clare more inclined to direct the play. Clare was normally the person who allocated the roles within play episodes she was involved in. Jenny had a much more complex leadership style, moving from a dictatorial to a directorial approach from episode to episode. Jenny also was the girl most able and prone to move into boys play. Just as Colin could take over and direct girls play so Jenny was able to do this with the boys. Again this was due to her ability to bring new and interesting scenarios into the play (Mawson, 2008). The girls‘ play was often punctuated by short-term conflict between which was usually quickly resolved. If resolution was not achieved then this generally led to the withdrawal of one of them from the play. Both instances can be seen in one block corner episode involving Clare and Meg. Within a two-minute period Meg responded to Clare‘s refusal to put a block where she had told her with ―No we don‘t. I‘m not your friend anymore‖ and Clare responded to Meg‘s removal of the blocks with ―‖I‘m going to make a birthday cake and you can‘t have it. You‘re not coming to my birthday.‖ Nevertheless they continued to play cooperatively together for another 12 minutes until Clare dropped to the floor, rolled on her back and said to Meg, ―I‘m pretending, I‘m not going to play‖ and laughed. Meg walked away and then turned and said, ―Don‘t say that. Ok, bye‖ and turned and left the space. Clare ran after calling, ―Hey Meg‖ (08/03/07.04). Clare normally acted as mediator in these disputes, and she also consistently sought to bring any play episode back on track if it appeared to be moving to far away from the agreed script. During a cooking scenario in the sandpit Jenny and Meg had a disagreement that led Jenny to sit in the sandpit refusing to play with or look at the other two. Clare went over, bent right over to look her in the eyes and said ―darling‘ and offered Jenny her hands to pull her up. When Jenny refused to relent Clare introduced a new idea, ―school time, school time‖ and Jenny decided to join in the new scenario (08/03/07.05). Maintaining the friendship was an important purpose of the group and others within the threesome would also act as mediators if Clare was one of disputants. One morning Jenny, Clare and Meg were all painting at the easel. They had been enjoying social chat about going to the dentist and doctor and not being hurt but being brave. Then a dispute developed between Jenny and Clare over the use of the paint and the following exchange occurred. Clare, ―But you‘re not playing with us Jenny.‖ Jenny, ―I am, eh Meg.‖ Meg, ―No.‖ Jenny, ―Would you be my friend Meg?‖ Clare, ―She‘s not anymore.‖ Meg, ―You can be our friend, what about we be all friends, we can be three friends‖ and Jenny comes back to the painting easel and set about re-establishing the friendship, by asking ―Meg Are you my friend, and Clare are you my friend?‖ Both Meg and Clare answer ―yes.‖ Meg, ―we are all friends.‖

Collaborative Play in Early Childhood Education

151

Jenny asks Clare if she help her with her picture, and she agrees. Clare, ―And did you know, you help me paint my painting, you‘re helping me with my painting aren‘t you.‘ Jenny ―Can you help me, do a painting with me‖ Meg, ―Oh, can I help‖ Meg, ―Can I put some circle white on it?‖ Jenny, ―Yep‖ (26/04/07.19).

Leadership in Mixed Gender Play There was a clear difference in the amount of mixed gender collaborative play in the two settings. Mixed gender play involved nearly one-third of the episodes in the privately owned centre (26/85), but only one-eighth (8/65) in the kindergarten. Three of these kindergarten episodes evolved as a result of boys‘ aggressive intervention to disrupt girls‘ play in the sandpit. In all three cases the girls were able to resist the boys efforts to drive them from the sandpit by providing a new and interesting scenario that drew the boys into their play. This aggression/redirection process did not occur in the privately owned centre. In the first half of the year in the kindergarten there was little mixed gender collaborative play. An element of mixed gender collaborative play emerged as a group of children entered the morning session at the beginning of July. The key element was the leadership of one girl, Carol who became the recognized leader in a number of collaborative episodes that normally involved a number of boys. It was very unusual for another girl to be involved in the play. Her core group included four boys, two of whom John and Allen were normally involved in active play involving guns and goodies and baddies. When playing under Carol‘s direction however, they were happy to take part in quite different domestic type play. Examples of this type of play were cooking in the sandpit (Field Note 29/8/08), water play ((Field Note 19/09/08), dramatic play as office-workers (17/10/08.59) and preparing and going on a picnic (31/10/08.64). In each of these cases Carol set the scenario and allocated the roles and her leadership was never questioned by any of the boys. The picnic episode is a good example of Carol‘s leadership. She dictated the roles and actions of the boys, ―And you two boys have to carry the basket together because it‘s very heavy. Yes all of you boys, John, Steve and Allen have to carry the basket because it is heavy. Everybody, plates, everybody gets some plates, let‘s see, that should be enough. Now a bowl, we need one each.‖ At the same time she allowed the boys roles that they felt were gender appropriate within the domestic, family picnic scenario. John was allowed to bring his gun to the picnic, and while Carol changed the baby Steve said ―This is the phone for daddy, it‘s my work‖ and he took a phone out of the basket and pretended to talk on it. John also picked up a phone and starts a conversation, ―I need to . . . one one one, hello fire engine.‖ (31/10/08.64) Carol already had a strong friendship relationship with her main playmate, Steve that had developed socially outside the kindergarten. There was no strong friendship link with the other three boys prior to moving into the morning session, and Carol‘s leadership was based both on an ability to communicate with them in a manner that was firm without being overly dictatorial, and by her ability to incorporate roles and actions that allowed the boys to pursue their own interests within the framework of the play scenario.

152

W. B. Mawson

In the privately owned centre mixed gender Jenny, Meg, or Clare almost always initiated collaborative play. Mixed gender scenarios tended to revolve around three themes, monsters, doctors and hospitals, and family and pets. While Meg and Clare were adept at bringing boys into their play, Jenny, who could adopt either a dictatorial or directorial role, was able to move into boy‘s play and take control of the scenario and widen the number of participants in the episode. One of the boys also had this ability. Colin was able to move into other children‘s play episodes and change the direction of play without causing conflict in the process. When he moved into a performing animals scenario being acted out by Jenny and James he soon transformed the play into much more dramatic scenario involving vampire bats, King Kong, and hospitals (01/03/07.01). On another occasion Meg, Clare, Jenny, and Ada were involved in a family and school scenario. Colin arrived holding a large syringe and the play quickly turned into a monsters, doctors and being dead scenario into which two other boys and another girl entered (15/03/07.07). Similarly a group of girls were involved in a family scenario when Colin arrived on the scene. He immediately entered the play announcing ―I‘m going to be the dad‖ and within two minutes had introduced a car into the play and was walking round the centre with the girl passengers following him (05/04/07.15) Friendship ties were most important element in defining the play group for girls. For the boys, particularly in the privately owned centre, the action and plot was more important in the emergence of a collaborative play episode. In both settings control of non-core members into the play was strongly policed, and ‗outsiders‘ could never be sure whether their overtures to join in the play would be accepted. Within both settings there were clear gender differences regarding leadership and control in collaborative play. Within boys play leadership was dictatorial in style. Leadership was asserted in a number of ways. One was to speak in a loud authoritative voice and maintain this until opposition was silenced. This was often accompanied by standing up to assume a dominant posture over the rest of the group. A second technique was to exclude other children from joining the play, or prevent them from taking some action within the play experience. If these methods did not work then John, Matthew and Oliver would resort to some sort of physical action such as taking possession of a disputed object or occupying the disputed space. Very rarely did they take physical action against another boy, and this was normally seen within the group as an unacceptable use of power and ended the collaborative play that had been occurring. In both settings the leadership style in girls collaborative was invariably directorial. Leadership within a play episode was rarely contested, and conflict was relational in nature (―you‘re not my friend.‖ ―You can‘t come to my party.‖), and soon resolved. Individual strengths were recognized and respected and consensus and compromise was an important element of successful leaders. It was only in the area of mixed-gender play that clear differences emerge between the two settings. This type of play was both more prevalent, and more invitational in the privately owned centre. In the kindergarten not only was mixed-gender play much less common, nearly half the observed episodes began with boys attempting to disrupt the girls‘ play. The key to this different behaviour may lie in the nature of the settings and the length of the children‘s interactions within them. The group within the privately-owned centre was less than half the size of the kindergarten group (18:45) and they were together for at least seven hours every day

Collaborative Play in Early Childhood Education

153

compared with the three hours a day for the kindergarten children. Most of the children in the privately owned centre had also been attending the centre for a number of years so that a strong friendship group had developed, with little change of membership. There was a large turnover of the children in the kindergarten setting during the year and this, combined with the size of the group and the much greater space and freedom to move from inside to outside play resulted in a much less cohesive group. The children in the privately owned centre worked within a space created by combining two rooms in an old villa for most of the day. They had access to a small outside deck, but the outdoor play area was at the other end of the house, and their access was limited to set times. The boys and girls were therefore working in close proximity for much of the day, and this contributed to the greater interaction between them. The pedagogy and culture of the centre also was strongly influenced by the example of Reggio Emilia and this appeared to have created a strong group identify among the children. In the kindergarten the children had open access to a large indoor, and expansive outdoor area and as a result the girls tended to focus on indoor activities and the boys on outdoor activities, with little interaction between members of the other gender group. Play episodes tended to be shorter and less complex than those in the privately owned centre and this appeared to be related to the greater range of activities available to them and the ability to move freely about the whole kindergarten environment. The affect of the space and choice on children‘s collaborative play seems to be worthy of further investigation.

Gender There is a wealth of literature relating to gender differences in children‘s play. One area of interest is communication strategies. Sluss and Stremmel (2004) found that girls block play affected by capability of play partner, but not that of boys. They also found that, unlike boys, girl‘s communication was influenced by their play partner and that they were more likely to offer assistance than boys. Murphy & Faulkner (2006) also identified gender differences with regard to communication in play. They found that girl‘s communication contained more collaborative speech than that of boys, while that of the boys contained more controlling speech. Girls were found to demonstrate more elaboration of peer‘s proposals and more responsitivity and mutual coordination than boys. Neppi and Murray (1997) believe that preschool boys and girls differ in how they attempt to influence their partner‘s behaviour. Girls were found to use indirect demands, polite requests, and persuasion while the boys relied on direct demands, commands, threats, physical force, and a greater use of statements that expressed their personal desires and asserted leadership. Similarly West (1996) found that all male groups used the loudest language, spoke in the simplest sentences and were the most physical in their play. The research of Cook, Fritz, McCornack, and Visperas (1985) indicated that males talked more to same sex peers than girls. Males also made greater use of statements that expressed their personal desires and asserted leadership. They found that males made greater use of lecturing or teaching/directing statements. Gender differences have also been observed with regard to cooperation and collaboration in play episodes. Black and Hazen (1990) found that Girls were more likely to join in the activity of playmates and that the play was more likely to involve cooperative, cohesive turntaking, On the other hand boys were more likely to pursue their own ideas for play it was

154

W. B. Mawson

more likely to be characterized by abrupt shifts of topic, repeated reorganization of play episodes and in general more dispersive social interaction. For boys the degree of liking or friendship with the chosen partner is less relevant in decisions to initiate interaction than the play activity itself (Cook et al, 1985) Other research has indicated that there seems to be some benefit for boys in superhero, war, and rough and tumble play in early childhood settings. Parsons and Howe (2006) claim that boys have a higher frequency of character/fictive and exploration/negotiation role in super hero play, than when playing with other representational toys. Reed and Brown (2000) found that boys use rough and tumble to express care for one another and to develop friendships, and recommended that early childhood educators should encourage rough and tumble, provide outdoor space for it, and give children time to play rough and tumble. Marsh (1999, 2000) has suggested that there is also value in superhero play for girls. Holland (2003) suggests that the prescription of aggressive play impacts on the self-esteem of boys, also affects the self-confidence of girls to engage in active and boisterous play scenarios. Socio-dramatic play is another facet of play in which gender differences have been observed. Girls engage in fantasy play both more frequently and at more sophisticated level than do boys (Maguire & Dunn, 1997; Pellegrini & Smith, 1998). Both sexes enact roles related to their gender. Stereotyped themes occur in fantasy play with girls focussing on domestic items and domestic and maternal dramatic themes, dolls, dress up clothes while the boys tends to be more fantastic and physically vigorous, often co-occurring with play fighting and superhero themes adventure, villainy, danger cops and robbers, fire police and superheroes and were predominantly focussed on action (Neppi & Murray, 1997; Pellegrini & Smith, 1998; Rogers & Evans 2006). Neppi and Murray (1997) indicate that a gender preference for sex-typed toys appears at age two and remains stable. Girls preferred soft toys such as stuffed animals and dolls, bead bracelets, art materials, dressing up and dancing while the boys preferred manipulation objects, blocks, transportation toys, guns and to play in the sandpit. When boys play with female-preferred toys, such as dolls, the play is less sophisticated than it is with male-preferred toys such as blocks (Pellegrini & Smith, 1998). Differences in the nature of gendered social interactions have also been noted. Neppi and Murray (1997) found that in social play, the girls played in small groups, most often in pairs. Their play was cooperative, usually organised in non-competitive ways, and constructive in nature. However they found that boys played in larger, more hierarchically organised groups and that status within the group was manipulated in their interactions with their peers. Boys also tended to indulge in functional play. Ostrov and Keating (2004) observed that girls displayed more relational aggression than boys, and that the children tended to receive more relational aggression from female peers. The boys however displayed more physical and verbal aggression than girls and the children received more physical and verbal aggression from male peers. Girls seek power by commanding the role of mother, teacher etc while boys seek power by commanding the role of superhero (Jordan & Cowan, 1995). Cullen (1993) has also observed differences in girls and boys play in outdoor settings. She believes that parents and teachers interactions with children are gender stereotyped and that this affects children‘s outdoor play. Girls prefer to be where teachers are and Cullen notes that teachers prefer indoor activities, and even when girls play in the sandpit it is quieter, home-type play as compared to the boys more physical forms of play such as digging in sandpit. Cullen suggests that boys are more active and spend more time outdoors where they perform more fantasy play, making use of large open spaces and apparatus.

Collaborative Play in Early Childhood Education

155

As has been discussed in detail earlier there were clear gender differences in leadership style within the two settings of the research project. The differences in the type of language used to influence other children‘s behaviour mirrored those described by Neppi and Murray (1997). The predominant male manner of speaking, even when working harmoniously with friends was authoritarian and based on demands rather than requests. The girls consistently used a more conciliatory spoken relationship. There was a change however in the boys common spoken behaviour when working in mixed groups experiences where they more closely modelled the girls‘ vocal interactions. There were very noticeable quantitative differences in the amount of spoken interaction within same gender play experiences. The evidence in this study contradicted the findings of Cook, Fritz, McCornack, and Visperas (1985) in this area. When playing together the girls were normally maintaining a continual dialogue, some of which was related to the play episode and some of which was purely social in nature and related to consolidating their friendship ties. On the other hand, the most striking element of boys‘ collaborative play was the lack of oral communication between them. The transparent nature of the props they were using, and the action that was the focus of the play seemed to provide sufficient shared understanding for the play to be maintained and for plot development to take place (Black & Hazen, 1990; Cook et al, 1985). There was a much greater incidence of aggressive actions in the boys play. Much of this was related to hierarchical power struggles for leadership of the play episode rather than disagreement as to the nature of the play or the theme of the scenario being played out. Such aggressive actions tended to be quickly resolved and rarely resulted in the loser being excluded from or choosing to leave the play episode. Girls‘ disputes were more likely to be played out in spoken interactions with very little physically aggressive episodes. The focus of the aggressive action was generally focused on relationships rather than the action of the play episode and was exclusionist in nature, with the phrases ―you‘re not my friend‖ or ―you can‘t come to my birthday party‖ featuring prominently. Often the target of the aggression would choose to leave the play episode and look to move into another play group. The themes of the girls and boys play were as gender stereotyped as those found in previous research (e.g. Neppi & Murray, 1997; Pellegrini & Smith, 1998; Rogers & Evans 2006). There was a very strong element of domestic related themes in the girls play. There was a fascination with playing out family relationships and rituals, with a strong focus on food related scenarios. This was consistent whether playing inside at home corner or block corner, or outside playing in the sandpit. Literacy related themes were another clear element in the girls play. Often this was a reworking of stories and characters from popular media. The role of the teacher taking mat time or giving the other children ‗schoolwork‖ to do was a favourite activity for two girls within both settings. They were always able to find other children, normally girls, willing to act as their students. Episodes of emergent writing were often built into the girls play. The girls were more likely to build being chased by and escaping monsters into their play. The boy‘s play was much oftener focused on scenarios involving vehicles or construction-related activities. The sandpit rather than the block corner was the preferred location for these construction scenarios and the play often incorporated water. Goodies and baddies was also a very common theme in both settings, although it was only in the kindergarten that this was accompanied by a strong element of gun play. One notable absence in both settings was superhero play. In the private day-long centre there were two

156

W. B. Mawson

boys who often wore Spiderman or Superman costumes to the centre but on no occasion did they develop a play episode based on those characters.

ENVIRONMENT Shim, Herwig and Shelley (2001) examined the different effects of indoor and outdoor settings on peer play of younger and older preschool children, and the influence of each play environment on children‘s behaviours with peers. They found that children who do not have a rich learning environment were more like to engage in less complex peer play. Older preschool children were more likely to show social interest and attention toward peers than younger children. Children were more likely to engage in the most complex forms of interactive play on the outdoor playground, which they suggest may be due to less structured equipment in that setting. The constraints of the environment on children‘s play have been recognized by Kritchevesky, Prescott and Walling (1997), ―What is in a space, a room or a yard, and how it is arranged can affect the behaviour of people; it can make it easier to act in certain ways, harder to act in others . . .. particular settings invite children to involve themselves in particular activities and the extent of children‘s constructive participation will depend to a large part on how well certain concrete, measurable aspects of the surrounding physical space meet their ‗hunger, attitudes and interests‖ (p.5).

The Impact of the Environment on Children‟s Play There were some clear differences between the nature of the collaborative play in the privately owned centre and in the kindergarten that seemed to be related to the nature of the environment the children were playing in. Essentially, differences in the amount of space to play in and the amount of resources available for play led to different patterns of play emerging. The privately owned centre was situated in an old villa which had been adapted for use as an early childhood centre by the removal of two internal walls to make large internal space. The infants and younger toddlers, the smallest group, occupied one normal sized bedroom. The middle group of children, who were aged from about two years to three years, three months, occupied one of the larger created spaces. This group also had a small outside area for their own use. The older children who were the participants in the research reported here had the other larger created space at the back of the house and a reasonable-sized veranda for their use. Part of the space was also used as the dining area for the other two groups as the wall between their rooms and the kitchen had also been removed. When the other children were eating the space available for the older children became more restricted. There was a large outdoor area in the front of the house that had a big sandpit, climbing frames, a playhouse within it. The children did not have free access to the outside area and often had to share it with the middle group of children.

Collaborative Play in Early Childhood Education

157

In comparison the kindergarten was in a purpose built building that was about the same size as the complete house of the privately owned centre. The outside area was also more than twice the size of that available to the children in the privately owned centre, and it had more fixed equipment in it. This consisted of a larger sandpit, swings, two play houses, a large slide, a water trough, a permanently set up carpentry table, and a painting and collage area. As well as having more space and equipment outside the children in the kindergarten also had a greater variety of resources and play spaces available to them inside, including a large, well stocked ‗home‘ space for domestically themed socio-dramatic play. There was free-flow from the inside space to the outside play area, and apart from formal group times the children were free to play wherever they wished. Although the kindergarten children had more space to play and a greater range of activities and resources to choose from, their collaborative play was less complex and less sustained than that of the privately owned children. The lesser complexity could be seen both in the range and depth of the themes explored in the play and the sophistication of the language used in the play. While the privately-owned children tended to remain focussed on the scenario they were involved in the kindergarten children tended to move more quickly in and out of collaborative play episode and to also flit from place to place during the play. As well as seeming to inspire differences in the complexity of the themes and language in their play, the environmental differences would also seem to have been a significant element in the much greater incidence of mixed-gender play in the privately owned centre. The smaller size of the group, and the fact that they had been together as a group for a longer period of time are other factors that may also played a part, but these do not seem as important. The children in the privately owned centre spent much of their time together as a group in the quite small inside space. They were constantly aware of what the other children were doing, and needed to negotiate and compromise on a regular basis to maintain harmony within the group. As they did not have the same access to outdoor play the gender division of play that occurred in the kindergarten with the boys tending to play outdoors and the girls indoors did not have an opportunity to develop. The preference for boy to play in outdoor environments and girls to play in indoor environments is one of a number of gender differences in the choice of play environments and activities (Frost, Shin, & Jacobs, 1998). This was strongly evident in the kindergarten setting. One aspect of this was the lack of boys block play in the kindergarten. Block play is seen as a consistent element of boys play yet was almost totally absent in the kindergarten, involving only one of the sixty-seven collaborative play episodes observed. Two block focused episodes involving girls were documented. In comparison 16 of 85 episodes in the privately owned centred involved block play, and the majority of these concerned boys.

Strategies to Encourage and Facilitate Spontaneous Collaborative Play Both my research and the literature on suggest that there are a number of approaches that early childhood educators can take that will lead to an increase in the amount and complexity of c collaborative play in their setting.

158

W. B. Mawson

Resourcing Play A greater range of realistic props would serve to encourage boy‘s socio-dramatic collaborative play. It is preferable to have more than one item of uniform clothing (e.g. Fireman‘s hat, construction workers jacket) than a number of different items as this allows group scenarios to develop in which conflicts over possession of the prized clothing item do not play a part, and group scenarios are easier to plot. Many of the resources that are provided for children‘s play have stereotyped usages associated with them, and tend to result in same-gender collaborative play. There are clear benefits of mixed-gender play episodes, particularly for boys in terms of language development and social skills. When planning to resource play areas then a focus on props that will allow mixed gender play with roles acceptable and comfortable for all is important. Similarly, attention should be given to providing flexible materials rather than fixed or directive resources. Children should be able to rearrange outdoor structures to provide settings for their collaborative play but cannot do this if they are either fixed or too heavy A collection of cardboard boxes, empty food packets, cardboard tubes etc is a richer resource for collaborative play than a commercial construction set such as Duplo™. Early childhood settings tend to be highly structured spatially around traditional areas of play such as the block corner, the home corner, the art area, and the library corner. If these rigid divisions can be broken down and some integration of resources achieved then the range of potential play scenarios for children are significantly increased. Quite simple juxtapositions such as putting blocks in the home corner or sandpit, providing drawing materials in the block corner or beside the carpentry table, and providing sources of running water in the sandpit can have quite dramatic impacts on the nature of collaborative play in the early childhood setting.

Teaching Strategies The positive affects of teacher involvement in children‘s fantasy and socio-dramatic play on the complexity of the play have been described by Kitson (1997). However research suggests that teachers only become involved in children‘s spontaneous collaborative play in 1-2% of the time that it occurs, and that less than 20% of these interventions have positive impact on the play episode (Kemple, David & Hysmith, 1997). They believe that free play produces statistically significant more verbal interactions than does teacher directed activities, and the cognitive level of the discourse, particularly in cooperative play, is also significantly higher. Teacher‘s need to take time to closely observe the play episode, and to be clear that any intervention they make will have a positive impact on the play. One morning in the kindergarten a group of five boys had been playing together in the sandpit for just over 15 minutes. In that time they had built a volcano and had developed an increasingly more complicated storyline using dinosaur and gorilla (King Kong) plastic animals. As the story processed they plot turned to escaping from King Kong and the volcano that was about to erupt. At this point Barry leapt on top of the volcano and shouted out in a very loud voice ―Mayday, Mayday, Mayday.‖ Immediately the teacher on outside duty demanded to know why Barry was making that noise, which he should have known was not acceptable

Collaborative Play in Early Childhood Education

159

behaviour. Although Barry and the other boys attempted to explain that they were calling out for rescue their explanations were ignored and the result was that by the time the teacher had re-emphasised the appropriate noise rule the rich play episode ground to a halt. Teacher‘s can also use stories at group times to provide provocations for children‘s own narratives within socio-dramatic play. Discussion about narratives and stories enables children to start to see the structure that underlies story-telling and dramatic representation that they can start to build into their own play. Group time can be used to provide positive superhero scenarios which can be incorporated and adapted by the children into their play in a way which allows them to explore the sense of power and control inherent in this play in ways which adults feel comfortable with. The powerful impact of children‘s own storytelling has been vividly demonstrated by Vivian Gussin Paley in books such as The boy who would be a helicopter (Paley, 1990) and the techniques she uses have been adapted very successfully by many other early childhood educators. There are a range of other teacher interventions that appear to have a positive impact on children‘s collaborative play. The ability to move into the play in a subordinate role rather than a directing role allows teacher‘s to offer suggestions which the children feel able to accept or reject. This type of involvement enables the teacher to instigate discussion about different perspectives of the various roles within the scenario and to move the play away from a focus on the props and situation and conversation to a focus on narrative and dramatic dialogue. Allied to the role of participant is role of provocative passer-by, where an insightful comment or question based on prior careful observation of the play offers the children a new direction for the episode to move in. Careful observation of play can also provide the opportunity to enhance the play by the subtle addition of resources rather than direct intervention in the play. In the kindergarten a teacher had been watching a group of children playing out a collaborative construction activity in the sandpit involving building roads and houses. The play was starting to lose direction and focus. The teacher moved over to the storage shed and took out a couple of traffic cones. She then went inside to the dress-up corner and collected three construction worker jackets. Without saying anything to the group in the sandpit she placed the cones and the jackets on the sandpit wall some distance from the play, but within the children‘s eyesight. Within two minutes the children had incorporated the cones and jackets into their play, which now had serious road works built into it and two of the children had gone inside to make stop signs to use in the play. The teacher also plays a vital role in creating and maintaining an environment and culture that encourages collaborative play. Greenman (1988) clearly set out the dimensions of this, writing An environment is a living, changing system. More than a physical space, it includes the way time is structured and the roles we are expected to play. It conditions how we feel, think, and behave; and it dramatically affects the quality of our lives. The environment either works for us or against us as we conduct our lives (p.5). Teachers impose a number of physical and intellectual constraints on children‘s play. Some of these constraints can be justified in terms of safety and protection, but often rules governing children‘s play appear to be based more on the convenience of the teachers rather than the interests of the children. These rules include such things as not taking blocks or play

160

W. B. Mawson

dough outside, not allowing superhero play, and noise limits. It is important that we examine rules and routines we have set in our early childhood settings and ask for whose benefit are they made, what is valued and what is devalued/denied in the policy. When planning to provide resources for children on a daily level it appears that a lesser choice of activities may encourage greater collaborative play. This was the case with regard to the private day care centre and the kindergarten in the research project reported in this chapter. The lesser range of resources led to a greater interaction between the children and the focus on the more limited range of resources and activities led to a sharing of ideas and suggestions for group play.

SUMMARY This chapter has used research based on two Auckland, New Zealand early childhood settings as the basis for an exploration of the dimensions of children‘s collaborative play. Two case studies of the place of pretend death and leadership were provided to show the complexity of the children‘s play. Although the centres were similar in teacher qualifications, personal pedagogical philosophy and teaching experience and in the socio-economic background of the children some clear differences of play themes and play relationships emerged. In the privately owned centre the ―pretend I‘m dead, eh‖ theme was strongly evident, and gun play was absent, while at the kindergarten the ―pretend I‘m dead, eh‖ theme was absent, and gun play was prevalent among a sizable group of boys. There was a significantly greater amount of mixed gender play in the privately owned centre. It has been suggested that the differences in the amount of space, access to the outdoor environment, and the range of resources available to the children in the two settings provide the most likely explanation of these variances. A number of suggestions with regard to resourcing the environment and teaching strategies to minimise this impact and to encourage collaborative play have been made. The relationship between the environment and the nature of collaborative play would seem to be an area needing more research as the implications for teaching and learning are important. The research reported in the chapter throws some light on one element of the ‗hidden curriculum‘ (Eisner, 1994), the curriculum the children enact away from the surveillance and direction of adults in early childhood settings. In the privately owned setting the three teachers had not picked up the ―pretend I‘m dead, eh‖ theme until the researcher pointed it out. Similarly, the three kindergarten teachers had not appreciated the degree of vocal aggression in boys play until shown transcripts of play interactions. More ‗fly on the wall‘ research of children‘s non-directed play would serve to throw more light on children‘s interests and relationships and offer teachers some insight into this hidden curriculum. Young children‘s independent collaborative play is a very under-researched area. While the research discussed in this chapter has very limited generalizability it does provide some insight into this area of children‘s play and indicate some areas such as the impact of the environment which may have wider implications for early childhood educators.

Collaborative Play in Early Childhood Education

161

REFERENCES Black, B. & Hazen, N. L. (1990). Social status and patterns of communication in acquainted and unacquainted preschool children. Developmental Psychology, 26(3), 379-387. Broadhead, P. (2004). Early years play and learning: Developing social skills and cooperation. London: RoutledgeFalmer. Carr, M. & May, H. (2000). Te Whaariki: Curriculum voices. In H. Penn (Ed.), Early childhood services: Theory, policy and practice (pp. 53-73). Philadelphia: Open University Press. Cohen, L., Manion, L. & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education (6th ed.). New York: Routledge. Cook, A. S., Fritz, J. J., McCornack, B. L. & Visperas, C. (1985). Early gender differences in the functional usage of language. Sex Roles, 12(9/10), 909-915. Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing among five traditions (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Cullen, J. (1993). Preschool children's use and perceptions of outdoor play areas. Early Child Development and Care, 89(1), 45-56. Dunn, J. & Hughes, C. (2001). "I've got some swords and you're dead!": Violent fantasy, antisocial behaviour, friendship and moral sensibility in young children. Child Development, 72(2), 491-505. Eisner, E. W. (1994). Some concepts, distinctions, and definitions. In Eisner, E. W. (Ed.), The educational imagination. On the design and evaluation of school programs (3rd ed., pp. 24-46). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Fawcett, L. M. & Garton, A. F. (2005). The effect of peer collaboration on children's problem-solving ability. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 157-169. Frost, J. L., Shin, D. & Jacobs, P. J. (1998). Physical environments and children's play. In S. O.N. & B. Spodek (Eds.), Multiple perspectives on play in early childhood education (pp. 255-294). Albany: State University of New York. Ghafouri, F. & Wein, C. A. (2005). "Give us privacy': Play and social literacy in young children. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 19(4), 279-291. Gil, E. (2006). Helping abused and traumatized children: Integrating directive and nondirective approaches. London: Guildford Press. Gonzalez, N., Moll, L. C. & C., A. (Eds.). (2005). Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in households, communities, and classrooms. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Greenman, J. T. (1988). Caring spaces, learning places : children‟s environments that work. Redmond, WA: Exchange Press. Guss, F. (2005). Reconceptualizing Play: aesthetic self-definitions Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 6(3), 233-243. Holland, P. (2003). We don't play with guns here: War, weapon and superhero play in the early years. Maidenhead: Open University Press. Howe, N., C. M., R., Jennings, M. & Petrakos, H. (2002). "No! The lambs can stay out because they got cozies": Constructive and destructive sibling conflict, pretend play, and social understanding. Child Development, 73(5), 1460-1473.

162

W. B. Mawson

James, K., Bearne, E. & Alexander, E. (2004). 'Doggy's dead': reflecting on a teacher research study about young children's sociodramatic play. Teacher Development, 8(2 & 3), 165179. Jordan, E. & Cowan, A. (1995). Warrior narratives in the kindergarten classroom: Renegotiating the social contract? Gender and Society, 9(6), 727-743. Keith, D. V. & Whitaker, C. A. P. t. A. p. f. w. w. f. J. o. M. a. F. T., 243–254. (1981). Play therapy: A paradigm for work with families. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 7(3), 243-254. Kemple, K. M., David, G. M. & Hysmith, C. (1997). Teachers' interventions in preschool and kindergarten children's peer interactions. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 12(1), 34-47. Kitson, N. (1997). Adult intervention in children's socio-dramatic fantasy play. Education 313, 25(1), 32-36. Kritchevsky, S., Prescott, E. & Walling, L. (1997). Planning environments for young children: Physical space (2nd ed.). Washington DC: NAEYC. Lee, Y.-J. & Recchia, S. (2008). "Who's the boss?" Young children's power and influence in an early childhood classroom [Electronic Version]. Early Childhood Research & Practice, 10. Retrieved 10/11/08. Lee, S. Y., Recchia, S. & Shin, M. S. (2005). "Not the same kind of leaders": Four young children's unique ways of influencing others. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 20(2), 132-148. Ma, L. & Lillard, A. S. (2006). Where is the real cheese? Young children‘s ability to discriminate between real and pretend acts. Child Development, 77(6), 1762-1777. Maguire, M. C. & Dunn, J. (1997). Friendships in early childhood, and social understanding. International Journal of Behavioural Development, 21(4), 669-686. Marsh, J. (1999). Batman and Batwomen go to school: Popular culture in the literacy curriculum. International Journal of Early Years Education, 7(2), 117-131. Marsh, J. (2000). 'But I want to fly too!': girls and superhero play in the infant classroom. Gender and Education, 12(2), 209-220. Mawson, B. (2008). "Pretend I'm dead, eh": The place of death in socio-dramatic play. New Zealand Research in Early Childhood Education, 11, 51-64. Ministry of Education. (1996). Te Whaariki, He Whaariki Matauranga Mo Nga Mokopuna o Aotearoa, Early Childhood Curriculum. Wellington: Learning Media. Mullarkey, L. s., Recchia, S. L., Lee, S. Y., Shin, M. S. & Lee, Y. J. (2005). Manipulative managers and devilish dictators: Teachers' perspectives on the dilemmas and challenges of classroom leadership. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 25, 123-129. Murphy, S. M. & Faulkner, D. (2006). Gender differences in verbal communication between popular and unpopular children during and interactive task. Social Development, 15(1), 82-107. Neppi, T. K. & Murray, A. D. (1997). Social dominance and play patterns among preschoolers: Gender comparisons. Sex Roles, 36(5/6), 381-393. Ostrov, J. M. & Keating, C. F. (2004). Gender differences in preschool aggression during free play and structured interactions: An observational study. Social Development, 13(2), 255-277. Paley, V. G. (1990). The boy who would be a helicopter. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.

Collaborative Play in Early Childhood Education

163

Parsons, A. & Howe, N. (2006). Superhero toys and boys' physically active and imaginative play. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 20(4), 287-300. Pellegrini, A. D. & Smith, P. K. (1998). The development of play during childhood: Forms and possible functions. Child Psychology & Psychiatry Review, 3(2), 51-57. Reed, T. & Brown, M. (2000). The expression of care in the rough and tumble play of boys. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 15(1), 104-116. Rogers, S. & Evans, J. (2006). Playing the game? Exploring role play from children's perspectives. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 14(1), 43-55. Roskos, K. (1990). A taxonomic view of pretend play activity among 4- and 5-year-old children. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 5(4), 495-512. Sellares, R. V. & Bassedas, M. B. (1995). The comprehension of symbolic play in the nursery school. Paper presented at the 5th European Conference on the Quality of Childhood Education. Shim, S.-Y., Herwig, J. E. & Shelley, M. (2001). Preschoolers' play behaviors with peers in classroom and playground settings. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 15(2), 149-163. Sluss, D. J. & Stremmel, A. J. (2004). A sociocultural investigation of the effects of peer interaction on play. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 18(4), 293-305. Tudge, J. R. H. (1992). Processes and consequences of peer collaboration: A Vygotskian analysis. Child Development, 63, 1364-1379. Verba, M. (1994). The beginnings of collaboration in peer interaction. Human Development, 37, 125-139. West, M. M. (1996). Kindergarten language: Rules, roles and themes in the home center. Paper presented at the Georgia Council of Teachers of English Summer Conference. Wilson, K., Kendrick, P. & Ryan, V. (1992). Play therapy: A non-directive approach for children and adolescents. Boston: Elsevier Health Sciences. Some material in this chapter has previously appeared in Mawson, B. (2008). "Pretend I'm dead, eh": The place of death in socio-dramatic play. New Zealand Research in Early Childhood Education, 11, 51-64.

In: Collaborative Learning: Methodology, Types… Editors: E. Luzzatto, G. DiMarco, pp. 165-196

ISBN: 978-1-60876-076-3 © 2010 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Chapter 6

UNDERSTANDING COMPUTER SUPPORTED COLLABORATIVE MEDICAL PROBLEM SOLVING: DIVERSE PERSPECTIVES AND MULTIPLE METHODS Jingyan Lu* Faculty of Education, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam Road, Hong Kong, China

ABSTRACT Understanding computer supported collaborative problem solving calls for diverse theoretical perspectives and multiple analytical methods. This chapter is divided into five parts. Part one deals with how different theories of learning contribute alternative social, cognitive and technological perspectives on such fundamental features of collaborative learning as scaffolding, problem solving, argumentation and communicative interaction. Part two argues that multiple methods provide resources for analyzing data from social, cognitive and affective perspectives on collaborative problem solving. Part three discusses computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) environments as composed of sets of cognitive tools specially designed to support collaborative problem solving. Part four focuses on an innovative classroom problem solving activity in which a teacher and his third-year medical students simulate authentic medical emergencies in which students are required to stabilize a hospitalized patient whose vital signs have suddenly begun to deteriorate. In mounting, directing and acting in simulations the teacher not only transforms his role as instructor but those of his students as learners. For instance, multiple theoretical perspectives make it possible to focus not only on diverse roles of pedagogical expertise but also on how CSCL based cognitive tools for visualizing and formulating tasks, and for managing data can be used in scaffolding collaborative problem solving and decisionmaking. Multidisciplinary methodologies can support complementary forms of analysis of differently sourced data. Examples of coding, analyzing, and interpreting teacherstudent and student-student discourse, medical problem solving, and tool use are provided. Part five discusses potential challenges to and proposals for integrating multiple methods and sources of data. * Corresponding Author: Fax: 852-25471924, Tel: 852-22415450, Email: [email protected]

166

Jingyan Lu

INTRODUCTION Collaborative problem solving (CPS), as a major form of collaborative learning, has been characterized as ‗small-group learning situations where individuals are encouraged to share their knowledge and skills with their peers as they work together on a common task or in a shared learning/training environment‘ (Shute, Lajoie, & Gluck, 2000, p. 187). CPS provides learners with opportunities to develop social and communication skills, encourages them to cultivate positive attitudes towards peers and learning material, and increase motivation and group cohesion (1989, 1999). It also promotes deeper level learning, critical thinking, shared understanding, and long term retention of learned material (e.g., Johnson & Johnson, 1999; Slavin, 1995). In CPS learners work together to solve problems by explaining, justifying, and negotiating meanings. The positive effects of CPS are enhanced when it involves authentic, complex, and ill-structured problems, which promote both the social construction of knowledge (Jonassen, 1991, 1994), and the development of higher-order thinking skills such as inductive reasoning (Lajoie, 1991). This chapter focuses on collaborative medical problem solving and in doing so will clarify the cognitive, social, cultural and technological aspects of collaborative medical problem solving. However, we will first trace the origins of problem solving in general.

MULTIPLE PERSPECTIVES AND METHODS ON COLLABORATIVE PROBLEM SOLVING CSP contains multiple perspectives from cognitive and social dimensions which provides sources needed to analyze CPS data with diversified methods.

Cognitive Perspectives An understanding of CPS requires an understanding of the origins of research into problem solving in general began. In Human Problem Solving Newell and Simon (Newell & Simon, 1972) characterized problem solving as a recursive series of information processes that included setting goals, fixing agendas and designing actions. Newell and Simon (1972) based their account of the role of long-term, short-term, and external memory in problem solving in artificial intelligence (AI) and in computer simulations of human thought. Thus, the cognitive perspective on human problem solving has from its inception been profoundly shaped by computer technology which has in turn deeply influenced educational research on the representation of knowledge and reasoning in learning. Current research on human problem solving focuses on the acquisition of cognitive skills (Anderson, 1982; Chi & Glaser, 1985; Glaser, 1984). Educational researchers are investigating the cognitive processes and skills by which learners transform problematic situations into situations involving problems with clear solutions (Lovett, 2002; Mayer & Wittrock, 2006). Recent educational research characterizes problem solving as a series of cyclic processes that ―recognize or identify the problem, define and represent the problem

Understanding Collaborative Problem Solving

167

mentally, develop a solution strategy, organize … knowledge about the problem, allocate mental and physical resources for solving the problem, monitor progress toward the goal, and evaluate the solution for accuracy‖ (Pretz, Naples, & Sternberg, 2003).

Social Perspectives Recognition that human problem solving typically occurs in authentic, meaningful and naturalistic situations (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989; Greeno, J., 1998) has promoted efforts to develop socio-cultural perspectives on human problem solving. The following sections discuss three theoretical perspectives that inform current conceptions of CPS: situated cognition, shared cognition, and distributed cognition.

Situated Cognition Lave (1991) argued that learning is a function of both cognitive processes and the social and cultural contexts in which it occurs. Thus, given that learning languages and learning to use tools are situated in specific socio-cultural contexts (Brown et al., 1989), the cognitive and socio-cultural dimensions of learning tasks are inseparable. Context is an integral component of all cognitive processes and not merely a backdrop against which such processes unfold. Situated cognition views learning as a process through which learners enter ‗communities of practice‘ composed of groups of collaborators with unique experiences play different roles to accomplish common goals (Brown et al., 1989; Clancey, 1995). As newcomers work their way from the periphery to the centre of such communities, they engage more actively in community cultures and assume more fully the roles of experts (Lave & Wenger, 1991). Situated cognition involves a form of apprenticeship (Brown et al., 1989; Greeno, J. G., 1998), which takes place within contexts of activities, tools, and cultures. Learning, both in and out of school, advances through collaborative interaction involving the social construction of knowledge. In the classroom, situated cognition calls for authentic learning activities, in which learners construct knowledge dynamically and collaboratively. Activity, participation, and cognition are codependent and a function of the ecology of the entire community (Lemke, 1997). In additions to educational research, researchers in AI have used situated cognition in modeling human ‗cognition‘ and in building ‗intelligent‘ machines. AI describes situated cognition as ‗the study of how human knowledge develops as a means of coordinating activity within activity itself. This means that feedback, which occurs internally and within the environment over time, is of paramount importance. Knowledge is dynamic in both formation and content‘ (Clancey, 1997, p. 4). Both educational and AI researchers appreciate the importance of context in constructing knowledge. In addition, both view situated cognition as referring, not only to how individuals interact among themselves and with their surroundings, but also how mechanisms of feedback are used and built on prior knowledge to direct behavior and to guide the construction of new knowledge.

168

Jingyan Lu

Shared Cognition Shared cognition holds that since learning is an integral part of the environment, knowledge and skills should be acquired in the contexts in which they apply (Brown et al., 1989; Lave & Wenger, 1991). Instead of focusing on individual cognitive processes of individual learners, shared cognition focuses on the social processes. Socially shared meanings cannot be reduced to mental representations, but rather arise among groups of learners through verbal and non-verbal communication and socially shared artifacts (Resnick, Levine, & Teasley, 1991). Collaborative learning is a process of building and maintaining shared understandings in authentic learning environments (Roschelle & Teasley, 1995). Clearly, theories of shared and situated cognition are closely related. The principles of shared cognition guiding the examination of collaborative learning are highly compatible. However, what collaborators share must be clearly defined, e.g., background knowledge, attitudes and beliefs as well as task-specific and task-related knowledge. Thus, the term ‗shared‘ in 'shared cognition' needs to be operationalized. For example, does it refer to cognitions whose contents are identical, similar, complementary, or distributed? Can cognitions be measured with respect to what they share and if so how? Developments in computer technology provide new opportunities for investigation of the notion of ‗sharedness‘ beyond the conditions of traditional face-to-face communication. Such issues guide the design and study of computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) and will be discussed later.

Distributed Cognition Proponents of distributed cognition argue that rather than residing in the heads of individual learners, cognition is distributed among people, tools and contexts (Hutchins, 1995). Cognition is distributed because the knowledge and effort required to solve many problems are often distributed among participants and environments. There are different views of how cognition is distributed (Salomon, G., 1993b), such as dynamic interaction (Salomon, Gavriel, 1993) or cultural-historical view (Cole & Engestrom, 1993). Salomon (1993) argues that because cognition is rooted in psychological, social and cultural processes, learning is distributed among individuals, via common artifacts and shared languages. Three themes have emerged that focus attention on cognition as situation dependent and socially distributed (Salomon, G., 1993a): (1) the increasingly important role of technology in handling intellectual tasks to ease individual cognitive loads, (2) an emphasis on Vygotsky's socio-cultural theory in which externally mediated social interactions serve to account for internalized cognitive processes, and (3) a dissatisfaction with the view that cognition resides entirely in the minds of individuals. Because cognition is distributed among the components of activity systems, e.g., members, social milieus, cultural contexts and historical settings (Cole & Engestrom, 1993) it is not a mental process. Rather, it emerges out of relationships among mental structures and culturally constituted tools (Pea, 1993; Sternberg & Preiss, 2005). According to Pea (1993), external resources change the nature and operation of activity systems. Similarly, Sternberg and Preiss (2005) propose that beyond paper-based skills and thought processes, tools including information and communication restructure human thinking. Distributed cognition

Understanding Collaborative Problem Solving

169

is not limit to the study of participants in activity systems it also examines tools and technologies and suggests notions to be used in the design of computer-based learning environments in order to reduce the cognitive load on learners (Lajoie, 1993; Lajoie, 2005, 2000). Such tools may function as external memory systems (Lajoie, Greer, Munsie et al., 1995), reference sources (Lajoie et al., 1995), communication systems (Hutchins & Klausen, 1996), or other technologies used for daily work (Hutchins, 1995). Above three theoretical perspective emphasizes significant contextual aspects of CPS. Situated cognition emphasizes context knowledge and dynamic feedback. Shared cognition emphasizes the building and maintaining of shared understandings in authentic contexts. Distributed cognition emphasizes the distribution of expertise among learners, environments, and artifacts. The discussion of the four perspectives of collaborative learning provides insights on the examination of collaborative problem solving. Since medical problem solving typically involves collaboration, both socio-cultural and cognitive theoretical perspectives have roles to play in its investigation. The next section describes the multiple perspectives from which CPS activities have been examined.

Multiple Perspectives on CPS Although, there is no clear and consistent definition of CPS, some researchers have define it as a coordinated and synchronous activity within which collaborators work to solve problems by reflecting on, negotiating, correcting and co-constructing meanings (Roschelle & Teasley, 1995; Van Boxtel, 2000; Webb & Farivar, 1999). Other researchers broadly define CPS as involving groups of people working together to solve problems (Avouris, Dimitracopoulou, & Komis, 2003; O'Neil, San-Hui, & Chung, 2003). This relatively broad, though vague definition of CPS supports the emergence of various theoretical rationales, methods, and techniques. For instance, some research focuses on the cognitive processes of problem solving that occur in pairs and groups (Chiu, 2008; Ding, 2009). Some research focuses on collaborative or interactive aspects of CPS (Jermann & Dillenbourg, 2008). Some research focuses on the cognitive and collaborative aspects of problem solving and the connections between them (Hmelo-Silver, 2008). Methods of research and data analysis associated with these perspectives will be introduced in the methodology section. Some theoretical models of CPS will now be discussed. A number of instructional approaches have been developed to meet the increasing demands for collaborative problem solving in learning and working environment. Both constructivist and socio-cultural theories provide insight into the learning mechanism of CPS (Greeno, Collins, & Resnick, 1996). With respect to individual learning, problem solving triggers access to prior knowledge, establishes joint problem spaces, implements searches for new information, and initiates the transformation of information into knowledge that both fits and shapes new mental models. CPS also encompasses social systems and larger culturalhistorical contexts. Learners seek not only to accumulate knowledge but to embed knowledge in social systems and cultural structures and in so doing they are transformed from novices into full expert members of professional communitives (of learners) (Hmelo & Evenson, 2000). A prerequisite of collaborative learning is the creation of common ground which both initiates and supports the construction of shared knowledge (Baker, Hansen, Joiner, & Traum,

170

Jingyan Lu

1999; Dillenbourg & Traum, 2006; Teasley & Roschelle, 1993). A deeper understanding of how problem solvers collaborate in processing and sharing knowledge it is essential in so far as this knowledge becomes embodied in the group. Stahl (2000) proposed a model of collaborative knowledge building characterizing the mutual constitution of individual and society as a learning process. Beginning with tacit pre-understandings collaborators become aware of their personal beliefs and through their woldly activities learn to articulate them and to interact with peers. Shared cultural context enters into and shapes personal understandings, ways of thinking and motivational concerns. CPS also enters into the perspective of constructing knowledge together (Visschers-Pleijers, Dolmans, Wolfhagen, & Van Der Vleuten, 2004; Visschers-Pleijers, Dolmans, Wolfhagen, & Van Der Vleuten., 2002) where elaboration and co-construction lead to the emergence of deeper understandings. Elaboration occurs when learners explain or justify their statements and may occur during group learning when pieces of knowledge are considered in richer and wider contexts (van Boxtel, van der Linden, & Kanselaar, 2000). Elaboration is initiated by verbalizing learned content during collaboration and has been found to be an important ingredient in collaborative medical problem solving (Schmidt & Boushuizen, 1993; Schmidt, De Volder, De Grave, Moust, & Patel, 1989). Co-construction occurs when collaborators seek to resolve conflicts by arguing about a possible solution (Visschers-Pleijers et al., 2004; Visschers-Pleijers et al., 2002). Collaborative argumentation is a medium for co-construction. Argumentation has been shown to be effective in both individual and collaborative problem solving (Diehl, 2000). Individual argumentation skills (Lajoie, Lavigne, Guerrera, & Munsie, 2001) involve formulating theories or hypotheses, gathering evidence and assessing the reliability of accumulated evidence in order to arrive at reasoned judgments or conclusions. Collaborative argumentation occurs when collaborators focus on the same issues and learn to negotiate conflicting opinions in order to arrive at common solutions. It is regarded as a tool for promoting critical thinking and as an essential quality of academic discourse (Veerman, Andriessen, & Kanselaar, 2002). Conflicts that occur in collaborative learning require learners to effectively discuss and negotiate ideas in order to articulate their thinking and to provide evidence for their assertions. Learners must not only assess the evidence of other learners but also introduce their own perspectives through argumentation. Thus, argumentation in CPS promotes the externalization, negotiation and reconstruction of knowledge (Savery & Duffy, 1995). Elaboration occurs in the thinking of individual learners as a result of interactions with other learners while they co-construct knowledge. Thus, elaboration involves individual knowledge building while co-construction involves collaborative knowledge building. Scaffolding is described as a process by which by more knowledgeable teachers and caretakers assist less knowledgeable students and dependent children in reaching their potential by performing tasks which they are as yet unable to do alone based on their current skills (Wood, Bruner, & Ross, 1976; Wood & Middleton, 1975). Scaffolding is closely aligned with Vygotsky‘s (1978) concept of the zone of proximal development (ZPD) which he defined as ―… the distance between the actual development level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under the guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers‖ (Vygotsky, 1978: p. 130).

Understanding Collaborative Problem Solving

171

The notion of ZPD is at the heart of scaffolding and although it has been narrowly interpreted as essentially adult-driven, many studies have found it to be successful in many situations. Scaffolding supports child learning by focusing on contingencies between adult assistance and child performance. For example, Wood et al (Wood et al., 1976; Wood & Middleton, 1975) found that children‘s skills developed when mothers tailor instruction to fit their current needs, background knowledge, and level of performance. According to Wood et al, intervention within one's ZPD is key to successful learning. The contingent method is also effective in interactions between adults and older children (Pratt & Savoy-Levine, 1998). Following the contingent principle experimenters increased support for children who fail and decreased support for children who succeed. This approach is particularly effective for longterm maintenance and the ―near‖ generalization of mathematics skill learning. Scaffolding plays an important role in medical PBL because students are typically faced with problems that are beyond their current levels of expertise. Researchers have proposed various scaffolding strategies to help students overcome various conceptual and procedural hurdles (Hmelo-Silver & Barrows, 2006; Lajoie, Faremo, & Wiseman, 2001; Quintana, Reiser, Davis et al., 2004; Reiser, 2004) The theoretical rationales for such features of CPS instructional models as building common ground, co-constructing knowledge, and scaffolding are rooted in collaborative learning which informs the methods and techniques of designing and analyzing CPS. Given that medical problem solving involves both cognitive and socio-cultural perspectives, the next section will discuss current research in this area from both perspectives.

Medical Problem Solving Medical problem solving has been traditionally examined from a cognitive perspective. Studies of medical problem solving began in the late 1960s with the recognition of the importance of reasoning and problem solving in the highly complex and uncertain domain of medical diagnosis and decision making. Elstein and colleagues used simulated patients and think-aloud protocols to explore the problem solving procedures of physicians at different levels of expertise (Elstein, Shulman, & Sprafka, 1978). Influenced by research on expertise (Newell & Simon, 1972), Glaser and Chi (1988) characterize experts as (a) excelling mainly in their own domains, (b) perceiving larger meaningful patterns in their domains, (c) performing domain skills more quickly and solving problems with fewer errors, (d) having superior long- and short-term memory, and (e) seeing and representing problems in their domain at deeper or more principled levels than non-experts who tended to represent problems at more superficial or less principled levels. Research on medical expertise focused on how various cognitive processes are related to physicians at different levels of expertise. For instance, Patel and colleagues (Patel, Arocha, & Kaufman, 1994) found that during problem solving different reasoning strategies and knowledge representations are associated with differences in expertise. Although, other cognitive processes such as hypothesis generation (Joseph & Patel, 1990), evidence selection (Arocha, Patel, & Patel, 1993), search strategies (Lesgold, Rubinson, Feltovich et al., 1988), and knowledge use (Lesgold et al., 1988) have also been examined this chapter focuses mainly on the role of reasoning strategies and knowledge representation in medical problem solving.

172

Jingyan Lu

Reasoning Strategies Medical problem solving studies have identified two types of reasoning strategies to differentiate experts and novices: forward or data-driven reasoning and backward or hypothesis-driven reasoning (Patel & Groen, 1986; Schwartz, 2000). Forward reasoning involves drawing inferences from available data such as patient symptoms and is used by experts working in their specialties. Backward reasoning involves breaking down larger problems into smaller ones and collecting data based on hypotheses. Although, it is typically used by novices, experts may also use it in diagnosing diseases outside their areas of specialization (Patel & Groen, 1991). The fact that experts use forward reasoning to solve problems within their domains of specialization suggests that it requires highly organized domain knowledge. Forward reasoning also enables experts to draw conclusions quickly from meaningful data unlike novices who tend to rely on backward reasoning which is more time consuming. Because backward reasoning is less knowledge dependent it is most common when domain knowledge is inadequate (Patel & Groen, 1991). Forward and backward reasoning have been extensively investigated in different medical domains and at different levels of expertise and several subtle differences have been found. For example, Patel and colleagues (Patel & Groen, 1986; Patel, Groen, & Arocha, 1990) found that sub-experts (individuals with generic knowledge but inadequate specialized domain knowledge, i.e. endocrinologists solving cardiology problems) tend to use a mixture of forward and backward reasoning when they are unsure of a diagnosis. This suggests that directionality of reasoning is related to diagnostic accuracy (Patel & Groen, 1986). In a study of diagnostic reasoning among radiologists, Lesgold and colleagues (Lesgold et al., 1988) found neither backward nor forward reasoning to predominate. Rather, they found reasoning to be a multi-step process where an initial perceptual decision was made, producing a differential diagnosis set with associated probabilities triggering cognitive processes to resolve ambiguities, either by searching for initially overlooked perceptual features or by considering other sources of data such as medical history and diagnostic tests. This multi-step reasoning process which can be characterized as schema-driven incorporates characteristics of both forward and backward reasoning into a recursive, interactive decision-making process which includes locating anatomical features and abnormalities and characterizing and explaining medical issues. In a study of diagnostic reasoning in mammography, Azevedo (1997; Azevedo & Lajoie, 1998) identified different findings from Lesgold. He found that both staff and residents used forward reasoning and schema-driven problem solving strategies. Protocol analysis characterized their diagnostic reasoning as involving a (a) heavy use of forward reasoning diagnostic strategies and of (b) backward reasoning strategies, or a combination of both strategies depending on case typicality and clinical experience, and (c) rapid schema-based problem solving to facilitate search, characterize mammography features, integrate clinical theory cues, and accurately diagnose and make subsequent recommendations.

Knowledge Representation Knowledge representation focuses on the nature and structure of knowledge (Markman, 1999) in order to provide a basis for characterizing problem-solving processes. Problem

Understanding Collaborative Problem Solving

173

solving can be examined from the perspective of declarative and procedural knowledge. Experts use their procedural knowledge more extensively than their declarative knowledge because they can execute it more quickly and reliably (Lesgold, 1988). This is consistent with Anderson‘s (1982) ‗stage learning theory‘ in which expertise is acquired in three stages: (1) the declarative knowledge stage, (2) the knowledge compilation stage, and (3) the procedural stage. The traditional medical curriculum incorporates these stages into its two-stage strategy for training and facilitating medical problem solving: (1) rule-based learning, where students learn through textbooks and lectures, and (2) experience-based learning, where they learn through exposure to real patients (Schmidt, Dauphinee, & Patel, 1987). The two stages depend on two types of knowledge: (1) basic science (biochemistry, anatomy, and physiology) and clinical (knowledge of diseases and associated findings) knowledge based on declarative knowledge, and (2) clinical experience (knowledge of findings related to diseases) based on procedural knowledge. The acquisition of problem solving skills and procedural knowledge relies more on clinical experience as expertise develops. Reasoning and knowledge representation are important aspects of medical problem solving. However, given that medical problem solving occurs in the real world, as opposed to the laboratory, calls for the ability to collaborate on solving problems under conditions of uncertainty.

Medical Problem Solving in Naturalistic Contexts In so far as medical problem solving in real world or naturalistic contexts typically involves collaboration, it is situated, shared, and distributed and scaffolded by the tools and its environments. In order to work effectively, collaborators must develop shared mental models of the task at hand, shared awareness of the current situation, efficient lines of communication and effective metacognitive skills (Orasanu, 2005). Examples of ―shared mental models‖ involving shared understandings of task-relevant goals and knowledge (Cannon-Bowers, Salas, & Converse, 1993), come from an analyses of how air crews learn to collaborate effectively and efficiently under conditions of high stress (Klein, Orasanu, Calderwood, & Zsambok, 1993) by developing the shared understandings needed to effectively pursue long term goals. Share mental models guide daily activities becoming extremely important under abnormal or emergency conditions by allowing team members to pursue shared goals, without the need for explicit directions. Shared mental models help define problems, acceptable outcomes, and roles of team members. ―Shared situation awareness‖ which is rooted in shared mental models, relies on common understandings of dynamic situations (Cannon-Bowers et al., 1993) and support effective communication which in turn facilitates the development of shared understandings. In emergency medical situations, doctors must assess and communicate rapidly changing patient conditions to other medical personnel for various reasons. This in turn facilitates the construction of shared goals, plans, and actions for managing patients. In sum, the literature contains two perspectives in problem solving research: one focused on cognitive processes, such as diagnostic reasoning and knowledge structure, the other focused on collaborative processes through which shared understandings and shared situation awareness develop. The former perspective has been more fully examined because it is easier

174

Jingyan Lu

to investigate individual cognitive processes. The latter perspective has been less fully investigated due to difficulties in studying groups working in the real world settings. Studies of medical problem solving and CPS are relatively independent and although some research on medical problem solving was carried in the context of PBL, a form of collaborative learning, the focus is on contrasting individual cognitive processes with what happens in the traditional curriculum (ref by Patel et al). Although there are some connections between individual cognitive process and collaborative interaction in other domains, more studies need to examination the connection among individual cognitive processes, such as reasoning, hypothesis generation and communication. Research on CPS is rooted in human problem solving and collaborative learning. Methodologies and techniques implemented in CPS studies should follow those used in various domains. However, are there techniques specific to research on CPS? Given that research on HSP is itself rooted in the computational perspective what opportunities do recent developments in information technology afford? These issues will be discussed in the next section.

METHODOLOGIES FOR STUDYING CPS Methods for studying CPS should be examined with respect to their appropriateness to the various cognitive, social and cultural dimensions of collaborative tools. Cognitively oriented studies of CPS tend to focus on measuring gains in domain-specific knowledge (Arts, Gijselaers, & Segers, 2002), problem solving skills (Dabbagh, 2002) and logical thinking (Cooper, 2008). Socio-cultural approaches tend to focus on measuring communication and interaction (Liu & Tsai, 2008), participation (Jermann & Dillenbourg, 2008), and different levels of discourse (ref). Further, a series of studies have combined both orientations (Avouris et al., 2003; Chiu, 2000; Okada & Simon, 1997; Saab, van Joolingen, & van Hout-Wolters, 2005). CPS methodologies should also focus on measuring learning in well-designed and effective learning environments. Research in traditional educational psychology has tended to use experimental or quasi-experimental designs to evaluate learning. Learning processes and outcomes were examined with respect to whether and how certain instructional approaches or learning environments affected students‘ collaborative problem solving. Independent variables included group composition, such as comparing individual-group differences (Hsieh & O'Neil, 2002; Laughlin, 2008), gender difference and friendship (Strough, Berg, & Meegan, 2001), familiarity (Janssen, Erkens, Kirschner, & Kanselaar, 2009), group member‘s ability (Cooper, 2008) and task design, i.e., putting students in different task scenarios that place theoretical rationales on collaborative learning, or transfer skills, i.e., examining whether students could transfer problem skills better after group work (Barron, 2000). In one study (Hsieh & O'Neil, 2002) students assigned to one of two feedback conditions, adaptive versus non-adaptive, created environmental science knowledge maps by exchanging messages in a collaborative environment and by searching for relevant information on a simulated World Wide Web. Both individual and group communicative and cognitive processes were measured for types of messages exchanged and types of information searched. Correlations between information searching and communicative interaction were examined.

Understanding Collaborative Problem Solving

175

A similar study examined the relation between cognition and communicative interaction by examining cognitive processes during CPS. Okada and Simon (1997) found that paired learners outperformed single learners in verifying hypotheses and making justifications. An in depth qualitative examination revealed that exploratory collaborative activities, such as justifying and requesting explanations have an important impact on verifying hypotheses. The emerging recognition in the learning sciences that authentic classroom and real world situations enhance learning calls for a further combining of methodologies. As a form of collaborative learning, CPS calls for substantially more complex methodologies involving multiple perspectives (Sawyer, 2006b). For instance, communication, social interaction and cognition are dynamic mutually reinforcing processes that shape and are shaped by each other (Frederiksen, 1999). Webb‘s longstanding research program demonstrates that the amount of student learning in group work depends on the quality of interactions (Webb, 1982, 1989, 1992). A number of learning science researchers have adopted a range of methodologies to study moment-to-moment interactions (Sawyer, 2006a). For instance, Sawyer identifies three types of interaction analysis: 1) classroom discourse theories emphasizing asking questions or giving explanations, 2) socio-cognitive frameworks emphasizing conflict and controversy during interaction, and 3) socio-cultural frameworks emphasizing the collaborative participation and joint contributions during collaborative learning. Each of these forms of analysis originated is a separate theoretical framework. Discourse analysis is widely used in interaction analysis to identify and investigate the role of discourse in interaction. Hmelo (2002, 2003) found that the quantity and quality of questions and explanations during interactions in student-centered tutor-facilitated problembased learning (PBL) environments were important in predicting students‘ problem solving skills. In a study of peer collaboration, King (1999) found that certain types of questions can guide cognitive and metacognitive learning activities in peer problem solving. She identified three types of strategic questions: planning, monitoring, and evaluation and found that learners who were trained to ask and answer these types of questions were better problem solvers than untrained students because the former activated existing problem-related knowledge, analyzed problem components, re-conceptualized problems, evaluated alternatives, and accessed strategies in their knowledge base. Training can also generate socio-cognitive conflicts and the search for solutions to such conflicts. Finally, encouraging students to articulate their reasoning provides them with opportunities for modeling effective cognitive and metacognitive behaviors. Examinations of social cognitive conflicts usually focus on the type and nature of conflicts such as disagreement as opposed to consensus building during collaboration (Chiu, 2008; Dosie & Mugny, 1984; Teasley, 1997). For example, types of disagreement affect the solving math of problems by pairs. Polite agreement has a positive effect on constructive problem solving while rude disagreement has a negative effect (Chiu, 2008). Sociocultural perspectives emphasize the collaborative co-construction of knowledge in social settings. Students in collaborative problem solving situations, construct joint problem spaces while solving problems. Dillenbourg and Traum (Dillenbourg & Traum, 2006) proposed that learners build common ground during CPS and qualitatively and quantitatively relate the levels of common ground to problem solving skills. They conclude that common ground is a form of group memory built up at both task and utterance levels. In a study of how high school students used computer simulations to solve velocity and acceleration problems, Teasley and Roschelle (1993) used microanalytic methods to identify and describe

176

Jingyan Lu

interaction as the general forms of discourse used to overcome barriers to joint problem solving. These include turn-taking structures that students used to build up joint problem spaces and ways of dealing with divergent understandings. This section looked at the use of various methodologies to examine different aspects of CPS: different theoretical perspectives and experimental/quasi-experimental and qualitative perspectives deriving from different theoretical perspectives. As no one model of CPS is analytically adequate due to its complexity, different models are needed to focus on specific aspects. However, given that both social and cognitive processes are involved, a combination of social and cognitive methods, techniques, and perspectives is called for, especially given recent developments in computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL). As more collaborative problem solving activities are implemented in online environments multiple methods will be increasingly needed to examine relationships between cognition and communication in such environments.

FROM COGNITIVE TOOLS TO COLLABORATIVE TOOLS Learning scientists have discovered that deep learning is more likely to occur in socially complex and technologically rich learning environments. As attention to the collaborative elements of learning increases, the design of CBLEs has become increasingly socially oriented. Computers and computer networks are known as cognitive tools that support learning in many ways (Lajoie, 1993; Lajoie, 2000) and have been found to be especially useful in supporting collaborative learning. Collaborative learning tools have been found to support visualization, argumentation, and management. This section will discuss in detail the characteristics of collaborative learning tools from these three aspects.

Visualization Tools CSCL environments typically employ representation tools (Roschelle & Pea, 1999), such as concept maps, graphics, or diagrams that allow learners to construct, elaborate and augment knowledge. Visual representations have been found to aid individual understanding and problem solving (Larkin & Simon, 1987; Zhang, 1997, 2002) and to serve as mindtools affording multiple knowledge representations for learning (Jonassen & Carr, 2000). Visualization tools can be content-unspecific and content-specific (Fischer, Bruhn, Grasel, & Mandl, 2002; Fischer & Mandl, 2005). Content-unspecific visualization tools such as graphics editors are not tired to particular knowledge domains (Hron & Friedrich, 2003), while content-specific ones are constrained by content and task-relevant structures, such as visual language tools (Suthers & Hundhausen, 2003) . Content-unspecific approaches have had promising effects on collaborative learning in such fields as chemistry (Wu, Krajcik, & Soloway, 2001), physics (Pea, Edelson, & Gomez, 1994), and mathematics (Baker, Cohen, & Moeller, 1997). Expressive visualization tools model three-dimensional (3D) molecular structures to promote the conceptual understanding of chemical representations (Wu et al., 2001). Visualization tools can provide graphics, images, colors, and motion to present large quantities of data so as to allow high school

Understanding Collaborative Problem Solving

177

science students to observe atmospheric patterns in large data sets (Gomez, Fishman., & Pea, 1998; Pea et al., 1994). In the Collaborative Visualization Project (CoVis), visualization features are tightly integrated into collaborative learning activities and generate logs of the entire experimental process. Students can get copies of logs, put them into ‗Collaboratory Notebooks‘, annotate them and use them as tools for reflection and collaboration (Edelson & O'Neill, 1994). Children‘s mathematical concepts can be developed with the help of symbolic representations of mathematical objects/noun type entities for text and simples pictures, spatial relationships, and operator actions (Baker et al., 1997). KidCode (Baker et al., 1997) enables children to manipulate texts, images, symbols, and graphs and to use them to communicate with peers. Multiple forms of visualization have been found to improve mathematical conceptual understanding and to foster communication. The formats adopted by visualization tools, concepts maps, diagrams, texts affect different aspects of learning and interactions (Suthers & Hundhausen, 2001). Students using concept mapping to collaboratively design and produce multimedia projects acquire greater concept fluency and flexibility when engaged in shared interaction scenarios than when engaged in distributed and mediated interaction scenarios (Stoyanova & Kommers, 2001). More communicative interaction occurred between learners using electronic diagrams to solve electricity problems (van Boxtel et al., 2000; van Boxtel & Veerman, 2001) because diagrams provided shared views that can help them get an overview of the complex problem solving process. Diagrams can stimulate a continuous focus on thematic content. Text representations, such as threaded discussions can facilitate the conceptual understanding of physics concepts (Hoadley & Linn, 2000). Content-specific visualization tools support domain specific collaborative knowledge construction in two ways. First, by providing pre-structured visual representations of taskrelevant knowledge they induce both higher level discourse and support conflict-oriented consensus building (Fischer et al., 2002). Second, they (visualizations) foster the externalization of task-relevant abstract concepts (Suthers & Hundhausen, 2003). Visualization tools are generally integrated with tools to mediate argumentation or to monitor learning. The next two sections will discuss how these tools are used in CSCL environments.

Argumentation Tools Argumentation is a key component of collaborative problem solving and knowledge building. It is a complex and variable activity, ranging from negotiation, and justification, to persuasion (Andriessen, Baker, & Suthers, 2003). Computer environments can scaffold the argumentation processes by supporting collaborative elaboration, providing opportunities for explaining and reflecting, and helping students keep track of their ideas (Lajoie, Lavigne et al., 2001). Computer supported argumentation can be represented as computer mediated communication, structured interactions, argument representations, and active guidance. These four features are described in detail below. Argumentation tools can support synchronous and asynchronous communication. Synchronous communication occurs when learners interact at the same time either face-toface or over computers via text, audio, or video files. Synchronous communication formats range from typed messages to networked, objected-oriented, multi-user, virtual environments

178

Jingyan Lu

for immersing learners in conversation (Jonassen, 2000; Jonassen & Carr, 2000). The immediacy of synchronous interactions can motivate participants to engage in and carry out interpersonal negotiations. Students are allowed to test and refine what they are learning in a community that offers immediate feedback to their thinking and writing. Asynchronous communication tools address the issue of temporal separation. They give students time to reflect before responding and include e-mail, threaded discussions, and collaborative notebooks. E-mail was found to facilitate teacher-student communication (Levin, Haesun, & Riel, 1990) and peer-peer interactions (Baker et al., 1997). Threaded discussions can promote both communities of inquiry and cognitive apprenticeship (Lajoie, Garcia, Berdugo et al., 2006). Instructor can use discussion forums to scaffold the effective use of communication technology and course content. Collaborative notebooks allow students to co-construct knowledge and to share it visually across time and space (Edelson & O'Neill, 1994; Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1996; Winne, 2006). For example, the Knowledge Forum of the CSILE project is a graphical collaborative knowledge building notebook (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1996, 1999) on which students post ideas and questions. In addition, students ‗build on‘ to notes, ‗reference‘ the work of others, make solicited ‗contributions‘, and ‗rise-above‘ previous notes to create new syntheses, or make ‗collections‘ of related notes. The interactive and collaborative nature of asynchronous communication allows students to share perspectives, establish relationships, and seek assistance (Chong, 1998), distinguish alternative views on scientific topics (Hoadley & Linn, 2000), and promote sustained and indepth discussions (Guzdial & Turns, 2000). Argumentation tools should structure interactions to improve subject matter orientation, reduce off-task talk, support greater coherence in subject matter discussions, and increase focus on topics (Hron, Hesse, Cress, & Giovis, 2000). In synchronous communication, structuring is achieved through communication acts (Baker, 2003) or sentence openers (Baker & Lund, 1997; Hirsch, Saeedi, Cornillon, & Litosseliti, 2004). In asynchronous communication, structuring is determined by such task-required processes as knowledge construction tasks requiring the posting of notes and comments (Fischer et al., 2002; Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1996). If scaffolding is involved, the discussion framework should have multiple representations to help students express their opinions and to integrate the opinions of others (Hoadley & Linn, 2000). Argumentation tools can support the construction of argument representations by dynamically creating visual representations of arguments, such as Belvedere (Suthers, Connelly, Lesgold et al., 2001). Such representations can serve as external frames for constructing knowledge and solving problems (Hron & Friedrich, 2003) and can encourage explicit exploration and negotiation, thus improving the effectiveness of knowledge construction. Argumentation representations can shape the context of arguments either epistemologically or heuristically. Both of them are useful for different reasons. Epistemological designed representations such as Emails or non-threaded discussions promote less-structured forms of communication. Heuristically designed representations such as threaded discussions promote well-structured forms of communication (Jermann & Dillenbourg, 2003; Suthers & Hundhausen, 2003) or predefined argumentation structures (Suthers, 1999). Argumentation tools should help guide argumentation and although individual guidance is common in intelligent tutoring system (ITS), research on one-on-one guidance is rare in CSCL and will be discussed in the section on management tools.

Understanding Collaborative Problem Solving

179

There are two major pitfalls in dealing with social interactions in CSCL environments: 1) interaction is taken for granted or 2) its social psychological dimensions outside of task contexts are ignored (Kreijins, Kirschner, & Jochems, 2002). Communication exists in both on-task and off-task contexts and social interactions can directly foster both content and instructional interaction. To encourage collaborative learning, social interaction can be initiated in CSCL environments by tools, i.e. the Group Awareness Widget (WAG) – which supports learner group awareness about others in task and non-task contexts (Kreijins et al., 2002).

Management Tools In face-to-face student-centered learning environments, instructors provide students with contingent scaffolding. In ITS, students receive adaptive guidance from computer tutors. In CSCL environments, guidance is provided in more complex ways by three management tools: mirroring tools, metacognitive tools, and advising tools (Jermann, Soller, & Muehlenbrock, 2001; Reimann, 2003). Mirroring tools help manage collaboration by tracing and tracking interactions and collaborative performance among group members. Interaction and performance data can be collected and analyzed for further comparison and guidance. Metacognitive tools require learners to construct models of interactions and then compare them to desired states. Advising tools are used to intervene, advise and guide learners after collaboration data has been analyzed.

Mirroring Tools Ideally, managing collaborative learning involves making students and teachers aware of their actions. Mirroring tools collect raw data in log files and display it to participants. The collected information helps participants to reflect on their actions and to provide and receive guidance. Information is tracked and collected by means of a structured interface. For example, in HabiPro (Vizcaino, Contreras, Favela, & Prieto, 2000), a collaborative programming environment, the pedagogical and social roles of student group performances are tracked and categorized. Pedagogical support is provided by (a) finding mistakes, (b) putting programs in the correct order, (c) predicting results, and (d) completing programs. Social performance is categorized as motivation and participation. The computer system stores different group models according to different pedagogical and social patterns based on collected information. While learners work with HabiPro, the computer analyzes their performance with respect to various pedagogical and social perspectives and tries to classify them into new patterns. Mirroring tools also collect student information based on structured learning tools. For example, in the gStudy project designed by Winne and colleagues (Winne, 2006), a learning kit uses structured learning tools to trace student note-taking activities. Students can select information from given contexts and then classify it into pre-defined categories. In addition to displaying pre-structured information, mirroring tools can also carry out statistical analyses on collected collaborative information (Chen & Wasson, 2002).

180

Jingyan Lu

Metacognitive Tools Metacognitive tools are promising because they can model cognitive, motivational, behavioral and contextual aspects of situations in which students can regulate their learning (Lajoie & Azevedo, in press). In group settings, metacognition also includes interaction related reasoning. Thus, in CSCL environments, metacognitive tools should model interactions and provide collaborators with visualizations that can be used to analyze them Metacognitive tools can model complex group interaction variables by displaying student participation statistics and patterns. For example, COTRAS can display the number of messages each student has sent as they collaboratively solve a traffic light tuning problem (Jermann, 2004). The system shows students both observed and desired interaction states and students can judge the quality of their interactions and decide whether to take remedial actions. Such tools have a positive impact on metacognitive activities by aiding in the construction and maintenance of shared mental models of the interaction (Soller, Martinez, Jermann, & Muehlenbrock, 2005). Metacognitive tools can also construct effective models of interaction and use them as criteria for providing guidance. EPSILON (Soller & Lesgold, 2003) monitors group communication patterns and problem solving actions in order to identify situations in which students effectively share new knowledge with peers while solving object-oriented design problems. Effective and ineffective knowledge sharing interactions are recorded in an information log of student speech acts (e.g. Request, Opinion, Suggest, Apologize) and workspace actions (e.g. one student created a new online class). Knowledge sharing episodes are considered effective if one or more students learn newly shared knowledge as shown by differences in pre- and post-test performances. Appropriate guidance is given if ineffective knowledge sharing is detected.

Advice Tools Advice tools are used to guide collaborators by recommending actions for improving their learning and interactions. Since effective collaborative learning includes both learning to collaborate effectively and collaborating effectively to learn, advice tools should address both social-collaborative issues and task-oriented ones. HabiPro (Vizcaino et al., 2000) provides both pedagogical and collaborative guidance based on different group models. With respect to pedagogical advice, if a group chooses a solution without explanation, the system suggests a ‗finding mistakes exercise‘ by adding clues to help learners find mistakes. With respect to collaborative advice, if the system discovers that only one or two students take part in the group activity, it proposes activities to increase group participation, such as activating a rotation turn system so that all students must participate. Interaction models are also employed in COLER (Constantino-Conzalez & Suthers, 2001), which uses decision trees to coach students in solving database-modeling problems. Entity-Relationship Modeling also integrates task and social aspects of interaction. COLER provides categories of advice for collaboration-oriented and domain-oriented activities. Collaboration-oriented advice includes discussions and participation categories such as ‗ask for justification‘ and ‗invite others to participate‘. Domain-oriented advice includes feedback, self-regulation, and entity-relationship modeling. For example, if the system discovers that a

Understanding Collaborative Problem Solving

181

student does not participate enough, advice is generated by a decision tree and then selected randomly from each AND/OR leaf of the tree. Advice can be provided by a computer agent. Here the agent is defined as a system that exhibits some aspects of intelligent human behavior (Wooldridge & Jennings, 1995). For example, agents often represent different pedagogical roles, such as expert (Johnson, Rickel, & Lester, 2000), tutor (Graesser, Moreno, Marineau et al., 2003), mentor (Baylor, 2000; Baylor & Kim, 2003), motivator (Baylor & Kim, 2003), learning companion (Ayala & Yano, 1998; Chan & Baskin, 1990; Dillenbourg & Self, 1992; Goodman, Soller, Linton, & Gaimari, 1998; Uresti, 2000), and troublemaker (Aimeur & Frasson, 1996). The agents assume different roles in the learning system based on different models. It has been found that varying the role of a collaborative agent and adjusting the data in the agent pattern can meet the needs of individual learners and provide collaborative agents for different learning models and different theories. This section has described various uses of CSCL environments for managing collaboration by means of mirroring, metacognitive, and advising tools. A review of management tools for mirroring, metacognition, and advising reveals that these features are organized into feedback cycles in the collaborative problem solving. Mirroring tools trace, collect, store, and model student interactions, metacognitive tools display and compared desired states with the current states allowing students the freedom to take the remedial actions. Advising tools allow students to propose remedial actions based on the results of the mirroring and metacogntive tools which can lead to a new cycle of collaborative problem solving. In summary, collaborative tools facilitate learning in a number of ways. Visualization tools are either content-specific or content-unspecific and use various formats: graphics, diagrams, and concept maps. Both content-specific and content-unspecific visualization tools are useful in different ways: content-specific tools facilitate both the process and quality of collaborative knowledge while content-unspecific tools mainly facilitate the process of collaboration. Argumentation tools may be communicative, structured, representative, and guided. Management tools can facilitate mirroring, metacognition, and advising. An ideal CSCL can be achieved by implementing these tools. However, there are trade-offs. For instance, it has been found that the more specific a visualization tool, the more difficult and time-consuming it is to learn to use (Suthers, Toth, & Weiner, 1997). Furthermore, the more complex an argument, the greater its cognitive load (van Bruggen, Kirschner, & Jochems, 2002). Thus, when implementing collaborative tools in CSCL environments, it is important be aware of trade-offs between specificity and generality, complexity and simplicity, and autonomy and dependency (Dimitracopoulou, 2005). For a summary of collaborative tools, see Figure 1.

SIMULATED COLLABORATIVE MEDICAL EMERGENCY In this section, a case study is introduced that focusing on an innovative learning activity in which a teacher prepares his third year medical students for their rotation in internal medicine by acting in a medical emergency scenario called the ‗deteriorating patient‘ (DP) in which the vital signs of hospitalized patients suddenly begin dangerously deteriorating.

182

Jingyan Lu

Drawing on his clinical and pedagogical experience and expertise, the teacher acts not only as a traditional PBL coach but also plays the roles of the deteriorating patient and the duty nurse in order to challenge and scaffold his students who as medical residents struggle to save the life of the patient.

Collaborative Tools

Argumentation Tools

Visualization tools

Content Specific

Management tools

Computer-mediated communication

Content Unspecific

Synchronous

Structured Interaction

Concept Map Communication acts or sentence opener

Metacognitive Tools

Mirroring Tools

Asynchronous

Advising Tools

Notes and comments Argumentation representation

Diagram

Text

Epistemological designed

Less structured

Heuristic

designed

Structured

Figure 1. Collaborative tools

The researcher introduced a technological condition, Interactive Whiteboard (IW), into this learning activity to investigate whether and how it might support the collaborative efforts of students. Thus, the teacher as coach posted and updated information about the patient‘s medical history, medications, and fluxuating vital signs on a whiteboard and also played the roles of patient and nurse. Students were divided into subgroups and while one subgroup was solving the case and being tutored by the instructor, the other subgroups were discussing and documenting their own medical arguments via networked laptops that were posted on the IW. Data pertaining to both groups that is being tutored and the groups that are observing and using the IW. Verbal discourse and computer annotations were analyzed with respect to how networked, IW-equipped laptops mediated student communications and problem-solving activities. Making sense of the data required an understanding of this unique learning activity as well as how other groups influence knowledge construction. Collaborative learning tools were designed and integrated into the IW to support collaborative decision-making in medicine. The tools support shared visualization and collaboration argumentation. Shared visualization tools facilitate collaborative problem solving by enabling users to construct shared problem spaces. The IW can display in real time representations of the actions of role-playing and observing sub-groups. Whiteboard diagrams represent what happens in scenarios by displaying content specific information. Patients‘ information is categorized as brief history, vital signs, prescriptions, and decisions. The structure is similar to patient hospital charts. Some changes are made in order to make the change of problem space obvious so that students could recognize the pattern of the problem. For example, patient vital signs are put in the middle to highlight the deteriorating situation of the patient. Decisions and prescriptions are marked next to the

Understanding Collaborative Problem Solving

183

changing vital signs column to demonstrate the connection of these three kinds of information. Collaborative argumentation tools allow ‗observing‘ students to play an active role by annotating, commenting on and suggesting alternatives to decisions of other students. The tools were designed to scaffold collaborative problem solving processes by promoting productive discussions of various proposed actions and plans by providing a structured patient chart where students could comment on the decisions of other participants in the activity and by proposing alternative moves (See Figure 2). The study adopted several theoretical rationales. A social learning perspective lead it to investigate whether technological support of communication and argumentation during group problem-solving lead to better problem solving and if so how. A cognitive apprenticeship perspective led it to investigate the role of pedagogical expertise and technological support in scaffolding communication and problem solving. Two research questions were formulated. 1) Did the use of IWs to document the construction of medical arguments ‗on the fly‘ promote group problem solving? 2) Did the teacher adjust his scaffolding strategies to developments in problem solving and differences under the two conditions and if so how? Data included protocols of student-student and teacher-student verbal interactions and computer annotations. Protocols of student-student verbal interactions provided evidence of problem solving and communicational aspects of student argumentation and protocols of teacher-student verbal interactions provided evidence of cognitive, social and affective aspects of strategies for scaffolding student problem solving. Computer annotations revealed the online argumentations of experimental group students made and shared by IW condition students on their laptops while students under the other condition interacted with the teacher and solve the problem.

Figure 2. Screenshot of Interactive Whiteboard

Table 1. Common scaffolding strategies that achieving educational and performance goals DP activity

Scaffolding strategies

Phase 1: Rules and case introduction

Constructing problem space by stipulating rules, assigning roles, and introducing cases Constructing shared problem representation by creating structured patient chart Revoicing Creating stress Structuring Problematizing

Phase 2: Problem solving

Major Role(s) played Instructor

Purpose

Nurse and patient

Cognitive, social and affective: e.g. facilitating a student-centered discourse and promoting reflection by playing nurse roles and using related discourse pattern; promote students‘ situation awareness of emergency by creating and updating vital signs

Cognitive and social

Comparison between Technology and non-technology group Two groups are similar as to goals, scaffolding strategies, roles played and purpose

Technology tend to create more problamatizing and nontechnology tend to structure more. But roles and discourse patterns related to these the strategies differed in the two stages of problem solving

Understanding Collaborative Problem Solving

185

Qualitative methods were used to analyze verbal protocols and annotations because they contained discourse dependencies, which by violating the assumptions of most inferential statistics rendered quantitative methods largely ineffective. The qualitative methods used were discourse analysis and microanalysis. Discourse analysis was used to assign verbal protocols and annotations into four coding categories: problem solving, communications, scaffoldings or annotations. Decision-making discourse was coded as planning, data collection, managing the patient or interpreting the situation. Communicative discourse was coded, based on van Boxtel (van Boxtel, 2000) and Saab and her colleagues (Saab et al., 2005), as informative, argumentative, elicitative, responsive, directive or off-task. Scaffolding discourse was coded in accordance with its role and function in role-play scenarios. For instance, the teacher played the role of patient or nurse to help students a) understand and implement the emergency algorithm appropriately, b) manage patients under emergencies c) understand hospital hierarchy, d) develop medical situation awareness, e) work collaboratively with peers. Finally, annotations were coded as proposals, disagreements or interpretations. The study (Lu & Lajoie, 2008) comparing of IW and TW group discourse revealed that shared annotations guide IW group communicative activities leading to more productive decision-making. The findings suggest that interactive whiteboards enabled the IW group to share data and to construct shared understandings about the patient. Shared visualizations can clarify verbal interaction, promote productive argumentation and facilitate negotiation. In the early stage of simulations the IW group spent more time interpreting the patient‘s history, laboratory tests, and vital signs and in the later stage as the patient‘s situation grew increasingly dire, the IW group engaged in more management actions to stabilize the patient. In contrast, the TW group interpreted less in the early stage of the simulation but more in the later stage but engaged in fewer patient management actions. In emergency medical care physicians seek to stabilize patients rather than to diagnose them. For instance, when a patient stops breathing the physician needs to ventilate them before finding out why. Thus, given that the IW group did more to manage the patient than the TW group, IW group‘s performance is more adaptive to emergency medicine. Shared cognition facilitates the construction of shared situation models and joint problem spaces which lead to better decision making and problem solving. A scaffolding study (Lu, Lajoie & Wiseman, submitted) demonstrated that the teacher used his scaffolding expertise in playing different roles during the simulation in order to use different strategies to scaffold student problem solving. Roles and strategies received different attention during different phases of the DP activity. The instructor‘s role was important in the Rule and Case Introduction phase where scaffolding strategies were implemented within the game space and problem space. For example, when the teacher deteriorates the patient‘s vital signs, students need to understand that they failed to do something or they did something wrong. The Nurse Role was more important in the Problem Solving Phase where the teacher had greater freedom to effectively and innovatively scaffold diverse features of student decision-making performance. For example, the teacher used revoicing strategies to induce students to reflect on their actions. He deteriorated the patient‘s vital signs in order to create stress and to induce students to intensify their awareness of the patient‘s medical problems. By playing different roles the teacher had opportunities to scaffold cognitive and meta-cognitive skills (and competencies) as well as highlight the

186

Jingyan Lu

relevant social and emotional dimensions of medical emergency decision making (see Table 1 for a summary of roles, goals, purposes, and strategies).

CONCLUSION Medicine is so complex and knowledge-rich that any single theory of learning is unlikely to ever adequately address the range of skills and knowledge involved in collaborative medical problem solving. However, cognitive analysis should be seen as a basis for developing and evaluating new structures and methods of medical practice. Further, due to its collaborative and real world nature, the cognitive foundations of medical practice are in turn shaped by socio-cultural practices and affective forces and contextually embedded technological artifacts. Consequently, medical education must take into consideration the cognitive, socio-cultural, affective and technological dimensions of collaborative medical problem solving (Patel, Yoskowitz, Arocha, & Shortliffe, in press) The methodological challenges confronting this study involved describing and interpreting a complex clinical learning activity. Thus, the use of medical scenarios using role-plays rather than traditional PBL activities to introduce students to clinical problem solving skill called for a change in the theoretical perspective on student learning from that of ill-structured problem solving to that of naturalistic decisionmaking. The teacher scaffolded various cognitive, socio-cultural, affective and technological role-play needs of students engaged in trying to stabilize the deteriorating patient. Consequently, understanding how and why the teacher sought to achieve various pedagogical goals posed unique methodological challenges requiring familiarity with this uniquely innovative teaching activity. Although this study provide valuable data, future studies might triangulate the various forms of data so as to better reveal relationships and interdependencies between teaching, scaffolding, technology, communication and decision making. Although, decision-making, scaffolding and communicative discourse were examined and coded from multiple perspectives significant connection were surly missed given the complexity of medical scenarios. For instance, although the semantic functions of annotations in solving medical scenarios were examined, their pragmatic, affective and cultural functions in dealing with medical scenarios were not. Annotations may be more fully explored through retrospective interviews. Methodological challenges also bring analytical challenges. How can verbal discourse, actions, interactions , computer logs and annotations be integrated so as to support insights into student learning? How can we incorporate diverse forms of data in such a way as to assist teachers in scaffolding student learning? If there is scaffolding synergy between the teacher and technology, is it mediated by student actions? Although answering these questions is a work i n progress we have given thought to future work in this area. Given that authentic learning activities are socially situated, cognitively structured and affectively charged they should not be examined in isolation from communicative activities and technology using behavior.

Understanding Collaborative Problem Solving

187

REFERENCES Aimeur, E. & Frasson, C. (1996). Analyzing a new learning strategy according to different knowledge levels. Computers and Education, 27(2), 115-127. Anderson, J. R. (1982). Acquisition of cognitive skill. Psychological Review, 89, 369-406. Andriessen, J., Baker, M. & Suthers, D. (Eds.). (2003). Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic. Arocha, J. F., Patel, V. L. & Patel, Y. C. (1993). Hypothesis generation and the coordination of theory and evidence in novice diagnostic reasoning. Medical Decision Making, 13, 198-213. Arts, J. A., Gijselaers, W. H. & Segers, M. S. (2002). Cognitive effects of an authentic computer-supported, problem-based learning environment. Instructional Science, 30(6), 465-495. Avouris, N., Dimitracopoulou, A. & Komis, V. (2003). On analysis of collaborative problem solving: An object-oriented approach. Computers in Human Behavior, 19(2), 147-167. Ayala, G. & Yano, Y. (1998). A collaborative learning environment based on intelligent agents. Expert Systems with Applications, 14(1-2), 129-137. Azevedo, R. (1997). Expert problem solving in mammogram interpretation: A visual cognitive task. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Azevedo, R. & Lajoie, S. (1998). The cognitive basis for the design of a mammography interpretation tutor. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 9, 32-44. Baker, M. (2003). Computer-mediated argumentative interactions for the co-elaboration of scientific notions. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning (pp. 47-78). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic. Baker, M., Cohen, J. L. & Moeller, B. (1997, December). KidCode: Using email to structure interactions for elementary mathematics instruction. Paper presented at the Second International Conference of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Toronto, Canada. Baker, M., Hansen, T., Joiner, R. & Traum, D. (1999). The role of grounding in collaborative learning tasks. In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Collaborative learning: Cognitive and computational approaches (pp. 31-63). Oxford, UK: Pergamon. Baker, M. & Lund, K. (1997). Promoting reflective interactions in a CSCL environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 13, 175-193. Barron, B. (2000). Problem Solving in Video-based Microworlds: Collaborative and Individual Outcomes of High-Achieving Sixth-Grade Students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(2), 391-398. Baylor, A. L. (2000). Beyond butlers: intelligent agents as mentors. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 22(4), 373-382. Baylor, A. L. & Kim, Y. (2003). Validating pedagogical agent roles: Expert, Motivator, and Mentor. Paper presented at the Annual World Conference of Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia, & Telecommunication (Ed-Media 2003), Honolulu, Hawaii.

188

Jingyan Lu

Brown, J. S., Collins, A. & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42. Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Salas, E. & Converse, S. (1993). Shared mental models in expert team decision making. In N. J. J. Castellan (Ed.), Individual and group decision making (pp. 221-246). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Chan, T. W. & Baskin, A. B. (1990). Learning companion systems. In C. Frasson & G. Gauthier (Eds.), Intelligent tutoring systems: At the crossroad of artificial intelligence and education (pp. 6-33). New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation. Chen, W. & Wasson, B. (2002). An instructional assistant agent for distributed collaborative learning. In S. Cerri, G. Gouarderes & F. Paraguacu (Eds.), Intelligent Tutoring Systems: Vol. 2363. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (pp. 609-618). London, UK: Springer. Chi, M. T. H. & Glaser, R. (1985). Problem solving ability. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Human abilities: An information processing approach (pp. 227-250). New York: W. H. Freeman and Company. Chiu, M. M. (2000). Group problem-solving processes: Social interactions and individual actions. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 30(1), 27-49. Chiu, M. M. (2008). Flowing toward correct contributions during group problem solving: A statistical discourse analysis. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17(3), 415 - 463. Chong, S. M. (1998). Models of asynchronous computer conference for collaborative learning in large college class. In C. J. Bonk & K. S. King (Eds.), Electronic collaborators (pp. 157-182). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associations. Clancey, W. J. (1995). A tutorial on situated learning. In J. Self (Ed.), Proceedings of the International Conference on Computers and Education (pp. 49-70). Charlottesville, VA: AACE. Clancey, W. J. (1997). Situated cognition: On human knowledge and computer representations. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Cole, M. & Engestrom, Y. (1993). A cultural-historical approach to distributed cognition. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 1-46). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Constantino-Conzalez, M. & Suthers, D. (2001). Coaching collaboration by comparing solutions and tracking participants. In P. Dillenbourg, A. Eurelings & K. Hakkarainen (Eds.), European perspectives on Computer-supported collaborative learning: First European Conference on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (Euro-CSCL) (pp. 173-180): McLuhan Institute: University of Maastricht. Cooper, M. M., Cox Jr., C. T., Nammouz, M., Case, E. & Stevens, R. (2008). An Assessment of the effect of collaborative groups on students' problem-solving strategies and abilities. Journal of Chemical Education, 85(6), 866-872. Dabbagh, N. (2002). Assessing complex problem-solving skills and knowledge assembly using web-based hypermedia design. Paper presented at the Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (New Orleans, LA, April 15, 2002). Diehl, C. L. (2000, April ). "Reasoner's Workbench" program supports students' individual and collaborative argumentation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research and Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA Dillenbourg, P. & Self, J. (1992). People power: a human-computer collaborative learning system. In C. Frasson & G. McCalla (Eds.), The 2nd International Conference of

Understanding Collaborative Problem Solving

189

Intelligent Tutoring Systems, Lecture Notes in Computer Science (pp. 651-660). Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag. Dillenbourg, P. & Traum, D. (2006). Sharing solutions: Persistence and grounding in multimodal collaborative problem solving. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(1), 121 151. Dimitracopoulou, A. (2005, June). Designing collaborative learning systems: current trends and future research agenda Paper presented at the conference of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, Taipei, Taiwan. Ding, N. (2009). Visualizing the sequential process of knowledge elaboration in computersupported collaborative problem solving. Computers & Education, 52, 509-519. Dosie, W. & Mugny, W. (1984). The Social development of the intellect. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Edelson, D. & O'Neill, D. K. (1994, June). The CoVis collaboratory notebook: Supporting collaborative scientific enquiry. Paper presented at the Annual National Educational Computing Conference, Boston, Massachusetts. Elstein, A., Shulman, L. & Sprafka, S. (1978). Medical problem solving: An analysis of clinical reasoning Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Fischer, F., Bruhn, J., Grasel, C. & Mandl, H. (2002). Fostering collaborative knowledge construction with visualization tools. Learning and Instruction, 12, 213-232. Fischer, F. & Mandl, H. (2005). Knowledge convergence in computer-supported collaborative learning: The role of external representation tools. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(3), 405 - 441. Frederiksen, C. H. (1999). Learning to reason through discourse in a problem-based learning group. Discourse Processes, 27(2), 135-160. Glaser, R. (1984). Education and Thinking: The Role of Knowledge. American Psychologist, 39(2), 93-104. Glaser, R. & Chi, M. T. H. (1988). Overview. In M. T. H. Chi & R. Glaser (Eds.), The nature of expertise (pp. xv-xxviii). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Gomez, L. M., Fishman., B. J. & Pea, R. D. (1998). The CoVis Project: Building a large scale science education testbed. Interactive Learning Environments, 6(1-2), 59-92. Goodman, B., Soller, A., Linton, F. & Gaimari, R. (1998). Encouraging student reflection and articulation using a learning companion. Paper presented at the 8th World Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (AI-ED 98), Kobe, Japan. Graesser, A. C., Moreno, K. N., Marineau, J. C., Adcock, A., Olney, A. & Person, N. (2003). AutoTutor Improves Deep Learning of Computer Literacy: Is It the Dialog or the Talking Head? Paper presented at the International Conference of Artificial Intelligence in Education, Sydney, Australia. Greeno, J. (1998). The situativity of knowing, learning, and research. American Psychologist, 53(1), 5-26. Greeno, J. G. (1998). The Situativity of Knowing, Learning, and Research. American Psychologist, 53(1), 5-26. Greeno, J. G., Collins, A. M. & Resnick, L. B. (1996). Cognition and learning. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 15-46). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan. Guzdial, M. & Turns, J. (2000). Effective discussion through a computer-mediated anchored forum. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9, 437-469.

190

Jingyan Lu

Hirsch, L., Saeedi, M., Cornillon, J. & Litosseliti, L. (2004). A structured dialogue tool for argumentative learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20, 72-80. Hmelo-Silver, C. E. & Barrows, H. S. (2006). Goals and strategies of a problem-based learning facilitator. The Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 1(1), 2139. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Chernobilsky, E. & Jordan, R. (2008). Understanding collaborative learning processes in new learning environments. Instructional Science, 36(5-6), 409430. Hmelo, C. E. (2002). Collaborative ways of knowing: Issues in facilitation. In G. Stahl (Ed.), Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 2002 (pp. 199-208). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Association. Hmelo, C. E. (2003, January). Facilitating collaborative knowledge construction. Paper presented at the 36th annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences Big Island, Hawaii. Hmelo, C. E. & Evenson, D. H. (2000). Problem-based learning: gaining insights on learning interactions through multiple methods of inquiry. In D. H. Evenson & C. E. Helmo (Eds.), Problem-Based Learning: A research perspective on learning interactions. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associations. Hoadley, C. M. & Linn, M. C. (2000). Teaching science through online, peer discussions: SpeakEasy in the knowledge integration environment. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 839-857. Hron, A. & Friedrich, H. F. (2003). A review of web-based collaborative learning: Factors beyond technology. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19(1), 70-79. Hron, A., Hesse, F. W., Cress, U. & Giovis, C. (2000). Implicit and explicit dialogue structuring in virtual learning groups. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 5364. Hsieh, I. L. G. & O'Neil, H. F. (2002). Types of feedback in a computer-based collaborative problem-solving group task. Computers in Human Behavior, 18(6), 699-715. Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild Cambridge, MA: MIT press. Hutchins, E. & Klausen, T. (1996). Distributed cognition in an airline cockpit. In Y. Engestr & D. Middleton (Eds.), Cognition and communication at work (pp. 15-34). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Janssen, J., Erkens, G., Kirschner, P. A. & Kanselaar, G. (2009). Influence of group member familiarity on online collaborative learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(1), 161170. Jermann, P. (2004). Computer support for interaction regulation in collaborative problemsolving. University of Geneva. Jermann, P. & Dillenbourg, P. (2003). Elaborating new arguments through a CSCL script. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 205-226). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic. Jermann, P. & Dillenbourg, P. (2008). Group mirrors to support interaction regulation in collaborative problem solving. Computers & Education, 51, 279-296. Jermann, P., Soller, A. & Muehlenbrock, M. (2001, March). From mirroring to guiding: A review of state of the art technology for supporting collaborative learning. Paper

Understanding Collaborative Problem Solving

191

presented at the First European conference on Computer-supported collaborative learning, Maastricht, Netherlands. Johnson, D. W. & Johnson, R. T. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and research: (1989). Johnson, D. W. & Johnson, R. T. (Eds.). (1999). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Johnson, W. L., Rickel, J. W. & Lester, J. C. (2000). Animated pedagogical agents: face-toface interaction in interactive learning environments. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 11, 47-78. Jonassen, D. H. (1991). Context is everything. Educational Technology, 31(6), 35-37. Jonassen, D. H. (1994). Toward a construtvisit design model. Educational Technology, 34(4), 34-37. Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Computers as mindtools for school: Engaging critical thinking. Upper Saddle River, N.J: Merrill. Jonassen, D. H. & Carr, C. (2000). Mindtools: Affording multiple knowledge representations for learning. In S. P. Lajoie (Ed.), Computers as cognitive tools II: No more walls: Theory change, paradigm shifts and their influence on the use of computers for instructional purposes (pp. 165-196). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Joseph, G. M. & Patel, V. L. (1990). Domain knowledge and hypothesis generation in diagnostic reasoning. Medical Decision Making, 10(1), 31-46. King, A. (1999). Discourse patterns for mediating peer learning. In A. M. O'Donnell & A. King (Eds.), Cognitive perspectives on peer learning (pp. 87-115). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associations. Klein, G. A., Orasanu, J., Calderwood, R. & Zsambok, C. E. (1993). Decision making in action: Models and methods. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing. Kreijins, K., Kirschner, P. A. & Jochems, W. (2002). The sociability of computer-supported collaborative learning environments. Educational Technology & Society, 5(1), 8-22. Lajoie, S. P. (1991). A framework for authentic assessment for mathematics. Education Reserach Review, 1(1), 6-12. Lajoie, S. P. (1993). Computer environments as cognitive tools for enhancing learning. In S. P. Lajoie & S. J. Derry (Eds.), Computers as cognitive tools (pp. 261-288). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Lajoie, S. P. (2005). Cognitive tools for the mind: The promises of technology: Cognitive amplifiers or bionic prosthetics? In R. J. Sternberg & D. Preiss (Eds.), Intelligence and technology: Impact of tools on the nature and development of human skills (pp. 87-102). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Lajoie, S. P. (Ed.). (2000). Computer as cognitive tools: No more walls. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Lajoie, S. P. & Azevedo, R. (in press). Teaching and learning in technology-rich environments. In P. Winne & P. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of Educatinal Psychology (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Lajoie, S. P., Faremo, S. & Wiseman, J. (2001). Identifying human tutoring strategies for effective instruction in internal medicine. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 12, 293-309.

192

Jingyan Lu

Lajoie, S. P., Garcia, B. C., Berdugo, G. C., Marquez, L., Espíndola, S. & Nakamura, C. (2006). The creation of virtual and face-to-face learning communities: An international collaborative experience. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 35, 163-180. Lajoie, S. P., Greer, J. E., Munsie, S. D., Wilkie, T. V., Guerrera, C. & Aleong, P. (1995). Establishing an argumentation environment to foster scientific reasoning with Bio-World. In D. Jonassen & G. McCalla (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference on Computers in Education (pp. 89-96). Charlottesville, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education. Lajoie, S. P., Lavigne, N. C., Guerrera, C. & Munsie, S. D. (2001). Constructing knowledge in the context of BioWorld. Instructional Science, 29(2), 155-186. Larkin, J. H. & Simon, H. A. (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive Science, 11(11), 65-99. Laughlin, P. R., Carey, H. R. & Kerr, N. L. (2008). Group-to-Individual Problem-Solving Transfer. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 11(3), 319-330. Lave, J. (1991). Situated learning in communities of practice. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 63-82). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (Eds.). (1991). Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Lemke, J. L. (1997). Cognition, context and learning: A social semiotic perspective. In D. Kirshner & J. A. Whitson (Eds.), Situated cognition: Social, semiotic, and psychological perspectives. (pp. 37-56). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associations. Lesgold, A. (1988). Problem solving. In R. Sternberg & E. Smith (Eds.), The psychology of human thought (pp. 188-213). Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press. Lesgold, A., Rubinson, H., Feltovich, P., Glaser, R., Klopfer, D. & Wang, Y. (1988). Expertise in a complex skill: Diagnosing X-ray picture. In M. Chi, R. Glaser & M. J. Farr (Eds.), The nature of expertise (pp. 311-342). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associations. Levin, J., Haesun, K. & Riel, M. (1990). Analyzing instructional interactions on electronic mail networks. In L. M. Harasim (Ed.), Online education: Perspectives on a new environment (pp. 185-213). New York, NY: Praeger Publishing. Liu, C. C. & Tsai, C. C. (2008). An analysis of peer interaction patterns as discoursed by online small group problem-solving activity. Computers & Education, 50(3), 627-639. Lovett, M. C. (2002). Problem solving. In D. Medin (Ed.), Stevens' handbook of experimental psychology (3rd ed., Vol. 2, pp. 317-362). New York: Wiley. Lu, J. & Lajoie, S. P. (2008). Supporting medical decision making with argumentation tools. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 425-442. Lu, J. & Lajoie, S. P., Wiseman, J. (submitted, Nov. 2008). Scaffolding collaboration in simulation based medical emergencies. Instructional Science. Markman, A. B. (1999). Knowledge representation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associations. Mayer, R. E. & Wittrock, M. C. (2006). Problem solving. In P. A. Alexander & P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 287-303). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Newell, A. & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall.

Understanding Collaborative Problem Solving

193

O'Neil, H. F., San-Hui, C. & Chung, G. K. W. K. (2003). Issues in the computer-based assessment of collaborative problem solving. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 10, 361-373. Okada, T. & Simon, H. A. (1997). Collaborative discovery in a scientific domain. Cognitive Science, 21(2), 109-146. Orasanu, J. (2005). Crew collaboration in space: A naturalistic decision-making perspective. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine 76(6 (Sect2,Suppl)), B154-B163. Patel, V. L., Arocha, J. F. & Kaufman, D. R. (1994). Diagnostic reasoning and medical expertise. In D. L. Medin (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Vol. 31. Advances in research and theory (pp. 187-252). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Patel, V. L. & Groen, G. J. (1986). Knowledge based solution strategies in medical reasoning. Cognitive Science, 10(1), 91-116. Patel, V. L. & Groen, G. J. (1991). The general and specific nature of medical expertise: A critical look. In K. A. Ericsson & S. Jacqui (Eds.), Toward a general theory of expertise: Prospects and limits. (pp. 93-125). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Patel, V. L., Groen, G. J. & Arocha, J. F. (1990). Medical expertise as a function of task difficulty. Memory & Cognition, 18(4), 394-406. Patel, V. L., Yoskowitz, N. A., Arocha, J. F. & Shortliffe, E. H. (in press). Cognitive and learning sciences in biomedical and health instructional design: A review with lessons for biomedical informatics education. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, In Press, Corrected Proof. Pea, R., Edelson, D. & Gomez, L. (1994, June). The CoVis Collaboratory: High school science learning supported by a broadband educational network with scientific visualization, videoconferencing, and collaborative computing. Paper presented at the annual meeting of American Education Research Association, New Orleans, LA. Pea, R. D. (1993). Practices of distributed intelligence and designs for education. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed Cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 1-46). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Pratt, M. W. & Savoy-Levine, K. M. (1998). Contingent tutoring of long-division skills in fourth and fifth graders: Experimental tests of some hypotheses about scaffolding. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 19(2), 287-304. Pretz, J. E., Naples, A. J. & Sternberg, R. J. (2003). Recognizing, defining, and representing problems. In J. E. Davidson & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The Psychology of problem solving (pp. 3-30). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Quintana, C., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Krajcik, J., Fretz, E., Duncan, R. G., et al. (2004). A scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 337-386. Reimann, P. (2003, July). How to support groups in learning: More than problem solving. Paper presented at the 11th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education Sydney, Australia. Reiser, B. J. (2004). Scaffolding complex learning: The mechanisms of structuring and problematizing student work. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 273-304. Resnick, L., Levine, J. & Teasley, S. (Eds.). (1991). Perspectives on socially shared cognition. Washington DC: APA Press. Roschelle, J. & Pea, R. (1999). Trajectories from today's WWW to a powerful educational infrastructure. Educational Researcher, 28(5), 22-25. + 43.

194

Jingyan Lu

Roschelle, J. & Teasley, S. D. (1995). The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving. In C. E. O'Malley (Ed.), Computer-supported collaborative learning (pp. 69-97). New York: Springer-Verlag. Saab, N., van Joolingen, W. R. & van Hout-Wolters, B. H. (2005). Communication in collaborative discovery learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology 75, 603-621. Salomon, G. (1993a). Editor's introduction. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. xi-xxi). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Salomon, G. (1993). No distribution without individuals' cognition: A dynamic interactional view. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 111-138). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Salomon, G. (Ed.). (1993b). Distributed cognition: psychological and educational considerations. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Savery, J. R. & Duffy, T. M. (1995). Problem based learning: An instructional model and its constructivist framework. Educational Technology, 35(5), 31-37. Sawyer, R. K. (2006a). Analyzing collaborative discourse. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sceinces (pp. 187-204). New York: Cambridge University Press. Sawyer, R. K. (2006b). Introduction: The new science of learning. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 1-18). New York: Cambridge University Press. Scardamalia, M. & Bereiter, C. (1996). Computer support for knowledge-building communities. In T. Koschmann (Ed.), CSCL: Theory and practice of an emerging paradigm: Vol. 1. Computers, cognition, and work. (pp. 249-268). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Scardamalia, M. & Bereiter, C. (1999). Schools as knowledge-building organizations. In D. P. Keating & C. Hertzman (Eds.), Developmental health and the wealth of nations: Social, biological, and educational dynamics (pp. 274-289). New York: Guilford. Schmidt, H. G. & Boushuizen, H. P. A. (1993). On acquiring expertise in medicine. Educational psychology Review, 5, 205-221. Schmidt, H. G., Dauphinee, W. D. & Patel, V. L. (1987). Comparing the effects of problembased and conventional curricula in an international sample. Journal of Medical Education, 62(4), Apr 1987. Schmidt, H. G., De Volder, M. L., De Grave, W. S., Moust, H. C. & Patel, V. L. (1989). Explanatory models in the processing of science text: the role of prior knowledge activation through small-group discussion. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 610619. Schwartz, A. S. E. A. (2000). Clinical reasoning in medicine. In H. J. J. Mark (Ed.), Methods in the study of clinical reasoning (2nd ed., pp. 95-106): Butterworth heinemann. Shute, V. J., Lajoie, S. P. & Gluck, K. A. (2000). Individualized and group approaches to training. In S. Tobias & J. D. Fletcher (Eds.), Training and retraining: A handbook for business, industry, government, and the military (pp. 171-207). New York, NY: Macmillan. Slavin, R. E. (1995). Cooperative learning: Theory, research and practice (2nd ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Understanding Collaborative Problem Solving

195

Soller, A. & Lesgold, A. (2003, July). A computational approach to analyzing online knowledge sharing interaction. Paper presented at the 11th international Conference of Artificial Intelligence in Education Sydney, Australia. Soller, A., Martinez, A., Jermann, P. & Muehlenbrock, M. (2005). From mirroring to guiding: A review of state of the art technology for supporting collaborative learning. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 15(4), 261-290. Stahl, G. (2000). A model of collaborative knowledge building. Paper presented at the Fourth International Conference of the Learning Sciences, Ann Arbor, MI. Sternberg, R. J. & Preiss, D. (Eds.). (2005). Intelligence and technology: Impact of tools on the nature and development of human skills. Mahwah, NJ Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Stoyanova, N. & Kommers, P. (2001, March). Learning effectiveness of concept mapping in a computer supported collaborative problem solving design. Paper presented at the First European International Conference on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, Maastricht, the Netherlands. Strough, J., Berg, C. A. & Meegan, S. P. (2001). Friendship and Gender Differences in Task and Social Interpretations of Peer Collaborative Problem Solving. Social Development, 10, 1-22. Suthers, D., Connelly, J., Lesgold, A., Paolucci, M., Toth, E., Toth, J., et al. (2001). Representational and advisory guidance for students learning scientific inquiry. In K. D. Forbus & P. J. Feltovich (Eds.), Smart machines in education: The coming revolution in educational technology. (pp. 7-36). Menlo Park, CA: AAAI/Mit Press. Suthers, D. & Hundhausen, C. (2001, March). Learning by constructing collaborative representations: An empirical comparison of three alternatives. Paper presented at the First European Conference on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, Maastricht, Netherlands. Suthers, D., Toth, E. & Weiner, A. (1997, December). An integrated approach to implementing collaborative inquiry in the classroom. Paper presented at the Second International Conference on Computer-Support Collaborative Learning, Toronto, Canada. Suthers, D. D. (1999, December). Effects of alternate representations of evidential relations on collaborative learning discourse. Paper presented at the Third International Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, Stanford, CA. Suthers, D. D. & Hundhausen, C. D. (2003). An experimental study of the effects of representational guidance on collaborative learning processes. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(2), 183-218. Teasley, S. (1997). Talking about reasoning: How important is the peer in peer collaboration? In R. S. L.B. Resnick, C. Pontecorvo and B. Burge (Ed.), Discourse, tools and reasoning: Essays on situated cognition (pp. 361-384). Berlin: Springer. Teasley, S. D. & Roschelle, J. (1993). Constructing a joint problem space: The computer as a tool for sharing knowledge. In S. P. Lajoie & S. J. Derry (Eds.), Computers as cognitive tools (pp. 229-258). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Uresti, R. (2000, June). Should I teach my computer peer? Some issues in teaching a learning companion. Paper presented at the Intelligent Tutoring System, Montreal, Canada. van Boxtel, C. (2000). Collaborative concept learning: Collaborative learning tasks, student interaction, and the learning of physics concepts. Unpublished Doctoral thesis, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands.

196

Jingyan Lu

van Boxtel, C., van der Linden, J. & Kanselaar, G. (2000). Collaborative learning tasks and the elaboration of conceptual knowledge. Learning and Instruction, 10(4), 311-330. van Boxtel, C. & Veerman, A. (2001, March). Diagram-mediated collaborative learning: Diagrams as tools to provoke and support elaboration and argumentation. Paper presented at the first European Conference on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, Maastricht, Netherlands. van Bruggen, J. M., Kirschner, P. A. & Jochems, W. (2002). External representation of argumentation in CSCL and the management of cognitive load Learning and Instruction, 12(1), 121-138. Veerman, A., Andriessen, J. & Kanselaar, G. (2002). Collaborative argumentation in academic education. Instructional Science, 30(3), 155-186. Visschers-Pleijers, A. J. S. F., Dolmans, D. H. J. M., Wolfhagen, I. H. A. P. & Van Der Vleuten, C. P. M. (2004). Exploration of a method to analyze group interactions in problem-based learning. Medical Teacher, 26, from 10.1080/01421590410001679064 http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=14573962&site=ehost-live Visschers-Pleijers, A. J. S. F., Dolmans, D. J. M., Wolfhagen, I. H. A. P. & Van Der Vleuten., C. P. M. (2002). Group interaction processes in problem-based learning: Elaborations and co-constructions. Paper presented at the JURE Conference, Amsterdam, Netherlands. Vizcaino, A., Contreras, J., Favela, J. & Prieto, M. (2000, June). An adaptive, collaborative environment to develop good habits in programming. Paper presented at the 5th International conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems, Montreal, Canada. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Webb, N. M. (1982). Students intraction and learning in small groups. Review of Educational Research, 52, 421-445. Webb, N. M. (1989). Peer interaction and learning in small groups. International Journal of Educational Research, 13, 21-40. Webb, N. M. (1992). Testing a Theoretical Model of Student Interaction and Learning in Small Groups. In R. Hertz-Lazarowitz & N. Miller (Eds.), Interaction in Cooperative Groups (Vol. 102-119). New York: Cambridge University Press. Winne, P. H. (2006). How software technologies can improve research on learning and bolster school reform. Educational Psychologist, 41, 5-17. Wood, D., Bruner, J. S. & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry & Allied Disciplines, 17(2), 89-100. Wood, D. & Middleton, D. (1975). A study of assisted problem-solving. British Journal of Psychology, 66(2), 181-191. Wooldridge, M. & Jennings, N. R. (1995). Agent theories, architectures, and languages: A survey. In M. Wooldridge & N. R. Jennings (Eds.), Intelligent Agents (lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence) (Vol. 890, pp. 1-21). Berlin: Springer-Verlag. Wu, H.-K., Krajcik, J. S. & Soloway, E. (2001). Promoting Understanding of Chemical Representations: Students' Use of a Visualization Tool in the Classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(7), 821-842. Zhang, J. (1997). The nature of external representations in problem solving. Cognitive Science, 21(2), 179-217. Zhang, J. (2002). Representations of health concepts: a cognitive perspective. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 35(1), 17-24.

In: Collaborative Learning: Methodology, Types… Editors: E. Luzzatto, G. DiMarco, pp. 197-224

ISBN: 978-1-60876-076-3 © 2010 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Chapter 7

ARE YOU TALKING TO ME? AN OVERVIEW OF TECHNIQUES TO MEASURE PEER INTERACTIONS FROM THREE PERSPECTIVES AND A PROPOSAL FOR AN INTEGRATIVE MODEL Michiel B. Oortwijn1*, Astrid C. Homan2** and Nadira Saab3*** 1

Leiden University, Department of Clinical Child and Adolescent Studies P.O. Box 9555, 2300 RB Leiden, the Netherlands 2 VU University, Psychology and Education, Dept. of Work and Organizational Psychology Van der Boechorststraat 1, 1081 BT Amsterdam, The Netherlands 3 Leiden University, Department of Education and Child Studies P.O. Box 9555, 2300 RB Leiden, the Netherlands

ABSTRACT A unique aspect of working in small groups is that students have the opportunity to interact with each other about how to solve problems. Research in educational and social psychology has shown that task-related (TR) peer interactions are positively related to performance. The positive relation of task-related peer interactions with performance is influenced by both individual and contextual factors. In this chapter we will give an overview of the current knowledge on methods to analyze taskrelated peer interactions in three major research fields: the face-to-face, computersupported, and group decision-making setting. We will outline that there are several methods of interaction analysis in each research field which differ from each other on multiple aspects. In the face-to-face setting the two dominant approaches are: (1) discourse analysis (analysis of interaction patterns), and (2) functional analysis (analysis of aspects of individual statements). In the computer-supported setting, *

Corresponding Author: Phone: +31.71.5273425 E-mail: [email protected] Phone: +31 (0)20 598 5956, Email: [email protected] *** Phone: +31.71.5274049 **

198

Michiel B. Oortwijn, Astrid C. Homan and Nadira Saab peers communicate through means of computer-mediated communication (CMC). Two types of communication tools can be distinguished: asynchronic communica tion tools, such as e-mail and discussion forums, and synchronic tools, such as chat. Compared to the face-to-face setting, methods used to code CMC make use of the fact that CMC can be directly logged. In group decision-making settings, group processes are assessed using real-time as well as survey-based measures of interaction quality (e.g., social climates and conflicts) and task progress (e.g., shared mental models and group-level information processing). We will provide a state-ofthe art overview of current peer interaction methodologies and illustrate each methodology with case studies from relevant research. Additionally, we will discuss what individual and contextual factors have been found to affect the relation between task-related peer interactions and performance. In doing so, we will draw parallels between educational psychology and social psychology and propose an integrative model to better understand what determines the effectiveness of task-related peer interactions.

Keywords: Peer interaction analysis, group learning, CSCL, group decision-making

1.1. INTRODUCTION In this chapter, we will focus on the measurement of processes leading up to group learning and performance. Group learning is presently integrated in many educational tracks. The widespread use of group learning in formal education coincides with an impressive line of scientific research showing that learning in groups can be more effective (in terms of learning results) than individual learning (Qin, Johnson & Johnson, 1995). This has been attributed to group members‘ opportunity to share their knowledge (Johnson & Johnson, 1982; Webb, Nemer & Ing, 2006). However, many studies suggest that group learning is not always as effective as it could be (Homan, Van Knippenberg, Van Kleef & De Dreu, 2007b; Oortwijn, Boekaerts, Vedder & Strijbos, 2008; Saab, Van Joolingen & Van Hout-Wolters, 2005; Webb et al., 2006). These researchers showed that the effectiveness of group learning depends on the degree to which group members share their task-related knowledge. In line with this, we will focus on the methodological techniques to measure task-related peer interactions and how the task-related peer interactions relate to performance. To this purpose, we will first give an overview of the different types of group learning. Second, we will outline what methodological techniques have been developed to analyze task-related peer interactions. We will discuss methodologies for the face-to-face, computer-supported, and the group decision-making settings, because the degree to which students share knowledge is different in each of these settings. For each setting, we will outline how the task-related peer interactions relate to performance. Third, we will illuminate what factors (antecedents) impact the relation of task-related peer interactions with performance by presenting an integrative model of task-related peer interactions, discussing the antecedents, the process (task-related peer interactions), and outcome (performance). Finally, methodological implications of the proposed model will be discussed.

Are You Talking to Me? An Overview of Techniques to Measure Peer…

199

1.2. Three Types of Group Learning Damon and Phelps (1989) argued that three types of group learning may be distinguished: Tutoring, cooperative learning, and collaborative learning. In tutoring, students are unequal in their skill-level (novice versus expert). In cooperative learning, students are seated in groups and have a mutual goal. Typically, student assignments in a cooperative learning setting do not require students to work together: The assignments can also be completed individually. A variation on this is the ‗jigsaw task‘. In this type of assignment, group members first develop expertise individually and then come back to their own group where they can input their expertise while solving the group assignment (Johnson & Johnson, 1982). In collaborative learning, students are equal in skill-level and are explicitly stimulated to jointly complete assignments. Damon and Phelps (1989) asserted that these three different types of group learning affect the synchronicity of the peer interactions. Synchronicity refers to the degree to which group members can exert the same influence in the peer interactions (Suthers, Hundhausen & Girardeau, 2003). Other researchers refer to this situation as the degree of reciprocity (e.g., Duran & Monereo, 2005). Damon and Phelps argue that whereas peer interactions during tutoring are mostly asynchronous, peer interactions during collaborative learning are characterized mostly by synchronicity and cooperative learning by a substantial amount of synchronous and asynchronous interactions.

2. OVERVIEW OF METHODS TO ANALYZE TASK-RELATED PEER INTERACTIONS Below we will present the major methodologies to analyze task-related peer interactions. Before doing so, we will first give a definition of task-related peer interactions. This is followed by a short introduction on the methods that are available to calculate inter-rater agreement.

2.1. Definition of Task-Related Peer Interactions Within the task-related peer talk domain, earlier researchers distinguished social peer interactions (e.g., dividing tasks) from cognitive peer interactions (e.g., discussing problemsolving steps; Bennett & Dunne, 1991). For conceptual clarity, we will also use this distinction, although it is important to keep in mind here that both overlap to some extent (see also Barron, 2003). Following Bennett and Dunne (1991), we define task-related peer interactions as all peer talk that is about cognitive and social aspects of problem-solving. There are three major settings in which methods to investigate task-related peer interactions have been developed. These are the face-to-face, the computer-supported, and the group decision-making setting. We will discuss the dominant methodologies of task-related peer interaction analysis (henceforth interaction analysis) that are used in these three settings. Differences between settings will be discussed. One similarity between settings, however, is that the methods to investigate task-related peer interactions should be reliable. In order to attain reliable analyses, the inter-rater agreement between coders must be computed. In all

200

Michiel B. Oortwijn, Astrid C. Homan and Nadira Saab

settings, different methods can be used to measure the inter-rater agreement. Before discussing the methods to analyze task-related peer interactions in the face-to-face, computersupported, and group decision-making settings, we will first shortly discuss what measures are used to assess the inter-rater agreement.

2.2. Inter-Rater Agreement Measures In order to achieve reliable coding results, multiple coders need to code the protocols. To compute the inter-rater reliability different statistics can be used: proportion agreement (%), Cohen‘s kappa (κ), Scott‘s pi, or Krippendorff‘s alpha (α) (Neuendorf, 2002). Proportion agreement is usually calculated by dividing the number of statements that both coders agree on by the total number of statements. An agreement of 70% or higher is considered to be sufficiently high. Proportion agreement, however, does not correct for chance agreement (Neuendorf, 2002). That is, if two coders have to rate whether a student says yes or no, and one of the coders purposefully does not listen while coding, they will agree 50% of the time just by chance alone. Because Cohen‘s kappa, Scott‘s pi, and Krippendorff‘s alpha do control for chance agreement, it is advisable to use these statistical measures to calculate inter-rater agreement. For Cohen‘s kappa and Krippendorff‘s alpha the criteria can be defined as follows: a value below .45 is considered poor, between .45 and .59 is considered fair, between .60 and .74 is considered good, and .75 and higher is considered excellent (Strijbos & Stahl, 2007). Cohen‘s kappa is mostly used in face-to-face and computer-supported settings and can therefore be used to compare reliabilities between studies. Possible scores range from .00 to 1.00. Research has shown that Cohen‘s kappa is not always the right choice to calculate interrater agreement (Arstein & Poesio, 2005; Krippendorff, 2004). For instance, Cohen‘s kappa might give problems when applied to dichotomous data (Weinberger & Fischer, 2006). In addition, Cohen‘s kappa only credits agreement beyond chance, which is difficult to obtain in data that have extreme distributions (Neuendorf, 2002), like often is the case with coded peer interaction data. Because of these limitations, and also the fact that only the agreement between two coders can be calculated in SPSS, Krippendorff‘s alpha is increasingly being used. With Krippendorff‘s alpha not only attention is paid to non-occurrence (i.e. one of the coders has not given a score) but also to the co-occurrence of non-occurring statements (i.e. agreement between the coders that a specific statement does not occur). Also, inter-rater agreement between more than two coders can be easily calculated. See Neuendorf (2002) for more information on how Cohen‘s kappa, Scott‘s pi, and Krippendorff‘s alpha are calculated. In the group decision-making literature, group members are often used to rate their own experiences of group learning or other group processes. In other words, the students/ participants code their own behaviors by means of questionnaires. The individual level responses are then aggregated to the group-level by, for instance, taking the mean (e.g., Kashy & Kenny, 2000). This aggregation is often justified by providing measures of within group agreement such as intraclass correlations (ICCs), and rwg (the within-group interrater reliability; see for an overview Klein & Kozlowski, 2000; cf. Bliese, 2000; James, Demaree, & Wolf, 1984; Kashy & Kenny, 2000). These measures determine to which degree the individual level answers are shared within the group and distinct from other groups. The ICC

Are You Talking to Me? An Overview of Techniques to Measure Peer…

201

determines the proportion of the total variance that can be explained by group membership (James, 1982; Shrout & Fleiss, 1979), taking group size into account. The rwg is an estimation of within group agreement, in which the observed variance is compared to an expected random variance (James et al., 1984; 1993).

3. INTERACTION ANALYSIS IN FACE-TO-FACE SETTINGS 3.1. Two Type of Methods to Analyze Peer Interactions in the Face-to-Face Setting To assess the relation of task-related peer interactions with performance, peer interactions have been investigated with two types of analyses: Discourse analysis and functional analysis. They are analogous to the distinction between collaborative learning and cooperative learning in the sense that discourse analysis is rooted in Vygotsky‘s socio-cultural theory (Vygotsky, 1978) as is collaborative learning. On the other hand, functional analysis is related to the motivational perspective, as is cooperative learning. Both types have their merits and drawbacks, as we will outline below. Discourse analysis. Discourse analysis is concerned with the examination of all sequences of peer interactions. Sequences of peer interactions, or episodes, refer to conceptually distinct segments of the peer interactions which are bordered by a sudden shift in conceptual focus, like a question (see Table 2 for an example). In discourse analysis, all interactions are categorized. Several researchers have proposed methods to categorize the peer interactions in episodes. Mercer (1996), for instance, argued for the following hierarchical categorization: (1) disputational talk, characterized by disagreement and individualized decision-making, (2) cumulative talk, positively, but uncritically elaborating on what another person has said, and (3) exploratory talk, critically, but constructively take on each other‘s ideas. Another suggestion on how to categorize the peer interactions in episodes comes from Keefer, Zeitz, and Resnick (2000). They discern four categories: (1) critical discussion, defined by a difference of opinion that must be overcome, (2) explanatory inquiry, in which the main goal is to gather knowledge, (3) eristic discussion, characterized by conflict and antagonism (non-cooperative), with the goal to maintain one‘s own position, and (4) consensus dialogue, when everyone agrees with each other. Another example is the coding scheme developed by Kumpulainen and Mutanen (1999), who discerned three categories: (1) explorative/interpretative talk, characterized by planning and discussion of the problemsolving process and hypothesis testing. (2) Procedural/routine talk, characterized by problemsolving without reflection on the problem-solving process. (3) Off-task talk. In the ideal scenario, all group members equally participate in critical but constructive discussions. However, this is usually not the case (e.g., Oortwijn et al., 2008). Moreover, the degree to which groups have critical but constructive discussions is relatively low when compared to the total interaction time (Bennett & Dunne, 1991). This makes it harder to reliably relate these discussions to performance in empirical studies. Coinciding with this, many researchers analyze students‘ discourse through case studies (e.g., Cobo & Fortuny,

202

Michiel B. Oortwijn, Astrid C. Homan and Nadira Saab

2000; Fraivillig, 1999; Kaartinen & Kumpulainen, 2002; Keefer et al., 2000; Kovalainen & Kumpulainen, 2005; Kumpulainen & Mutanen, 1999; Mercer, 1996; Meyer & Turner, 2002). Functional analysis. In functional analysis, specific aspects of the total interaction time are analyzed using pre-defined categories. That is, in contrast with discourse analysis, the coding categories in functional analysis are already defined prior to the data collection. The frequency with which these aspects occur are counted. Furthermore, the individual is the unit of analysis in functional analysis. An example of functional analysis is the analysis of helping behavior. Various researchers have reported that providing help is related to benefits for both the receiver of the help as well as the help giver (e.g., Oortwijn et al., 2008; Webb, 1991; Webb & Farivar, 1994; Webb, & Mastergeorge, 2003; Webb, Troper, & Fall, 1995). More specifically, these studies revealed that the help receiver‘s opportunity to apply the help is the best predictor of learning gains. The occurrence of helping behavior necessitates the involvement of someone who needs help and someone who provides help. The positive effect of help giving on the performance of the help giver has consistently been demonstrated (e.g., Oortwijn et al., 2008). The impact of help giving on the performance of the help receiver has yielded less convincing results. Webb et al. (1995) suggest that this may be because the amount of help received is in itself not always enough to promote learning gains. For instance, a student may receive an explanation without asking for it, thus frustrating their own problem solving process. Alternatively, they may receive an explanation to a question, but not apply it. To accommodate these issues, Webb (1991; Webb & Farivar, 1994) developed a functional coding scheme that not only assesses whether a student asks for an explanation, but also whether this is followed by the provision of an explanation, and whether this explanation is applied by the help receiver to constructive activities on the current problem and the next problem.

3.2. Case Study: Comparing Discourse with Functional Analysis Oortwijn et al. (2008) examined the relation between peer interactions and performance. In their study, students completed math assignments in groups of four (tetrads) during 11 math lessons. The tetrads were videotaped during two randomly selected lessons. The coding scheme that Oortwijn et al. (2008) used was developed by Webb and her colleagues (Webb & Farivar, 1994; Webb & Mastergeorge, 2003; Webb et al., 1995). The coding scheme consisted of four dimensions (see Table 1). (1) Type of talk, (2), need for help, (3) level of verbally received help, and (4) constructive activity on current problem. Regarding dimension 1, following Bennett and Dunne (1991), utterances were scored as taskrelated, or as off-task (e.g., ―Did you do the homework for today?‖). The task-related utterances were split up further into social (e.g., ―You are the leader today. You should tell us what we should do first.‖) and cognitive aspects. Only the cognitive utterances were further categorized on dimension 2, 3, or 4. Dimension 2 consisted of: (2A) Request for an answer, characterized by an implied question (e.g., ―I don‘t get this.‖), asking for verification (e.g., ―This is two, right?‖), or asking for an outcome (e.g., ―What is this times this?‖ (points to worksheet)). An implied question was only scored when it was followed by a task-related response of a peer. (2B) Request for an explanation, characterized by a request for a specific

Are You Talking to Me? An Overview of Techniques to Measure Peer…

203

explanation (e.g., ―How do you calculate the circumference of the school yard?‖), or general explanation (e.g., ―How do you calculate circumference?‖). Dimension 3 was composed of: (3A) Low quality help, characterized by unclear help, undesired help, and (numerical) outcome only. Undesired help was scored when someone gave help that was relevant for the assignment, but not attuned to the help receiver‘s request for help. (3B) High quality help, characterized by explanations with part of a problem-solving step, or complete problemsolving step(s). Lastly, dimension 4 entailed: (4A) Low quality activity, characterized by a nonverbal response (e.g., nodding), acknowledgement of the help received, or verbally copying the provided (numerical) outcome. (4B) High quality activity: Characterized by working out part of a problem-solving step, or working out one or more complete problemsolving steps. Two research assistants coded the videotaped peer interactions with a coding scheme developed by Webb and her colleagues (Webb & Mastergeorge, 2003; Webb et al., 1995). Before the coding started, three steps were followed: (1) Definition of important concepts, like ‗problemsolving step‘ and ‗statement‘, to deal with ambiguous statements. (2) The problem-solving steps and solutions to the math assignments were worked out. These identified problem-solving steps formed the basis for the demarcation of the categories that were used in this coding scheme. Only those statements that incorporated (part of) these problem-solving steps and/or solutions were scored as problem-solving oriented. (3) The inter-coder reliability between the two coders was calculated using six recordings (approximately ten percent of the total sample). For dimension 1 the agreement was 71.8%, and Cohen‘s k=.60. Regarding dimension 2, the agreement was 83.1%, and Cohen‘s k=.73. For dimension 3, the agreement was 76.2%, and Cohen‘s k=.60. The agreement for dimension 4 was 72%, and Cohen‘s k=.60. In addition to the functional coding scheme, we applied discourse analysis here on the presented case example, using the coding scheme developed by Mercer (1996). The peer interactions were coded by using the software program Noldus Observer 5.0 (Noldus, 2003). With this software program it is possible to compose a coding scheme that can take the form of a discourse scheme (assessing states) or a functional scheme (assessing events). The coding scheme consequently can be used to mark specific behavioral events or states on a timeline in real-time during video playback with an integrated video player. The program saves the time points that have been marked. These marks and the time points can be exported to other programs, like SPSS, for further analyses. The case example presented in Table 2 shows that tutoring behavior was the dominant type of task-related peer talk in this group. One group member took on the role of tutor, automatically placing the other group members in the tutee role. The tutees, especially tutee Vera, displayed low-quality constructive activity: She only copied and acknowledged the feedback, but did not use the feedback to independently solve (part of) the task at hand. Oortwijn et al. (2008) showed that the frequency of the tutoring behavior was positively associated with performance. However, they also showed that it were the tutors, not the tutees, who benefited from the tutoring. Earlier research by Webb and her colleagues (e.g., Webb & Mastergeorge, 2003) demonstrated that tutees will only benefit from the feedback when they use the feedback to verbalize high-quality constructive activity on the task at hand. Regarding the discourse analysis, the case example shows that the group members discussed with each other in an uncritical way: They did not build on each other‘s knowledge to gain new, shared insights. Earlier research by Wegerif, Mercer, and Dawes (1999) revealed that only explorative talk is positively related to performance.

Table 1. Overview of a coding scheme for functional analysis and for discourse analysis. Functional analysis¹ Type of talk 1a. Off-task 1b. Social task-related talk 1c. Cognitive task-related talk 2. Need for help 2a. Asking for an answer 2b. Request for an explanation 3. Level of verbally received help 3a. Low quality help 3b. High quality help 4. Constructive activity on current problem 4a. Low quality activity

Discourse analysis²

Disputational talk No intention to ask for an explanation, typically a yes / no question Typically an open ended question, that asks for a process rather an answer

Cumulative talk Explorative talk

Disagreement and individualized decisionmaking Positively, but uncritically elaborating on what another person has said Critically, but constructively take on each other‘s ideas

Help that only includes an answer / answers Help that includes an explanation (with or without answer(s))

Help application that does not contain new information (copying / finishing another‘s calculation) 4b. High quality activity Help application that includes new information (explanation with or without answer(s)) Tutor actions (unsolicited Utterance targeted at provoking a help) problem-solving response from a peer ¹ Developed by Webb and colleagues (Webb & Farivar, 1994; Webb & Mastergeorge, 2003; Webb et al., 1995) and adapted by Oortwijn et al. (2008). ² Developed by Mercer (1996).

Table 2. Fragment of a videotaped peer interaction session Student Vera Bart

Statement Functional analysis Discourse analysis 1 O!, can I use your ruler, I don‘t have one. Organizational statement** 2 Sure. Do you know what to do now? This is 8.5 and Tutoring behavior Start of episode 1: Cumulative talk this is 19, ok? So 8 and a half times 2 is 19. So you have to write 8.5 centimeters here and 19 here, ok? (shows on work sheet of V) 3 Vera Yes, so I have to write here 8.5 centimeters first. Low quality constructive activity 4 Bart No! No, don‘t write. You have to do 8.5 centimeters in Tutoring behavior length and 19 centimeters in width. 5 Vera Yes… (starts calculating) Low quality constructive activity 6 Bart But not like that! Look like this (writes on the Tutoring behavior (part 1) worksheet of V)… 7 Vera (interrupts B) No but…(unintelligible) Unclear statement (not coded) 8 Bart …look 8.5 centimeters. You have to do it like this, like Tutoring behavior (part 2)* this (shows by writing on V‟s worksheet) 9 Vera Is 8… Low quality constructive activity 10 Bart No, 8.5. Low quality help 11 Dave OK Low quality constructive activity 12 Vera (writes answer down) And this is 10, right? Need for help 13 Bart No, we don‘t have to do that one yet. Just finish this - Low quality help End of episode 1 one. - Organizational statement 14 Alex Has everyone finished? Organizational statement 15 Dave Yes Organizational statement 16 Vera Almost, just filling in the numbers… Organizational statement * Coded as a single tutor action. Although the first tutor action is interrupted by the tutee, the utterance of the tutee is unintelligible and the tutor is not distracted by the interruption, continuing the tutor action. ** Organizational statements refer to statements that were about choosing materials, general remarks about sharing resources, the lay-out –not personal judgments- and where to write the calculations and solutions. They were not used in the analyses.

206

Michiel B. Oortwijn, Astrid C. Homan and Nadira Saab

4. INTERACTION ANALYSIS IN COMPUTER-SUPPORTED SETTINGS Students engaged in computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) collaborate in a technology-enriched environment. In a CSCL environment, shared tools are provided to support the CSCL process. The collaborating students communicate through means of computer-mediated communication (CMC). Different means of CMC can be distinguished: asynchronic communication tools, which refer to communication tools that can only be used serially, like e-mail and discussion forums, and synchronic communication tools, which are tools that can be used in parallel, such as chatrooms and video-conferencing. Although videoconferencing is increasingly used, most educational CSCL environments are text-based. This means that students working in a CSCL environment mostly communicate through email, discussion forums, or chat.

4.1. Synchronic Versus Asynchronic Peer Interactions Bromme, Hesse, and Spada (2005) suggest that there is not just one method to analyze peer interactions that can be used for all CSCL environments. The suitability of an analysis method depends on research goals and communication form. As mentioned earlier, communication in CSCL environments can take two forms: synchronic or asynchronic. Synchronic peer interactions. Synchronic communication tools are akin to communication in face-to-face settings and include chat and video-conferencing. In educational settings, video-conferencing is scarcely used. Chat, however, is used frequently in educational settings, as well as in research settings. Chat is a fast way to communicate and can be used when students have to accomplish a task in a short amount of time. The communication typically comprises short lines of texts. Chat can be easily used for dyadic interaction, whereas using chat in small groups is more difficult. When students in small groups react to each other simultaneously, it is difficult for them to keep an overview of the interaction in terms of who responds to whom (Strijbos & Stahl, 2007). Asynchronic peer interactions. Asynchronic communication tools like e-mail or discussion forums can be used more easily in small group learning than chat. A threaded discussion forum permits multiple students to reply to the same comment. As a result, a discussion tree is formed, which provides an ordered overview of the peer interactions. Although e-mail can be used more easily in small groups than chat, the overview of the interaction is less clear than when using a discussion forum. Another advantage of asynchronic tools is that students do not have to respond immediately to a received message. Instead, they can take their time to reflect on the message and to formulate a new contribution (De Wever, Schellens, Valcke, & Van Keer, 2006; Pena-Shaff & Nicholls, 2004). Those contributions are mostly longer than the average chat message. However, a limitation of communicating through asynchronic tools is that students do not know when the other participants will respond. It takes more time to complete the assignment than when using synchronic communication tools.

Are You Talking to Me? An Overview of Techniques to Measure Peer…

207

4.2. Research Goals Influence the Choice of Communication Tools in CSCL What communication tool researchers should use depends on the research goal. This research goal is based on the theoretical framework used and the research questions asked (O‘Donnell, 2006). In studying CSCL, different research goals can be pursued. Research questions can be aimed at the CSCL process and/or the results. When investigating the CSCL process, the focus can lie on interaction processes between students, on the process of co-construction of knowledge, or on the individual activities of students. When investigating the learning results, one can study the group products or the individual knowledge gain. The CSCL process can be studied by analyzing the communication process. The learning results can be analyzed by judging the group product or by administering (individual) preand post-test. In CSCL environments, pre- and post-tests can be easily administered on screen, which makes it easy for researchers to process the results.

4.3. Two Methods to Analyze Peer Interactions in Computer-Supported Settings The CSCL process can be analyzed quantitatively or qualitatively. Quantitative approaches (e.g., Saab, Van Joolingen & Van Hout-Wolters, 2005; 2007) focus on individual contributions (i.e., statements, cognitive strategies, communicative functions, or content of the contribution, Hmelo-Silver, 2003). Sequences of contributions can also be analyzed. Quantitative interaction analysis is similar to the earlier mentioned functional analysis in faceto-face settings. Qualitative approaches (e.g., Hmelo-Silver, 2003; Stahl, 2006) have a more descriptive nature and stress the importance of contextual factors. With these approaches, an overview of the interaction can be sketched. Whereas quantitative results can be easily compared with each other, it is more complicated to compare qualitative results across different interactions (Hmelo-Silver & Bromme, 2007). Qualitative interaction analysis is akin to discourse analysis in face-to-face settings. Recently, researchers increasingly use mixed-method strategies where quantitative approaches are combined with qualitative methods (Hmelo-Silver, 2003; Strijbos, Martens, Jochems, & Broers, 2007; Weinberger & Fischer, 2006). To gain insight into the content of peer interactions, coding of communication (content analysis) has frequently been used to investigate the effects of CSCL on peer interactions (Chi, 1997; Fischer & Mandl, 2005; Saab et al., 2005; 2007).

4.4. Case Example of Quantitative and Qualitative Analysis on Logged Chat Interaction Saab et al. (2005) studied the relation between communication and discovery learning. In collaborative discovery learning, students communicate and work together in a shared environment gathering data and use these data for joint knowledge construction. By altering variables and parameters and observing the effects, students can uncover the rules that hold in a phenomenon they investigate, and in doing so, build new knowledge. Specifically for

208

Michiel B. Oortwijn, Astrid C. Homan and Nadira Saab

discovery learning, research has indicated that collaboration can make the discovery learning process more accessible and more effective (Okada & Simon, 1997; Salomon & Globerson, 1989). Saab and colleagues (2005) explored which communicative activities in collaborative learning would contribute to the discovery learning process. In this study, students worked in pairs on separate computers in a shared environment and communicated through chat. Students could share control over the cursor. The interactions between the students were logged and included the chat actions and their activities in the learning environment. A multidimensional coding scheme was used to code the protocols. This coding scheme was partly based on the coding scheme Van Boxtel (2000) used in her study into concept development and partly based on the research of Njoo and De Jong (1993) into discovery learning. Each chat action (a complete message) was scored on both dimensions. Table 3 shows the coding scheme. In the left column, the communicative activities are shown. These activities refer to the function of the chat actions. For example, when a student justified an earlier stated idea, this chat action was coded as argumentative. Or when a student asked his partner a question, this chat action was coded as elicitative. In the right column, the discovery activities are shown. These activities consist of cognitive activities which can be carried out in the discovery learning environment to accomplish the task. These discovery learning activities include orientation, generating hypotheses, testing these hypotheses and drawing conclusions. These activities resemble phases in the scientific process of discovery (Klahr & Dunbar, 1988; Van Joolingen & De Jong, 1997). Table 3. Coding scheme used to analyze protocols in a study by Saab et al. (2005). Communicative activities Informative Argumentative Evaluative Elicitative (asking the other for response) Responsive Confirmation/Acceptance Directive Off task Off task technical

Discovery activities Orientation Identifying parameters and variables Collecting data Interpreting data and graphics Generating hypotheses Describing and recognizing relations Thinking of alternatives Proposing an answer Formulating hypotheses Testing hypotheses Experimental design Predicting Collecting data Conclusion Interpreting data and graphics Rejecting hypotheses Concluding

The protocols were analyzed using the computer program MEPA (Multiple Episode Protocol Analysis; Erkens, 1998). With MEPA, a (multiple dimensional) coding system can be developed and protocols of different kinds of interaction (e.g., chat, e-mail, threaded discussions) can be coded. In addition, the coded protocols can be analyzed with the program, both with quantitative and qualitative methods. It is also possible to export the files to a preferred statistical analysis program, such as SPSS. Furthermore, because coding is a time-consuming task, MEPA also

Are You Talking to Me? An Overview of Techniques to Measure Peer…

209

provides a module to program if-then rules for automatic coding. Not only will this minimize the coding time, but in addition the coding reliability will be increased. Saab and colleagues (2005) used MEPA to code the interaction (they did not use the automatic coding option) and to get an overview of the frequencies of activities used. To compute the inter-rater reliability, two independent coders rated 10% of the protocols. Cohen‘s kappa was used as the statistic to analyze the inter-rater reliability. The Cohen‘s kappa was on the communication dimension k=.79 and on the discovery dimension k=.84 which can be considered excellent. Table 4 shows a example of part of a coded protocol (Saab et al., 2005). The example displays a quantitative and a qualitative analysis. Student A and B are working together in the learning environment and trying to find an answer for one of the assignments. The students perform two experiments (SIMULATION) in this fragment of the coded protocol. Table 4 gives an example of the chat activities in a fragment of a coded protocol (Saab et al., 2005). As can be seen, not all activities are used by the dyad. With respect to the discovery activities, ―describing and recognizing parameters and variables in the generating hypotheses process‖ and ―experimental design‖ were used most often. Regarding the communicative functions ―confirmation/acceptance‖ (i.e., verbal acknowledgement, e.g., ―OK.‖), ―elicitative‖ (i.e., asking questions), and ―directive‖ (i.e., giving orders). Regarding the qualitative analysis, it can be seen in this protocol fragment that the students are trying to agree on the design of the experiment before carrying out this experiment in the simulation. From line 1 to 12, student A has the control over the cursor, while student B gives the orders. From line 12 it is the other way around and student B gives the orders. They do not argue about who is in charge, but exchange the control over the cursor without discussion. It seems as if the student that does not have the control over the cursor decides what action will be taken.

5. INTERACTION ANALYSIS IN GROUP DECISION-MAKING SETTINGS Within social psychology and work- and organizational psychology, small groups have been an increasing research interest (De Dreu, Nijstad, & Van Knippenberg, 2008; Ilgen, Hollenbeck, Johnson, & Jundt, 2004; Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006). Group work is supposed to help organizations to deal with complex problems and decision-making. Group learning has long been seen as a process leading to group effectiveness or performance, but the focus has recently shifted towards understanding critical group processes such as group learning (Wilson, Goodman, & Cronin, 2007; cf. Argote & McGrath, 1993). As often happens with related, but distinct research fields, the research on learning in the group decision-making literature has been developed largely in isolation from learning in schools and in student teams. In contrast to the methods discussed in the previous sections, most of the research in the group decision literature has paid little or no attention to basic dynamic learning processes, such as how information is encoded, stored, or retrieved (Wilson et al., 2007). This is visible in the often static measurement of team processes or outcomes (Weingart, 1997), such as the use of questionnaires to assess group learning. Individuals are questioned about their learning experience and these individual responses are aggregated to the group-level. In defense of these measurements, questionnaires do provide an insider perspective, giving group members a chance to rate their own learning experiences, rather than that their behaviors are being coded by outsiders.

Table 4. A fragment of a coded protocol for the study into the relation between communication and discovery learning (Saab et al., 2005).

1

Student A

(Chat) action Which one was the x (t)?

Quantitative coding Communicative activity Elicitative

2

A

The first one, isn‘t it?

Elicitative

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

B B A B A B A B

Yes Oh no, just try it again Doesn‘t work Try some different things now OK Change the mass OK What was the velocity again?

Confirmation/acceptance Directive Informative Directive Confirmation/acceptance Directive Confirmation/acceptance Elicitative

11 12 13 14 15 16

A A B A B

I don‘t remember Leave it like this Just leave it on 10? Yes OK SIMULATION

Responsive Directive Elicitative Confirmation/acceptance Confirmation/acceptance

17 18

A

Enlarge the mass SIMULATION

Directive

Qualitative analyses Discovery activity Describing and recognizing parameters and variables in the generating hypotheses process Describing and recognizing parameters and variables in the generating hypotheses process

Experimental design

Student A has the control over the cursor, while student B gives orders.

Experimental design Describing and recognizing parameters and variables in the generating hypotheses process Experimental design Experimental design

Collecting data for testing hypotheses Experimental design Collecting data for testing hypotheses

Student B has the control over the cursor, while student A gives orders. Experiment is performed (by student B) Student A gives orders Experiment is performed (by student B)

Are You Talking to Me? An Overview of Techniques to Measure Peer…

211

Group decision-making research has of course not been limited to survey-based measures of group learning. Weingart (1997) has called for a more dynamic way of studying group processes. Wilson et al. (2007) agree with this quest and call for measurement of learning at the group-level, in which groups are followed over time. Luckily, researchers have indeed focused on more group-level learning by videotaping groups and assessing learning related construct at the group-level (e.g., Homan, van Knippenberg, De Dreu, & Van Kleef, 2007a; 2007b). Below we will elaborate on measures to analyze task-related peer interactions that are based on selfreports and measures that are based on the coding of videotaped task-related peer interactions.

5.1. Two ways to Measure Group Processes Next to the distinction of measuring group learning-related processes with self-reports or real-time coding, group decision-making research makes a distinction between task-related and social-related group processes (e.g., Guzzo & Dickson, 1996). Groups are supposed to be effective when both task and relationship processes are of high quality. Group learning is supposed to be aided by exchange and processing of task-relevant information by the group (e.g., De Dreu et al., 2008; Hinsz, Tindale, & Vollrath, 1997), a moderate level of task conflict (e.g., Jehn, 1995), by high reflexivity and effective error management (e.g., Edmondson, 1999; Schippers, Den Hartog, & Koopman, 2007), and the existence of shared mental models concerning the task (Cannon-Bowers, Salas & Converse, 1993). Additionally, groups benefit from low interpersonal friction (e.g., Jehn, 1995), a supportive team climate (e.g., Tse, Dasborough & Ashkanasy, 2008), group cohesion (Hogg, 1992), and high trust (Simons & Peterson, 2000). Task-related as well as social processes can be assessed using self-reports as well as by coding the interactions. Below, both ways of measuring group processes that are inductive to learning will be discussed by means of a case study.

5.2. Case Study: Self-Reports Versus Video-Coding To illuminate these measurements, two group decision-making experiments will be discussed (Homan et al., 2007a; 2007b). In the first, Homan et al. (2007b) were interested in examining how group diversity affected task-related and interpersonal group processes. Diversity has been shown to positively as well as negatively influence group functioning (e.g., Williams & O'Reilly, 1998). Following the theoretical model put forward by Van Knippenberg, De Dreu, and Homan (2004), Homan et al. (2007b) hypothesized that certain diversity constellations would be more conducive for negative group processes whereas other constellations would be more conducive to positive group processes. More specifically, they argued that the alignment of multiple diversity dimensions (i.e., when gender, personality, and informational differences create two distinct subgroups) would instigate negative group processes, whereas the crossing of diversity dimensions would instigate positive group processes. 70 four-person groups were brought together in a laboratory and worked on the Desert Survival Exercise (Johnson & Johnson, 1982). The Desert Survival Exercise is a group decision-making task in which groups have to decide which items are important for survival in the desert. In the original version of the task, a list with 12 items is presented which have to be rank ordered in order of importance.

212

Michiel B. Oortwijn, Astrid C. Homan and Nadira Saab

The specific composition of the group was manipulated. Demographic diversity was instigated by means of gender (i.e., two males and two females) and fake personality feedback (i.e., the males were supposedly personality type H and the females were personality type K). The descriptions of the two personality types consisted of broad statements that could in fact be a description of everyone. Informational diversity was manipulated by providing the groups with task-relevant information before the task. Twelve information items were developed based on the twelve items in the task. This information was either given to all group members or was divided in two equally informative halves (4 shared and 8 unshared items) and distributed among the group members (i.e., two members received information half A [consisting of 4 shared and 4 unshared items] and the other two received information half B [consisting of the 4 shared and other 4 unshared items]). The main hypothesis was that crossing demographic differences with informational differences would benefit task-related as well as social processes within the group. Information exchange and processing and satisfaction with cooperation were assessed by means of questionnaires. Task conflict and relationship conflict were assessed by coding of videotapes. In the second experiment with 45 groups, the composition of the group was again manipulated as well as beliefs about group diversity. Demographically diverse groups received homogeneous or heterogeneous information and were convinced of the benefits of homogeneity or heterogeneity. The authors expected that having a positive outlook on diversity would lead to more information exchange and processing and better performance, but only if groups were diverse on a task-related dimension (i.e., were informationally diverse). Information elaboration in this experiment was assessed using videocoding. Survey measures. Information elaboration was assessed using a self-developed questionnaire based on the definition of information elaboration given by Van Knippenberg et al. (2004). Individual group members responded to the following statements: "During the group task, I actively processed the information provided by the other group members. During the group task, things were said that made me think about the task. During the task, things were said that gave me new ideas". Satisfaction was assessed with an adapted version of a questionnaire developed by Thomas, Ravlin, and Wallace (1996). The four items were "I'm satisfied with the cooperation within this group. The members of this group did well. I'm satisfied with the performance of the group. I have the impression that the cooperation within this group went well." As discussed before, people that work in groups are not independent (Kashy & Kenny, 2000), that is, there responses will be influenced by their group membership. Therefore, it has been advised to aggregate individual level scores on questionnaires to the group-level. However, if group-level measures are created from individual level responses it is important to control whether people within the same group indeed are more similar in their responses than people between groups (e.g., Bliese, 2000). To test whether the groups could be reliably differentiated on satisfaction and information exchange, intraclass correlations (ICC) and the within-group interrater reliability (rwg) were calculated. Statistically significant ICC values were found for both measures (satisfaction: ICC value .25, F[64, 195] = 2.32, p < .01; information elaboration: ICC value .15, F[64, 195] = 1.58, p < .01;). Additionally, the authors calculated rwg values, and found that all measures scored higher than .70, indicating satisfactory agreement (George, 1990). These findings combined justified aggregation to the group-level based on the group mean (Homan et al., 2007b).

Are You Talking to Me? An Overview of Techniques to Measure Peer…

213

Videotape coding. In the first experiment (Homan et al., 2007b), task and relationship conflict were coded from videotapes. All groups were videotaped during their interaction and the videotapes were watched by two coders that counted the number of negative remarks that were made regarding the task (i.e., task conflict) and regarding individual group members and the group as a whole (i.e., relationship conflict; Jehn, 1995). Examples of remarks that were coded to be task conflicts are "This is not the way we should approach this task." and "You're wrong about the flashlight, it has batteries and it won't work in the heat." Examples of remarks that were coded to be relationship conflicts are "We should never have gone into the desert with women, they don't know how to survive."; "You men are so stubborn."; and "I can see you have a different personality type, you're obnoxious." The coders were blind to conditions and were not aware of the hypotheses of the experiment. To make sure that the coders were in agreement about what constituted task and relationship conflicts, intra-class correlations were calculated. Cicchetti and Sparrow (1981) developed criteria for reliability coefficients that are necessary to assess the quality of a coding scheme. A more specific example is given for the coding of information elaboration (See Table 5; Homan et al., 2007a). Information elaboration can be defined as the exchange of information and perspectives, individual-level processing of the information and perspectives, feeding back the results of this individual-level processing into the group, and discussion and integration of their implications (Van Knippenberg et al., 2004). Again, all groups were videotaped during the interaction and the videotapes were coded. The information elaboration score was a continuous one, with the higher the score, the more an information item was elaborated upon. As explained before, eight information items were used to create an unshared information condition. The information elaboration score was based on these eight items and information elaboration was determined for each information item. A score of "0" was given when an information item was not mentioned at all during the group discussion. A score of "1" was given when information was mentioned, but none of the other members reacted to it (i.e., if the information was only exchanged). A score of "2" was given when one of the members mentioned an information item and at least one of the other members reacted to it (e.g., by nodding or saying something like "OK"), but after this the group still failed to ask questions about it or integrate the item with other information. A score of "3" was given when a piece of information was mentioned by one of the group members and one or more other members clearly responded by asking a question about it (e.g., "Why is it important to give light signals?"). A score of "4" was given when the mentioning of an information item resulted in a conclusion about whether something was important or not (e.g., "Ah, a mirror must be important, you can use the light of the sun to signal with that."). Finally, a score of "5" was given when the information item was combined with another piece of information by one of the other group members (e.g., I don't think it's smart to take a knife with us. There's barely any vegetation we can use it on and we might be a danger to ourselves and others if we indeed get a sunstroke."). The highest level of information elaboration for each information item was used in subsequent analyses (from 0 to 5); the total elaboration was then determined by computing the sum of information elaboration for the eight information categories. It is important to stress that information elaboration was coded in the same way in all conditions (i.e., regardless of whether information items were shared or unshared). Thus, groups in all conditions could obtain scores between 0 and 5 for all eight information items. The maximum number of points that could be obtained thus was 8 items x 5 points is 40 points. Two independent raters, blind to the experimental conditions and hypotheses, coded the

Table 5. An overview of an interaction sequence of which information elaboration was coded from videotapes in Homan et al. (2007a)

1

Group member F1

2

M2

3 4

F2 M2

5

F1

6

M1

Statement

Level of elaboration

Score (information item)

Hey, what about taking some water with us. We will dehydrate pretty quickly in this heat. Sure, but what about making sure they can find us. It might be smart to take something to signal with us.

Information exchange

1 (information item water)

Response (Sure) Information exchange

Ok, that sounds good, but how do you want to do that? Well, let's assume they come to find us with a helicopter, which is quite reasonable in a big desert; it might be a good idea to have something to signal with. Oh, that's cool, we could take a mirror then or something else that reflects the sun? Wait a minute, we need protection from the sun as well, right? Why don't we take an aluminum tent with us? That will create shade and will reflect light as well.

Question about information

2 1 (information item signaling) 3

Choice for a relevant object

4

Integration with other information (information item shade with information item signaling)

5

Michiel B. Oortwijn, Astrid C. Homan and Nadira Saab

215

videotapes. They provided double ratings of twenty percent of the videotapes to check interrater reliability. The average intra-class correlation for the two raters was .96, which is considered excellent (Cicchetti & Sparrow, 1981). Table 5 shows how the group members interacted to determine what they should bring with them in a survival situation in a desert. People use each other‘s information to get informed as well as use the shared information to integrate it with their own (unshared) knowledge. Combining information (in the example shade and signaling) makes them think of items in which these two characteristics are combined. However, this does not happen constantly. More basic, simple knowledge (like bringing water) is usually not a big part of the discussion. The thorough exchange and processing of information on the group-level seems to occur for information that is not directly obvious or needs an integration of different ideas (cf. Wilson et al., 2007).

6. FACTORS THAT AFFECT THE RELATION BETWEEN PEER INTERACTIONS AND PERFORMANCE Above, we have discussed methodological issues associated with group interaction research. Of course, peer interactions cannot be examined without taking relevant situational and group characteristics into account. Research has demonstrated that peer interactions are shaped to a large extent by individual, group, and setting factors. Most prominent of these are the task the students work on (Bonner, Baumann, & Dalal, 2002; Keefer, Zeitz & Resnick, 2000), leadership (Kahai, Sosik & Avolio, 2004), the support structure (e.g., the teacher; e.g., Newman & Schwager, 1993; Oortwijn, Boekaerts & Vedder, 2008), group diversity (Homan et al., 2007; Van Knippenberg et al., 2004), and the communication medium (Solimeno, Mebane, Tomai, & Francescato, 2007; Suthers et al., 2003). In the remainder of this chapter we propose a model of peer interactions in which we distinguish antecedents, process, and outcome (see Figure 1). In the proposed model, the antecedent variables affect how students interact with each other during group work. We argue here that the group learning process is shaped by the four antecedent variables diversity, task complexity, support, and leadership. Communication medium is argued to moderate the relationships between the antecedents and the group learning process. We will discuss all aspects of the model below.

Antecedents of Group Learning Diversity. Research shows that the value in diversity in group learning is most likely to be found in cognitive differences between group members (Van Knippenberg et al., 2004). Cognitive diversity is defined here as heterogeneity in prior academic knowledge. Van Knippenberg et al. (2004) argued that cognitive diversity can enhance the elaboration of taskrelevant information and perspectives within the group -that is, exchanging, discussing, and integrating task-relevant ideas, knowledge, and insights. Although diverse perspectives within a group can lead to enhanced group functioning through information elaboration, this effect may be reduced or even reversed when these differences give rise to subgroup categorization (Van Knippenberg et al., 2004), leading to intergroup bias, such as in-group favoritism, outgroup derogation, prejudice and conflicts (Kirchmeyer, 1993; Watson, Johnson, & Zgourides, 2002).

216

Michiel B. Oortwijn, Astrid C. Homan and Nadira Saab Leadership

Group learning process

Diversity

Shared mental models

Task complexity

Regulative peer talk

Output Learning result  Task-related knowledge  Task independent knowledge  Perceived group effectiveness

Support

Communication medium (F2F vs. CSCL)

Experience

Figure 1. The influences of antecedents on decision-making and the effect on learning result.

Regarding the underlying processes, diversity affects task-related peer talk and the development of shared mental models (SMM). As described above, differences can instigate negative intragroup processes, such as low cohesion, prejudice, and conflicts due to the division of the group into subgroups. Concerning the development of SMMs, one can predict that the differences within the group will likely lead to a reduced degree of agreement. Cognitive differences will probably decrease the level of agreement in cognitive mental models. Students with different ideas, perspectives, and knowledge will bring something new to the table, instigating the need for information processing, lowering the chances of groupthink, and improving learning results. However, these differences might also decrease the sharedness about social regulations within the group. As different students might take with them different expectations regarding learning in groups, the group as a whole might have difficulties interacting effectively lowering learning results. In sum, we expect that some diversity in student groups will produce beneficial outcomes, whereas pronounced diversity will deteriorate regulative peer talk and decrease sharedness of shared mental models (SMMs). Leadership. Kahai et al. (2004), distinguished participative and directive in-group leadership. Participative leaders strive for equal participation and consult group members before making a decision. Directive leaders guide the group members towards the decision they have in mind. Leadership has not been widely studied in group learning research. The few studies that have investigated leadership in group learning are mostly descriptive in nature, using self-reports to assess emergent leadership. For instance, Yamaguchi and Maehr (2004) suggest that emergent leadership often takes the form of participative leadership. Their study suggests that participative leadership is positively related to regulative (social and

Are You Talking to me? An Overview of Techniques to Measure Peer…

217

cognitive) peer talk. They could not find a positive relationship with learning results. Concerning SMMs, a participative leader is likely to instigate more divergence within the team as everyone is allowed to voice their opinion, lowering the sharedness of cognitive as well as social mental models. Directive leaders, on the other hand, are less open to divergent perspectives and more task-focused. This will not only increase the sharedness of sharedmental models, but also lower the degree of regulative peer talk within the group. Task complexity. Earlier studies have shown that variation in task complexity influences affective, cognitive and behavioral responses of task performers (Harvey, 1997). It is important to note that task complexity is not the same as task difficulty. While task complexity is an objective characteristic of the task, task difficulty is a subjective task characteristic, depending on the cognitive ability of the student(s) who solve(s) it. If a task is too complex to complete for all group members, they cannot help each other (Bonner et al., 2002). When the task is too simple, however, the group members do not need each other‘s help and knowledge to perform well. As such, tasks with high and low complexity do not stimulate group members to engage in task-related peer talk. Therefore, the task should have a level of complexity that allows for substantial variation in member performance for members to identify the differences in point of views and expertise among the different group members (Bonner et al., 2002). Support. Support of group learning can positively affect the task-related peer interactions and the learning results face-to-face, computer-supported, and group decision-making settings (Janssen, Erkens, Kanselaar, & Jaspers, 2007; Saab et al., 2007; Wegerif et al., 1999;Wilson et al., 2007). However, support has different meanings in the different settings. In the face-toface group learning setting, support often refers to a teacher (cf. Oortwijn, Boekaerts, & Vedder, 2008). In the group decision-making setting, support can either be instigated by the experimenter or by a confederate, who can be present in real-life or be videotaped. Support in the computer-supported setting often refers to a software application. For instance, Saab and colleagues (2005; 2007) developed a support structure for effective communication in a computer-supported setting, called RIDE. It comprises four principles based on research into effective communication: Respect, Intelligent collaboration, Deciding together, and Encouraging. The RIDE rules directed students into regulating the group behavior through a specially designed computer interface.

Communication Medium as a Moderator We argue that the communication medium will act as a moderator between the antecedent variables and the group learning process. For instance, manifest features of diversity, such as gender, physical appearance or speech (e.g., speech accents), are not apparent in a computersupported setting (Dubrovsky, Kiesler, & Sethna, 1991). Consequently, students are not distracted by these differences and can focus more on the task at hand (Walther, 1992). Furthermore, the computer-supported environment allows for more flexibility of the peers in terms of when and where to work together. Research suggests that the freedom to choose when and where to work with peers may undermine productivity, since students may feel less attached to their peers (Straus, 1997). Therefore, leadership and support structures are likely

218

Michiel B. Oortwijn, Astrid C. Homan and Nadira Saab

to be more important in a computer-supported setting when compared to a face-to-face setting (Carte, Chidambaram & Becker, 2006; Kahai et al., 2004). Regarding task complexity, we mentioned before that tasks that are too complex for students may result in poor task-related peer interactions and performance. By definition, in a computer-supported environment, interfaces for task-related peer talk are more complex and less automated than is verbal taskrelated peer talk in the face-to-face setting. It might therefore be argued that completing an assignment in a computer-supported environment is more difficult for students than completing an assignment in a face-to-face setting, which may undermine the group learning process and performance.

Importance for Techniques for Interaction Analysis The model proposed above has consequences for the analysis of peer interactions. If all these factors indeed play a role in group learning, they should be assessed or at least be controlled for. Different techniques might be more insightful in different settings. For instance, self-reports on the group-level might be more predictive of group learning in a faceto-face setting than in a computer-supported environment, because people interact more closely with one another and are therefore more capable of assessing their own interaction patterns and learning behaviors. Whether this is indeed the case could be examined by measuring the within-group agreement regarding similar group processes in the two settings. We would predict that groups show less within-group variance in the face-to-face setting than in the computer-supported setting. Another illustration of the implications of our model for interaction analyses is the fact that helping behavior might be more relevant in a computersupported setting than in a face-to-face setting. The way in which a task is approached is probably easier established in direct contact than in a-synchronic contact. Coding for certain behaviors might therefore not always be similarly conducive for learning in different situations. To test the model mentioned above, we propose an experimental, longitudinal study. In this study, students are placed in groups and complete comparable group decision-making tasks during multiple sessions. After every session they complete a performance test and fill in a questionnaire on how they perceived the group learning process. Video recordings of the groups are made during each session. One session will take place via computer-supported media to examine the role of communication media on the group learning process and performance. With the performance tests, the task-related and task independent knowledge is measured. The questionnaires are used to record the perceived group climate (e.g., in-group belongingness; cf. Homan et al., 2007b), which provides a measure of sharedness. The video recordings are used to code the cognitive and social aspects of the verbal problem-solving process at individual and group-level. The cognitive aspects of the verbal problem-solving process are coded with helping behavior (individual-level; Oortwijn et al., 2008), conflicts (individual-level; Homan et al, 2007a), and discourse analysis (group-level; Mercer, 1996). Quantitative analyses are carried out with a multi-level approach, to take into account variance on the individual and the grouplevel (Klein & Kozlowski, 2000). We argue that the development of groups in problem-solving skillfulness can only be fully explored when research methodologies from the three research settings that were discussed in this chapter are combined.

Are You Talking to me? An Overview of Techniques to Measure Peer…

219

7. CONCLUSION The aim of this book chapter was to give an insight in methods to analyze task-related peer interactions in three research settings: face-to-face, computer-supported, and group decision-making. Although these research settings have developed their own research methodologies to measure task-related peer interactions, we aimed to show that they also show large overlap in what they measure and that all three settings can learn from each other. For instance, in the study of task-related peer interactions in the face-to-face group learning setting, traditionally, attention has been paid mostly to the analysis of individual utterances. Only recently, studies have been conducted on the group-level analysis of task-related peer interactions. These studies typically have an inductive nature and are limited to a specific educational situation. The situational, inductive character of discourse analysis might inhibit generalization to other settings as well as theory-generation (Bennett & Dunne, 1991). In group decision-making literature, however, group-level analysis of task-related peer interactions in an experimental design is a well-researched methodology (e.g., Phillips, Mannix, Neale & Gruenfeld, 2004). In group learning literature, the development of students‘ skills has traditionally been a central research theme. Researchers in group decision-making only recently have started to argue that learning processes should be one of the central dependent variables in group decision-making research designs (Wilson et al., 2007). With this chapter we intend to build a case for a multi-domain perspective on group learning. The computer-supported, face-to-face, and group decision-making research settings overlap to a considerable degree and we believe major progress can be made by combining insights from these three research settings.

REFERENCES Argote, L. & McGrath, J. E. (1993). Group processes in organizations: Continuity and change. International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 8, 333–389. Arstein, R. & Poesio, M. (2005). Kappa3 = alpha (or beta) (NLE Technical Note 05-1). University of Essex: Natural Language Engineering and Webb Applications Group. Barron, B. (2003). When smart groups fail. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 307-259. Bennett, N. & Dunne, E. (1991). The nature and quality of talk in co-operative classroom groups. Learning and Instruction, 1, 103-118. Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 349-381). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Bonner, B. L., Baumann, M. R. & Dalal, R. S. (2002). The effects of member expertise on group decision-making and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 88, 719-736. Bromme, R., Hesse, F. W. & Spada, H. (2005). Barriers and biases in computer-mediated knowledge communication. And how they may be overcome. New York: Springer.

220

Michiel B. Oortwijn, Astrid C. Homan and Nadira Saab

Cannon-Bowers, J. E., Salas, E. & Converse, S. (1993). Shared mental models in expert team decision-making. In J. Castellan (Ed.), Individual and Group Decision-Making: Current Issues (221-246). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Carte, T. A., Chidambaram, L. & Becker, A. 2006). Emergent leadership in self-managed teams. Group decision and negotiation, 15, 323-343. Chi, M. T. H. (1997). Quantifying qualitative analyses of verbal data: A practical guide. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6, 217-315. Cicchetti, D. V. & Sparrow, S. S. (1992). Developing criteria for establishing the interrater reliability of specific items in a given inventory: Applications to assessment of adaptive behavior. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 86, 127-137. Cobo, P. & Fortuny, M. (2001). Social interactions and cognitive effects in contexts of areacomparison problem solving. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 42, 115-140. Damon, W. & Phelps, E. (1989). Critical distinctions among three approaches to peer education. International Journal of Educational Research, 13, 9-19. De Dreu, C. K. W., Nijstad, B. A. & Van Knippenberg, D. (2008). Motivated information processing in group judgment and decision making. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12, 22-49. De Wever, B., Schellens, T., Valcke, M. & Van Keer, H. (2006). Content analysis schemes to analyze transcripts of online asynchronous discussion groups: A review. Computers & Education, 46, 6-28. Dubrovsky, V. J., Kiesler, S. & Sethna, B. N. (1991). The equalization phenomenon: Status effects in computer-mediated and face-to-face decision making groups. Human Computer Interaction, 6, 119-146. Duran, D. & Monereo, C. (2005). Styles and sequences of cooperative interaction in fixed and reciprocal peer tutoring. Learning and Instruction, 15, 179-199. Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 350-383. Erkens, G. (1998). Multiple Episode Protocol Analysis (MEPA 3.0) (Internal publication. Utrecht, The Netherlands: Department of Educational Science, Utrecht University. Fischer, F. & Mandl, H. (2005). Knowledge convergence in computer-supported collaborative learning: the role of external representation tools. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14, 405-441. Fraivillig, J. L. (1999). Advancing children‘s mathematical thinking in everyday mathematics classrooms. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 30, 148-170. George, J. M. (1990). Personality, affect, and behavior in groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 107–116. Guzzo, R. A. & Dickson, M. W. (1996). Teams in organizations: recent research on performance and effectiveness. Annual Review of Psychology, 47, 307-38. Harvey, C. M. (1997). Toward a model of distributed engineering collaboration. Unpublished doctoral dissertation: Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN. Hinsz, V. B., Tindale, R. S. & Vollrath, D. A. (1997). The emerging conceptualization of groups as information processors. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 43-64. Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2003). Analyzing collaborative knowledge Construction: multiple methods for integrated understanding. Computers & Education, 41, 397-420.

Are You Talking to me? An Overview of Techniques to Measure Peer…

221

Hmelo-Silver C. E. & Bromme, R. (2007). Coding discussions and discussing coding: Research on collaborative learning in computer-supported environments. Learning and Instruction, 17, 460-464. Hogg, M. A. (1992). The social psychology of group cohesiveness: From attraction to social identity. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf. Homan, A. C., van Knippenberg, D., Van Kleef, G. A. & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2007a). Bridging faultlines by valuing diversity: The effects of diversity beliefs on information elaboration and performance in diverse work groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1189-1199. Homan, A. C., van Knippenberg, D., Van Kleef, G. A. & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2007b). Interacting dimensions of diversity: Cross-categorization and the functioning of diverse work groups. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 11, 79-94. Ilgen, D. R., Hollenbeck, J. R., Johnson, M. & Jundt, D. (2004). Groups in organizations: From I-P-O models to IMOI models. Annual Review of Psychology. James, L. R. (1982). Aggregation bias in estimates of perceptual agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 219-229. James, L. R., Demaree, R. J. & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 85-98. James, L. R., Demaree, R. J. & Wolf, G. (1993). rwg: An assessment of within-group interrater agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 306-309. Janssen, J., Erkens, G., Kanselaar, G. & Jaspers, J. (2007). Visualization of participation: Does it contribute to successful computer-supported collaborative learning? Computers & Education, 49, 1037-1065. Jehn, K. A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 256-282. Johnson, D. W. & Johnson, F. P. (1982). Joining together: Group theory and group skills (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Kaartinen, S. & Kumpulainen, K. (2002). Collaborative inquiry and the construction of explanations in the learning of science. Learning and Instruction, 12, 189-212. Kahai, S. S., Sosik, J. J. & Avolio, B. J. (2004). Effects of participative and directive leadership in electronic groups. Group Organization Management, 29, 67-105. Kashy, D. A. & Kenny, D. A. (2000). The analysis of data from dyads and groups. In H. T. Reis & C. M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology (pp. 451-477). Cambridge, UK: University Press. Klein, K. J. & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (Eds.) (2000). Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Keefer, M. W., Zeitz, C. M. & Resnick, L. B. (2000). Judging the quality of peer-led student dialogues. Cognition and Instruction, 18, 53-81. Kirchmeyer, C. (1993). Multicultural task groups: An account of the low contribution level of minorities. Small Group Research, 24, 127-148. Klahr, D. & Dunbar, K. (1988). Dual space search during scientific reasoning. Cognitive Science, 12, 1–48. Krippendorff, K. (2004). Reliability in content analysis: some common misconceptions and recommendations. Human Communication Research, 30, 411-433. Kovalainen, M. & Kumpulainen, K. (2005). The discursive practice of participation in an elementary classroom community. Instructional Science, 33, 213-250.

222

Michiel B. Oortwijn, Astrid C. Homan and Nadira Saab

Kozlowski, S. W. J. & Ilgen, D. R. (2006). Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7(3), 77-124. Kumpulainen, K. & Mutanen, M. (1999). The situated dynamics of peer group interaction: an introduction to an analytic framework. Learning and Instruction, 9, 449-473. Mercer, N. (1996). The quality of talk in children‘s collaborative activity in the classroom. Learning and Instruction, 6, 359-377. Meyer, D. K. & Turner, J. C. (2002). Using instructional discourse analysis to study the scaffolding of student self-regulation. Educational Psychologist, 37, 17-25. Neuendorf, K. A. (2002). The content analysis guidebook. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage publications, Inc. Newman, R. S. & Schwager, M. T. (1993). Students‘ perceptions of the teacher and classmates in relation to reported help seeking in math class. The Elementary School Journal, 94, 3-17. Njoo, M. K. H. & De Jong, T. (1993). Exploratory learning with a computer simulation for control theory: Learning processes and instructional support. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(8), 821-844. Noldus, L. P. J. J. (2003). The Observer (Version 5.0) [Computer software]. Wageningen, The Netherlands: Noldus Information Technology Inc. O‘Donnell, A. M. (2006). Introduction: Learning with technology. In A. M. O‘Donnell, C. E. Hmelo-Silver & G. Erkens (Eds.), Collaborative reasoning, learning and technology (pp. 1-14). Mahwah: NJ: Erlbaum. Okada, T. & Simon, H. A. (1997). Collaborative discovery in a scientific domain. Cognitive Science, 21(2), 109-146. Oortwijn, M. B., Boekaerts, M. & Vedder, P. (2008). The impact of the teacher‘s role and pupils‘ ethnicity and prior knowledge on pupils‘ performance and motivation to cooperate. Instructional Science, 36, 251-268. Oortwijn, M. B., Boekaerts, M., Vedder, P. & Strijbos, J. W. (2008). Helping behaviour during cooperative learning and learning gains: The role of the teacher and of pupils' prior knowledge and ethnic background. Learning and Instruction, 18, 146-159. Pena-Shaff, J. B. & Nicholls, C. (2004). Analyzing student interactions and meaning construction in computer bulletin board discussions. Computers & Education, 42, 243265. Phillips, K. W., Mannix, E. A., Neale, M. A. & Gruenfeld, D. H. (2004). Diverse groups and information sharing: The effects of congruent ties. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 497-510. Qin, Z., Johnson, D. W. & Johnson, R. T. (1995). Cooperative versus competitive efforts and problem solving. Review of Educational Research, 65, 129-143. Saab, N., Van Joolingen, W. R. & Van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M. (2005). Communication in collaborative discovery learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(4), 603621. Saab, N., Van Joolingen, W. R. & Van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M. (2007). Supporting communication in a collaborative discovery learning environment: The effect of instruction. Instructional Science, 35(1), 73-98. Salomon, G. & Globerson, T. (1989). When teams do not function the way they ought to. International Journal of Educational Research, 13, 89-99.

Are You Talking to me? An Overview of Techniques to Measure Peer…

223

Schippers, M. C., Den Hartog, D. N. & Koopman, P. L. (2007). Reflexivity in teams: A measure and correlates. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 56, 189-211. Shrout, P. E. & Fleiss, J. L. (1979). Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 462-470. Simons, T. L. & Peterson, R. S. (2000). Task conflict and relationship conflict in top management teams: The pivotal role of intragroup trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 102-111. Solimeno, A., Mebane, M. E., Tomai, M. & Francescato, D. (2007). The influence of students and teachers characteristics on the efficacy of face-to-face and computer supported collaborative learning. Computers & Education, 51, 109-128. Stahl, G. (2006). Group cognition: Computer support for building collaborative knowledge. Cambridge, MA: MIT press. Straus, S. G. (1997). Technology, group process, and group outcomes: Testing the connections in computer-mediated and face-to-face groups. Human-Computer Interaction, 12, 227-266. Strijbos, J. W. & Stahl, G. (2007). Methodological issues in developing a multi-dimensional coding procedure for small-group chat communication. Learning and Instruction, 17, 394-404. Strijbos, J. W., Martens, R. L., Jochems, W. M. G. & Broers, N. J. (2007).The effect of functional roles on perceived group efficiency during computer-supported collaborative learning: A matter of triangulation. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 353-380. Suthers, D., Hundhausen, C. & Girardeau, L. (2003). Comparing the roles of representations in face-to-face and online computer supported collaborative learning. Computers & Education 41, 335-351. Thomas, D. C., Ravlin, E. C. & Wallace, A. (1996). Effects of cultural diversity in work groups. In P. Bamberger, M. Erez & S. B. Bacharach (Eds.), Research in the sociology of organizations (Vol. 14, pp. 1-13). Greenwich, CT: JAI. Tse, H. H. M., Dasborough, M. T. & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2008). A multi-level analysis of team climate and interpersonal exchange relationships at work. Leadership Quarterly, 19, 195-211. Van Boxtel, C. (2000). Collaborative concept learning. Collaborative learning tasks, student interaction, and the learning of physics concepts. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands. Van Joolingen, W. R. & De Jong, T. (1997). An extended dual search space model of learning with computer simulations. Instructional Science, 25, 307–346. Van Knippenberg, D., De Dreu, C. K. W. & Homan, A. C. (2004). Work group diversity and group performance: An integrative model and research agenda. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 1008-1022. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Watson, W. E., Johnson, L. & Zgourides, G. D. (2002). The influence of ethnic diversity on emergent leadership, group process, and performance: An examination of learning teams. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 26, 1-16. Walther, J. B. (1992). Relational communication in computer-mediated interaction. Human Communication Research, 19(1), 50-88.

224

Michiel B. Oortwijn, Astrid C. Homan and Nadira Saab

Webb, N. M. (1991). Task-related verbal interaction and mathematics learning in small groups. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 22, 366–389. Webb, N. M. & Farivar, S. (1994). Promoting helping behavior in cooperative small groups in middle school mathematics. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 369-395. Webb, N. M. & Mastergeorge, A. M. (2003). The development of students' helping behavior and learning in peer-directed small groups. Cognition and Instruction, 21, 361-428. Webb, N. M., Nemer, K. M, & Ing, M. (2006). Small group reflections: Parallels between teacher discourse and student behavior in peer-directed groups. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15, 63-119. Webb, N. M., Troper, J. D. & Fall, R. (1995). Constructive activity and learning in collaborative small groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 406-423. Weinberger, A. & Fischer, F. (2006). A framework to analyze argumentative knowledge construction in computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers & Education, 46, 71-95. Weingart, L. R. (1997). How did they do that? The ways and means of studying group process. In: B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol 19, pp 189-239). JAI Press, Greenwich. Williams, K. Y. & O'Reilly, C. A. (1998). Demography and diversity in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 20, 77-140. Wilson, J. M., Goodman, P. G. & Cronin, M. A. (2007). Group Learning. Academy of Management Review, 32, 1041-1059. Wegerif, R., Mercer, N. & Dawes, L. (1999). From social interaction to individual reasoning: An empirical investigation of a possible socio-cultural model of cognitive development. Learning and Instruction, 9, 493-516. Yamaguchi, R. & Maehr, M. L. (2004). Children‘s emergent leadership: The relationships with group characteristics and outcomes. Small Group Research, 35, 388-406.

In: Collaborative Learning: Methodology, Types… Editors: E. Luzzatto, G. DiMarco, pp. 225-254

ISBN: 978-1-60876-076-3 © 2010 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Chapter 8

THE ROLE OF SIMULATIONS AND REAL-TIME APPLICATIONS IN COLLABORATIVE LEARNING Maria Limnioua, Nikos Papadopoulosb and Ioannis Kozarisb a

University of Manchester, UK Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece

b

ABSTRACT As Computer-Supported Collaboration Learning (CSCL) is the combination of collaborative learning and support by computer technology, the effectiveness of CSCL depends on the kind of collaboration, the technical environment, the learners‘ characteristics, the teachers‘ role and the task demands. The aim of this chapter is to demonstrate the integration of synchronous and asynchronous activity based on realtime application and simulations into chemistry laboratory. In synchronous collaboration students observed the progress of an experiment from their PC and collected and interpreted data as the experiment was on the progress by using a real time application for control the instrument remotely. Another example for synchronous collaboration was based on simulation program where the teaching procedure was conducted in a computer-cluster. The students performed virtual experiments by using a simulation program on their PC and they shared their measurements, observations and conclusions by using the LAN. In the cases of synchronous collaborations the teacher and the students had a face -to-face communication in computer cluster and the computer interaction was through LAN. In asynchronous collaboration, students performed virtual experiments by using a simulator and by using the discussion boards of Virtual Learning Environments (VLEs) they shared their experience and discussed the conclusions. In that case the teacher and students had an on-line collaboration and the computer interaction was through VLEs. The results in all the cases were interpreted in terms of the l earners‘ characteristics, the teachers‘ role, task demands and learning outcomes.

226

Maria Limniou, Nikos Papadopoulos and Ioannis Kozaris

INTRODUCTION Constructivism is based on the idea that learning occurs when there is a change in the learner‘s existing ideas either by adding some new information or by reorganizing what is already known. The knowledge, which is constructed by the learner, is not a simple transmission of facts from the teacher to the students, but a continuous and active process on both sides. According to von Glaserfeld (1988), knowledge has a social construction where concepts are developed in a process of fine-tuning involving interaction with others. Constructivism and Collaborative Learning (CL) have established the social interdependence where students consolidate their knowledge by teaching one another. Collaborative Learning (CL) involves the mutual engagement of learners in a coordinated effort to solve a problem or to examine an issue all together. This is different idea from Cooperative Learning where each learner is responsible for solving only a portion of a whole problem. However, there are common points between Collaborative Learning and Cooperative Learning (Matthews et al., 1995; Kirschner, 2001) such as        

Learning takes place in an active mode The teacher is more a facilitator than ―sage on the stage‖ Teaching and learning are shared experiences between teacher and student Students participate in small-group activities Students must take responsibility of their learning Discussing and articulating one‘s ideas enhances the ability to reflect on one‘s own assumptions and thought processes Students develop social and team skills through the give-and–take of consensusbuilding Students experience diversity, which is essential in multicultural democracy.

According to Dillenbourg (1999), collaboration may concern four aspects of learning: 1. Situation which is characterised by the following criteria: 

 

Symmetry: for example symmetry of knowledge (learners should have the same or a slightly different level of knowledge/skills. If one of them believes his/her partner to be more expert then she/he adopts a weaker position in the argumentation) and symmetry of status (collaboration is more likely to occur between people with a similar status than between a teacher and a learner). Common goals: learners should not only develop shared goals, but they also become mutually aware of their shared goals. Division of labour among the group members: the roles in collaboration may shift every few minutes, the regulator partner may become the regulated.

2. Interactions: take place between the group members and are characterised by the following criteria: interactivity, synchronicity and ―negotiability‖

The Role of Simulations and Real-Time Applications in Collaborative Learning

227

3. Learning mechanisms:  

  



Induction: the grounding mechanism is inductive since the learner must induce patterns relating referring expressions with referents Cognitive load: the division of labour into task-level and strategy-level tasks reduces the amount of processing performed by each individual. The interaction with other group members increases the cognitive load. (Self-)explanation: what needs to be added or removed to existing individual explanation to fit with real (social) explanations. Conflict between individual knowledge with the others peers individual knowledge. Process of Internalisation: as one interacts with the other(s) in the group to solve a problem, she/he adopts the way of solving the task from the others concepts or actions. “Appropriation”: one re-interprets his/her own action or utterance under the light of what the others do or say next (very similar to internalisation process).

4. Effects of collaborative learning on different kind of interaction and on individual task performance. Crucial points for a successful collaboration are i). the nature of the learning task, which should be not so obvious or/and unambiguous discouraging learners to make questions, give explanations and make arguments (Arvaja et al., 2000) and ii). the interactions between group members (Offir et al., 2008). In a face-to-face situation, teachers structure and regulate students‘ interaction by preparing the lecture and setting up the group work and then intervening in the collaboration when they feel it is necessary. Thus, the presence of a teacher-student interaction which accompanies the learning process is very important for learners. According to Laurillard (1993), a model describes the conversational framework of the teaching-learning process in more detail that one can use for analysing the interactions between students, tutor and learning environments (Bostock, 1996) (Figure 1). Through current technologies of computers, learners and teachers not only can interact synchronously but also have an efficient cooperation or collaboration over distance. Computer-Supported Collaboration Learning (CSCL) is one of the most promising innovations to improve teaching and learning as it achieves the combination of the communication technology, psychological and pedagogical aspects (constructivism) (Silverman, 1995). CSCL can be a powerful tool in creating learning communities where students have a chance to collaboratively make representations, develop explanations of the subject studied and analyse knowledge (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1994). The importance of the interaction and its influence on the learning process in distance education was described by Moore (1993) in a model called the ―transactional distance‖, i.e. the distance created between the teacher and the students during the lesson, which potentially increases in distance education. The term ‗‗transaction‖ refers to a mutual action between the environment, the individuals and the behavioural patterns in a particular situation. The distance education transaction is ‗‗the mutual action between teachers and students, in environments whose uniqueness is their separation from each other, and as a result exhibit unique behaviour patterns of distance education‖ (Moore & Kearsley, 1996). The transactional distance is

228

Maria Limniou, Nikos Papadopoulos and Ioannis Kozaris

affected by two variables, the dialogue or verbal interaction and its adaptation to distance learning. The transaction distance will decrease as the level of dialogue increases and this will lead to an increase in the effectiveness of learning (Offir et al., 2008). There are two methods used for implementing distance learning systems (two different types of CSCL environments) according to the moment when the student-teacher interaction takes place: asynchronous and asynchronous systems (Bafestou & Mentzas, 2002). Ellis et al. (1991) categorised group interactions according to time and space. Collaboration could be enhanced within a real-time interaction or an asynchronous (non-real time interaction) (Figure 2). A distinction is made between same time (synchronous) and different times (asynchronous), and between same place (face-to-face) and different places (distributed).

Figure 1. The conversational framework which identify the necessary activities to complete the learning process (Laurillard, 1993, p. 102)

Same Place Different Place

Same Time Face-to-face interaction Synchronous distributed interaction

Figure 2. Group interactions depending on time and space

Different Times Asynchronous interaction Asynchronous distributed interaction

The Role of Simulations and Real-Time Applications in Collaborative Learning

229

Asynchronous communication is very different from face-to-face communication and allows students to exchange data and views in their own time and space. Students may or may not have access remotely to web-based course material. E-mail is originally designed for supporting asynchronous communication. This type of collaboration offers some advantages. Firstly, students are not pressed to react in a shot unit of time and secondly, students can organise their messages by “branching” them around themes (Veerman et al., 2000). Problems for asynchronous communication will be raised when we expect from two or more group members which are coming from different countries or have different background knowledge and/or have not previously worked together to work on a common task electronically (Jaervelae et al., 2004). Additionally, isolation feelings are usually common at the students who participate in an asynchronous communication causing motivation reduction for learning. Students do not receive instant feedback from their questions and cannot talk in real-time about results obtained in the learning activities (Jara et al., 2009). On the other hand, in CSCL synchronous environments students share data and views through the Internet in real-time like a face-to-face interaction without feeling isolated (Marjanovic, 1999). Example for synchronous communication tool is the live chat room, where users receive a response within seconds or minutes. One of the challenges to communication technology is how to make distributed interactions as effective as face-to-face interactions, as human interaction, like creation mutual understanding or shared values and goals are hard to produce in a distantenvironment. A remote interaction supported by appropriate technology which will allow students to have access other relevant information without interrupting the flow interaction should be the solution to the challenge. Teachers evaluate communication tools in light of their learning goals and choose the most appropriate medium. Many researchers have studied how different communication tools have been used to facilitate collaborative and distributed teaching and learning including special network application for CSCL, different multimedia formats and different experimental simulations (Wild & Winniford, 1993; Garrison et al., 2000; Ong & Mannan, 2004; Scanlon et al., 2004; Zurita & Nussbaum 2004; Wegerif, 2004; Nickerson et al., 2007; Monahan et al., 2008) with positive effects on learning and social interaction of computerbased peer-to-peer interaction. However, there are other negative results (Kreijns et al., 2002), where there are evaluations of the design of CSCL environments that do not completely fulfil expectations on supporting interactive, coordinated group learning and social construction of knowledge. Although the design of CSCL environment is based on subjective decisions regarding learning outcomes, teaching approach and procedure, tasks‘ types and technology used, many researchers have proposed general models for the design of efficient and effective CSCL environments (Kirschner et al., 2003; Strijbos et al., 2004). According to Kirschner, Strijbos and Kreijns (2003), a designer should determine 1. what learners actually do 2. what can be done to support those learners 3. the given constraints and conventions prior to determining which designed constraints can support the group learners 4. how learners perceive and experience the support provided 5. how the learner actually uses the support provided 6. what has been learnt

230

Maria Limniou, Nikos Papadopoulos and Ioannis Kozaris

More specifically, according to Strijbos, Martens and Jochems (2004), a designer should determine 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

the type of learning objective the expected interaction the task type whether and how much pre-structuring is needed group size how computer support can be applied

Virtual Learning Environments such as WebCT or Blackboard, simulators and real-time applications are used in order to support Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning. Their role as learning‘s mediator is essential to improve the educational experience in the scientific concepts. Especially, these mediators are really useful in the filed of science education, where the lecture material comes from predetermined texts, giving students little incentive to attend and participate in class. In the laboratory sessions, students are lost as they struggle to combine technical and scientific concepts and principle, which tend to be incomprehensible, or detached from real-world contexts. As a result, students do not have the opportunity to critically think through the issues and arguments presented in class. Consequently, students have the feelings that the most important step in mastering the material is memorizing large amounts of scientific information from chunks of seemingly unrelated examples (Seng & Mohamad, 2002). The aim of this chapter is to propose different methodologies based on CSCL which encourages the learning, increases the experience, provides active roles and social abilities to the students in the building of their knowledge and promotes the role of teacher and technological resources (simulator and real-time applications) as a facilitator and mediator. In order to compare the different methodologies with the conventional way of teaching, the authors have chosen to display the situation in one of the science education‘s disciples such as chemistry education. We present the difficulties of the conventional way of laboratory teaching, the difficulties that the students and the teachers usually face, the role of technological recourses and the alterative methodological procedures.

CHEMISTRY EDUCATION AND PEDAGOLOGICAL BACKGROUND Chemistry is an experimental science which is expensive in terms of equipment, consumables and time of the academic and technical staff and its development and application demand a high standard of experimental work. Through laboratory sessions the students practice the theory that they have been taught in the lectures, as they obtain laboratory skills such as manipulation of glassware and instruments, collection, processing, analysis and interpretation of experimental data and general skills such as communication skills, team work and problem solving. However, during every laboratory session, the students receive a huge amount of information, such as the location of chemicals, recognition of equipment and the associated handling, instrumentation and safety requirements in a laboratory environment etc. in a short period of time (Johnstone, 1997). As a result students,

The Role of Simulations and Real-Time Applications in Collaborative Learning

231

who can only process a few piece of information at the same time, can not respond at the demands of the practical work. Additionally, the students who lack a solid theoretical background cannot grasp the aim of the experiment they are about to perform and may understand the underlying concepts of the laboratory experiment. According to constructivism students‘ previous knowledge influence their leaning process as the previous knowledge may consist of misconceptions or be not well constructed in their long-term memory (Bodner, 1986; Bodner et al., 2001). In order for teachers to facilitate students to face these difficulties in combination with the demand of the practical work, they usually give a short lecture presentation at the beginning of the laboratory session. Usually, teachers give emphasis on the laboratory procedures directly related to the experiment and where and how students can collect information around a specific experimental procedure. The learning environment is passive, as the teacher presents technical and scientific concepts and principles on the blackboard. After the pre-laboratory session students perform the experiments which are presented at the laboratory manual. However, most of the laboratory manual presents the experiments as a ―recipes‖ and students carry out the instructions of the ―recipes labs‖ line-by-line. During the practical work students are divided into smaller groups usually in pairs. After the students collect their experimental data in the laboratory, they process, analyse and interpret them individually at their home. Finally, they will submit their laboratory report before their participation in the next laboratory session. Following this traditional way of laboratory teaching, the academic staff faces quite a large number of students during the quite limited laboratory time (usually 4 hours/lab session) effectively. As Garratt (1997) pointed out, using such ―recipe labs‖ is an effective strategy for maximising both the quantity of practical experience gained by students and quality of their results. However, ‗recipes labs‘ do not provide opportunities to learn about experimental design, investigation, critical analysis of results, and sources of error. Students who are following a recipe lab are not ―doing an experiment‖, but ―carrying out an exercise‖, because they usually follow instructions mechanically without thinking (Clow & Garratt, 1998). Other key points to be taken into account are the previous knowledge of the students, their misconceptions and their learning difficulties as a way to understand their cognitive process. The background upon which the students construct their models, affect the way in which the new knowledge is assimilated. The traditional way of laboratory teaching, as we have described, does not take into account the students‘ previous knowledge and the cognitive difficulties that they probably have in order to obtain the necessary skills. The collaboration that takes place between the students in the laboratory session is essential for carrying out the experiment and sharing ideas about the process and analysis of the experimental data. However, this is not a deep collaboration as it takes place only during the laboratory time and their only task is to follow the ―recipes‖ without sharing ideas on the scientific way of thinking. Thus, many researchers suggested a different kind of pre-laboratory activities in order to improve students‘ preparation before they start their practical work. Formation of small groups of students (Cooper, 1994), organizational plan consisting of instruction and communication between the instructor and the students (Isom & Rowsey, 1986), questions on the experimental procedure (Pogačnik & Cigić, 2006), action research plan (circles of plan, act and evaluation) (Lyle & Robinson, 2002) and integration of education software into the pre-laboratory session (Winberg & Berg, 2007) are some of the researchers‘ suggestions. All

232

Maria Limniou, Nikos Papadopoulos and Ioannis Kozaris

these proposed pre-laboratory activities allow students to have a better preparation before their laboratory session working in a quite flexible environment, allow teachers to clarify students‘ misconceptions or providing students the opportunity to refresh their knowledge by making the connections between the previous and new knowledge, and/or allow students to collaborate with their peers having a more active role in the learning procedure. However, the pre-laboratory time is limited, focused on the limited laboratory time and a specific experimental work. Meester and Maskill (1995) outline major types of improvements or innovations taking place in the organization of practical work such as the explicit teaching of practical skills, the use of computer or simulations and the use of new approaches to practical courses. Additionally, through practical work teachers should i). encourage students to control their learning independently, ii). promote deep processing of the learning material and iii). encourage to obtain the scientific way of way of thinking.

TECHNOLOGICAL RESOURCES Teachers adopt teaching approaches depending on the university facilities in order to address difficult by nature scientific concepts to students and to enhance the teaching and learning process. Thus, teachers usually use simulations, real time applications and Virtual Learning Environments (VLEs) or a combination of them in their teaching approach.

Simulations Simulations have been demonstrated to provide useful learning experiences in science for many years, specifically; simulations have been used to support practical work. As several concepts in science education are difficult by nature to be illustrated during the lecture or/and laboratory sessions, a variety of simulation programs have been developed and used in the Engineering and Physical Sciences. Simulators mimic important elements of science phenomena and students have the opportunity to manipulate input values of variables which describe the system, observe their effects on output displays and manipulate the simulated instrument as the real one (Thomas & Neilson, 1995). Additionally, the use of simulation reduces the purchase and maintenance cost of the laboratory equipment in science education. Generally, by using simulations students have the opportunity to understand unobservable phenomena in science and/or to familiarise themselves with laboratory techniques (de Jong et al., 1999). Specifically, in simulation-based learning students gradually infer the features of the concept model whilst they proceed through the simulation, which may lead to changes in their original concept. In simulation-based science learning environments new forms of teacher–students interaction can be created in which the spontaneous activity of the student and the teacher‘s guidance are in balance, where students use their knowledge of the target concept to evaluate observations of the system, pose new questions and subsequently design experiments to answer these questions (de Jong & van Joolingen, 1998). According to Chang, Chen, Lin and Sung (2008), five categories of learning support are beneficial to simulation-based learning

The Role of Simulations and Real-Time Applications in Collaborative Learning 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

233

Providing background knowledge Helping learners to make hypothesis Helping learners to conduct experiments Helping learners to interpret data Helping learners to regulate the learning process

In chemistry education many researchers have developed simulation programs to demonstrate to students the characteristics of the basic components of the instruments and their function (Mattson & Mattson 1995; Shiowatana 1997; Papadopoulos et al. 2001), to discover concepts through guided inquiry using the simulation modules (Fermann et al., 2000), to make calculations (Heil & Schäfer, 2002; Burnett & Burns, 2006) to perform virtual experiments on the desktop (Papadopoulos et al., 1999) and/or to perform more complex virtual experiments comparing and interpret different experimental data (Papadopoulos & Limniou, 2003).

Real-Time Experiment Many scientific instruments have been replaced by displays on computers, so that the experience of turning a knob has become the experience of moving a mouse. Hands-on laboratories are often defined as laboratories in which students are in the physical presence of the equipment. However, the equipment may be controlled through a computer. Thus, it is possible that the laboratory experience mediated by a remote computer may not be so different than that mediated by a nearby computer (Nickerson et al., 2007). Remote-controlled experiments refer to the real time computer-based or Internet-based controlled experiments. It allows students to manipulate or control real apparatus to complete experimental activities for scientific investigations at a distance with the use of specific hardware and software (Scanlon et al., 2002, 2004; Kong et al., 2009). There is a distinction between remote experiments and remote simulations where remote experiments involve the manipulation or control of real apparatus at a distance, whereas remote simulations involve control of simulations of the apparatus. For any experiment the sense of reality can be influenced by whether real experimental equipment is being manipulated but also by being remote from the full sensory experience of the laboratory (Scanlon et al., 2004). Many researchers have studied the perspectives of the use remote-controlled experiments in science education (Colwell et al, 2002; Scanlon et al., 2004). According to their view remote-controlled experiments can help to 1. increase students‘ participation in experimental activities, thereby solving the access problems, 2. stimulate students‘ interest in science learning, thereby enhancing the learning outcomes and 3. develop basic observation skills, which are the core skills for scientific investigations (Scanlon et al., 2004). With remote labs, the ability to asynchronously run experiments is convenient from a scheduling perspective, as students can initiate a run and later view for example a video of the experiment, without having to actively wait for the other students to relinquish the equipment. Real-time video of the experiment will provide direct interaction, but will also create more complex scheduling problems, as students may be in contention for devices that are to be controlled synchronously (Nickerson et al., 2007). However, according to Nowak, Watt and

234

Maria Limniou, Nikos Papadopoulos and Ioannis Kozaris

Walther (2004), in a different domain suggests that student preference will be for hands-on or synchronous experiences, but asynchronous video will be just as effective.

Virtual Learning Systems (VLSs) Most students are familiar with web-based tools which are attractive alternatives for collecting information and University teachers are increasingly encouraged to use e-learning techniques to enrich the educational experience and to expand the learning environments which are available to students. Thus, students can learn through the VLSs in a practical way and become aware of physical phenomena that are difficult to explain from a theoretical point of view. Two primary categories of virtual learning systems can be identified: (1) virtual learning systems designed for use in classroom settings (involving onsite synchronous interactions), and (2) distributed VLS designed for environments in which the learners and instructors are distributed across time and/or geographic distance (involving offsite synchronous and/or asynchronous interactions). In the first category the teaching takes place into an electronic classroom, which is a classroom equipped with advanced information technologies, such as computer cluster. Teachers and/or students store, retrieve, process, and communicate information in support of learning activities. The interactive use of VLS in the classroom (such as simulations) aims to the support of student active and exploratory learning during class. Learning can be enhanced through hands-on problem solving. This approach is based on the cognitive learning theories that view learning as an active and constructive process (Alavi & Leidner, 2003). Additionally, simulations are effective pedagogical resources, well suited for web-based and distance education, as encourage students to have a more active role in the e-learning process and provide realistic hands-on experience (Waller & Foster, 2000; Dormido et al., 2005). The majority of the simulations added in web-learning environments are designed to be used individually and they do not allow work group or collaboration among students and teachers (Moreno et al., 2007). Distributed VLS can be divided into broadcast VLS model, online VLS model, collaborative distributed VLS model and combination of more than one (Alavi & Leidner, 2003): 



Broadcast VLS model: the instructor and students are located at two or more remote locations. Sound, full-motion video, and presentation material are transmitted from a central location (classroom or laboratory) to remote locations. The instructor is the primary source of knowledge, controlling the content and the rate of information transmission to students. The predominant pedagogical approach remains the conventional ―chalk and talk‖ method commonly found in more traditional face-toface classroom environments. The vision for VLS is primarily that of automation and efficiency gains. Information flow between the instructor and the remote students is automated. Online VLS model: remote students (using information and communication technologies) gain access to course content and learning resources such as simulations, computer-based exercises. Students are in charge of their learning thus

The Role of Simulations and Real-Time Applications in Collaborative Learning



235

providing greater flexibility in choosing the time, pace, frequency, and form of learning activities. Collaborative distributed VLS model: students create knowledge and understanding primarily through social interactions across time and/or geographic distance through the use of information and communication technologies such as e-mail and online chat facilities. In the collaborative distributed VLS, learning occurs from the opportunity of the group members to be exposed to each other‘s thinking, opinions, and beliefs, while also obtaining and providing feedback for clarification and comprehension.

The above three VLSs or combination of them can be supported by Virtual Learning Environments (VLEs). These systems have opened up a host of opportunities when they come to e-learning, offering new way to engage students in their studies and with their teachers. WebCT ©, Blackboard © and Moodle © are educational platforms that have been adopted by numerous universities in order to enable teachers to have a flexible virtual learning environment to deliver on-line quizzes or courses in addition to standard classes. VLEs support mainly four distinguished capabilities important for teaching and learning: 1. Deliver content (html pages, pdf files, video lectures, power point presentations, embedded animations or simulations etc.) 2. Communication between learners and learners or/and learners and teachers (synchronous and asynchronous communication) 3. Assessment (on-line quizzes, assignments) 4. Management, record and track learners Specifically, these on-line management systems provide a means of organizing supported learning environments by allowing instructors to automate and provide information on selective portions of course materials, such as online learning modules and simulations. Additionally, they record the time that the students spend in an on-line quiz, the number of students viewing a course and other useful statistical data ( Seng & Mohamad, 2002; O‘Connor & Ross, 2004; Bunce et al., 2006; Ngai et al., 2007). Thus, by using this Virtual Learning Environment students have access to the educational material whenever and wherever they want and teachers can track the time that students spend in an on-line course material and on-line quizzes. Additionally, from a pedagogical point of view, teachers have the opportunity to create on-line learning communities, where students and teachers can participate actively in the learning process and collaborate in groups. The collaborative activities often promote metacognitive processes such as reflection, self-explanation, selfregulation, problem solving strategies and validation (Goos & Galbraith, 1996; Goos et al., 2002). This platform increases the student-faculty contact time since a student is in contact with their peers and with the learning subjects for more time using both asynchronous (forums) and synchronous (chats) tools.

236

Maria Limniou, Nikos Papadopoulos and Ioannis Kozaris

PROPOSED METHODOLOGICAL PROCEDURES The theoretical background, which supports the proposed methodologies, is based on CSCL and constructivism, implications on the practical work. The key points in the methodologies are the following: 1. Mental activity: Students can be asked to identify variables, to design experimental procedure (problem statement, hypothesis, variables, constants, data tables, summary, and conclusions), to make comparisons of data between groups in class which may raise questions. 2. Naive theories: Students are asked to generate questions, predictions, explanations. The learning contexts allow students to build knowledge, when they have the chance to explore materials (such as simulations, graphs etc.) or consider a problem. 3. Dissatisfaction with present knowledge: Questions are posed by the teacher to create dissatisfaction with the learner‘s present knowledge. Define the instructive situation starting from the previous ideas of the students (Moreno et al., 2007). 4. Flexible learning environments: The knowledge can be represented in different ways (Moreno et al., 2007). Learning only occurs when students create their own understanding; but teachers are needed to create the environment in which this can happen (Shiland, 1999). 5. Social dimension: Knowledge construction is primarily a social process where through the context of dialogue with others students construct their knowledge. Learning is aided by conversation that seeks and clarifies the ideas of learners (Shiland, 1999). Collaborative learning supports the use of the effective learning methods (e.g. make explicit, discuss, reason) while allowing for the acquisition of essential social communications skills (Kirschner, 2001). 6. Computer: a supporter tool for the experimentation and building of knowledge. They are medium in Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) which is focused on how collaborative learning supported by technology can enhanced peer to peer interaction and work in groups and how collaboration and technology facilitate sharing and distributing of knowledge and expertise among community members (Lipponen, 2002). 7. Teacher: a facilitator rather than a being ‗sage on the stage‘ (Kirschner, 2001). Students are being initiated into the ideas and practices of the scientific community. Learning is not the simple transmission of facts from teacher to student, but a continuous and active process on both sides (Shiland, 1999). Teachers will always be essential to address the human, creative and artistic parts of teaching, and this makes a major difference in how well students learn and more importantly how well they build up their knowledge (Bunce, 2001). 8. Applications: Application to specific instructive situations of constructivism and mediation of learning through computers and people (Moreno et al., 2007). 9. Motivation: group motivation determined by factors such as sharing the same goals (Slavin, 1994) and personal motivation determined by factors such as active participation and personal responsibility (Salomon & Perkins, 1998).

The Role of Simulations and Real-Time Applications in Collaborative Learning

237

10. Feedback: Students, who are involved actively assuming responsibility for their own learning, expect feedback either from their interactions with students or with teachers or with educational software.

DESCRIPTION OF METHODOLOGICAL PROCEDURES As the construction of knowledge in science education demands the development of both the conceptual and procedural understanding by appropriate actions in practical work, the authors have given emphasis on the practical work and its enhancement with CSCL achievements. In the section ―synchronous communication‖ two methodological procedures for a) laboratory course and b) instrumentation course will be described. Section ―asynchronous communication‖ presents an alterative way of teaching for the practical work where VLE and simulator are used.

SYNCHRONOUS COMMUNICATION Simulation, LAN and Laboratory Session Aim and objectives The aim of this methodology is to suggest a pre-laboratory teaching approach based on CSCL which allows students to participate actively in the teaching procedure. The objectives of this methodological procedure are for students to: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

work together as a team be familiar with the theory behind the experiment design the experimental procedure themselves obtain skills such as processing and analysis of experimental data feel more confident before they enter a laboratory

Pre-Laboratory Training This section is conducted in a classroom equipped with PCs (Computer Cluster) which is supported by Local Area Network (LAN). A LAN is a computer network covering a local area, for example a classroom, in which two or more computers are connected together using a telecommunication system for the purpose of communicating and sharing resources (Figure 3). The pre-laboratory session is divided in 4 stages as described below:

i. Experimental theory and procedures discussion At this stage the teacher poses questions to the students based on real examples related to the experimental theory in order to clarify misconceptions and/or to create dissatisfactions with students‘ prior knowledge. The students will then make an effort to give answers to the question that the teacher poses by relying to their prior knowledge. Listening to the student‘s

238

Maria Limniou, Nikos Papadopoulos and Ioannis Kozaris

answers the teacher is able to identify whether there are any misconceptions that he needs to address. Should any be identify, then by using Power-Point presentation, images, animations or graphs, (s)he represents scientific concepts, principle or phenomena to students without providing directly the answer to them. After the students explore the visual information, the teacher asks the same questions again, expecting a more well-structured reply by the students.

ii. Experimental procedures design The next step is for both teacher and students to design together the experimental procedure. The teacher presents the available instruments or glassware and leave the students some time among themselves, to discuss the experiment they are about to perform. The students based on the experimental theory, that they have already revised or clarified in the previous stage, discuss together with the teacher presence, which procedure they should follow and why. During this process the teacher acts as a facilitator by posing questions to students eliciting replies on why they suggest that procedure and how they are thinking of implementing it. After the experiment is discussed among students and understood, it is broken down in several sub-tasks. Each team is then assigned the responsibility of gathering results and analyse them for a specific sub-task.

Figure 3. Classroom equipped with computers and LAN

The Role of Simulations and Real-Time Applications in Collaborative Learning

239

Figure 4. Part of the simulation which represents the steps that students follow when they perform the virtual experiments

iii. Experimental procedure Following the above, the teacher then presents to students the simulation of the experiment and asks them to explore it. Students are working in groups of 2 sitting in front of one computer running the simulation program, which is related to the chemical problem at hand. The design of the simulator impacts the students‘ problem solving strategies. For example, it allows for the students to change several parameters at a time or it enforces an experimental approach by allowing changes to only one parameter at a time (Figure 4). The student‘s task at this stage is to perform only their assigned part (sub-task) of the virtual experiment(s), to process the data and send them to the teacher‘s PC by using LAN. After collecting all the experimental data from all teams at one file, the teacher sends the file to all of the teams. By this point all the teams have performed at least their part of the virtual experiment and they have a file with all the experimental data of all the other group sub-tasks, in essence each team has now all their peers results and thus have the whole picture of the experiment. iv. Analysis and interpretation of experimental data At this final stage, the students in their groups of two have to analyse and interpret the experiment as a whole by using the data that they themselves gathered for their sub-task and also by using the data of the other teams. The teacher now expects from students to make the appropriate calculations in order to produce graphs, to give relationships between factors that affect the experiment such as temperature and concentration, or to make statistical analysis. Students can collaborate or exchange data with other peers from other team in order to discuss their results. When they finish with the analysis, they present their results to the

240

Maria Limniou, Nikos Papadopoulos and Ioannis Kozaris

teacher and discuss all together as a whole team the interpretation of them. In that part of the teaching approach the teacher make a revision of what they have done and why and provide each team with valuable feedback. After the end of the pre laboratory course as described above the students enter the laboratory in order to perform real experiments in the real environment. The teacher now offers minimal support and the idea is for the students to perform them without any instructions. The students perform only one subtask as they did in the pre lab course, exchange their experimental data and process them as homework.

Outcomes Following the above procedure, students consolidate the experimental procedure as they do not follow line-by-line recipes but instead constantly exchanging and connecting facts, ideas and concepts throughout the duration of the pre lab course. As they are working as a team, they share data, exchange views, discuss several different aspects, and ultimately feel the responsibility for their quality of work as any mistakes made in their sub-tasks influences the other teams as well. They obtain skills such as processing, analysis and interpretation of experimental data, problem solving and communication skills through collaboration with their peers. Students, who usually do not feel comfortable in the conventional way of teaching, participate more actively in the suggested methodology, as the teacher adopt a more stimulating role by posing questions to the learners. However, the teacher should make sure not to press students to reply to his/her questions, but rather his/her aim to create a flexible learning environment. Thus, (s)he use questions, Power-Pont presentation and simulations in order to motivate students and encourage them to participate in the teaching procedure with any way is more suitable in their learning style. The role of simulation in this methodology is essential, as it visualises the real laboratory giving students the opportunity to receive, process and save useful information gradually. A specific example based on the above methodology in combination with students‘ evaluation is presented in the journal Chemistry Education Research and Practice (Limniou et al., 2007).

Simulation, LAN and Instrumentation Course Aim and objectives The aim of this methodology is to suggest a teaching approach for instrumentation course based on CSCL which combines virtual experimentation with the instrumentation theory following teaching and learning theories. The objectives of this methodological procedure are for students: 1. to understand the function of the instruments and their basic technical principles 2. to feel more confident with the instrumentation connecting the technical and the scientific principles 3. to obtain the necessary skills such as instrument manipulation, collection, process and analysis of experimental data by using Information Technology, 4. to obtain computer experience by giving them the feeling of working on modern instrumentation and

The Role of Simulations and Real-Time Applications in Collaborative Learning

241

5. to work together as a team. The structure of this methodology is as follows:

Before Lecture One week before the lecture is conducted; the teacher informs students which prior knowledge is an absolute prerequisite for attending the instrumentation lecture. To ensure that all the students have a similar background, the teacher distributes a questionnaire in order for students to prepare themselves before the lecture. The questionnaire includes some basic questions related to the lecture.

Lecture This lecture is conducted in a computer cluster and the students are divided into twoperson teams who work on a personal computer (PC) with a simulation program. In this way, the teams can share measurements, observations and conclusions about the virtual experiments with the other teams through the local area network (LAN), after processing and analysing data. The lecture then proceeds in three steps

i. Initial part of the lecture At the beginning of the lecture, the teacher distributes to the students the components of an old instrument and presents figures and animations to explain their functions and discusses the technical principles of them using a Power-Point presentation. In this initial part of the teaching procedure, the teacher poses questions to the students in order to make them think about the components and to make a comparison between the different kinds of every component. Additionally, the teacher discusses with students the questions that (s)he disturbed to them one week before. The purpose of the discussion is twofold, to stimulate students to participate in the teaching procedure actively and to express their opinions and also to identify any misconceptions the students might have. ii. Introduction to the simulator The simulator, which is used in that case, includes virtual objects on the screen which look like the same objects on the real instruments; this makes it easier to transfer what is learned into the real application (Figure 5). Ideally, the simulator should have two parts. One to represent the inside part of an old instrument, as students face instruments in laboratory as ―black boxes‖ with no real understanding of their inner components and functions. The other part of the simulator should give the opportunity to the students to familiarize themselves with the interface of modern instruments. The aim of the teacher is to introduce students to simulation by familiarising them with the simulator environment and its basic functionalities. The teacher performs virtual experiments and processes the experimental data in a spreadsheet. As the teacher performs the virtual experiments and at the same time explains his/her steps, he enables students with a visual style of learning to receive information through visualisation, while students with verbal style of learning receive information through his/her explanations. The purpose of

242

Maria Limniou, Nikos Papadopoulos and Ioannis Kozaris

these experiments is not only for students to familiarise themselves with a simulator before use it but to better understand the instrument‘s function.

Figure 5. Simulation suitable for instrumentation course which represents old and modern instruments and gives opportunity for virtual experiments

iii. Practice on simulator Students are divided into two-person teams and each team is working on a personal computer (PC) with the simulation installed on it. Usually, the scientific instrument needs an initial calibration so that becomes the students‘ first task with the simulation. At this point the collaboration which takes place is between the two students. The next step is for all the teams to work in a bigger and more complicated task by using simulation. Thus, teacher encourages them to think and suggest which kind of experiments and for what purpose scientists perform experiments with the specific samples that included in the simulation. Teacher‘s role is to encourage students to make the connections between the scientific principles and technical characteristics of the instruments. Students suggest the experimental procedure and the way of collection, processing and analysis of experimental data. When all teams decide for the procedure and the measurements, they use the instruments performing the experiments and process the data in a spreadsheet. Communication is at the

The Role of Simulations and Real-Time Applications in Collaborative Learning

243

centre of collaboration, be it to exchange points o view, debate disagreements or explain difficult concepts. Thus, all the teams share the same resources (necessary information, experimental data, graphs and figures through the LAN), the division of work between students is differentiated and complementary and share the cognition though a joint activity carried out in an explicit manner. The aim of the virtual experimentation for students is to collaborate all together in order to understand better the instruments function and their technical principles, to get for themselves what knowledge of the topic they may need and to analyse and process experimental data as they should do in the laboratory. At the end of the virtual experiments, teacher discusses with the students their graphs and the capabilities of modern instrumentation regarding the old instruments in order to assist students to consolidate the new knowledge.

Outcomes The role of the teacher is not to provide specific answers to the students but (s)he to continue the teaching procedure depending on the students‘ suggestions and their level of understanding. Thus, the key point is that students do not follow the teacher instructions but it is the teacher who follows the students‘ suggestions and their cognitive background. Usually, students have been taught the components and the function of the instrument following the traditional way of teaching, the teacher draws the components on the board and explains their functions. The access to expensive chemical equipment may be limited in many situations, as many of the instruments are available for students only for a little time. However, the inner function of an instrument cannot be seen from the outside, but must be shown from the interior if students are to see how it works and even then its intricate construction can be baffling. As students lift the hood and look at the inside of an instrument, the impression they receive is likely to be somewhat confusing and complex because of the considerable array of subsidiary parts, wires, electronic components and optical parts. At this procedure (s)he distributes to students old part of instruments, describes how they work, presents the inner part of instruments as visual objects on the simulation and encourages students to make the connections between scientific and technical principles. Ultimately what the teacher tries to achieve is for students who tend to think of modern instruments as complicated to begin to consider an instrument as merely a combination of useful components needed to perform a certain job. Following the above procedure both students with verbal and visual style of learning respond positively through visualisation by using simulation and verbal interactions via collaboration (student-student and student-teacher interactions). A specific example based on the above methodology in combination with students‘ evaluation is presented in the journal Educational and Information Technologies (Limniou et al., 2007).

Real Time Application, LAN and Laboratory Session Aim and objectives The aim of this methodology is to give high quality learning experiences in science education by bringing real working environment into the laboratory.

244

Maria Limniou, Nikos Papadopoulos and Ioannis Kozaris The objectives are: 1. for students to obtain experience on manipulation of modern instruments, observation of experiments and collection of data 2. for students to control and improve the reliability of measurements 3. for students to interact with the scientific instrument and their peers for solving the common problem or performing the same experiment 4. for students and teacher to discuss the common errors and observations.

In this case the teacher uses a real time application by connecting a scientific instrument with different personal computers through LAN and capturing changes on the experimental apparatus by video camera (Figure 6).

Figure 6. The laboratory structure supported by a real time application and video camera, and the interactions between student-student and student-computer-instrument.

At the beginning of the laboratory session the teacher explains to students the theory and describes the experiments. The students then are divided into two person teams. This part is similar with the conventional way of laboratory teaching. In this case however, all students work at the same experimental apparatus or instruments which are configured by teacher. Specifically, a video camera is set up in order to capture the instrument and its measurement displays. By using a projector the images are projected and the students can see

The Role of Simulations and Real-Time Applications in Collaborative Learning

245

the changes in the measurements from their working places. At this phase of the laboratory session each team of students is working on its PC and they can share data and graphs through LAN. Each team has access to the same kit, however only one team at a time can change the measuring parameters. In addition the teacher has already set up the real time application on their PCs which allows students to send and receive from their PC commands to the instrument and to manipulate it as the reality (Figure 7). At the next step each team puts their samples to instruments one at a time, and observes the changes in the samples or the measurement displays on the projector. In that way the measurements of one team are clearly visible to all the other teams in the classroom via the large projector. All students then discuss with the teacher and with their peers the changes on the instruments/measurements or possible errors. The discussion is hence based on real samples and measurements in the laboratory bring up the importance of incorporating some errors in the data or allowing the students to make mistakes in the experiments to mimic real life events. The real time application provides an easy-to-use interface to the instrumentation, where students can make all the appropriate actions working on the instrument by moving only the mouse on the computer‘s desktop as it is happened in an industry‘s laboratory. At this phase of the laboratory session teacher asks for each team of students to making different changes on the instruments by using real time application. All the teams of students collect all the experimental data at their computer by using the real time application. Each team processes the data by using a spreadsheet, shares their results with the others through the LAN and interprets them through discussion. All the teams of students prepare part of their laboratory report within the supervised teaching laboratory hours.

Outcomes The students can alter experimental parameters, run real experiments and analyse data all together and that methodology permits an enhanced teacher-student interaction by making the learning experience more flexible than the conventional way. The discussion gives students and teacher the opportunity to clarify the objectives and the theory behind the experiment and allows students to practice the experiment in real time by setting, organising and controlling the instrument. Usually, students in the lab have some anxiety regarding how they will be able to deal with the technical problems, should they occur. In this methodology students have the opportunity to discuss with their teacher or with their peers the technical problems or errors as a group which alleviates the burden of having to face a technical problem on their own, as they would in a traditional laboratory. Ultimately the aim is for students to become comfortable with scientific principles and involvement in instrument operation and computer interface. In summary this laboratory approach presents the advantages of the conventional way of teaching such as dealing with a large number of students in a limited period of time and in addition it offers to students access to modern instrumentation and to teacher the opportunity to create a flexible environment related to the students‘ needs. Furthermore, during the laboratory session the teacher can explain to students how the modern instruments are configured by presenting them with a real example.

246

Maria Limniou, Nikos Papadopoulos and Ioannis Kozaris

Figure 7. Example from the laboratory which is supported by a real time application, video camera and LAN.

ASYNCHRONOUS COMMUNICATION Simulation, VLE and Laboratory Session Aim and objectives The aim of this methodology is to present how a online course promotes asynchronous collaboration and independent learning by using a simulation. The objectives of this methodological procedure are for students to: 1. refresh their previous knowledge independently by reading the theory which is uploaded on the VLE 2. discuss with the teacher or their peers questions that are posted on-line through VLE‘s communication tools related to the new knowledge 3. perform virtual experiments by using simulation programs 4. send electronically their final results to the teacher and 5. interpret the results though on-line discussion

The Role of Simulations and Real-Time Applications in Collaborative Learning

247

Structure of the On-Line Course In asynchronous communication the teacher should establish the common knowledge for the participants so that communication can be efficient. Thus, the theory relevant to the course topic is presented in a variety of ways such as text, images and animations allowing students to refresh their prior knowledge in their own space and rate. The text is limited as to emphasise only the most important points. For example, the text includes ―Notes‖ and ―Useful Tips‖ for students. The students can be aware of the important issues for the experiments before they perform them in the laboratory. Images with clear message and without using a lot of colours are integrated into the text. Flash animations and videos represent the techniques and simulation programs mimic the experimental procedure allowing students to understand the technique and to have training on the data collection before they perform the experiment in the real laboratory. Part of the on-line content material can be selfassessment questions enhancing the opportunity students have to prepare themselves before they participate in the on-line discussion (Figure 8). Additionally, at the end of the theory part the students can find a task assignment for their evaluation.

On-Line Discussion The aim of the fist part of the on-line discussion is for students to refresh their previous knowledge, to clarify their misconceptions and to be introduced to the new knowledge (the topic of the course). For that purpose the teacher poses questions to the students and encourages them to explore the on-line material. It is now difficult for the teacher to indentify the students misconceptions, as the interactions between students, teacher and content material are mediated by technology. However, the teacher can pose statements through online discussion encouraging students to make a comment on it. Even if some students do not participate actively in the discussion, (s)he has the opportunity to read her/his peers thoughts. In the second part of the on-line discussion the teacher encourages students to make hypothesis by using the simulation. As the students perform the virtual experiments, they observe changes on variables and parameters on the scientific phenomenon and save their experimental data for further analysis at spreadsheets. Students who are divided into twoperson teams, share measurements, observations and conclusions regarding virtual experiments with the other teams through the VLE‘s communication tool. The teacher collects from each team the spreadsheet and after creating a common file which includes all the teams‘ spreadsheet, (s)he forward it to all the teams. Thus, all students have all their peers‘ experimental analysis and the teacher has the opportunity to pose questions to students regarding their results. In the following discussion all students can participate, even if the teacher poses questions to a specific team‘s results.

248

Maria Limniou, Nikos Papadopoulos and Ioannis Kozaris

Figure 8. Structure of the on-line course

The students can participate in the on-line training any time they want within the period of one week. They submit their results electronically two days before the laboratory session. The teacher and students have two days to discuss their results asynchronously. In the laboratory students perform the same experiments but without the teacher‘s instructions.

Outcomes The students can discuss with the teacher and their peers parts of theory through VLE‘s communcation tools or they can collect the information independently either by reading the uploaded parts of theory or by searching on the Internet. In this teaching approach the students do not have the teacher and the discussion with their peers as the only resource for collecting information. The independent learning is promoted by allowing students to adapt their learning style to the teaching approach. The teacher adopts an active and stimulating role

The Role of Simulations and Real-Time Applications in Collaborative Learning

249

by posing questions without being a direct provider for the students‘ learning. Following this methodology the teacher can interact with a huge number of students without space requirements creating a flexible learning environment. The integration of simulation into a VLE can enhance the laboratory training in case of an overloaded curriculum where time restrictions are severe. A specific example based on the above methodology in combination with students‘ evaluation is presented in the journal Computers & Education (Limniou et al., 2009).

DISCUSSION The aim of this chapter is to study the reflection of the CSCL on the practical work in Science Education and particularly in Chemistry Education. The selected examples are intended to present the difficulties that both students and teachers face in Science Education and how CSCL can enhance the teaching approach. There are many useful CSCL applications for the Higher Education based on software that are nowadays common known and available. However, knowledge construction is particularly difficult for learners of science because they need to be developing both their conceptual and procedural understanding by appropriate actions, which involves practical work. In the above methodological procedures the teacher participated actively in developing simulations and real-time applications, creating learning environments focused on science education needs. Specifically, the laboratory‘s difficulties, the learning goals and the task level are the starting point for the design and the use of the CSCL applications. The laboratory sessions and instrumentation courses in science education are vital part of its curriculum. Information Technology can simulate a large number of experiments in a very short period of time; however it cannot replace the teacher and hands-on laboratory training. Simulations or real-time applications are not intended to supplant experimental work in science but to expand experience and aid interpretation. All the examples above, in which there is a relationship between different modes of learning such as face-to-face and computer supported learning approaches, comprise the basis of so called blended learning. According to Bliuc, Goodyear and Ellis (2007), ―blended learning describes activities that involve a systematic combination of co-present (face-to-face) interactions and technologically-mediated interactions between students, teachers and learning resources‖. In the above methodological procedures, the teacher has a vision of the learning approach where students learn from each other, develop methods on their own and discover what is important instead of being told by the teacher. All participants in discussions (teacher and students) have a constructive dialogue by giving feedback to each other. This procedure is different from the conventional way of teaching where feedback is provided only by the teacher. During discussion, students construct their new knowledge through addition, explanation, evaluation and summary. According to Veerman, Andriessen and Kanselaar (2000), ―during the addition process an input of new information is linked to the discussion. During the explanation process, information is differentiated, specified, categorised, or made clear by examples. Evaluations are (personally) justified considerations of the strength or relevance of already added or explained information. During summary the already given information is

250

Maria Limniou, Nikos Papadopoulos and Ioannis Kozaris

reorganised or restated in such a way that the main points or (sub) conclusions reflect the discussion‖. The students who attend the above methodological procedures will most probably reach a deeper level of understanding as they: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

connect facts, ideas and concepts in order to interpret, propose or judge create new information that is collected using hypothesis propose one or more solutions in terms of judgement present proof for support by examples handle a problem in a wider perspective develop new strategies for problem solving.

According to Gutwin, Roseman and Greenberg (1996), a good design of CSCL activities can offer support for coordination, communication, negotiation and interactivity among group members. The computer can be seen as a mechanism to support social interaction and therefore, modify the nature and the efficacy of this interaction (Blaye, 1991; Mandryk et al., 2001). The students become active members in the classroom or in the laboratory. They are not working individually in front of a PC or on their working bench, but they have the feeling of sharing the some common goals with the rest of the team, working on the common educational tool, developing interpersonal relationship with their peers and evaluating their peers‘ view. An activity oriented toward the communication is its motivation implying a need for any human activity. Additionally, the students‘ motivation is influenced by the flexible learning environment, the learning resources and the active students‘ participation in the learning process. Technology can enable and facilitate the communication and transmission of information providing to the students the opportunity to exchange knowledge and resources and develop mutual understanding. Authentic learning recourses can bring reality into the learning environment assisting the students to prepare themselves for the real-life situation. In the simulations and real-time applications that are used, the data are real and students have training in real situations and face difficulties that they can meet in the laboratory or in their future working place. In the presented synchronously methodological procedures, students have the opportunity to spontaneously ask questions, react to what happens and to perceive how other members react. The asynchronous collaboration gives students the opportunity to have more time to prepare their comments. Additionally, students who do not express themselves orally during lectures can participate actively in the asynchronous collaboration. The universities financial difficulties and the emergence of new technologies have impelled universities to create new systems for delivering laboratories in science education, in particular simulations and real-time applications in the laboratory. Remote applications are similar to simulation techniques in that they require minimal space and time, because the experiments can be rapidly configured and run over the LAN. In a computer cluster the teacher has a face-to-face interactions with the students, while VLEs such as Blackboard© or WebCT© support communication components that enable information exchange and on-line discussion both asynschronous and synchronous. These platforms allow the management of contents, students and teachers and offer a large variety of resources and activities, such as quizzes, workshops among others. In both these two case the teacher can manage a high number of students, reduce the laboratory cost, give students time to process any new

The Role of Simulations and Real-Time Applications in Collaborative Learning

251

information by making the connections with their previous knowledge and to improve the students performance in collaborative situations.

CONCLUSIONS Through collaborative learning students can be ‗provoked‘ to engage themselves to a series of constructive cognitive activities such as interact and communicate with their peers, exchange ideas/data, debate disagreements, explaining difficult concepts to one another, make argumentation, inquire processes or mutual regulations. Technology can facilitates the transmission of information, but a well organised curriculum/course, meaningful tasks, assistance by a teacher/facilitator and the opportunity for students to develop social skills are necessary for leading to positive learning outcomes. The communication tools mediate the students‘ activities, facilitating the process in which the students become a member of a community. The use of the common educational tool (simulation and real-time application) and the work on the common tasks enhance the interaction between the students, studentsteacher and students-content material. The scientific knowledge, which is by nature difficult, the hands-on experience with scientific instruments and skills that students struggle to obtain during their practical work, can be achieved through the collaborative learning if the learning task and environment are well in line with the established goals. The teacher can adopt both these teaching approaches depending on the university facilities, the staff‘s time and the students‘ familiarity with virtual learning environments and the students followed learning strategies though collaboration or/and independent learning to obtain the similar learning outcome.

REFERENCES Alavi, M. & Leidner, D. E. (2003). Virtual Learning Systems. Encyclopaedia of Information Systems, 4, 561-572. Arvaja, M., Hakkinen, P., Etelapelto, A. & Rasku-Puttonen, H. (2000). Collaborative processes during report writing of a science-learning project: The nature of discourse as a function of task requirements. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 15(4), 445-446. Bafestou, G. & Mentzas G. (2002). Review and functional classification of collaborative systems. International Journal of Information Management, 22(4), 281-305. Blaye, A. (1991). Collaboration as a facilitator of planning and problem solving on a computer-based task. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 9(4), 471–483. Bliuc, A. M., Goodyear P. & Ellis R. A. (2007). Research focus and methodological choices in studies into students' experiences of blended learning in higher education. Internet and Higher Education, 10(4), 231-244. Bostock, A. J. (1996). A critical review of Laurillard‘s classification of educational media. Instructional Science, 24 (1), 71-88. Bodner, G. M. (1986). Constructivism: A theory of knowledge. Journal of Chemical Education, 63(10), 873–878.

252

Maria Limniou, Nikos Papadopoulos and Ioannis Kozaris

Bodner, G., Klobuchar, M. & Geelan, D. (2001). The many forms of constructivism. Journal of Chemical Education, 78(8), 1107–1115. Bunce, D. M. (2001). Does Piaget Still Have Anything to Say to Chemists? Journal of Chemical Education, 78(8), 1107-1121. Bunce, D. M., VandenPlas, J. R. & Havanki, K. L. (2006). Comparing the effectiveness on student achievement of a student response system versus online WebCT quizzes. Journal of Chemical Education, 83(3), 488–493. Burnett, J. & Burns, W. A. (2006). Using a spreadsheet to fit experimental pH titration data to a theoretical expression: Estimation of analyte concentration and Ka. Journal of Chemical Education, 83(8), 1190–1193. Chang, K. E., Chen, Y. L., Lin, H. Y. & Sung, Y. T. (2008). Effects of learning support in simulation-based physics learning. Computers & Education, 51(4), 1486–1498. Clow D. & Garratt J., (1998). Computer simulations: creating opportunities for science writing. University Chemistry Education, 2(2), 51-54. Colwell, C., Scanlon, E. & Cooper, M. (2002). Using remote laboratories to extend access to science and engineering. Computers & Education, 38(1-3), 65–76. Cooper, M. M. (1994). Cooperative Chemistry Laboratories. Journal of Chemical Education, 71(4), 307. De Jong, T., Martin, E., Zamarro, J. M., Esquembre, F., Swaak, J. & van Joolingen, W. (1999). The integration of computer simulation and learning support: An example from the physics domain of collisions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(5), 597–615. De Jong, T. & Van Joolingen, W. R. (1998). Scientific discovery learning with computer simulations of conceptual domains. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 179-201. Dillenbourg P. (1999). Introduction: What do you mean by collaborative learning?. In P. Dillenbourg (Ed) Collaborative-learning: Cognitive and Computational Approaches. (pp.1-19). Oxford: Elsevier. Dormido, S., Dormido, R., Sanchez, J. & Duro, N. (2005). The role of interactivity in control learning. International Journal of Engineering Education, 21(6), 1122–1133. Ellis, C. A., Gibbs, S. J. & Rein, G. (1991). Groupware: Some issues and experiences. Communications of the ACM, 34(1), 39–58. Fermann J. T., Stamm K. M., Maillet A. L., Nelson C., Codden S. J., Spaziani M. A., Ramirez M. & Vining W. J., (2000). Discovery learning using Chemland simulation software. The Chemical Educator, 5(1), 31-37. Heil, G. & Schäfer, H. (2002). Modelling and graphic presentation of acid. base titration curves. presentation of an alternative method. The Chemical Educator, 7(6), 339–346. Garratt J. (1997). Virtual investigations: ways to accelerate experience. University Chemistry Education, 2(1), 19-27. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T. & Archer, W. (2000). Critical Inquiry in a Text-Based Environment: Computer Conferencing in Higher Education, The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2-3), 87-105. Goos, M. & Galbraith, P. (1996). Do it this way! Metacognitive strategies in collaborative mathematical problem solving. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 30(3), 229–260. Goos, M., Galbraith, P. & Renshaw, P. (2002). Socially mediated metacognition: creating collaborative zones of proximal development in small group problem solving. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 49(2), 193–223.

The Role of Simulations and Real-Time Applications in Collaborative Learning

253

Gutwin, C., Roseman, M. & Greenberg, S. (1996). A usability study of awareness widgets in a shared workspace groupware system. In Proceedings of ACMCSCW‟96. Conference on Supported Cooperative Work. Boston, MA, ACM Press. Isom, F.S. & Rowsey, R.E. (1986). The effect of a new prelaboratory procedure on students' achievement in chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23(3), 231-235. Jara, C. A., Candelas, F. A., Torres, F., Dormido, S., Esquembre, F. & Reinoso O. (2009). Real-time collaboration of virtual laboratories through the Internet. Computers & Education, 52(1), 126–140. Jaervelae, S., Haekkinen, P. Arvaja, M. & Leinonen, P. (2004). Instructional Support in CSCL. In Strijbos, J.W., Kirschner, P.A. & Martens, R.L. (Eds.) What we know about CSCL: An implementating It In Higher Education. (pp. 115-139). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Johnstone A. H., (1997). Chemical education, science or alchemy? Journal of Chemical Education, 74(3), 262-268. Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P. & Jochems, W. (2002). The sociability of computer-supported collaborative learning environments. Educational Technology & Society, 5(1), 8-22. Kirschner P. A. (2001). Using integrated electronic environments for collaborative teaching/leaning. Research Dialogue in Learning and Instruction, 2, 1-9. Kirschner, P. A., Strijbos, J. W. & Kreijns, K. (2003). Designing integrated electronic collaborative learning environments. In W. M. G. Jochems, J. J. G. Van Merrieenboer & R. Koper (Eds), Integrated E-learning (pp. 24-38). London: RoutledgeFalmer. Kong, S. C., Yeung, Y. Y., Wu, X. Q. (2009). An experience of teaching for learning by observation: Remote-controlled experiments on electrical circuits. Computers & Education, 52(3), 702-714. Laurillard, D. (1993). Rethinking university teaching: a framework for the effective use of educational technology. London: Routledge. Limniou, M., Papadopoulos, N., Giannakoudakis, A., Roberts, D. & Otto, O. (2007). The integration of a viscosity simulator in a chemical laboratory. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 8(2), 220-231. Limniou, M., Papadopoulos, N. & Roberts D. (2007). An integrated lecture, virtual instrumentation lab approach to teaching UV-Vis spectroscopy. Educational and Information Technologies, 12(4), 229-244. Limniou, M., Papadopoulos, N. & Whitehead, C. (2009). Integration of simulation into prelaboratory chemical course: Computer cluster versus WebCT. Computers and Education, 52(1), 45-52. Lipponen, L. (2002). Exploring foundations for computer-supported collaborative learning. CSCL 2002. Colorado Boulder. USA, January. Lyle, K. S. & Robinson, W. R. (2002). An Action Research Report: Improving PreLaboratory Preparation of First-Year University Chemistry Students. Journal of Chemical Education, 79(6), 663–665. Mandryk, R. L., Inkpen, K. M., Bilezikjian, M., Klemmer, S. R. & Landay, J. A. (2001). Supporting children‘s collaboration across handheld computers. In Extended Abstracts of CHI, Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Seattle, USA. Marjanovic, O. (1999). Learning and teaching in a synchronous collaborative environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 15(2), 129–138.

254

Maria Limniou, Nikos Papadopoulos and Ioannis Kozaris

Matthews, R. S., Cooper, J. L., Davidson, N. & Hawkes, P. (1995). Building bridges between cooperative and collaborative learning. Change, 27 (4), 34-37. Mattson, M. E. & Mattson, W. A. (1995). Obtaining a spectrum easily using a single-beam spectrophotometer. Journal of Chemical Education, 72(6), 569–573. Meester M. A. M. & Maskill R. (1995). First-year chemistry practicals at universities in England and Wales: organizational and teaching aspects. International Journal of Science Education, 17(5), 705–719. Monahan T., McArdle, G. & Bertolotto M. (2008). Virtual reality for collaborative e-learning. Computers & Education, 50(4), 1339-1353. Moore, M. (1993). Theory for transactional distance. In D. Keegan (Ed.), Theoretical principles of distance education (pp. 22–38). London, New York: Routledge. Moore, M. & Kearsley, G. (1996). Distance education: A system view. New York: Wadsworth. Moreno, L., Gonzalez, C., Castilla, I., Gonzalez, E., & Sigut, J. (2007). Applying a constructivist and collaborative methodological approach in engineering education. Computers & Education, 49(3), 891–915. Ngai, E. W. T., Poon, J. K. L. & Chan, Y. H. C. (2007). Empirical examination of the adoption of WebCT using TAM. Computers & Education, 48(2), 250–267. Nickerson, J. V., Corter, J. E., Esche, S. K. & Chassapis, C. (2007). A model for evaluating the effectiveness of remote engineering laboratories and simulations in education. Computers & Education, 49(3), 708-725. Nowak, K. L., Watt, J. & Walther, J. B. (2004). Contrasting time mode and sensory modality in the performance of computer mediated groups using asynchronous videoconferencing. In Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii international conference on system sciences, pp. 1–10. O‘Connor, S. & Ross, A. (2004). WebCT role-playing: Immediacy versus e-Mediacy in learning environments. Learning Environments Research, 7(2), 183–201. Offir, B. Lev, Y. & Bezalel, R. (2008). Surface and deep learning processes in distance education: Synchronous versus asynchronous systems. Computers & Education, 51(3), 1172-1183. Ong S. K. & Mannan, M. A. (2004). Virtual reality simulations and animations in a webbased interactive manufacturing engineering module. Computers & Education, 43(4), 361-382. Papadopoulos N., Pitta A. T., Markopoulos N., Limniou M., Lemos M. A. N. D. A., Lemos F. & Freire F. G. (1999). Viscosity measurement: a virtual experiment. Journal of Chemical Education, 76(11), 1600. Papadopoulos, N., Limniou, M., Koklamanis, G., Tsarouxas, A., Roilidis, M. & Bigger, S. W. (2001). Spec UV-Vis: An ultraviolet-visible spectrophotometer simulation. Journal of Chemical Education, 78(11), 1560. Papadopoulos, N. & Limniou, M. (2003). pH Titration simulation. Journal of Chemical Education, 80(6), 709. Pogačnik L. & Cigić B. (2006). How To Motivate Students To Study before They Enter the Lab. Journal of Chemical Education, 83(7), 1094–1098. Salomon, G. & Perkins, D. N. (1998). Individual and social aspects of learning. Review of Research in Education, 23(1), 1–24.

The Role of Simulations and Real-Time Applications in Collaborative Learning

255

Scanlon, E., Morris, E., Di Paolo, T. & Cooper, M. (2002). Contemporary approaches to learning science: Technologically-mediated practical work. Studies in Science Education, 38, 73–114. Scanlon, E., Colwell, C., Cooper, M. & Di Paolo, T. (2004). Remote experiments, reversioning and re-thinking science learning. Computers & Education, 43(1-2), 153-163. Seng, L. & Mohamad, F. S. (2002). Online learning, Is it meant for science course? The Internet and Higher Education, 5(2), 109–118. Shiland, T. W. (1999). Constructivism: the implication for laboratory work. Journal of Chemical Education, 76(1), 107-108. Silverman, B. G. (1995). Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL), Computers & Education, 25 (3), 81-91. Scardamalia, M. & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge building communities. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(3), 265-283. Shiowatana, J. (1997). Demonstration of characteristics of basic components of a spectrophotometer. Journal of Chemical Education, 74(6), 730–731. Slavin, R. (1994). Cooperative learning: theory, research, & practice (2nd Edition). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Strijbos, J. W., Martens, R. L. & Jochems, W. M. G. (2004). Designing for interaction: Six steps to designing computer-supported group-based learning. Computers & Education, 42(4), 403-424. Thomas R. & Neilson I. (1995). Harnessing Simulations in the service of education: the interact simulation environment. Computers and Education, 25(1-2), 21-29. Veerman, A. L., Andriessen, J. E. B. & Kanselaar, G. (2000). Learning through synchronous electronic discussion. Computers & Educations, 34(3-4), 269-290. von Glasersfeld, E. (1988). Cognition, construction of knowledge, and teaching. In ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 294 754. Zurita, G. & Nussbaum M. (2004). Computer supported collaborative learning using wirelessly interconnected handheld computers. Computers & Educations, 42(3), 289-314. Waller J. C. & Foster N. (2000). Training via the web: a virtual instrument, Computers & Education, 35(2), 161-167. Wegerif, R. (2004). The role of educational software as a support for teaching and learning conversations. Computers & Education, 43(1-2), 179-191. Wild, R. H. & Winniford, M. (1993). Remote collaboration among students using electronic mail, Computers & Education, 21 (3), 193-203. Winberg, T. M. & Berg, C. A. R. (2007). Students‘ Cognitive Focus During a Chemistry Laboratory Exercise: Effects of a Computer-Simulated Prelab. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(8), 1108–1133.

In: Collaborative Learning: Methodology, Types… Editors: E. Luzzatto, G. DiMarco, pp. 257-279

ISBN: 978-1-60876-076-3 © 2010 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Chapter 9

DESIGN RESEARCH ON ESTABLISHING A LEARNING ECOLOGY FOR THE USE OF A GRAPHIC CALCULATOR DURING COLLABORATIVE WORK Dirk J. Hoek* Faculty of Psychology, Open Universeit Nederland.

ABSTRACT Research that goes beyond the numerous effect studies on the influence of the graphic calculator on student achievement shows that the use of this tool in an explorative manner asks for a well-tuned learning ecology. Thus, if the latter is seen as a valuable option, the question arises how such a learning ecology can be developed. To answer this question, a design research project was carried out in two classrooms within schools for vocational education. This study aimed at changing the learning ecology by fostering gradual changes in teacher behavior. As a result of this intervention, teachers changed their teaching style, which resulted in changes in the students‘ way of working together. Teachers developed a more process and group oriented coaching style and students started to work collaboratively, using the graphic calculator in an exploratory and investigative way. This paper will report on the intervention strategy that has been developed as part of the study.

Keywords: vocational education, collaborative work, design research, teacher guidance, and graphic calculator

INTRODUCTION Over the last decade information technology has become increasingly important in mathematics education. One of the tools that has gained popularity is the graphic calculator. *

Corresponding Author: Open University of the Netherlands, Vondellaan 202, 3521 GZ Utrecht or by Email: [email protected]

258

Dirk J. Hoek

So far, a substantial amount of research on the use of this tool has been done (Ellington, 2003; Penglase & Arnold, 1996; Ruthven, 1996), mostly aimed at determining the effects of the use of (graphic) calculators on student achievement and attitude. These studies show that students can benefit from the use of this tool. That is, although no difference between users and nonusers in student achievement was found, users showed a more positive attitude towards mathematics in most studies (Ellington, 2003). Yet, these effect studies hardly give insight into the relationship between the nature of instructional activities and the use of the graphic calculator (Dunham & Dick, 1994; Penglase & Arnold, 1996). Lim (2002) stated that many empirical studies lack a detailed analysis of what actually takes place in the classroom. In fact, the implementation of a tool like the graphic calculator instigates changes in the different elements of the learning environment, such as in the instructional activities, the curriculum design and the roles of teachers and students, while at the same time the implementation is reciprocally affected by the changes it causes (Salomon, 1993). An IT-tool can establish or change the students‘ way of thinking and influence their cognitive growth, which in turn will change the way they use the tool (Ruthven, 1992). However, without carefully taking into account the processes that take place in the learning environment, and its multifaceted complexity, it is not possible to analyze the role of IT-tools in mathematics education. Following Berger (1998), it can be argued that research needs to move beyond investigating learning outcomes to address more fundamental issues like the actual processes of teaching, learning and thinking. Learning depends on the students‘ interactions with the teacher, the mathematical tasks and their peers within the social context of the classroom (see also Meira, 1995; Roth & McGinn, 1997; Yackel & Cobb, 1996). Significant aspects of the latter include the conceptualization of the tool and the norms for tool use that emerge as students and teacher interact. Through these interactions, teacher and students construct meaning for the graphic calculator as a tool for mathematical learning, so meaning is constructed for the tool as it is used, and learners construct mathematical meaning with the tool (Hiebert et al., 1997). Tool use and mathematical meaning coevolve. The tool supports the students‘ mathematical development. At the same time this growing mathematical ability contributes to a more efficient use of the tool. Thus, there is a reciprocal relation between tool use and learning mathematics (Meira, 1998). An example of the kind of research that Berger is asking for, and that addresses these aspects, is the research of Doerr & Zangor (2000). These researchers describe in detail a learning ecology1 (Cobb, Confrey, diSessa, Lehrer, & Schauble, 2003) in which the graphic calculator is integrated. They show that a variety of elements of the learning ecology play an important role in supporting the student‘s use of the tool. According to them, learning depends on the different aspects of the learning ecology, such as the teacher‘s beliefs (‗rule based‘ or ‗non-rule based‘), the teacher‘s knowledge and (pedagogical) skills, the social practices, the social norms and socio-math norms of the classroom, the structure of the instructional sequence (aimed at reinvention or at problem solving) and the tasks used (meaningful or reproductive based). The role of the teacher was an important element in establishing the learning ecology that Doerr and Zangor (2000) describe in their research. As they pointed out, the teacher‘s 1

Cobb et al. (2003) use the term ecology instead of environment to emphasize the complexity of factors that influence learning.

Design Research on Establishing a Learning Ecology for the Use of…

259

confidence in her own knowledge and skills and her own flexible use of the graphic calculator contributed to establish a classroom environment where students were free to use the tool actively to calculate, explore, confirm, or check mathematical ideas. The teacher‘s knowledge about the limitations of the calculator took her, for instance, to encourage students to question their calculator results, which made students aware of the need of a critical attitude towards the results given by the calculator. In conclusion, a substantial amount of research is done about the influence of the graphic calculator on students‘ achievement and attitude, but it does not give much insight into the relationship between learning ecology and tool use. The study of Doerr and Zangor (2000) points out the important role of the learning ecology in supporting the students‘ use of the tool. This, however, begs the question how such learning ecology can be developed. The research we will present in the following aims at developing such a learning ecology, by fostering gradual changes in the teacher behavior.

Research Method The main goal of this research is to understand how teachers can be supported in developing the kind of learning ecology described by Doerr and Zangor (2000), where the students use the graphic calculator in an investigative and exploratory way during collaborative work in small groups. The main research question focuses on understanding how this kind of learning ecology can be established. For this, a design research project (Cobb, Stephan, McClain, & Gravemeijer, 2001; Cobb et al., 2003; see also Gravemeijer, 1998) was established. This kind of research aims at creating and understanding innovative learning ecologies - complex, interacting systems involving multiple elements of different types and levels- by designing its elements and by anticipating how these elements function together to support learning. Elements of a learning ecology typically include the tasks or problems that students are asked to solve, the kinds of discourse that are encouraged, the norms of participation that are established, the tools and related material means provided, and the practical means by which classroom teachers can orchestrate relations among these elements. Cobb et al. (2001) use the metaphor of an ecology to emphasize that designed contexts are conceptualized as interacting systems rather than as either a collection of activities or a list of separate factors that influence learning. A design study starts with a preliminary phase, it is followed by a teaching experiment, and it finishes with a retrospective analysis. The preliminary phase is used to outline an initial plan of intervention, based on the initial situation and the intended goals. Next, a teaching experiment is carried out, consisting of a cyclic process of trials and revisions: each cycle starts with anticipating what will happen in class, next it is observed and analyzed what actually happens, and finally initial ideas are revised, and a new cycle starts again. The teaching experiment is followed by a retrospective analysis, which involves a careful review and reflection on the process of the teaching experiment, in order to develop an explanatory model of what induced the changes observed in the learning ecology. For the retrospective analyses guidelines of Glaser and Strauss (1967) are usually used. The study we are reporting on here is based on the idea that teachers have a central role in the classroom, and that they primarily mediate changes in instructional practices. Consequently, we aimed at changing the learning ecology by fostering gradual changes in the

260

Dirk J. Hoek

teaching behavior, which would hopefully induce changes in the students‘ way of collaborative working. In order to ensure that the changes in teaching behavior would be meaningful and sensible to the teachers, all the instructional activities were developed in cooperation with them, as part of a cyclic process analogous to the mathematical teaching cycle described by Simon (1995). A concept he developed when he analyzed his own teaching behavior in a teaching experiment. Our research is different in that the researchers are the agents who guide the development of teachers, instead of a teacher who guide the learning process of students. Analogous to the way Simon developed the concept of a teaching cycle, the cyclic process that governed our design experiment emerged in analyzing the data. In retrospect, we found that we could describe our experiment with the following cycle that was repeated a number of times. The cycle starts with observations of the classroom teaching practices. These are interpreted in order to understand the processes going on in the learning ecology. Based on those interpretations, researchers look for arguments that convince teachers to change their practices. Based on that, a plan is made with the teachers for the next lesson(s). Next, the conjectures about the expected changes in the teachers‘ behavior and in the learning ecology form the basis for the observations in the subsequent cycle.

Research Setting The research has been carried out in the Netherlands at two different schools for vocational education where a new textbook series for mathematics, called TWIN (Goris & Van der Kooij, 1997-2000), had been introduced some years earlier. This textbook series, based on the ideas of Realistic Mathematics Education (Gravemeijer & Doorman, 1999; Treffers, 1993; van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, 2003), uses the graphic calculator as a tool, and presupposes a classroom culture where students construct mathematical knowledge by working together on meaningful, rather open-ended problems, and reflect on their solutions. During the study, the students worked collaboratively on chapters of these textbooks dealing with notations and functions (linear functions: y = a·x + b, power functions: y = a·xn, and exponential functions: y = a·nx). Each student possessed a graphic calculator he or she could use. Classrooms were equipped with a device that makes it possible to project the calculator display on an overhead screen. The teachers who participated in this study had already used the TWIN textbooks in their mathematics‘ lessons. These two teachers had worked with the graphic calculator in their classrooms for two years already but did not have much experience with coaching collaborative groups or group interaction processes. Moreover, they were familiar with the use of the graphic calculator in the classroom, and had some experience with students working in small groups. The students who participated in the study were 32 male and 13 female first year students from two schools for vocational education, aged between 16 and 18 years. In general, these students had low to moderate learning abilities, which is inherent to this type of education. Enrolment in the math class was compulsory. Video registrations of the various instructional activities were used to write out protocols of the verbal interactions. Furthermore, field notes on the classroom activities and on the meetings with the teachers were used to support the interpretation of the observational data.

Design Research on Establishing a Learning Ecology for the Use of…

261

In each class, a group of four students was monitored during the whole school year. We used video-recording the student as they use the calculator (Berry, Graham, & Smithz, 2006).

Preliminary Plan In cooperation with two teachers we developed our instruction. At the start of the experiment, the researchers had global ideas about the instruction. The starting points were situated in former experiences of the teachers with the use of graphic calculator during group work. These experiences came from observations in classes of vocational education. Besides, the researchers had experiences in designing coaching of small groups. For the instruction of the graphic calculator the researchers and the teachers agreed to start with whole class instructions about the interface of this tool. Later in the school year the graphic calculator would be used during whole class discussions. For small group work it was agrees that the teachers would coach their students during small group work. As a start, it was agreed that in the first part of the school year they would visit all the small groups at least one time per lesson. During this visit they would give feedback on both the mathematical content and about how students work together. During outside of classroom discussions the teachers and the observer would talk about the small group coaching. From these observations field notes were made. These field notes were used to discuss the teachers‘ coaching style. In total four types of instructional activities would be involved: (1) whole-class instruction; (2) whole-class discussion; (3) coaching of small group work and (4) small group work without teacher intervention. During whole class instructions the teachers would explain the interface of the graphic calculator. They would project their displays to show what they had done and they would ask the students how the output on the display could be interpreted. During whole-class discussions they would model the intended use of the graphic calculator by demonstrating and explaining exploratory applications. The idea was that this would improve an investigative and collaborative use of the graphic calculator during problem solving in small groups. During these whole-class discussions, the teachers were to ask challenging and reflective questions about mathematical phenomena and they were to ask students to explain what they did and why. The teachers were expected to stimulate students to discuss and reflect on the ideas and strategies that would be brought in. Whole-class instructions and discussions would cover about a quarter of the classroom time. Most of the time, students would work in small groups. While working in small groups, the teachers were to stimulate discussions about the problem-solving processes and commented on how students collaborated. At this point, teachers would have a dual role in both helping students to learn how to solve problems and in helping them to acquire effective co-operative techniques (see Hoek, Van den Eeden, & Terwel, 1999). A way to help students to monitor their collaborative problem solving activities would be by alternately asking the small groups of students questions on what they thought the problem is, where they thought they were in the problem-solving process, and how they planned to proceed (cf. Schoenfeld, 1985, 1992). The teachers were to stimulate the students to explain and to reason among themselves without interfering in the group discussion (cf. Kaartinen & Kumpulainen, 2002). To design the instruction, the author visited the participating teachers every week to make observations and videotapes of classroom activities. These observations and videotapes were

262

Dirk J. Hoek

used as a basis for subsequent discussions and changes for the instruction and the coaching of the teachers.

Data Collection The author observed the two participating classes. Field notes, transcriptions of videotaped group work, transcriptions of videotaped whole class discussion and of small group discussions constituted the data corpus for this study. These data were supplemented with teacher‘s interviews and planning sessions with the teacher. These observational data were analyzed in a retrospective analysis. This includes data analysis, reflection on the findings. As a first step all videotapes were verbatim transcribed. Then a selection was made of fragments by event sampling. Criteria for the selection were the relevance of the fragment for the focus of our research (how the graphic calculator was used during small group work and whether this use changed over the school year). For this we went through the data with an open focus inspired by the constant comparative method (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Then we searched for trends and tried to interpret the findings. For the selection of the teachers, the researchers visited before the start of the experiment teacher meetings with the writers of the new method. During these meeting we encountered with some teachers and made appoints to visit and observe in their classrooms. Based on these observations and discussions with them, we selected our teachers. The main selection criteria were that in the class of these teachers the graphic calculator was used and that the students were working in small groups. This resulted that two teachers participated in this design experiment. All (visited) instructional activities -whole class instructions, whole class discussions and small group work, were discussed before hand, videotaped and discussed afterwards. Field notes were made of all visited lessons and discussion with the teachers. During small group work every small group during that particular lesson was observed and field notes were made of these observations.

The Development of the Instruction The development of the instruction will be discussed with respect to both whole-class discussions and small group collaborative work. Analyses of whole-class discussions show how teachers adapted to a new style of interaction with the students. The collaboration with the teachers enabled them to enact the intended instructional activities. During whole-class discussions, the students were willing to use the graphic calculator in a collaborative and investigative way. This is in line with observations of Doerr and Zangor (2000). However, the teachers had difficulties with helping the students to transfer this to the situation where they worked in small groups. We conjectured that this lack of transfer was caused by the teachers‘ willingness to give individual, content related, feedback when students were working in small groups. This was ineffective as it allowed students to avoid collaboration. The teachers gradually accepted that this kind of instructional behavior inhibited both collaborative and exploratory use of the graphic calculator during small group work. Consequently, they gradually started to stimulate

Design Research on Establishing a Learning Ecology for the Use of…

263

students to help each other and to discuss problems with their peers. They did so by redirecting questions to the group, by giving feedback on how the students worked together and by stimulating discussions about how the graphic calculator could be used during collaborative problem solving. They stimulated discussion about the output of the graphic calculator by asking students what it represented in the context of the problem they were trying to solve. Analyses of small group interactions showed how student collaboration developed and how improved collaboration affected integration of the graphic calculator as an exploratory tool. On the basis of the data analyses, we think that three important elements contributed to changes in teachers‘ coaching behavior. Firstly, teachers used whole-class discussions to model effective problem solving strategies and integration of the graphic calculator as an exploratory tool during small group work. Secondly, teachers avoided reacting to individual questions while students worked collaboratively. Instead, they re-directed questions to the group and they gave process-oriented feedback instead to improve the collaborative process. Thirdly, teachers stimulated discussion and exchange of ideas by asking for explanations and by inviting students to clarify their ideas. At the beginning of the school year, we discussed our ideas about the intended practices with the teachers. It was agreed that a researcher would observe classes and take field notes, which, together with the videotapes, were to be used as a basis for discussion in the briefing sessions in order to prepare forthcoming lessons. It was argued that students should learn the interface of the graphic calculator first, and it was therefore planned that the first lessons would start with a 15-minutes whole-class instruction about it. During this part of the lessons, teachers would have a steering and directing role. After that, students would work in small groups on the problems of the textbooks. Our conjecture was that explaining the interface of the graphic calculator simultaneously with their work on the mathematical problems would lay a basis for an integrated use of this tool. In the following paragraphs, a description of each of the cycles of the design experiment will be given.

Graphic Calculator and Whole-Class Discussions On the basis of observations and discussions, it was agreed that the teachers would try to redirect questions to other students. However, redirecting questions turned out to be difficult for teachers. Observational data showed that teachers tried to keep control of the progress of the students‘ work, responding to individual questions, rejecting students‘ suggestions, and correcting their mistakes. At the same time, students also showed that they expected teachers to answer their questions and claimed explanations. Our interpretation was that expectations and obligations of teachers and students hindered the change. Apparently, merely suggesting teachers to redirect the students‘ individual questions to the group didn‘t work. We argued that this behavior was not effective, since the teacher had to repeat explanations. Moreover, students still used the graphic calculator for computation and they took its output for granted. Therefore, it was planned that teachers would observe students during collaborative work, reflect on the students‘ errors and misconceptions, and try to make this subject of a whole-class

264

Dirk J. Hoek

discussion. To start the latter, the teacher would ask one of the students to explain how his or her group used the graphic calculator to solve the problem. Here, a ‗student initiated‘ model that is known as the ‗Sherpa student‘ in the work of Guin and Trouche (1999) was introduced. This student had to explain how the group had come to the answer, while the rest of the students would have to listen to the explanation, without interfering. At the end, all students would be invited to comment on what was said. We introduced this ‗student-initiated‘ model, because we conjectured that it would clarify how a discussion can be an effective tool in solving problems and it would work as a model for effective interaction processes within the groups. However, this ‗student-initiated‘ model didn‘t turn out to be effective. We observed that the students had difficulties to put the group‘s discussion into his/her own words, and frequently skipped this phase. In addition, peers often interrupted the student and, as a result, teachers frequently broke off the discussion in order to take control. This ‗discussion model‘ was abandoned after a few lessons. It was too difficult for these students, and we argued that this role would have to be performed by the teacher. Teachers would take the initiative by starting the whole-class discussion, questioning students‘ solutions to the problems, and asking them questions about the meaning of the graphic calculator‘s output. Our conjecture was that in this ‗teacher-initiated‘ discussion model the teacher would keep control over the whole -class discussion and was, therefore, better in position to model the effectiveness of specific collaborative activities. Analyses of whole-class discussions showed that teachers tried to stimulate exploratory use of the graphic calculator by challenging students to give explanations. However, their behavior was not consistent. After the first chapter, during which teachers had explained the interface to draw graphs students were working on a chapter about power functions (y = a  n). Before the start of this chapter the researchers and teachers agreed on organizing a whole class discussion. The results showed that, especially at the beginning of the school year, teachers were inclined to interrupt the whole-class discussions and to revert to direct explanations and instruction. They interrupted whole class discussions to ‗secure conclusions‘. This may be illustrated with a fragment of a whole -class discussion, taking place in the second month of the school year. During this whole class discussion one of the teachers tried to stimulate an exploratory use of the graphic calculator. The teacher organized this whole-class discussion, because students had a serious misconception with respect to graphs of power functions (y =a  n). This misconception implied that raising to a higher power always leads to a graph that is situated above the graph of a function with a lower power. To challenge this assumption the teacher started the whole-class discussion by asking the students to enter the data and to plot the graphs as given in Figure 1.

Design Research on Establishing a Learning Ecology for the Use of…

265

Figure 1. plots of power graphs

The next protocol shows how the discussion develops after the teacher asked his students whether these graphs intersect. Teacher L Teacher B Teacher B Teacher S Teacher S Teacher G Teacher

Do these graphs intersect? I do not know. All these graphs start at the origin. Do these graphs have more intersections? Yes they do. I have zoomed in. These graphs intersect near the thick. Where did you zoom in? Near the intersection point. Near the intersection point? These graphs intersect where x is equal to one. Where do these graphs intersect, what are the values of x and y? What are the co-ordinates where they intersect? One, one. One, one? I have traced on three graphs and they al pass (1,1). You can check with your graphic calculator that the y-value will be one when the x-value is one. I have zoomed in and you see that these graphs all pass through (1, 1).

In this protocol the teacher tried to orchestrate the whole-class discussion by asking for an explanation. To find an explanation, students had to investigate the position of the graphs as shown in the display. While exploring the graphs they talked about how they thought the problem could be solved. The collaboration started with a remark that was made by student B. This remark helped to find an answer to the question the teacher asked. Then a student came up with the ‗trace option‘ to trace the graph of the function after they had zoomed in. This option allowed one to move a point along a graph while the screen of the graphic calculator showed the coordinates. One of the students discovered that, while tracing the graphs, each of the graphs went through a single point with coordinates (1,1). Having noted this, the students agreed after some time that the graphs intersected in this point. Once they had reached this conclusion, the teacher took control. He abruptly broke off the discussion by stating that the answer was correct, even though the question how it could be checked whether the answer was correct had not been answered. Another episode in the same lesson gives another example of how the teacher tried to stimulate an exploratory use of the graphic calculator, but reverted to giving directions at the end. Given the situation in Figure 1, he started the discussion by asking the students to trace

266

Dirk J. Hoek

the graphs of the functions: y = 2 and y = 4, and to explain what happened. The following protocol shows the interaction that developed. Teacher J Teacher J Teacher P Teacher J Teacher L Teacher L Teacher L Teacher J B Teacher R Teacher All

Can you trace the graphs of the function of: y = x2 and y = x4. Please tell me what happens. Between the x-values of zero and one, it is just the other way around. What is just the other way around? Raising to a higher power results in a graph that is lower. How is that when the value of x is greater than one? The higher the power the higher the function. Can somebody explain this? They intersect, so they have to change position. (to L:) Is that a good reason? I don‘t think so. I can see that the numbers are smaller. What do you mean by that? I have asked for a table and I saw that the numbers are smaller. Yes, but why? I do not know. Take for instance x = 2 for both functions (y = x 2 and y = x4). Then take x = 0.5. How much is that? y = 22, that is 4 and y = 24, that is 2*2*2*2, that is 16. y = 0,52, that is 0,25 and y = 0,54, that is 0,5*0,5*0,5*0,5, that is 0,0625. Yes, that means ….? The higher the power the lower the graph, between zero and one. Okay, does everybody understand this? Yeah.

This protocol is another example of how the teacher tried to stimulate student thinking and reflecting. Most students seemed to agree that raising to a higher power implies a higher situated graph. As a consequence, it was accepted that the graph of the function y = 4 was always plotted above the graph of the function y = 2. In this whole-class discussion the teacher challenged his students to discuss this idea. During this discussion, students used the graphic calculator to represent, to check and to investigate mathematical concepts. The teacher initiated exploration and reflection by asking the students what they saw on the screen. The teacher asked his students to trace the graphs. While the students were tracing the graphs one of the students (student J) remarked that ‗between 0 and 1, it is the other way around‘. Asked by the teacher to clarify what he meant by this remark, student J explained that the positions of the graphs changed. At this point, the teacher challenged the students to give an explanation. Student J responded that the graphs intersected, hence they had to change position. Apparently, the teacher was not satisfied with this explanation, asking the class whether they agreed that this was a good explanation. Student L remarked that the numbers were smaller. Again the teacher asked him what he meant. Student L reacted by saying that he had the graphic calculator display a table. This table showed that the numbers are smaller between 0 and 1. At this point, the teacher took control. He asked the students to calculate the value for ‗y‘ given different values for ‗x‘. Apparently, he assumed that this should be enough for students to accept this as an explanation.

Design Research on Establishing a Learning Ecology for the Use of…

267

A gradual change in teacher behavior could be seen in the protocols that were collected in the second half of the school year. They seemed to be more able to orchestrate whole class discussions. They interrupted lesser the whole class discussions ‗to secure results‘. This change can be illustrated by a protocol that was taken from a lesson, in the last part of the school year. Students were working on a chapter about exponential function (y = a·n). At the beginning of this chapter the same teacher as above organized a whole-class discussion to discuss the properties of exponential functions. In the former lesson, the class had been working to find out the formula that described the growth of the amount of plants in a small pond when this amount doubles each day (y = 2). At the start of the observed lesson, the teacher recapitulated this information. The students then continued with the problem where they had to calculate at what point in time the amount of plants would match exactly 100. Teacher B Teacher S L To Teacher To Teacher J Teacher R To A H To R H D Ba Teacher

Do you have any idea how this problem can be solved? The formula is y = 2? Yes I have written it on the blackboard. We have to calculate when y becomes 100. After how many days are there 100 plants in the pond? Yes. I have calculated how many plants there will be on each consecutive day. After 6 days there are that is 64, after 7 days there are 128 plants. How did you calculate that T? I have calculated that by doing for instance 25 and it gave 32. So I tried then 26, it gave 64 and then 27, this gave 128. What can we conclude from this? After seven days there are 100 plants. Does everybody agree with his conclusion? No, because after 7 days there are 128 plants in the pond. It must be between 6 and 7 days. I have plotted the graph of the function and I have traced the graph. I think that after 6.6 days there are 100 plants in the pond. Are you sure about that? How can you check your answer? You can calculate how much 26.6 is. That is a little more than 97. So his answer is not correct. I have asked for a table, starting from x = 6.6 and with steps of 0.01 and I see that y is almost 100 when x is 6.64. Is that a correct answer? Let me check: 26.64 = 99.7. This is almost 100. So it must be a little bit more. I have zoomed in and I think it is between 6.64 and 6.6645 days. Has somebody solved this differently?

In this protocol the teacher avoided giving direct answers. He sometimes directed the discussion. Asking questions such as whether everybody agreed with the conclusion of student J (after 7 days there were 100 plant in the pond), he challenged the students to solve the problem. In the final part of the protocol the teacher asked whether somebody had used another strategy. Implicitly he seemed to agree with the given answer. The first two fragments were characteristic for the situation at the beginning of the school year. These fragments are representative for the beginning of the school year. While working through the data of whole class discussions we encountered this kind of

268

Dirk J. Hoek

behavior quite often. While re-working again through the data, it seemed to be a pattern of both teachers. Confronted with this we went through the data to check if this pattern changed during the school year. This turned to be the case. The used protocols show only some snap shots of what happened during some lessons. These protocols show how the teachers tried to stimulate students to solve a problem together, to help each other and to bring in new ideas. However, at some point the teacher tended to revert to instructional control. This instructional behavior was in line with student expectations about the teacher‘s role. Students expected the teacher to decide whether the problem had been solved correctly and to explain to the students why that was so. Gradually, teachers‘ behavior changed. The retrospective analyses showed that the teachers increasingly tried to avoid to give direct answers and leave it to the students to discuss solutions and to infer conclusions from the discussions. We paid attention to this, because whole class discussions mo deled the discussions during small group work. During the small group discussions the teacher is not always available to use as a rich resource. Especially, during small group interaction students have to learn to rely on each other. Consequently, the teacher should give less content related feedback during whole class discussions. Analyses of the observational data showed that teachers did challenge students to give explanations, but their behavior was not always consistent. They were inclined to interrupt discussions in order to secure results and give direct explanations and instruction. Once again, we interpreted this hindrance, as the outcome of expectations and obligations perceived by teachers and students. Teachers were still reluctant to hand over control and by giving direct instruction. Teachers wanted to be sure that students would come to a conclusion at the end of the discussion. There was a tension between researchers‘, teachers‘ and students‘ interests. The researchers considered this teacher behavior as ineffective and argued that it supported neither students‘ reflection nor exploratory use of the graphic calculator, and, for certain, not collaborative work. The teachers themselves wanted to be sure that all students would reach specific levels of understanding, and felt therefore an urge to control this by ‗imposing‘ specific conclusions, reverting to directed instruction. They also often answered students‘ questions as this was also seen as a way to control their progress. It was planned to try to orchestrate whole-class discussions in such a way that no conclusion would be ‗imposed‘, but where students would be able to make sensible inferences , as we conjectured that this would stimulate reflection, discussion and collaboration .

Graphic Calculator and Collaborative Work As a next step data will be discussed that were collected while students were working collaboratively in small groups. Analysis showed two important changes in the participating classrooms. A first change concerned the coaching style of the teachers. At the start, teachers were aimed at giving content related feedback to individual students. In this feedback, they often stressed the correctness of specific answers. Gradually, this changed into more processoriented feedback. A second change was how the graphic calculator was used during small group work. In the beginning of the school year students mainly used the graphic calculator to calculate specific outcome values. Gradually, students learned to use the graphic calculator to

Design Research on Establishing a Learning Ecology for the Use of…

269

support discussions, to clarify ideas, to illustrate solutions, and to investigate mathematical phenomena. They used the graphic calculator to show, explain and to check things (cf. Dekker & Elshout-Mohr, 1998). The following protocols show how the teacher intervened while students were working together. The situation is characteristic for how coaching was enacted by the teachers at the beginning of the school year. Students were working on the problem that is given in Figure 2. The task was developed as an introduction to the power-of-ten-scale. The task was to make a collage that represents these numbers ordered on a power-of-ten-scale. Collect in newspapers, magazines, encyclopedias, for instance articles, reports or graphs (at least five per person) in which there are very big or very small numbers. The subject it deals about is not important. Design per group a collage of the gathered cuttings. Put these cuttings in order of the numbers, you start with the cuttings with the smallest number and finish with the cuttings with the biggest number. Write the number of every cutting as a power of ten. When you design the collage keep some spare space in the middle of it. In this space draw a horizontal power-of-ten scale. Project the numbers of the cuttings on this scale. Write the numbers of the cuttings in the engineering and scientific notation. Figure 2. Power-of ten-task

The students spent two lessons on this problem. The first lesson was spent on designing the collage. At the beginning of the second lesson students face the problem of converting the ‗normal notation‘ into ‗engineering notation‘. They discussed this point to reach agreement on what they had to do to solve this problem. E Teacher H M Teacher H E M E Teacher E Teacher

This is the engineering notation, is it? That is the engineering notation, but rounded off. You have to discuss how you want to round it off Three. This for example is 2400. No, no, you have to discuss how you want to round it off. Three decimals. Oh, now I understand, you can enter the number and in this mode you can choose how you want to round off in the engineering notation. When I enter 2390, I get 2.399 K. This is how I have to enter it? Yes. I have to enter it like this? Yes.

The protocol is characteristic of how the teachers coached their students while they used the graphic calculator at the beginning of the school year during small group work. In this example, student E was working individually with his graphic calculator to convert the ‗normal notation‘ into the ‗engineering notation‘. At some point, he did not understand the output on the graphic calculator display. He asked the teacher for help without consulting his group members. The above protocols illustrate how the teacher reacted by giving feedback to individual students on whether the answer was correct or not. Especially, at the beginning of the school year when students are using the graphic calculator, they use it individually. Their

270

Dirk J. Hoek

teachers support this kind of use, because when students asked them for help, they gave content related feedback to the individual working student(s). This teacher behavior changed during the school year. Discussions about this kind of teachers‘ behavior changed the use of the graphic calculator during small group work. Even when students are using the graphic calculator collaboratively, things can go wrong. After a few weeks of the lessons of the above protocol students of our first teachers are using the graphic calculator during small group work. The group is working on a problem while the teacher did not intervene. Students were working on the problem how to convert numbers into scientific notation (write down 12 mV in scientific notation). The observer is visiting another group. The camera registrates their interaction. The next interaction develops. M C E M E M E M C E M C E C E C

Write down the next with the scientific notation. (Reads aloud). What is the scientific notation? I just told you: you can put your graphic calculator on SCI. So, this is the scientific notation? Yes. The E means ten to the power …. Yes. Ten powered to one, that is the same as E. You understand? A charge U of 12 millivolt. Yes, we have to write this in SCI ..... What is SCI? Let me have a look. 1,2 ….. 1,20 E volt. 12 multiplied with 101. 12 millivolt, how much is 0,012 volt? Yes, you have to write down how many multiplied with 101. If you enter 12, you get 12 ×101. Yes, that is correct.

This protocol shows how the students used the graphic calculator to get an answer to the sub-problem. One of the students, M, started to read the problem. The students used the graphic calculator to get an answer to the sub-problem. Student C knew that it was possible to use the mode function of the graphic calculator to determine the scientific notation. Student E explained that 12 E must be read as 12 × 101. When student M wrote this down in his exercise book as ‗12 mV = 1,2 E Volt‘, student E remarked that 12-millivolt is 0,012 volt. However, the meaning of ‗milli‘ was not taken into account. The students literally copied the output on their displays into their exercise notes. During this protocol students help each other to solve this problem. They are focused on what the display represents. They take the output for granted and do not reflect on what it represents. This kind of behavior we encountered during observations often. Students were working with the graphic calculator collaboratively and focusing on what the display represented. They, however, do not reflect on what the output meant. They might not able to reflect because the teachers until that moment focused during his instruction on collaborative use of the graphic calculator. Researchers also show that reflecting on an answer is difficult to achieve when students lack cognitive capacities (Artigue, 1997). The observation of these first lessons showed that students mainly used the graphic calculator to get computational results, and that the tool was not used to support further

Design Research on Establishing a Learning Ecology for the Use of…

271

problem solving activities. Furthermore, teachers were not effective in supporting a more investigative use of the graphic calculator, as they mainly gave content related and technical feedback to individual students. Our interpretation, supported by the discussions with the teachers, was that teachers felt responsible to give this kind of feedback to individual students. However, teachers understood the argument that this was not effective as they experienced that they were forced to repeat explanations of identical problems. To alter this behavior, we planned with the teachers that they would redirect the questions to the group, challenging students to discuss their problems among themselves, instead of asking the teacher. Our conjecture was that this would lead to less repetition and better discussions during collaborative work. In the next lessons, we observed that, gradually, teachers managed to orchestrate wholeclass discussions in such a way that students were able to infer themselves whether a conclusion was right or wrong. The teachers guided the discussion asking whether or not everybody agreed with a certain conclusion, and they challenged students to show different solutions or applied strategies. Moreover, they stimulated students to discuss solutions by giving suggestions, and posing challenging questions. The teachers interrupted discussions less frequently to ‗secure results‘, and, while handling student‘s questions, they increasingly avoided giving direct answers. We interpreted these changes in the teacher behavior as showing that teachers had appropriated a supportive style (coaching vs. directing) for wholeclass discussions. We hoped that this would constitute a model for the interactions within the small groups‘ work. Throughout the lessons in which the teachers were changing their instructional approach during whole class discussion, we observed their coaching style in relation to collaborative working. Observational data showed that teachers kept giving individual, content related feedback during group‘s work and that students still avoided collaboration. Our interpretation was that it was difficult for teachers to transfer what they had apprehended from whole-class instructional activities to the coaching of group work. We argued that this kind of behavior was ineffective as it inhibited collaborative work and exploratory use of the graphic calculator. Consequently, it was planned to adapt their behavior towards the group work. Teachers no longer would give answers to individual questions, but would redirect these to the small group members. Teachers were also asked to actively interfere during collaborative work by asking the students questions about how they were solving a problem, and by posing challenging questions. They also agreed to ask suggestions about how to further investigate a problem. They would try to change from instructor to coach: instead of giving content related direct feedback, the teachers would try to give process-oriented feedback. We conjectured that this would stimulate reflection, as well as discussion and collaboration within the groups. During the school year our teachers changed their coaching. They were more able to guide the students by scaffolding their instructions. As a result their education became more students oriented. This might be that, gradually, collaborative problem solving and integration of the graphic calculator during small group discussions improved. To illustrate what changed in the small group discussions we skip to the end of the school year. We take two representative protocols from lessons at the end of the school year. One of the mayor changes we encountered during our observations and our analysis is the change in coaching style during small group work. At the beginning of the school year teachers were mainly focused to give feedback to an individual student about the content or about how to use the graphic calculator. During this school year there were discussions about this behavior with the

272

Dirk J. Hoek

teachers. Gradually they changed their coaching style from giving feedback to individual students to giving feedback to the whole small group. Another change in their coaching style was that they redirected questions to the group. Implicitly the group became the resource to turn to instead of the teacher. The next protocol illustrates what our second teacher did when one of the students working in a small group on the problem that is given in Figure 3. As Figure 3 shows students have to comment on what student J (in the problems) states. The students have to find out if student J is right or wrong and what is right or wrong. While the students are discussing about the problem, they have decided that they have to do. In the meantime, the teacher has been listening to the group discussion. One of the students wants to know if they are right about what they have to check and asks the teacher for help. In the next protocol is shown how the interaction develops from the moment the students asks the teacher for help. In chapter 4 you worked on tasks about exponential relations. All these relations can be written with the function: y = a xn, a is the proportional quantity. In this case the n is a negative power. During a whole-class discussion the graphs of the following functions are drawn: y=x-1, y=x-2, y=x-3, y=x-4. Below you see the input of the window screen on the left and on the right the graphs of the functions above are drawn.

Just below you see a very short fragment of the whole-class discussion. Teacher J what do you see and think when you look at those graphs? J The higher the power the steeper the graphs. So, the most left graph has the highest power. Further to the right this graph stays below the other ones. You have to investigate if J is right. To do this it is advised to use your graphic calculator. It is expected that you together as group make a clear, systematic report. I, the teacher have to understand what you have been doing to find out if Janneke was right or wrong. I want to get an explanation why you think she is right or wrong. Figure 3. Power function task

B Teacher B Teacher

Sir, do we have to check three things: the steepness of the graph, the position of the graphs to one and other, and we have to look what happens further to the right? If you think that you have to check that and your group agrees with you. You have to think about how you can check it. By zooming in. You have to discuss this together.

Design Research on Establishing a Learning Ecology for the Use of…

273

The students have been discussing about the tasks. They seem to have decided what they have to check. Student B asks their teacher to confirm whether he understood the task correctly. In contrast to the beginning of the school year, the teacher redirects his question by saying that he has to discuss this with his group-members. After this the students discuss the task for a while again and start to find a solution.The protocol illustrates how the teachers‘ coaching has changed during the school year. By re-directing the question to the group he challenged the group to think about the problem and to discuss it together. Implicitly, he stimulates the small group discussion. It starts the re-discussing about the problem and how to solve this problem. The changes in the coaching style of the teachers might also have contributed to the change of the use of the graphic calculator. At the beginning of the school year this tool was mainly used at an individual bases, even during small group work. Gradually, the students used this tool during their discussions to illustrate, to explain and to investigate things. We encountered this change in behavior during our observations and latter during our retrospective analyses. We use the next protocol to illustrate how students were using the graphic calculator during small group discussions at the last part of the school year. After the teacher has left the group, the students have determined what they have to check. As a start they have drawn the graph as they are represented in the problem (see Figure 3). Now, they are discussing about which graph represents which function and which one was steeper. B C E B M E M E M E M C M C M C M

These are the graphs in the figure? (Shows his display to the other group members). Yes, but I don‘t know which graph represents which function. How can we determine which one represents which function? It is simple the first graph that is plotted represents to the first function on your input display. When you use the trace function you can see on which graph you are. Oh yeah, I see. Oh this is the graph of y= x-2 (see shows her displays and points at a graph). I think that the lower the power the steeper the graph of the function. What do they mean by steeper? I don‘t understand that. Look here it declines faster and here it becomes flat. So, you think the higher the power the steeper the graph? Here this graph is steeper than that one (she points first to y=x-4 and than to y=x-2). So the higher the power the steeper the graph. This one is the first (y=x-1). Yes, that is right. So the higher the power the steeper the graph. No, it is further in negative. This one is y=x-1 and that one is y=x-4. Yes, when the power is minus four the graph is steeper than when the power is minus one. Yes, that is correct. Minus four is smaller than minus one. So, it must be the lower the power the steeper the graph. Oh, yes you are right.

Students discuss with each other how they can determine which graph represents which function. Student B assumed that the first graph entered would also be plotted first. Another student, M, said that it was possible to use the trace function (when the trace function was used the display of the calculator shows in the lower left corner on the screen on which function the pointer is moving). During this first part of the discussion the graphic calculator

274

Dirk J. Hoek

is not directly used in the discussing. This tool, however, plays a role in the students‘ discussion: they discuss about how this tool can be used to determine which graph represents which function. After this short discussion student C and student M discussed which graph was steeper. During this discussion the tool is used to analyze, to explain. For instance student M and student C frequently show their display and point to the graphs. At the end of the protocol student C uses the graphic calculator to explain a mistake of student M. In the next lessons, we observed that teachers started redirecting questions to the group, giving feedback on how students worked together and stimulating discussions about how the graphic calculator could be used during collaborative problem solving. Additionally, teachers also instigated discussions about the output of the graphic calculator by asking students what it represented in the context of the problem they were trying to solve. Our interpretation was that the teachers‘ coaching style during group work also changed, from content and individual related, to more process and group-oriented feedback. Gradually, group members started to ask each other for help. In the final quarter of the school year, students discussed the problems more intensely to decide on how they wanted to solve the problems. In addition, students frequently used the graphic calculator during their work in order to illustrate, to explain and to investigate. The changes induced in the teacher behavior generated changes in the learning ecology, which in led to changes in students‘ behavior.

A Synthesis of Our Experiment The design experiment had the duration of a whole school year. We can discern a number of cycles that evolved along the same pattern we have described in the methodology section. Observations of the first lessons showed that students mainly used the graphic calculator to get computational results, and that the tool was not used to support further problem solving activities. Furthermore, teachers were not effective in supporting a more investigative use of the graphic calculator, as they mainly gave content related and technical feedback to individual students. As a next step it was agreed that the teachers would redirect questions. This redirection of questions turned out to be difficult for teachers. Observational data showed that teachers tried to keep control of the progress of the students‘ work, responding to individual questions, rejecting students‘ suggestions, and correcting their mistakes. At the same time, students also showed that they expected teachers to answer their questions and claimed explanations. Therefore, it was planned that teachers would observe students during collaborative work, reflect on the students‘ errors and misconceptions, and try to make this subject of a whole-class discussion. Here, a ‗student-initiated‘ model that is known as the ‗Sherpa student‘ in the work of Guin and Trouche (1999) was introduced. However, this ‗student-initiated‘ model didn‘t turn out to be effective. We observed that the students had difficulties to put the group‘s discussion into his/her own words, and frequently skipped this phase. In addition, peers often interrupted the student and, as a result, teachers frequently broke off the discussion in order to take control. This ‗discussion model‘ was abandoned after a few lessons. Instead we introduced a ‗teacher-initiated‘ discussion model. The teacher would keep control over the whole-class discussion and was, therefore, in a better position to model the

Design Research on Establishing a Learning Ecology for the Use of…

275

effectiveness of specific collaborative activities. Analyses of the observational data showed that teachers did challenge students to give explanations, but their behavior was not always consistent. They were inclined to interrupt discussions in order to secure results and give direct explanations and instruction. In the next lessons, the teachers gradually managed to orchestrate whole-class discussions in such a way that students were able to infer themselves whether a conclusion was right or wrong. Throughout the lessons in which the teachers were changing their instructional approach during whole class discussion, we observed their coaching style in relation to collaborative working. During these lessons teachers kept giving individual, content related feedback during group‘s work and that students still avoided collaboration. Consequently, it was planned to adapt their behavior towards the group work. In the next lessons, we observed that teachers started redirecting questions to the group, giving feedback on how students worked together and stimulating discussions about how the graphic calculator could be used during collaborative problem solving. Additionally, teachers also instigated discussions about the output of the graphic calculator by asking students what it represented in the context of the problem they were trying to solve.

Retrospective Analysis This analysis is the result of a retrospective, systematic and thorough analysis of the entire data set, collected during the experiment. The analysis approach we used is a variant of Glaser and Strauss‘s (1967) constant comparative method (see also Cobb & Whitenack, 1996). Basically, one first works through the data chronologically, episode by episode, testing at each point de current conjectures against the next episode, and eventually refuting them. As a result of this first round of data analysis, one establishes a set of conjectures and refutations tied to specific episodes, providing an overview of the experiment. In a second round, as one meta-analyzes that set of conjectures, confirmations, and refutations, particular moments come to the fore as being pivotal in the context of the analysis. These pivotal moments are the main result of the retrospective analysis. The major outcome of the retrospective analysis of this study is a strategy for intervention in a learning ecology, constituted by four key elements. First, the teachers‘ willingness to experiment with new forms of instruction and interaction patterns. This is important since this researcher-induced change must be based on a didactical contract between teacher and coach (the researcher), where goals and responsibilities are shared, and where the intervention is seen as a mutual endeavor. In fact, this offers an opportunity for a process of trial and improvement, where it is possible for the coach to indicate directions to the intended means of interacting and offer suggestions for progression. Another key element is the acknowledgement of a resistance to change, which could be found at the start of the project in the didactical contract between the teachers and the students, and the need for a proper response to it. This resistance results from believes and expectations of both teacher and students. The former feels obligated/responsible to explain or even literally tell the students how they have to solve the problems, as well as interrupt discussions and give individual content related feedback in order to monitor students‘

276

Dirk J. Hoek

progress. Students, on the other hand, expect or even demand that teachers answer their questions and help them overcome their difficulties. This study proved, however, that this resistance gradually evaporates when evidence is given to the teachers of the consequences of their behavior on the students‘ conduct and experiments with alternative behavior are started. In this design experiment, teachers were confronted with observational data where they could see how students kept asking for help, as well as kept working individually while using the graphical calculator in a very instrumental manner. The teachers could, therefore, undertake the arguments for the intended change. The design experiment has also provided evidence that it is most effective to start the intervention by fostering changes in the teacher behavior and the correspondent interaction pattern during whole-class discussions. In this way, subsequent changes in the way students and teacher interact during group work can be addressed more easily. In fact, the changes accomplished during the whole-class discussions function as a model for changes in the interaction patterns within small groups. On the one hand, it works as a model for the students since they experience how the graphic calculator can be used in an investigative and exploratory way. They get familiar with a different interaction pattern, which they might then also use within the local learning ecology of their group. On the other hand, it also constitutes a model for the teachers, since the coach can refer back to their experiences with the wholeclass discussions, in order to convince them even easier of the need of the intended changes. Finally, another important element of this intervention approach is the cyclic process of trial and improvement. As the experiment is going on, teachers gradually experience positive changes in the students‘ working style, which help to convince them of the successful effects of the changes of their own behavior. In short, the positive changes the teachers experience in their class during this cyclic process help promoting further changes.

CONCLUSION We started by observing that many early studies on the influence of the graphic calculator on students‘ achievement and attitude failed to give insight in the relationship between learning ecology and tool use. We also drew attention to the study of Doerr and Zangor (2000) who did analyze and characterize an effective learning ecology in relation to the students‘ tool use, and the goals of reform mathematics education. With the study reported here, we try to contribute to the next step, by developing some insight in how such a learning ecology can be developed. The main purpose of our study was to understand how one can help teachers in developing a learning ecology where students work collaboratively in small groups using the graphic calculator in an explorative and investigative way, and where the teacher has a coaching role. We explored how this change in the learning ecology could be achieved by fostering consecutive changes in the teacher‘s behavior, based on the idea that the teacher has a decisive influence on the development of the social and socio-math norms in the classroom (Cobb et al., 2001; Yackel & Cobb, 1996). The major outcome of this study is a model of intervention characterized by a cyclic and iterative process based on the following points of departure. First, establish an adequate didactical contract between teacher and coach (researcher), in which goals and responsibilities

Design Research on Establishing a Learning Ecology for the Use of…

277

are shared and where the experiment is seen as a common endeavor. Second, be aware of the existence of a probable resistance to change as a consequence of the teachers‘ and students‘ believes about their roles and obligations, and one should, therefore, look for observational data that offer arguments for change. Third, start by changing the teacher‘s role within wholeclass discussions, as this may function as a model for changes within the groups work. Finally, make sure that the teachers experience success, this helps fostering further changes in the teacher behavior. The cycle that governs this iterative process is to some extent similar to Simon‘s (1995) mathematical teaching cycle, but includes some extra steps as there is the extra layer of the researcher who coaches the teacher. The cycle starts with observations of the classroom teaching practices and student participation. These are interpreted in order to understand those processes. Based on those interpretations, researchers look for arguments that convince teachers to change their practices. Based on that, a plan is made with the teachers for the next lesson(s). Next, the conjectures about the expected changes in the teachers‘ behavior and in the learning ecology form the basis for the observations in the subsequent cycle2. As a final note, we want to remark that we do not claim that what occurred in these classrooms will replicate in precisely the same ways in other classrooms. Instead, coaches who want to support teachers in such processes will continually have to adjust their plans on the basis of assessments of what is going on in the classrooms. We do claim, however, that what is learned in these design experiments can effectively be used to support similar processes of teacher change.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The study reported in this article was supported by NWO, the Dutch National Science Foundation, under grant no. 575-36-003D. The opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of the Foundation.

REFERENCES Artigue, M. (2002). Learning mathematics in a CAS environment: the genesis of a reflection about instrumentation and the dialectics between technical and conceptual work. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 7, 245–274. Berger, M. (1998). Graphic calculators: an interpretative framework. For the Learning of Mathematics,18, 13-20. Berry, J., Graham, J., & Smith, A. (2006). Observing student working styles when using graphic calculators to solve mathematics problems. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 37, 291–308.

2

At first sight Simon‘s (2000) label ―teacher development experiment‖ might be used to describe this process, but a closer inspection suggests that he preserves this term for teacher development that takes place in an educational setting outside the teacher‘s own classroom.

278

Dirk J. Hoek

Cobb, P. & Whitenack, J.W. (1996). A method for conducting longitudinal analyses of classroom videorecordings and transcripts. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 30, 213-228. Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design Experiments in Educational Research. Educational Researcher, 32, 9-13. Cobb, P., Stephan, M., McClain, K., & Gravemeijer, K. (2001). Participating in classroom mathematical practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10, 113-163. Dekker, R. & Elshout-Mohr, M. (1998a). A process model for interaction and mathematical level raising. Educational Studies of Mathematics, 35, 303-314. Doerr, H.M. & Zangor, R. (2000). Creating Meaning for and with the Graphing Calculator. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 41, 143-163. Dunham, P.H. & Dick, T.P. (1994). Research on graphing calculators. Mathematics Teacher, 87, 440-445. Ellington, A. J. (2003). A meta-analysis of the effects of calculator on students‘ achievement and attitude levels in precollege mathematics classes. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 34, 433-463. Glaser, B. & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Strategies for qualitative research, qualitative research. Chicago, CA: Aldine. Goris, T. & Van der Kooij, H. (1997-2000). Twin wiskunde, volumes 1, 2, 3 and 4, Leiden, The Netherlands: SMD. Gravemeijer K. & Doorman, M. (1999). Context problems in realistic mathematics education: a calculus course as an example. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 39, 111-129. Gravemeijer, K. (1998). Developmental Research as a Research Method. In J. Kilpatrick, & A. Sierpinska (Eds.), Mathematics Education as a Research Domain: A Search for Identity (An ICMI Study book 2) (pp. 277-295). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Guin, D. & Trouche, L. (1999). The complex process of converting tools into mathematical instruments: the case of calculator. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 3, 195-227. Hiebert, J., Carpenter, T.P., Fennema, E., Fuson, K., Wearne, D., Murray, H., Olivier, A., & Human, P. (1997). Making Sense: Teaching and Learning Mathematics with Understanding. Heinemann, Portsmouth, NH. Hoek, D. J., Terwel, J., & van den Eeden, P. (1999). The effects of integrated social and cognitive strategies instruction on the mathematics achievement in secondary education. Learning and Instruction, 9, 427-448. Kaartinen, S. & Kumpulainen, K. (2002). Collaborative inquiry and the construction of explanations in the learning of science. Learning and Instruction, 12, 189-212. Lim, C.P. (2002). A theoretical framework for the study of ICT in schools: a proposal. British Journal of Educational Technology, 33, 411-421. Meira, L. (1995). Mediation by tools in the mathematics classroom. In L. Meira, & D. Carraher (Eds.), Proceedings of the 19th Annual Conference of the International Groups for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Vol. 1 (pp 102-111). Colombus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse. Meira, L. (1998). Making sense of instructional devices: The emergence of transparency in mathematical activity. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29, 121–142.

Design Research on Establishing a Learning Ecology for the Use of…

279

Penglase, M. & Arnold, S. (1996). The graphics calculator in mathematics education: a critical review of recent research. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 8, 58-90. Roth, W. M. & McGinn, M. K. (1997). Graphing: cognitive ability or practice? Science Education 81, 91-106. Ruthven, K. (1992). Personal technology and classroom change: a British perspective. In J.T. Fey, & C.R. Hirsch (Eds.), Calculators in Mathematics Education: 1992 yearbook (pp. 91-100). Reston, VA: NCTM. Ruthven, K. (1996). Calculators in the mathematics curriculum: The scope of personal computational technology. In A.J. Bishop, K. Clements, & C. Keitel (Eds.), International Handbook of Mathematics Education (pp. 435- 468). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Salomon, G. (1993). On the nature of pedagogic computer tools: the case of writing partner. In S. P. Lajoie, & Derry, S. J. (Eds.), Computers as Cognitive Tools (289 - 317). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1985). Mathematical problem solving. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1992). Learning to think mathematically: problem solving, metacognition, and sense making in mathematics. In D.A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 165-197). New York: MacMillan. Simon, M.A. (1995). Reconstructing mathematics pedagogy from a constructivist perspective. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 26, 114-45. Treffers, A. (1993). Wiskobas and Freudenthal: Realistic mathematics education. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 25, 89-108. Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M. (2003). The didactical use of models in realistic mathematics education: an example from a longitudinal trajectory on percentage. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 54, 9-35. Yackel, E. & Cobb, P. (1996). Sociomathematical norms, argumentation, and autonomy in mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27, 458-477.

In: Collaborative Learning: Methodology, Types… Editors: E. Luzzatto, G. DiMarco, pp. 281-300

ISBN: 978-1-60876-076-3 © 2010 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Chapter 10

TYPES OF INTERACTIONS IN SCIENCE MUSEUM CLASS VISITS Yael Bamberger School of Education, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI

ABSTRACT Exhibitions in science museums stimulate conversations and collaborative learning in different ways. This chapter describes a research method that aims to analyze various types of interactions in relation to these exhibits. Since the museum setting is strongly socio-culturally mediated, the theoretical framework is based on socio-cultural theory, which emphasizes social interactions and stresses the importance of cultural symbols as essential elements in meaning-making. Types of interactions can describe the collaborative learning in class visits to museums, and defined here as: individual, collective and multiple ‗zones of interaction‘. The zones are centered on a single exhibit that encourages interpersonal or intrapersonal interaction. The individual zone occurs when only one student manipulates the exhibit; the collective zone occurs when two or more students share their experience regarding the exhibit; and multiple zone describes a situation in which two or more separate zones occur at the same time and both are centered on the same exhibit. Since learning in museums is mainly interest-driven, this method further characterizes the collaborative learning within the three zones of interaction through evaluation of expressions of curiosity. These expressions of curiosity are manifested in technical, emotional and intellectual ways. In order to elucidate the implementation of the suggested method to study interactions at museums, this chapter presents a study utilizing the framework to evaluate class visits to a science center. Two class visits of eighth graders were observed and videotaped, focusing on student-student and student-adult interactions. The framework suggested in this chapter enables an innovative method for investigating exhibits-centered collaborative learning involving the different types of interactions in science museums.

282

Yael Bamberger

INTRODUCTION Collaborative learning has long been a riveting area for researchers and educators. The process of learning through collaboration is difficult to decipher: what is happening in that process that impacts each participant? The importance of collaboration in learning has been known for thousands of years. For example, the sages of the Talmud, the rabbinic literature written over 1,500 years ago, emphasized the importance of learning through collaborating. They compared the need of peers to collaborate to the process of sharpening a knife, saying that a knife could be sharpened only by its peer (Genesis Rabba 69:2). This analogy presents a radical opinion which claims that meaning-making could be obtained only by collaboration. Recent scholarship has provided evidence that learning by collaboration is a useful conduit for conceptual change and improving achievements (Baron, 2003; Roschelle, 1992; Stacy, 1999). On the socio-cultural theory based on meaning-making through collaboration, Lev Vygotsky (1978) emphasized the social nature of learning that occurs in a cultural context. Vygotsky asserted that social interactions and cultural symbols provide essential opportunities for learning. The adult takes the role of mediating knowledge in social and cultural contexts, and group members also play a role in the knowledge construction of each member of the group. The museum setting is rich in cultural symbols that provide opportunities for learning. Some exhibits present impressive cultural achievements, while others present phenomena considered by the culture as important to share with the public for enrichment and education. Moreover, usually in museums, adults take the role of mediating knowledge (Falk & Dierking, 1992; Rennie, Feher, Dierking, & Falk, 2003). This adult could be a parent in a family visit, a teacher in students‘ class visit, or one of the museum‘s educators. Several studies have investigated conversations and collaborative learning in museums from the socio-cultural perspective (Allen, 2002; Ash, 2003; Gilbert & Priest, 1997; Leinhardt & Knutson, 2004; Tunnicliffe, Lucas & Osborne, 1997). Significantly, collaborative learning is considered to be one of the important outcomes of the museum visit by visitors, including students, in both the short and the long term (Bamberger & Tal, 2008a, b; Falk et al., 2006). Yet, collaborative learning in museums is highly connected to the physical context (Falk & Dierking, 2000). In general, interactions cannot be separated from the place in which they occur (Kendon, 1990; Scheflen & Ashcroft, 1976); this is especially true in museums. Museum interactions occur in a socio-cultural context situated within a physical context: the exhibitions. The exhibits are designed to enhance manipulation and conversations (Ciolfi & Bannon, 2002; Koran, Morrison, Lehman, Koran & Gandara, 1984; Rounds, 2004), and therefore, encourage interpersonal and intrapersonal interactions. Hence, the place of the interaction is tremendously important in the museum, as both a trigger and a subject of interaction. The study presented here focuses on interactions in a science museum, using the physical context as the means to explain and identify types of interactions centered on exhibits. The research method described here may be used to better understand interactions that occur during class visits to a science museum, and to gain understanding about different learning opportunities within the exhibits.

Types of Interactions in Science Museum Class Visits

283

METHOD Research Context The study was carried out in the National Museum of Science, Technology and Space, the largest science center in Israel. Although there are some differences between science centers and museums, the institute is referred to here as a ‗museum‘, after Falk and Dierking (2000, p. xi). Thousands of classes visit the museum each year, having a tour guided by the museum‘s staff. This research is part of a larger study investigating learning in museums (Bamberger & Tal, 2007, 2008a,b, 2009) in which tens of class visits were observed and videotaped. Two class visits of eighth graders (ages 13.5–14.5) from the larger study were randomly selected for this analysis. The class visits of interest will be referred to in this chapter as Visit A and Visit B. Visit A consisted of 30 students from a public school, which draws students from several communities in its region, while the 22 students in Visit B were from a town public school. Both schools were allocated in the north of the country and the classes were mixed gender. The visits were divided into two parts: a guided visit to the interactive exhibition, and an inquiry activity held in the laboratories of the educational center of the museum. This study deals only with interactions that occurred during the interactive exhibition, since the inquiry activities were more similar to classroom-based learning, and did not reflect the museum‘s unique environment.

The Structure of the Visit Each class arrived at the museum with one or two accompanying teachers. At the entrance to the museum they met a member of the museum‘s staff, who will be referred to here as a ‗guide‘ (Tal, Bamberger & Morag, 2005), who led the group during the whole visit in the exhibition wing. The guides are primarily temporary employees who are science and engineering undergraduate students. The two observed visits began with a guide-directed tour of three exhibition halls: mirrors, darkness and aviation (described below). In each hall, the guide explained to the whole group the scientific phenomena or principles related to one or two exhibits, and then allowed free exploration. In each hall, the guide's explanation took 10– 15 minutes, and the time dedicated for free exploration was 15–20 minutes. During free exploration, the guide and the teacher(s) were available to the students.

The Exhibition The exhibition wing of the science center is located in the historical building of the Technion, Israel Institute of Technology, built in the 1920s as a University campus. As such, the building is composed of separate halls. Each hall holds a different exhibition, and contains mainly hands-on elements that are connected to a specific scientific subject such as energy, optics, aviation, chemistry, and computers. Participating students visited three exhibitions:

284

Yael Bamberger

The 'mirror, horror' hall presents scientific phenomena related to optics and vision. This hall contains a range of large mirrors allowing visitors to explore mirror images, and a number of hands-on exhibits that deal with vision, perception, light and colors. A small theatre located in the exhibit hall provides a space for visitors to listen to and observe as a guide explains and demonstrates optical illusions. The dark hall presents scientific phenomena related to light, photography and electrostatics. There is an absolute darkness in the room, and the only light sources are within the exhibits. An exhibit of spotlights in three colors—red, green and blue—enables visitors to explore different colors of shadows by turning the lights on and off; a plasma sphere enables visitors to get a sense of electrical conductivity; convex and concave lenses placed near a light source enable visitors to explore light refraction. Visitors can inspect a semi-pervious mirror, look through a camera obscura, comprehend the impact of the density of materials on their other characteristics, and more. The aviation hall presents exhibits related to aviation such as a hot-air balloon, a mini remote pilot-less vehicle (MRPV) that captures photos of visitors' real-time activities while they are in the hall, and an air pipe that enables visitors to explore the aircraft's rudders.

Data Collection The two visits were observed and videotaped by the author, knowing that the use of only one camera limited the numbers of interactions that could be captured simultaneously. In addition, the teachers who accompanied the students were interviewed by telephone the evening following the visit in order to understand the connection of the visit to the students‘ school science curriculum and the teacher‘s role in school.

Data Analysis Units for the analysis of the observations were defined according to the significant event framework suggested by Doris Ash (2004). Ash‘s framework recognizes significant events as having recognizable beginning and end centered on one particular exhibit. The beginning of an event is a gathering of a small group of students around an exhibit and the ending is the dispersal of the group. In addition, an event sustained conversation that contains dialogs and interactions (verbal or physical), different sources of knowledge transfer (from the exhibit, sub-title, peers, museum staff or teacher), and several kinds of strategies (including activating an exhibit, questioning, advising, and conversing). Each significant event was analyzed by its zones of interaction. Shepardson and Britsch (2006) defined a zone of interaction as: ―A distinct area distinguished by a spatial and temporal boundary that separates it from the surrounding peer interaction‖ (p.450). The authors described three zones of interaction between a teacher and students in classroom: individual, collective and multiple. In order to fit this framework, which takes into account the space of the interaction, into the museum

Types of Interactions in Science Museum Class Visits

285

setting, the three zones of interaction must be centered on a single exhibit that encourages interpersonal or intrapersonal interaction. An individual zone occurs when only one student manipulates the exhibit; a collective zone occurs when two or more students share their experience regarding the exhibit; and a multiple zone describes a situation in which two or more separate zones centered on the same exhibit occur at the same time. Figure 1 is a graphical representation for the zones of interaction among students in an interactive exhibition, while 'E' denotes the exhibit and 'S' the student. For example, in Figure 1a, student S1 operates the exhibit, while student S2 observes and does not interact with student S1. In Figure 1b, student S1 operates the exhibit, while students S1-S3 interact and discuss about the exhibit. Figure 1c presents a situation when student S1 operates the exhibit and interacts with student S2, while students S3 and S4 interact between themselves regarding the same exhibit E. When an adult, teacher or museum guide, was involved in an interaction, the zones were defined according to the students, denoted by 'T' for teacher and 'G' for guide. For example, if the adult was speaking only with the student who operated the exhibit, the zone was defined as ‗individual‘. In cases that the adult was interacting with more than one student, or when the adult and the group of students shared the experience together, the zones were defined as ‗collective‘. When two or more separate zones occurred at the same time, the event was classified as ‗multiple‘. In aim to characterize the type of interaction in the three zones, different expressions of curiosity have been defined. Curiosity well characterizes the unique nature of learning in museums, since the collaborative learning in museums is mainly interest-driven. Csikszentmihalyi and Hermanson (1995) defined curiosity in museums as: ―Individual differences in the likelihood of investing psychic energy in novel stimuli‖ (p.68). These scholars indicated three types of opportunities for involvement in the museum: sensorial, emotional and intellectual. Based on this idea, three types of expressions of curiosity are defined for this study. A technical expression stands for investigating an exhibit by pressing buttons, touching, and conversing about technical issues, such as how to manipulate the exhibit; an emotional expression describes an emotive response, such as laughing, expressing excitement or disgust; and an intellectual expression describes curiosity expressed by conversing about how the exhibit works and about the scientific phenomenon and concepts embodied in the exhibit.

S1

S2 E

a) Individual zone

S1 S2 S3 E b) Collective zone

Figure 1. Graphic representation of zones of interaction E=Exhibit; S=Student

S1

S2 E

S3 S4

c) Multiple zone

286

Yael Bamberger Table 1. Teachers participating in interactions Teacher T1 T2 T3

Number of events 3 8 3

Table 2. Emotional and intellectual expressions of curiosity Expression of curiosity

Zone of interaction

Emotional

Individual Collective

Exhibit* (times)

Bernoulli effect, Mask Bernoulli effect (2), MRPV (2), Floating ball (2), Plasma sphere (5), Semipervious mirror (2), Phosphorescent wall, Convex and concave mirrors (2), Two vertical mirrors Multiple Plasma sphere (2), Pitching, yawing and rolling Intellectual Individual Hot-air balloon, Plasma sphere, Leading edge of the wing, Conversion of motion, Bernoulli effect, Convex and concave lenses (2), Two parallel mirrors Collective MRPV (3), Plasma sphere Multiple Plasma sphere (3), A projected slide - no screen * For exhibits' description see appendix C

Events with an adult

Events without an adult

Total

2 2

0 15

2 17

3

0

3

8

0

8

0 1

4 3

4 4

The observed interactions in the museum were analyzed by the suggested method described above. All the significant events were analyzed by the two dimensions: zones of interactions and expressions of curiosity. Typically, each event contains several zones of interaction and expressions of curiosity. In order to establish reliable classification, three researchers analyzed the events. Each significant event was classified by two of the three researchers, and cases of disagreement were discussed and resolved between them. In addition, the teacher interviews were analyzed for further information regarding the teacher‘s role in school and the connection of the visit to the students‘ school science curriculum. The data regarding the teachers‘ role in school was important for understanding her relationships and interactions with the students. The information about the connection of the visit to the school science was essential for understanding students‘ conversations about the scientific phenomena that were exhibited in the museum.

Types of Interactions in Science Museum Class Visits

287

FINDINGS In both visits the teachers indicated no connection between the visited exhibitions and the school science curriculum. In addition, none of the subjects of the visited exhibitions – optics, electrostatics and aviation - exist in the 8th grade curriculum and under. Hence, it could be assumed that the students had had no formal education regarding these topics. Overall, 49 significant events were analyzed: 22 events of visit A and 27 events of visit B (detailed in appendices A and B). In visit A, less than quarter of the events included an adult (the teacher and/or the guide), while in visit B more than half of the events were of adultstudent interactions. Table 1 presents the number of events in which the teachers interacted with the students. The teacher that accompanied class visit A (T1) was the science teacher of the class. In visit B, the two chaperon teachers were science teachers, but only one of them (T2) was the science teacher of the observed class. The other teacher (T3) was the science department head of that school but did not teach the class at the time of the visit. Although both teachers T1 and T2 were the class science teachers, each interacted differently with her students. Teacher T2 was much more involved with the students and presumably more engaged in her students‘ learning. Most of the exhibits evoked technical expressions of curiosity in all the zones of interactions, since this expression of curiosity is basic for operating interactive exhibits. Emotional and intellectual expressions were found to be in several zones of interaction, depends on the exhibits. Table 2 presents the distribution of events in the emotional and intellectual expressions of curiosity. A short description of the exhibits mentioned in Table 2 appears in appendix C. In almost half of the events (22 out of 49), emotional expressions were involved. The emotional expressions were the most common in the collective zone, in events without an adult (15 events). It seems that the students preferred to share their emotions with peers and not necessarily with the teacher or the guide. The adult present when the emotional expression occurred in all the zones of interaction, but this influence was minimal (7 events in all zones). The exhibits that evoked the emotional expressions were mainly the plasma sphere (7), all types of mirrors (5), and the Bernoulli Effect exhibit (3). The common characteristic of those exhibits is the kinesthetic experience as part of the exhibited phenomena. As for the intellectual expressions, in more than half of the events (9 out of 16), an adult was involved. However, the adult, the teacher or the guide made an impact mainly in the individual zone and not in the other zones. It seems that the adults tended to discuss the scientific ideas that were exhibited with individual students, and not with groups of students. In addition, in the shared zones, collective and multiple, the students tended to share their intellectual expressions among themselves, with no intervention of an adult (7 out of 8 events). Though, most of the intellectual expressions of curiosity centered two exhibits: the plasma sphere (5) and the MRPV - Mini Remote Pilot-less Vehicle (3). The next sections describe these exhibits and examples for interactions centered them.

288

Yael Bamberger

Plasma Sphere Interaction The plasma sphere, shown in Figure 2, contains a small amount of gas at low pressure that is ionized by high voltage applied to the small bar at the bottom of the sphere. The ionized gas particles move like jet streams in the symmetrical electric field created by the high voltage. When the student slides his fingers on the sphere, the symmetry of the electric field is distorted and the ion streams move in trajectories outline by the distorted electric field. The students feel the sting of conducting electricity on their own body by touching the sphere, or by touching a friend who touches the sphere.

Figure 2. Plasma sphere

The combination of short pain, fear, and the need for friends to examine the conducting, evoked several curiosity expressions in all zones of interactions. The common knowledge about the danger of touching electricity is in conflict in this exhibit, and therefore aroused some intellectual expressions, mainly between students and the guide. Here is an example of students-guide interaction centered the plasma sphere. Three students (S1-S3) explored the plasma sphere while the museum‘s guide joined them. Table 3 describes the event. In this event, student S2 turned to the guide with a question about the characteristics of the exhibit. The question that reflects an intellectual expression of curiosity could lead to a discussion about the scientific phenomena that were exhibited, such as conductivity, high and low voltages, grounding and electrocution. The question evoked from the students‘ prior knowledge about the dangerous aspects of touching electricity. It also might reflect his fear of touching the sphere. Nevertheless, the guide‘s answer was at a very superficial level, and reduced the conversation from an intellectual level to a technical one.

Table 3. Students-guide interaction related to the plasma sphere (Visit A, 29:40-30:40) Step

Action

1

S2 (to G, while S2 is touching the plasma sphere with no fear): Is it dangerous? G: What? S2: Is it dangerous? G: No. Actually, the electricity flows through your fingers (demonstrates with her fingers)

2

(S1 and S3 touch the sphere, S1-S3 screaming and laughing)

Zone of interaction Individual

Expression of curiosity Intellectual

Graphical representation

Picture

S1 S2 S3

S2

E S1

G

Collective

G

S3

G

Emotional S1 S2 S3 E S1

G

3

G (to S2): Do you think that we would put it here if it was dangerous?! (G leaves the exhibit)

Multiple

S3

G

Technical S1 S2 S3 E S1

G

G=Guide; E=Exhibit; S=Student

S2

G

S2 S3

Table 4. Students’ interactions related to the MRPV (Visit A, 06:48-07:26) Step

Action

1

(S1 is operating the exhibit while looking at the screen which shows the picture of S5) S2 (to S5): Look up! (S5 is looking up, searching what to look at)

2

3

Zone of interaction Multiple

Graphical representation

S2 S1 S3 S4 E S5*

S4: Where is the camera? (S1, S2, S3, S4 are looking up, searching for the camera that takes the picture that they see on the screen) S1 and S3: Here it is (pointing up at the camera)

Collective

(S2 is trying to operate the exhibit but S1 is pushing her hand and continuing to operate the exhibit)

Collective

*S5 unseen in the picture

Expression of curiosity Technical

Intellectual S1 S2 S3 S4 E

Technical S1 S2 S3 S4 E

Picture

Table 4. (Continued) Step

Action

4

S4 (to S5): Wave your hand! S1 (to S5): Move there (S6, who joined the group, and S1 are pointing at the direction) S1 (to S5): Stay there S2 (to S5): Look up (S2 is trying again to operate the exhibit. S6 leaves the exhibit) S1 (to S5): Wave your hand!

5

(S1, S2, S3, S4 and S7, who joined the group, laughing while they are looking at the picture of S5 on the screen)

E=Exhibit; S=Student

Zone of interaction Collective

Expression of curiosity Technical

Graphical representation

S6

S1 S2 S3 S4 E

S5*

Collective

Emotional S7 S1 S2 S3 S4 E

Picture

292

Yael Bamberger

Mini Remote Pilot-Less Vehicle (MRPV) Interaction The MRPV at the aviation hall films visitors' real-time activities while they are in the hall. The picture is seen on a screen next to the joysticks that control the camera. This exhibit encouraged the students to film their friends, and the need of collaboration for operating the exhibit causes interactions in shared zones. Here is an example of students‘ interactions centered the MRPV (more information about the exhibit appears in appendix C). A small group of students (S1-S4) operated the MRPV that filmed another student (S5) who was exploring the helicopter's rudders on the other side of the hall. Table 4 describes the event. The MRPV evoked interactions in the collective zone in several expressions of curiosity: technical, emotional and intellectual. The need to operate the exhibit by a group of students encouraged sharing the experience in the collective zone. It evoked discussions regarding the way it works, by understanding that a camera should be somewhere and emotional expressions as well.

DISCUSSION This study describes a method for analyzing social interactions in museums that takes into account the place in which they occur. Learning in museums is known as context-based. Falk and Dierking (2000) suggested a contextual model of learning to describe the museum experience, which is based on one‘s personal, socio-cultural and physical context. The framework of zones of interactions enables researchers to study interactions in their physical contexts, which, in the case of museums, are the exhibits. The method described here points to inter-connections between the two contexts: the social and the physical. These contexts refer to totally different elements, since the social context deals with people, and the physical context deals with objects. However, interactions in museums are actually the combination of the two. The method also describes the relationship of interactions to technical, emotional and intellectual forms of curiosity in social settings. Interactions in museums have been studied from the social perspective (Allen, 2002; Ash, 2003; Gilbert & Priest, 1997; Leinhardt & Knutson, 2004; Tunnicliffe, Lucas & Osborne, 1997), but types and aspects of curiosity have not yet been connected to the social setting. Curiosity can be a fertile context for collaborative learning that might be further studied. In the Individual zone of interaction, when only one student manipulates the exhibit, more intellectual (8) than emotional (2) expressions were found. However, in contrast to the technical expressions of curiosity, the emotional and intellectual expressions can be seen in this zone only with attendance of an adult. This limitation is a result of the fact that emotions and intellectual thoughts cannot be observed on an individual student who operates an exhibit. Moreover, when a student interacted with an adult in this zone, discussions were observed to be more intellectual than emotional. The Collective zone of interaction, in which two or more students share their experience regarding the exhibit, was the most common zone of interaction. This museum-setting certainly provides opportunities for collaborations, therefore evoking more emotional (17) than intellectual (4) expressions in the collective zone. This

Types of Interactions in Science Museum Class Visits

293

happened mainly without any interference from the teacher or the guide. The emotional experience is an important component of learning in museums (Hong & Song, 2006; Koran, Longino & Shafer, 1983; Pedretti, 2002) and influences on long term memory as well (Dierking & Falk, 1997). Exhibits that drew out emotional expressions of curiosity in the shared zones (collective and multiple) made a use of the visitors‘ body, like the plasma sphere and mirrors. This finding supports previous studies that have shown that exhibits that make use of the human body elicit students‘ engagement more than other hands-on exhibits (Allen, 2002; Bamberger & Tal, 2008a; Labeau, Gyamfi, Wizevich & Koster, 2001). The Multiple zone of interaction describes a situation in which two or more separate zones occur at the same time and both are centered on the same exhibit. In this zone, almost the same quantitiess of emotional and intellectual expressions were found, with and without adults. This could happen, for example, when the teacher talked to an individual student, and other students joined to listen. Exhibits that elicited intellectual expressions in the collective and multiple zones were mainly the plasma sphere, and the MRPV. These exhibits provided the need for peers to operate. Museums may use this finding to foster collaboration by designing exhibits that cannot be operated by an individual, and which require cooperation between visitors. During the two observed class visits, different patterns of teacher‘s involvement were found. Although two of the teachers were the class science teacher, one of them was much more involved in interactions than the other one. However, the teachers usually interacted with individual students, and avoided interacting with groups of students. Different patterns of teacher‘s role in fieldtrips to museums have been described in recent studies (Cox-Petersen et al., 2003; Tal & Steiner, 2006), which have shown different levels of engagement in the students‘ learning. The role of adults, including teachers and museum guides, in mediating knowledge and is an important component of the sociocultural theory (Vygotsky, 1978). Therefore, museum educators and science teachers should encourage and draw out students‘ group discussions, described here by the collective and the multiple zones. The recent call for museums to function as a place for both intellectual and social experiences (Braudburne, 2001; Pedretti, 2002, 2004) was the foundation of this research, along with the belief that interactions make a fruitful learning context that must be fostered (Barron, 2003). The methodology of examining social interactions in their physical context in museums presented here could be further studied, in the hope that its implementation will be adapted to improve learning through collaborating in science museums.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The research reported here was supported by the Israel Foundations Trustees grant. Any opinions expressed in this work are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the funders. I thank Clara Cahill for her careful proofreading and useful comments.

294

Yael Bamberger

REFERENCES Allen, S. (2002). Looking for learning in visitor talk: a methodological exploration. In: G. Leinhardt, K. Crowley, & K. Knutson (Eds.), Learning conversations in museums (pp. 259-303). NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Ash, D. (2003). Dialogic inquiry in life science conversations of family groups in a museum. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(2), 138-162. Ash, D. (2004). Reflective scientific sense-making dialogue in two languages: The science in the dialogue and the dialogue in the science. Science Education, 88(6), 855-884. Bamberger, Y. & Tal, T. (2007). Learning in a personal context: levels of choice in a freechoice learning environment in science and natural history museums. Science Education, 91(1), 75-95. Bamberger, Y. & Tal, T. (2008a). Multiple outcomes of class visits to natural history museums: the students‘ view. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17(3), 274-284. Bamberger, Y. & Tal, T. (2008b). An experience for the lifelong journey: the long term effect of a class visit to a science center. Visitor Studies, 11(2), 198-212. Bamberger, Y. & Tal, T. (2009). The learning environment of natural history museums: multiple ways to capture students' views. Learning Environments Research, 12(2). In press. Barron, B. (2003). When smart groups fail. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(3), 307-359. Bradburne, J. M. (2001). Charm and chairs: the future of museums in the 21st century. Journal of Museum Education, 26(3), 3-9. Ciolfi, L. & Bannon, L. J. (2002). Designing interactive museum exhibits: enhancing visitor curiosity through augmented artefacts. The Eleventh European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics, Catania, Italy, September. Cox-Petersen, A. M., Marsh, D. D., Kisiel, J. & Melber, L. M. (2003). Investigation of guided school tours, student learning, and science reform recommendations at a museum of natural history. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(2), 200-218. Csikszentmihalyi, M. & Hermanson, K. (1995). Intrinsic motivation in museum: what makes visitors want to learn. In: J. H. Falk & L. D. Dierking (Eds.), Public institutions for personal learning: Establishing a research agenda (pp. 67-77). Washington DC: American Association of Museums. Dierking, L. D. & Falk, J. H. (1997). School field trips: assessing their long-term impact. Curator, 40(3), 211–218 Falk, J. H. & Dierking, L. D. (1992). The museum experience. Washington, D.C.: Whalesback Books. Falk, J. H. & Dierking, L. D. (2000). Learning from museums: visitor experiences and the making of meaning. Walnut Creek, CA.: AltaMira Press. Falk, J. H., Dierking, L. D., Scott, C., Rennie, L. J. & Cohen Jones, M. (2006). Investigating the long-term impact of interactives on visitor learning: An exploratory study. Proceedings of the annual meeting of the National Association of Research in Science Teaching, San-Francisco, California. Gilbert, J. & Priest, M. (1997). Models and discourse: a primary school science class visit to a museum. Science Education, 81, 749-762.

Types of Interactions in Science Museum Class Visits

295

Hong, O. & Song, J. (2006). CoDiLE (Context diagram of learning experience): a case study of seventh-grade students in science centers. Proceedings of the annual meeting of the National Association of Research in Science Teaching, San-Francisco, California. Kendon, Adam. (1990). Conducting Interaction: Patterns of behavior in focused encounters. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. Koran, J. J. Jr., Longino, S. J. & Shafer, L. D. (1983). A framework for conceptualizing research in natural history museums and science centers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20(4), 325-339. Koran, J. J. Jr., Morrison, L., Lehman, J.R., Koran, M.L. & Gandara, L. (1984). Attention and curiosity in museums. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 21(4), 357-363. Lebeau, R.B., Gyamfi, P., Wizevich, K. & Koster, E.H. (2001). Supporting and documenting choice in free-choice science learning environments. In: J. H. Falk (Ed.), Free-choice science education, how we learn science outside of school. (pp. 133-148). NY: Teachers College Press. Leinhardt, G. & Knutson, K. (2004). Listening in on museum conversations. Lanham: AltaMira press. Pedretti, E. (2002). T. Kuhn meets T. Rex: critical conversations and new directions in science centers and science museums. Studies in Science Education, 37, 1-42. Pedretti, E. (2004). Perspectives on learning through research on critical issues-based science center exhibitions. Science Education, 88, S34-S47. Rennie, L. J., Feher, E., Dierking, L. D. & Falk, J. H. (2003). Toward an agenda for advancing research on science learning in out-of-school settings. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(2), 112-120. Roschelle, J. (1992). Learning by collaborating: convergent conceptual change. Journal of the learning Sciences, 2(3), 235-276 Rounds, J. (2004). Strategies for the curiosity-driven museum visitor. Curator, 47(4), 389412. Scheflen, A. E. & Ashcroft, N. (1976). Human Territories: how we behave in space-time. Prentice Hall: Englewood-Cliffs, NJ. Shepardson, D. P. & Britsch, S. J. (2006). Zones of interaction: Differential access to elementary science discourse. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43, 443-466 Stacy, E. (1999). Collaborative learning in an online environment. Journal of Distance Education, 14(2), 14-25. Tal, T. & Steiner, L. (2006). Patterns of teacher-museum staff relationships: school visits to the educational center of a science museum. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 6, 25-46. Tal, R.T., Bamberger, Y. & Morag, O. (2005). Guided school visits to natural history museums in Israel: Teachers' roles. Science Education, 89(6), 920-935. Tunnicliffe, S. D., Lucas, A. M. & Osborne, J. F. (1997). School visits to zoos and museums: a missed educational opportunity? International Journal of Science Education, 19(9), 1039-1056. Vigotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

APPENDIX A Significant events: class visit A Event

Duration

Place

Exhibit

Boys

Girls

1

04:09-04:41

Aviation hall

Bernoulli effect

2

05:09-05:44

Aviation hall

Pitching, yawing and rolling

+

+

3

05:49-06:14

Aviation hall

Bernoulli effect

+

+

4 5

06:31-06:48 06:48-07:26

Aviation hall Aviation hall

Operating a helicopter MRPV

+ +

+ +

6 7

07:28-07:49 07:49-08:18

Aviation hall Aviation hall

MRPV Operating a helicopter

+

8 9

08:41-08:56 09:01-09:29

Aviation hall Aviation hall

Floating ball Floating ball

+

+ +

10

09:31-10:06

Aviation hall

Hot-air balloon

+

+

11

10:29-10:52

Aviation hall

MRPV

+

12

11:11-11:53

Aviation hall

MRPV

+

+

13 14

12:41-13:03 21:08-21:30

Aviation hall Dark hall

Hot-air balloon A projected slide - no screen

+

+ +

Teacher (T1)

Guide

Zone of interaction Collective

+

Multiple

+

Individual Collective Collective Collective

+

Collective Individual Collective Individual Collective

+

+

+

Multiple Collective Multiple Collective Individual Collective Individual Individual Individual Multiple

Expression of curiosity Technical Emotional Technical Emotional Technical Emotional Technical Intellectual Emotional Technical Technical Technical Technical Technical Emotional Technical Technical Emotional Intellectual Intellectual Technical Intellectual Technical Intellectual

Appendix A (Continued) Event

Duration

Place

Exhibit

Boys

Girls

15

21:40-21:42

Dark hall

Plasma sphere

+

16

22:02-23:00

Dark hall

Plasma sphere

+

+

17 18

23:30-23:40 25:32-26:15

Dark hall Dark hall

Semi-pervious mirror Plasma sphere

+

+ +

19 20

26:32-26:44 27:55-28:30

Dark hall Dark hall

Semi-pervious mirror Semi-pervious mirror

+

+ +

21

29:40-30:40

Dark hall

Plasma sphere

+

+

22

31:34-31:39

Dark hall

Hologram

Teacher (T1)

Guide

+

+

+

+

Zone of interaction Collective Collective Multiple Collective Collective Multiple Collective Collective Multiple Individual Multiple Collective Individual

Expression of curiosity Emotional Technical Technical Intellectual Emotional Technical Technical Emotional Technical Intellectual Emotional Technical Technical

APPENDIX B Significant events: class visit B Event

Duration

Place

Exhibit

Boys

1 2

07:37-07:42 08:32-08:41

'Mirror, horror' hall 'Mirror, horror' hall

Size and distance Moving image

+ +

3

08-51-09:22

'Mirror, horror' hall

Two vertical mirrors

+

4 5

10:00-10:19 12:01-12:08

'Mirror, horror' hall 'Mirror, horror' hall

Convex and concave mirrors Convex and concave mirrors

+

Girls

+ +

Teacher (T2)

+

Guide

Zone of interaction

+

Individual Individual Collective Individual Collective Collective Collective

+

Expression of curiosity Technical Technical Emotional Technical Emotional Emotional

Appendix B (Continued) Event

Duration

Place

Exhibit

Boys

Girls

6 7 8 9 10

12:06-12:16 12:23-12:42 13:35-13:56 14:08-14:18 24:57-25:07

'Mirror, horror' hall 'Mirror, horror' hall 'Mirror, horror' hall 'Mirror, horror' hall Dark hall

Two parallel mirrors Perspective picture Two parallel mirrors Two parallel mirrors Plasma sphere

+ +

+

+ + + + +

11 12

25:28-25:40 27:07-28:23

Dark hall Dark hall

The blue color of the sky Plasma sphere

+ +

+ +

Individual Collective

13 14

28:56-29:19 30:00-30:30

Dark hall Dark hall

Air balls in different densities Phosphorescent wall

+ +

+ +

Individual Collective

15 16

30:32-31:29 31:35-32:42

Dark hall Dark hall

Convex and concave lenses Convex and concave lenses

+

+ +

17

33:16-34:07

Dark hall

Mask

+

18

37:07-37:55

Dark hall

Plasma sphere

+

19

38:26-39:54

Dark hall

Plasma sphere

20

39:54-40:24

Dark hall

Plasma sphere

21

50:13-51:12

Aviation hall

Bernoulli effect

22

51:31-51:57

Aviation hall

Floating ball

23

52:45-53:07

Aviation hall

Leading edge of the wing

+

Teacher (T2) +

+ + +

+

+

+ T3

+

+ T3

+

+

Individual Multiple Individual Individual Multiple

Individual Individual

+

Individual

+

Individual Collective Multiple Collective Multiple

+

+

Zone of interaction

+ +

+

+ +

Guide

Individual Individual Collective Individual

Expression of curiosity Technical Technical Technical Intellectual Intellectual Technical Technical Technical Emotional Intellectual Technical Technical Emotional Intellectual Intellectual Technical Emotional Emotional Technical Technical Emotional Intellectual Technical Emotional Technical Intellectual Technical Emotional Intellectual

24 25

53:07-53:14 54:15-54:54

Aviation hall Aviation hall

Leading edge of the wing Bernoulli effect

+

26

01:16:2901:16:53 01:20:2301:20:36

Leonardo exhibition

Conversion of motion

+

passageway

Melody wheel

27

+

+ T3

+

Individual

Technical Intellectual Emotional Intellectual

+

Individual

Technical

+

+

Individual Individual

APPENDIX C Exhibits‘ description Exhibit A projected slide – no screen

Bernoulli effect

Conversion of motion Convex and concave lenses Convex and concave mirrors Floating ball

Hot-air balloon Leading edge of the wing

Description A picture projected on a wheel. The visitor turns the wheel by means of a handle, as fast as he can. Each spoke of the wheel is a narrow screen for the projected picture. The fast rotation of the wheel causes a continuous stimulation of the retina of the eye and an impression of the whole picture is created. Two spheres are located on an orbit. The visitor activates the blower, sends a stream of air in between the spheres and tries to make them touch. Since the pressure between the spheres decreases as compared to that in the ambient air, they 'push' towards one another. Device to convert linear motion to rotary motion. The visitor moves a linear handle that operate a cog-wheel A table with parallel rays and set of concave and convex lenses. The visitor places the lenses in the rays and sees the refraction of light. Contains three mirrors on the wall: a concave, a convex and a combined mirror. The visitor stands in front of the mirrors and sees his reflected images A ball that tends to stay at the center of an air stream, where, according to Bernoulli's law, the pressure is the lowest. The visitor can try to pull the floating ball out of the air stream, tilt the air stream slowly and see that the ball is still floating. Hot air ballon floats in the air in the center of the room. Four objects: sphere, cylinder, conus up and conus down are located in air pipes. The visitor can operate the blowers and see which object rises faster and higher and hence, has a better aerodynamic structure.

Appendix C (Continued) Exhibit Mask MRPV

Phosphorescent wall Pitching, yawing and rolling Plasma sphere

Semi-pervious mirror

Two parallel mirrors Two vertical mirrors

Description A concave mask of a clown hangs in the corner of the room. The visitor's brain interprets the image on the basis of previous knowledge and perceives the exhibit as an ordinary mask. Mini Remote Pilot-less Vehicle (MRPV) that films visitors' real-time activities while they are in the hall. The picture is seen on a screen next to the joysticks that control the camera. The visitor controls the camera with the joysticks and films other visitors in the hall. A wall which is coated with phosphorescent material. This material absorbs light and emits it afterwards. The visitor can see his shadow on the wall few seconds after the flash turns off.. An aircraft in an air pipe. By moving handles, the visitor can pitch, yaw and roll the aircraft. This exhibit contains a small amount of gas at low pressure which is ionized by a high voltage applied to the small bar at the bottom of the sphere. The ionized gas particles move like jet streams in the symmetrical electric field created by the high voltage. When the visitor slides his fingers along the sphere, the symmetry of the electric field is distorted and the ion streams move in trajectories outlined by the distorted electric field. The visitor can get a sense of electrical conductivity by touching the sphere or by touching another visitor who touches the sphere. A glass plant that is not fully transparent. As long as the backside of the plate is dark, it acts as a mirror reflecting the visitor's image. When the lever is pulled, the intensity of the light behind the plate is higher than that in the front of it, the light quantity passing the plate and penetraiting the visitor's eye is greater than the quantity striking the eye by reflection. The image created by the reflected light is blurred and the visitor's figure in the mirror disappears, while the skeleton behind the plate is seen. Contains two parallel mirror walls, two meter height. The visitor walks between the mirrors and see her images reflected continually. Contains two vertical mirror walls, from the flour, two meter height. The visitor can stand in front of the mirrors and see her reflected images.

In: Collaborative Learning: Methodology, Types… Editors: E. Luzzatto, G. DiMarco, pp. 301-316

ISBN: 978-1-60876-076-3 © 2010 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Chapter 11

SUPPORTING COLLABORATIVE LEARNING BY USING WEB 2.0 TOOLS Qiyun Wang1* and Huay Lit Woo1 1

Learning Sciences and Technologies Academic Group, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, 1 Nanyang Walk, Singapore 637616

ABSTRACT The ability to collaborate is becoming more and more important in today‘s world in which tasks are getting more and more interdisciplinary and complicated to accomplish. It is therefore essential to prepare students on collaborative tasks while they are in schools so that they can become competent team workers when they enter the workforce. This chapter presents a theoretical foundation of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) and uses related examples to illustrate how various web 2.0 tools can be used to support collaborative learning. There are three parts in the theoretical foundation: first, the two important pillars of CSCL (individual accountability and positive interdependence); second, the three levels of collaboration (coordination, cooperation and reflective communication) and last, the social constructivist learning theory. The web 2.0 tools presented in this chapter include Weblog, Wiki, Google Docs, Yahoo group, and Facebook. The affordances of these tools for collaborative learning together with examples of using the tools to support teachers and students in collaborative learning processes are also described.

INTRODUCTION Collaboration is an essential competency in the current knowledge society. In the new information age, work becomes more knowledge-based, interdisciplinary and complicated. It is difficult for an individual to complete a sophisticated task without the help of others. The *

Corresponding Authors: Tel: +65 6790 3267 Fax: +65 6896 8038, Email: [email protected], [email protected]

302

Qiyun Wang and Huay Lit Woo

ability to work collaboratively hence becomes highly valued in the present workplace (Barron, 2000). Collaborative learning has the promise of active construction of knowledge, enhanced problem articulation and promotion for social interaction (cf. Haythornthwaite, 2006). It has also demonstrated better learning outcomes than individual work in numerous studies (e.g. Barron, 2000; Lipponen, Hakkarainen, & Paavola, 2004; Neo, 2003). With these advantages, it is therefore crucial to prepare students to work collaboratively while they are in schools. This chapter presents the concept, the dimensions of collaboration called pillars, the levels of collaboration and critical issues of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL). This chapter also provides a description of how web 2.0 tools can support collaborative learning. The web 2.0 tools presented in this chapter include Weblog, Wiki, Google Docs, Yahoo group and Facebook.

COLLABORATIVE LEARNING CSCL is an emerging field of research that focuses on how collaborative learning using technology can enhance peer interaction and group collaboration. It also explains how technology-based collaboration can help facilitate the sharing and distributing of knowledge among community members (Lipponen, Hakkarainen, & Paavola, 2004).

Pillars of Collaboration CSCL consists of two pillars of collaboration: Individual Accountability and Positive Interdependence. Individual Accountability is the measurement of the contribution of each member who has helped to achieve the group‘s overall goals (Johnson, Johnson, & Holubec, 1998). Ideally, each individual is supposed to play a certain role in a group and make equal or fair contributions to the entire group. The individual is made to be accountable for his or her own share of the work. Research suggests that individual accountability becomes prominent only when the performance of individual is assessed and the benefits are returned to the group. To measure individual accountability, one of the possible ways is to use peer evaluation (Vuorinen, Tarkka, & Meretoja, 2000). Positive interdependence refers to how tightly group members can depend on each other to accomplish a task in a collaborative learning environment. Members‘ interdependence is a determining factor to the success of the group. In a positively interdependent learning environment, one cannot succeed unless all members succeed; they either sink or swim together (Johnson, Johnson, & Holubec, 1998). Research suggests that positive interdependence can be achieved by fostering good working relationship among group members and this is usually done through off-task environments rather than during on-task activities (Kreijns & Kirschner, 2004; Rovai, 2001). Learning, by itself, is a highly interactive and dynamic process let alone learning in a collaborative manner. To make collaborative learning effective, one has to monitor closely how students learn in the process and identify immediately any pitfall that could lead to potential failures. These pitfalls have to be properly diagnosed and corrected readily. To do this, a teacher has to have a means of keeping track of the students‘ activities and know

Supporting Collaborative Learning by Using Web 2.0 Tools

303

exactly who has contributed and how much he/she has contributed. Very often, teachers tend to regard work produced by a group as a net result of the group‘s concerted effort and fail to award impartially according to individual‘s contribution. Such practice will not only encourage students to become ―freeloaders‖ but also make those who have contributed feel like being ―exploited‖ (Paswan & Gollakota, 2004). Therefore, the need to monitor what students do in the collaborative process and assess their individual performance and contribution to the group will become very crucial to the effectiveness of a learning process. Many ICT tools can be used to help monitor the collaborative learning processes. For instance, the use of Weblogs which enable students to externalize their thoughts in an ongoing manner has a tracking mechanism to ―timestamp‖ the posts published on the Web in a reverse chronological order. Such mechanism allows the teacher to monitor the student‘s learning progress over a period of time (Fiedler, 2003). Another useful tool for a similar purpose is to ask students to maintain e-portfolios. An e-portfolio is a collection of a student‘s work and learning artifacts over a certain period of time. Its main objective is to evaluate long-term performance (Van Aalst & Chan, 2007).

Levels of Collaboration Collaboration can happen at three levels: coordination, cooperation and reflective communication (Engeström, 1992). At the level of coordination, group members concentrate on their own tasks, roles and actions. Placing students in a group and telling them to work together does not guarantee the happening of collaboration (Johnson & Johnson, 1994). It is critical that the work is sufficiently coordinated among group members so that they can work towards the same direction and make fair contribution to make the group work successful. Otherwise, members could indulge in their own preferences and produce disconnected pieces of work, which are difficult to integrate by simple means. A good number of ICT tools can be used at this level. For example, students may use phones, emails, or short messages to communicate and coordinate with one another. They can also use web-based supporting tools such as bulletin board, shared workspace or workbook to coordinate their activities (cf. Barron, 2000). At the level of cooperation, group members focus on a shared problem, trying to find mutually acceptable ways to conceptualize and solve a problem. In this process, the group members often need ICT tools to help them work effectively. For instance, they may need to share resources like word documents or web sites, and hence they need an online storage space such as ―FreeDrive‖ (http://www.freedrive.com/ ) or a shared folder that can provide a common access to all group members to its stored contents. Sometimes group members may need to put together various ideas during a brainstorming session in an easy to understand manner, for this they could use a concept mapping tool like ―Cmap‖ (http://cmap.ihmc.us/conceptmap.html ). Alternatively, for group members who need a discussion that is not restricted by space and time, they may use an Asynchronous Online Discussion (AOD) forum to share ideas and negotiate for solutions. At the level of reflective communication, group members focus on re-conceptualizing their understanding in relation to their shared objects and activities (Lipponen, Hakkarainen, & Paavola, 2004). They reflect on their own and other members‘ contributions to the shared problem, what they have learned in the learning process, how they work collaboratively and

304

Qiyun Wang and Huay Lit Woo

how they could improve further the learning process. Group members may use asynchronous or synchronous tools to reflect or communicate.

SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIVIST LEARNING THEORY Effective instructional strategies must be based on sound learning theories (Bednar, Cunningham, Duff, & Perry, 1995). CSCL is an emerging instructional strategy which is undergird by constructivist learning theories. The basic belief of constructivism is that knowledge is actively constructed by learners rather than transmitted from the teacher. In other words, learners are active knowledge constructors rather than passive receivers of information. Constructivism can be further divided into cognitive constructivism and social constructivism. They differ by means of learning paradigm (Hirumi, 2002; Liaw, 2004). Cognitive constructivists believe that learners construct knowledge individually based on their prior experience and the new information they receive. Knowledge is the result of accurate internalization and reconstruction of external reality. Social constructivists, on the other hand, argue that knowledge is the outcome of collaborative construction in a socialcultural context mediated by discourse (Bielaczyc & Collins, 1999). In other words, learning is fostered through interactive processes of information sharing, negotiation, and discussion. Social interaction and communication hence play an important role in the process of knowledge co-construction. CSCL can be designed based on either cognitive or social constructivist learning theory or both. As cognitive constructivists attempt to make learning more relevant, build on student prior knowledge, post contradiction, and address misconceptions (Brooks, 1990), the design of CSCL based on cognitive constructivist learning theory can put students in an authentic learning setting wherein a wealth of learning resources are available to offer students significant opportunities to explore personal interests and expand on their prior experiences. Comparatively, social constructivists emphasize human dialogue, interaction, negotiation and collaboration and so the design of CSCL based on social constructivist learning theory could provide a safe and friendly community or environment in which students are willing to communicate with others so that knowledge can be co-constructed meaningfully. Based on the constructivist learning theories, students are active knowledge constructors, as such; teachers are no longer a knowledge transmitter but rather facilitators and sometimes, co-learners and co-participants. Bonk and Kim (1998) list down the following activities a teacher can carry out in a constructivist learning environment:     

modeling to illustrate performance standards and verbalize invisible processes; coaching to observe and supervise students; scaffolding to support what students cannot do and gradually remove the support as they gain more competence; questioning to request a verbal response from learners; encouraging student articulation of their reasoning and problem-solving processes.

In addition, the teacher also needs to provide cognitive task structuring, manage instruction, and use direct instruction to provide further information.

Supporting Collaborative Learning by Using Web 2.0 Tools

305

WEB 2.0 TOOLS THAT SUPPORT CSCL Tools that can be used to support CSCL must fulfill the need to provide affordances that are conducive to collaborative learning. They must have facilities to engage students in group activities. Most web 2.0 tools possess the above requirements and are useful for learning. Web 2.0 is the second-generation of web-based tools that enhance sharing, interaction and collaboration among its users. The first-generation of web technologies (or called web 1.0) is primarily meant to deliver information from the web server to users. It mainly supports oneway information delivery only. The web 2.0 technology, however, enables two-way communication. The users are not only information consumers, but also information contributors. They can create and upload new information to the web server. Also, they can modify information published. Web 2.0 web pages such as iGoogle are more likely to be multimedia programs, in which users can create new tabs, add new objects, or drag-and-drop objects to any position on a web page. The advent of web 2.0 technology has made many web-based applications more interactive than before. Weblog, Wiki, Google Docs, Yahoo groups, and Facebook are representative examples of Web 2.0 tools. The subsequent sections present how these web 2.0 tools can be effectively used to support collaborative learning.

Weblog A Weblog is a platform in cyberspace to allow one to publish diaries or journals. In education, Weblogs can be used by students to write reflections or share resources with fellow students. It can also be used by teachers to broadcast course announcements, display courses resources or collect feedback from students (Wang & Woo, 2008a). Therefore, Weblogs can provide two types of interaction, the student-to-student and teacher-to-student interactions. Sometimes it is necessary to create a learning environment that involves both types of interaction depending on the needs of leaning. For example, in a guided collaborative learning environment in which students work in groups to accomplish tasks and at the same time receive constant guidance from the teacher in the form of scaffolding. This would require a common working space in which both the teacher and students can interact with one another. This is made possible by using Weblogs in eBlogger (http://www.blogger.com). The group of students can collectively own an eBlogger blog space but they must authorize the teacher as an additional author of their blogs so that both the teacher and students can co-publish the blogs and communicate freely through the use of the ―comment‖ function in the blog. Below uses a real classroom example to illustrate how student-student-teacher interaction could take place in an environment using Weblog as the interactive tool.

A Classroom Example of Using Weblog A class of student teachers from an elective course of Multimedia Instructional Design took part in activities which use eBlogger as a collaborative tool. The student teachers were

306

Qiyun Wang and Huay Lit Woo

second year university students who were pursuing a Diploma in Education in National Institute of Education (NIE) of Singapore (Wang & Woo, 2008b). Two strategies were deployed to provide the collaborative learning, they were: group collaboration and whole class sharing. First, for group collaboration, the class was divided into groups of two or three students where each group was to work on a final project that aimed at developing a multimedia-based learning package for use in a primary school setting. During the project development stage, the group members used the Weblog to share, negotiate and discuss design ideas with fellow members as well as with the tutor. It is noted that student teachers benefit from two affordances provided by the Weblog. First, the Weblog affords group members the opportunity to share resources and ideas conveniently and a means to communicate easily with each other. Second, it affords the tutor to track the developmental progress of the group and the members‘ individual contributions. In other words, a Weblog allows collaboration to take place within a conducive environment and a permanent record of the collaboration process. Figure 1 shows a screen shot of the group‘s Weblog.

Figure 1. A group‘s Weblog for the final project

Next, for class sharing, the purpose is to extend the interaction from groups to the whole class. This is done by creating a blog-based ―bulletin board‖ for members of the entire class to exchange ideas, ask questions and seek help from each other. Each group was asked to put up their group‘s Weblog URL in this shared space so that other members of the class could find out more about what their peers were doing and how they were progressing. The ability to obtain up-to-date information helps the class to keep in pace with each other and motivate any straggler to catch up with the rest. The groups were also required to post their final project proposal to the class shared corner and to invite others for comments and opinions. The feedback gathered could help them improve on the quality of their projects and detect

Supporting Collaborative Learning by Using Web 2.0 Tools

307

any conceptual problems which otherwise were difficult to be noted for an individual. Student teachers were happy with using Weblog for the group collaboration and whole class sharing, reporting that the Weblog activities helped and facilitated the completion of their final projects. Figure 2 below shows how each group used the class shared corner to show their project proposal and collect feedback from the others.

Wiki A Wiki is a web page or a collection of web pages designed to enable anyone who has editing rights to modify or co-write a piece of document in an online environment. The Wiki used in this chapter is PbWiki (http://pbwiki.com ). Unlike the Weblog whose ownership belongs to the author, the Wiki believes that ―the whole is more than the sum of the parts‖ and as such, it allows all authorized members to co-own the Wiki site. A Wiki has another advantage; it allows volunteering readers to make contribution to the content by requesting for co-authorship. A famous Wiki site which makes use of such mechanism to develop a knowledge base is the Wikipedia (http://www.wikipedia.org). Wikipedia is a product of many people‘s contribution to specific areas. What makes Wikipedia very popular is its ability to attract experts of all fields to come together to co-write a certain topic. Because of this, Wikipedia is able to present a topic or subject from different perspectives which is why it is suffixed with the word ―pedia‖ - a short form of the term ―encyclopedia‖.

Figure 2. Use Weblog to show project proposals and collect feedback

Like any other tools, a Wiki is also limited by its constraints. One of these constraints is that it cannot automatically screen away untrue or unreliable contributions. To get around with this, human intervention is often required. Fortunately, in education, a Wiki is normally incorporated in a closed learning environment with a teacher or tutor as a moderator. This is because in education, accessing to the right information is as crucial as understanding the

308

Qiyun Wang and Huay Lit Woo

information. Hence, learning is not entirely unguided but always assisted by the scaffolding of a teacher or tutor. This reduces the possibility of learning improper information.

A Classroom Example of Using Wiki Presented below is an example of how the Wiki technology was applied to facilitate group collaborative activities. The Wiki activities described here were attended by a class of post-graduate student teachers doing a course on ―Designing effective learning environment‖. As part of the course requirements, the student teachers were formed into groups of four. The groups were instructed to work collaboratively to see how they could modify and improve on an existing set of rubrics to make it suitable for assessing learning environments. The existing rubrics consisted of four criterion categories: usability, content, educational value and vividness. The rubrics were originally designed for assessing the quality of an educational website, not for a learning environment. So group members had to put on their thinking caps to find ways to improve the rubrics using their understanding of what constitute a good ICTbased learning environment. Figure 3 shows a partial screen shot of a group‘s members interactivity recorded by the Wiki page. It records 23 revisions done over a 4-day period. The Wiki also identifies the contributors and shows the content which the contributors had modified. Figure 4 shows the changes made by two of the group members on the same day. To extend the interactivity among the learners, the student teachers were also required to visit other group‘s Wikis and provide comments when necessary.

Figure 3. The history page of a group‘s Wiki

Supporting Collaborative Learning by Using Web 2.0 Tools

309

Figure 4. Changes made by two group members shown on the Wiki page

A Wiki is not without pitfalls. This is because pedagogically, a Wiki can provide a useful means for collaborative work to take place. But technically, a Wiki cannot provide synchronous interaction within the same time frame. This means that a Wiki can only allow one person at a time to do the editing, any other members trying to co-edit simultaneously will be denied of the rights for their contribution. In other words, all co-editors of the same content will have to take turn to write and the turn-taking process is based on the rule of ―first-come-first-serve‖. This implies that a Wiki will need the collaboration to take place somewhat linearly, but nonetheless, it gives the co-authors longer time for reflection and lesser chance to be impulsive in their writing. This suggests that perhaps Wiki is a better tool for reflective learning when pace of learning is not an issue but quality of work is more crucial.

GOOGLE DOCS Google Docs is another web-based tool that works similarly with a Wiki. Its address is http://docs.google.com/. But unlike the Wikis which limit the editing process to ―one-at-atime‖, a Google Docs can allow several members to co-edit the same document simultaneously. This is particularly useful for activities that require students‘ input to be collected instantly.

A Classroom Example of Using Google Docs Here is an example of how Google Docs can be used in a class to collect students‘ inputs in real time. In this class, the 24 year-one university student teachers in NIE were tasked to learn eight pedagogical approaches that can be used to integrate ICT into teaching and learning. It is almost impossible to achieve such task by individual effort. Hence group effort

310

Qiyun Wang and Huay Lit Woo

and a proper tool to facilitate the group work were needed. To do this, the student teachers were divided into eight groups of three where each group was given only one approach to discuss and learn. Group members could use Internet search to help gather information and then collectively and collaboratively they had to provide findings in terms of the following: the focus of the approach, the theories behind the approach, the characteristics of the approach, the ways the approach is applied in schools and examples to demonstrate how the approach is applied. The essence of the activity was to learn by way of ―Distributed Cognition‖ where the learning task is distributed among many learners and the findings from each learner are later shared among the learners (Bell & Winn, 2000). The aim is to learn efficiently by maximizing resources. The tool to facilitate the group activity is Google Docs. To use the tool, the tutor had to prepare beforehand a word document table that formed a two-dimensional matrix with the rows containing the pedagogical approaches and the columns containing the findings (see Figure 5). This table was copied to the Google Docs page for all class members to access. Each class member was issued editor rights prior to the activity.

Figure 5. A Google Doc file for collaborative editing

During the lesson, each group of student teachers logged in to the Google Docs and opened the table file. Each group then researched on the approach through discussion and Internet search. They then fill in their findings on the table. The table entry can be done at any time simultaneously. At the end of the activity, the table was filled and he tutor projected the table to the whole class. This provides two prongs of learning: first, the tutor uses the projection to point out possible mistakes and areas of concern; second, the student teachers

Supporting Collaborative Learning by Using Web 2.0 Tools

311

can continue to make amendment to their findings and view their peers‘ findings from other groups. Figure 5 shows a screen shot of the Google Docs completed by the class. Besides allowing users to co-edit a Google Docs document, a Google Docs shares almost similar properties as the PbWiki. Therefore, a Google Docs is more suitable for activities that require the students‘ input immediately whereas a PbWiki is good for activities that require more time for thinking and reflection.

Yahoo Groups A Yahoo group is a congregation of people of common interests to perform activities in a common cyberspace such as sharing of ideas, photos and files. It also provides functions like group announcement and discussion forum. For example, when one member wants to send a message to all members, he/she needs only to post the message to the specific Yahoo group he/she belongs to; and the message will automatically be forwarded either via emails or message posts to all the members. Recipients of the message can reply by the same means, either email or message post. Going by the features of what a Yahoo group can afford, a Yahoo group can also be used to support collaborative learning effectively. One main difference between a Yahoo group and the other two co-editing tools, the PbWiki and Google Docs, is that a Yahoo group does not support co-editing of a document but rather it allows only uploading and downloading of files and other documents. In other words, it supports only document repository. Therefore, to fully utilize Yahoo group affordances, the activity must be designed on the basis of sharing and a provision for discussion in order to learn collaboratively.

A Classroom Example of Using a Yahoo Group Here is an example of how a Yahoo Group was created to facilitate a group of 24 preservice student teachers in NIE who were doing their service learning project for an autism center in Singapore. This project lasted for a year. The aim of the project is to have the student teachers learn what service learning is all about through taking part in community works. Such a project requires good planning and hence they need to have many meetings. Student teachers found arranging a common time and place for the meetings were difficult and the meetings were often not productive because members usually complained that they had other commitments and the meetings were usually ended abruptly. To resolve this problem, the student teachers created a Yahoo group in the Internet to allow all members to interact with each other without having to worry about logistic and time schedule issues. They even invited the group supervisor to join the group as a member so that they could receive just-in-time guidance. Their interactions include posting suggestions, taking part in discussion forums to brainstorm for ideas and using online voting function to make decision. In the whole process, members altogether posted 97 messages, uploaded 12 files, 1 folder, 1 photo album with 10 photos inside, 1 link and initiated 2 sessions of polling. Just in the first two months, they already posted 69 (=71%) messages. These data show that the members

312

Qiyun Wang and Huay Lit Woo

indeed used the Yahoo group quite extensively to get their tasks done. Figure 6 shows a screen capture of the messages posted in the Yahoo group.

Figure 6. A Yahoo Group for project work

Facebook Facebook is a social networking platform through which users can keep in touch with old friends, make new friends, share resources such as photos, videos, news and create group pages to update others on their latest happenings. Compared with the rest of the tools discussed above, Facebook works in an open environment with the intention to reach out to as many people as possible. So an invited friend in a Facebook may bring along his/her own circle of friends which is called ―friends of friends‖. So a Facebook can be easily populated by this mechanism. Facebook works by first requiring a potential subscriber to apply for a personal account. The account holder is then free to publish any information on his/her own Facebook. He/she then invite others to view his/her Facebook by adding the invitees as ―friends‖. Once becomes friends, the information published by the inviter will be able to be viewed by all the friends as well as the ―friends of friends‖. This is one powerful way that Facebook can reach out to a large body of users. Facebook can help to establish and maintain immediacy among students and between the students and the teacher. Here immediacy refers to the psychological closeness between two partners. Compared to a face-to-face classroom, interaction in an online learning environment normally lacks the social cues such as gesture, eye contact, and other emotional expressions. The lacking of these cues can potentially pose challenges to forming rapport and building good relationship. Facebook, being a social networking tool, provides an alternative way to increase social cues. For instance, Facebook allows users to upload photos and videos and

Supporting Collaborative Learning by Using Web 2.0 Tools

313

invite viewers to share their views. The process is equivalent to asking for opinion in a faceto-face meeting. Facebook also affords users to record a video through a webcam and upload the video immediately to a Facebook page. The instant capturing of video images is useful for education when just-in-time information is crucial in the learning process. One unique feature of Facebook is for individual to self-disclose his/her life style and the state of doing called ―profile‖ in Facebook. Such self-disclosure when administered properly can act as a motivator to ―lure‖ students into Facebook to sustain the interactivity within the Facebook community. This is especially so if the self-disclosure involves the teacher. Research finds that a teacher‘s self-disclosure can help create positive relationship between the teacher and the students. This positive relationship will in turn help to maintain supportive class climate. Similarly the self-disclosure of students in Facebook may also help students to become close friends or help group members to know each other better which translate into better team bonding and hence better group output.

Figure 7. A screen shot of a Facebook group for a Master course

Other features in a Facebook include using Wall to update friends on one‘s own happenings. Items put on one‘s wall will not be broadcast outward so it retains the privacy to

314

Qiyun Wang and Huay Lit Woo

only close friends. On the other hand, if the same item is to be sent using Notes, it will be broadcast to all friends and the item will appear in the friend‘s Facebook home page – which is the first page that each Facebook will see upon logging in. Because of this provision for choice of recipient, Facebook can be used to address a selected group of students depending on the teacher‘s choice. Another very useful function in Facebook is Group. Group allows the owner to form a special group with a specific purpose such as a focus group or a project group in a school setting. Members in the Group can take part in a discussion forum meant only exclusively for the group members. The Group also provides a function for sending out announcement to inform others about a forthcoming event. Therefore, the Group function is very suitable for close environment interaction.

A Classroom Example of Using a Facebook Here is an example of how a Facebook group was used to support a group of Master degree students in an elective course on designing e-learning tools for teaching and training. Five students were involved in the course. The students meet once a week and the course lasted for 13 weeks. A Facebook group MID822_Jan09 was created to facilitate the group collaborative learning. Two discussion forums were created within the group page. See Figure 7. Participants use the discussion forum to share ideas and obtain feedback on their assignments, course materials and other issues they face during the course of study. The tutor used the Event function to make announcement for every session and also the instruction for their class activities. The instruction also includes all necessary learning materials like photos, videos and links. Students used the ―Share‖ function located inside the Event page to make comment with regard to the learning materials and solicit reply from other group members. As an illustration, the Group was used as a platform to launch elearning activities for the fourth week because the fourth face-to-face session was cancelled due to a public holiday. Therefore, the missed session was replaced by a week of elearning activities. The elearning activities basically consisted of reading tasks and group learning. Students first read a few articles given by the tutor and then posted a summary together with a reflection on what they had read on the Wall inside the Event page. They then wrote comments, critiqued their friends‘ work and replied to queries if need be. The purpose of the activity was to get students learn with the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) (Slavin, 1997) so as to maximize their learning potential with the help of peers.

CONCLUSION The ability to collaborate in a learning process has become an essential competency for people in the new information age and knowledge society. People must learn and know how to work with others so that they can together solve complicated and authentic problems productively. However, simply by putting people together cannot guarantee desirable output and work harmony. The environment must be conducive for group interaction and the communication means must be convenient. Certain internet tools and strategies are useful in this aspect and are known to have facilitated collaborative learning well.

Supporting Collaborative Learning by Using Web 2.0 Tools

315

The web 2.0 tools introduced in this chapter, that is, Weblog, Wiki, Google Docs, Yahoo Groups, and Facebook are derived from emerging technologies that have attracted great attention in recent years. The strengths of these tools are that they support two-way communication, facilitate interaction and most importantly, they promote authorship autonomy and accountability. These are great ingredients for making collaborative learning a success (Wang, 2009). Besides the theoretical foundation discussed in the chapter, the literature also elaborates the affordances of the tools and provides examples to show how they have been used in real situations. In all, although web 2.0 tools offer great promise to support collaborative learning, the true success of their usage lie on the sound pedagogies that were behind the design of the activities, hence, the tool alone cannot make wonders but the designers and the users certainly can make a difference.

REFERENCES Barron, B. (2000). Achieving coordination in collaborative problem-solving groups. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(4), 403-436. Bednar, A., Cunningham, D. J., Duffy, T. & Perry, D. (1995). Theory in practice: How do we link? In G. Anglin (Ed.), Instructional technology: Past, present, and future (2nd ed., pp. 100-112). Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited. Bell, P. & Winn, W. (2000). Distributed cognitions, by nature and by design. In D.H. Jonassen, & S. M. Land (Eds), Theoretical foundations of learning environments (pp. 123-145). NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Bielaczyc, C. & Collins, A. (1999). Learning communities in classrooms: A reconceptualization of educational practice. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and model: Vol. II. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Lawrence Associates. Bonk, C. J. & Kim, K. A. (1998). Extending sociocultural theory to adult learning. In M. C. Smith and T. Pourchot (Eds.), Adult learning and development: Perspectives from educational psychology (pp. 67-88). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Brooks, J. (1990). Teachers and students: Constructivists forging new connections. Educational Leadership, 47(5), 68-71. Engeström, Y. (1992). Interactive expertise: Studies in distributed working intelligence (Research bulletin 83). Helsinki, Finland: University of Helsinki, Department of education. Fiedler, S. (2003). Personal webpublishing as a refective conversational tool for selforganized learning. In T. Burg (Ed.), BlogTalks (pp. 190-216). Vienna, Austria. Haythornthwaite, C. (2006). Facilitating collaboration in online learning. JALN, 10(1), 7-24. Hirumi, A. (2002). Student-centered, technology-rich learning environments (SCenTRLE): Operatonalizing constructivist approaches to teaching and learning. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 10(4), 497-537. Johnson, D. & Johnson, R. (1994). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning (4th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Johnson, D., Johnson, R. & Holubec, E. (1998). Cooperation in the classroom. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

316

Qiyun Wang and Huay Lit Woo

Kreijns, K. & Kirschner, P. A. (2004). Designing social CSCL environments: Applying interaction design principles. In J.W. Strijbos, P.A. Kirschner, & R.L. Martens (Eds.), What we know about CSCL (pp. 221-243). Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Liaw, S. S. (2004). Considerations for developing constructivist web-based learning. International Journal of Instructional Media, 31(3), 309-321. Lipponen, L., Hakkarainen, K. & Paavola, S. (2004). Practices and orientations of CSCL. In J.W. Strijbos, P.A. Kirschner, & R.L. Martens (Eds.), What we know about CSCL (pp. 31-50). Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Neo, M. (2003). Developing a collaborative learning environment using a web-based design. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19(4), 462-473. Paswan, A.K. & Gollakota, K. (2004), Dimensions of peer evaluation, overall satisfaction and overall evaluation: An investigation in a group task environment. Journal of Education for Business, 79(4), 225-32. Rovai, A. P. (2001). Classroom community at a distance: A comparative analysis of two ALN-based university programs. Internet and Higher Education, 4(2), 105–118. Slavin, R. (1997). Educational psychology: theory and practice. MA: Allyn & Bacon. van Aalst, J. & Chan, C. K. K. (2007). Student-directed assessment of knowledge building using electronic portfolios in Knowledge Forum. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16(2), 175-220. Vuorinen, R., Tarkka, M. & Meretoja, R. (2000). Peer evaluation in nurses‘ professional development: A pilot study to investigate the issues. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 9, 273-281. Wang, Q. Y. (2009). Editorial. International Journal of Continuing Engineering Education and Life-long Learning, 19(2/3), 107-111. Wang, Q. Y. & Woo, H. L (2008a). The affordances of weblogs and discussion forums for learning: A comparative analysis. Educational Technology, 48(5), 34-38. Wang, Q. Y. & Woo, H. L (2008b). Affordances and Innovative Uses of Weblogs for Teaching and Learning. In Kobayashi, R (Ed.), New Educational Technology (pp. 183199). NY: Nova Science Publishers.

In: Collaborative Learning: Methodology, Types… Editors: E. Luzzatto, G. DiMarco, pp. 317-329

ISBN: 978-1-60876-076-3 © 2010 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Chapter 12

USING COLLABORATIVE LEARNING METHODS TO ENGAGE AND EMPOWER UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS IN SCIENCE CLASSROOMS Neena Grover* Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Colorado College,Colorado Springs, CO 80903

ABSTRACT Much of the traditional science is taught with the idea that students can only begin to participate in the intellectual work of science only after years of classroom learning, primarily through lecture-based methods. Experiential learning is relegated to the laboratory. Thus, it is not a surprise that students equate learning science with memorizing and regurgitating factual information. To attract students with diverse talents into our fields we need to rethink the paradigm of teaching and learning science. Science faculty have access to various pedagogical tools that can facilitate greater interactions among students and engage them with the material in a meaningful way. When students get involved in their own learning, the extent of student and faculty engagement with the material increases significantly. Collaborative work environment inside and outside the classroom increases the quality of work produced by the students. When classroom learning is coupled with dissemination of scientific information to the community, it enhances students‘ commitment and motivation for the work. Whether these students stay in science or not, they become good ambassadors of science. In this chapter, I will discuss various aspects of planning and organization necessary for successful implementation of collaborative learning and provide some examples from my courses with contain various degrees of collaborative-learning and community engagement.

INTRODUCTION

*

Corresponding Author: Email: [email protected], Phone 719-389-6433 , Fax: 719-389-6182

318

Neena Grover

My teaching career started at a large research university where the introductory general chemistry class had hundreds of students in a large lecture hall and examinations were given in a football stadium to prevent cheating. Professor drew on the overhead projector slides and talked into the microphone. Even in these large classes teachers were beginning to engage students via techniques such as minute papers, jigsaw method, and more recently, using the clicker technology (Angelo & Cross, 1993; Aronson & Patnoe, 1997; Mills & Cottell, 1998; Barkley et al., 2005; Smith et al., 2009). Now I am at a private liberal arts college, where the class sizes are small and a greater emphasis is placed on student-faculty interactions. These small classrooms are ideal places to experiment with various teaching pedagogies. My initial foray into collaborative learning started with the use of in-class group exercises. They are an effective method to assess what students know or don‘t know about the material. These exercises led me to examine how adults learn new information (Collier, 1980; Cross, 1981; Gardner, 1993). This was a beginning of my training on educational and psychological research on intellectual deveopment and learning (Bloom & Krathwohl, 1956; Johnson, 1970; Piaget, 1970; Cronbach & Snow, 1977; Snow et al., 1980; Johnson & Johnson, 1989; Spiro et al., 1992; Anderson, 1993; Bruner, 1996). To my surprise, even the early research on student learning was not being used in our teaching. Research had clearly identified the need to incorporate various stages of students‘ intellectual development in our teaching (Perry, 1998; Magolda, 2000); yet a majority of us continue to teach as if this information does not exist and we are learning to teach de novo. One recent study by the Association of American Colleges and Universities shows that increasing student-student interaction and student-faculty interactions inside and outside the classroom improves student learning (Kuh, 2008). Among the ten activities that were identified as having a high impact on student learning were collaborative learning and service learning. In this era of abundant information, it is important to teach students to identify relevant information and teach them to utilize it in a meaningful way. We need to provide opportunities for students to grapple with the messy and complex problems that one encounters in the real world. These are likely to be more challenging and will be better at getting their attention. Active and collaborative learning approaches also provide ways to engage students in small groups that allow them to learn from each other (Bonwell & Eison, 1991; Hertz-Lazarowitz et al., 1992; Davis, 1993; Kadel & Keehner, 1994; McKeachie, 1994; Johnson et al., 1998). This is neither easy for the students or the teachers but if done well, motivates students to think creatively, logically, and independently. It develops their selfconfidence while deepening their content knowledge. This chapter is organized in two sections: In section I, the components essential for successful implementation of any new collaborative learning methodology are presented. In section II, specific courses that utilize various degrees of collaborative learning and community engagement are briefly discussed.

SECTION I: SETTING UP SUCCESSFUL COLLABORATIVE LEARNING Implementation of collaborative learning requires significant organization and planning. In order to use collaborative learning effectively various overlapping ideas need to be thought

Using Collaborative Learning Methods to Engage and Empower…

319

through to avoid exchanging one unsuccessful method for another. The information in this section is neither profound nor unique but is a necessary part of changing how we teach.

The Need to Change Science Teaching In the sciences we traditionally justify transferring facts from the professor to the students as a necessity to educate the students on the basic vocabulary of the field. This is often analogized as being similar to introducing students to a new language. Just as motivation to learn a new language comes from a desire to communicate, students in sciences need to be provided with opportunities to engage with the ideas. Students are attracted to science due to its ability to answer the real life questions and want to participate in this process of understanding the world around them. Biology students taking organic chemistry classes complain about the lack of connections between organic reactions they are learning and the biological concepts. By not utilizing the students‘ inherent interest in the large organic molecules (biomolecules), we lose a valuable opportunity to engage the students. There are sufficient numbers of questions that are interesting and appropriately complex to allow students to learn the necessary concepts. The difficulty lies in identifying the right level of problem for the students so they can engage in problem solving without being overwhelmed. Currently a majority of us teach in the way we were taught in our classes, which was by lecturing students on factual information, sprinkled with anecdotes about the people in the field. It is high time to start teaching all the students in our classes and not just the few that are going to follow in our footsteps. It is presumptuous to believe that those who leave science do so because they are incapable of doing the work necessary or lack the intellectual talent for being successful. It is about time to require that the professors educate themselves on research on teaching and learning to become effective in their classrooms.

Should You Change Your Teaching? Before embarking on an exercise of incorporating collaborative learning in our classrooms, it is important to ask what is it that we are unsatisfied with and how will the new approach address this particular issue. The professor needs to ask if expecting a different outcome in student achievement is reasonable given what they know about their own teaching. Using collaborative methods in the classroom is not for everyone. Knowledge of our own personality is paramount in determining how we teach. Those who like to control the classroom are likely to have a challenging time with letting students struggle with the material. Students will also push the professor to provide the ―correct‖ answer. Unless the professor believes that learning is a process and not about one correct answer, collaborative learning will primarily lead to frustration on part of both the students and the professor. Those who are convinced that their students are learning all they can in the current format are not likely to be open to trying collaborative learning and are likely to give up, under sell, or under appreciate these new approaches. In addition, if the professor thinks that the material should be memorized then use of any collaborative-learning approach is probably not necessary. In collaborative learning approaches, the students need to work and problem solve with each other. In this model of learning, professors have to talk less and students need to talk more. First and foremost, the professors have to develop listening skills and have to resist

320

Neena Grover

being the expert. Professor has to learn to rephrase, redirect or ask additional questions – a time consuming and tedious process. The role of the professor becomes that of a director rather than being the all-knowing-being. Faculty who are not patient or do not work well with their peers are less likely to have the skills necessary to navigate the challenges that arise in using collaborative learning approaches.

Providing a Rationale The professor convincing him- or her-self that collaborative learning is worth trying is not sufficient to make the new approach work in the classroom. One of the most important aspects of using any new pedagogy requires preparing students for this new mode of learning. It should be assumed that students would not like any change that moves away from lectures. Blind faith that students will appreciate the method once they experience it is not sufficient preparation for using any new approach. A majority our students come to science classrooms expecting lectures. We have trained them over the years that the teacher is the primary expert on the material – he or she stands in front of the classroom to provide all the key information that is necessary for them to learn at this stage. Students‘ primary task is to retain sufficient amount this information and occasionally apply it to a concept that is relatively similar to the examples provided in the class. This belief is reinforced by our methods of testing and grading. Unless we believe that our students can truly learn, there is no reason why they would – it is significantly more work for students to think for themselves when the professor has been happy doing this work for them. In trying collaborative learning in our classrooms, we are challenging students to try new ways to learn the material while judging them for the quality of work they produce, which is understandably stressful. Students can to be convinced to embrace a new approach if all the additional work they have to do in this format will be rewarded – this includes preparation and participation in the activities being proposed. It is the professor‘s task to convince the students that the new approach is worth their effort. If the faculty themselves are not convinced that the approach they are using will enhance student learning, then they are unlikely to convince the students either. Faculty need to be clear about their own expectations about the approach and its value to student learning before changing the entire course to a new method.

Student Preparation for the New Methods of Learning Using active learning is difficult and students have to be prepared for the work that is required from them on a regular basis. Students‘ expectations about their own learning are based on a primarily lecture-based model – they are also likely to consider their ability to regurgitate information as evidence of learning. Students often do not believe that they have the skills necessary to learn the material without the expert giving them the key bits of information. As the professor has years of experience, it is only logical for students to expect to learn from him or her instead of wasting their time with their peers. Working with other students who are at the same level as them requires a leap of faith that they will not lead each other astray. The professor has to demonstrate everyday that he or she is carefully monitoring

Using Collaborative Learning Methods to Engage and Empower…

321

their learning and will ensure that they learn the content. It is important for the professor to share the research on learning with the students to provide them with sufficient evidence that the exercises being proposed are based on well-researched methods and have a clear rationale for improving their learning. Professor should expect skepticism from the students until they begin to see some evidence of their own learning, the path for which has to be clearly laid out.

Working in Groups Most active learning approaches require that students work in small groups. Extensive literature is available on group work (Johnson & Johnson, 1989; Beckman, 1990; Johnson & Johnson, 1991; Goodsell et al., 1992; Davis, 1993). Appropriate level of guidance should be provided to the students for working together. When groups work well, students learn from each other, motivate each other and can keep each other on task. When groups are dysfunctional, a small number of students do the work and others are disenfranchised. Several aspects of group work that are often problematic can be managed early with minimal additional work. Some of the key areas that faculty needs to consider are: to help students develop effective group rules, to develop methods of equitable work distribution, and to assess that work is being done by all members. Effective group work has been shown to improve students learning significantly and is at the heart of collaborative learning.

Developing and Meeting Learning Goals The professors have to be clear about their own expectations about what qualifies as learning in their course. The answer to this question should vary from one course to the next. In addition, the professors have to determine which particular approach will allow students to learn the material. The success of any new approach lies in careful planning of the course. Clear student learning goals and expectations have to be established along with formal and informal assessment of these goals. Students can only develop confidence in a new approach when they see themselves succeeding. Therefore, benchmarks for success need to be clearly established and should be explicitly shared with the students (preferably in writing). The first trial of any new approach is likely to be bumpy and will require back up options. For example, when I first started using problem-based learning in the biochemistry courses, I had learning goals for each day‘s exercise. When those goals were not met, I had additional ―workshops‖ scheduled in the syllabus. Certain topics that have repeatedly not worked well in groups have become formalized mini-lectures in the syllabus.

Finding Appropriate Collaborative Learning Activities Often the lack of availability of decent teaching materials is a big hurdle in changing how we teach. Textbooks are popular because the authors have organized the teaching material in a logical and clear fashion, often including the PowerPoint slides for the lectures, and require minimum additional work from the professor. Now with development of so many collaborative teaching methods, materials are already available for many different courses,

322

Neena Grover

albeit not as conveniently as a textbook. Even when the new approach requires investment of time for creating the needed materials, the ability to tailor these materials for each subsequent course provides greater flexibility and saves time in the long run; in addition, the satisfaction derived from improvements in student learning makes the efforts worthwhile. Dissemination of these materials adds to faculty scholarship and provides these materials for others to use. The number of collaborative learning activities that are available for different science courses is increasing rapidly partially due to increased federal funding for improving Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) education. The easiest way to move towards collaborative learning is to adapt successful approaches already developed by others. For example, one of the new methods currently being developed is Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning (POGIL) (www.pogil.org). Most of the federally funded activities are disseminated at the national level with multiple colleagues experimenting with the new approach; this provides access to a community that is collectively engaged in this process. A group of individuals working together can troubleshoot and train each other in an effective manner – a collaborative learning model for the faculty themselves.

Using Multiple, Complementary Approaches Different approaches are needed for teaching different types of material – for example, introductory organic chemistry and introductory biochemistry courses cannot use the same strategies for teaching. Thus, those trying the new approaches have to find the appropriate method, the associated material, and possibly a community of people who have tried this particular technique already. It takes multiple trials to use any method effectively and to tweak it to fit ones own style. A collaborative learning environment can be based on a specific method of teaching, such as problem-based learning or POGIL or can be a combination of various active learning activities that involves students in small groups. Although some people may start by changing their teaching completely from lectures to collaborative learning, it is advisable to slowly add components of collaborative learning activities into the classroom. It is also important to try different types of activities to determine if one works better than others for a particular topic or a group of students. I find that problem-based learning is ideal for the more thematic (HIV/AIDS to learn nucleic acid chemistry) second biochemistry course and a combination of multiple different approaches is better suited for a collection of topics covered in the first biochemistry course (proteins, enzymes and metabolism) (Grover, 2004, 2007).

Value-Centered Grading Students judge what we value based on what they are tested and graded on, regardless of we say we value. Any activities that we want students to participate in seriously should have incentives associated with them – grades are the single greatest motivator for students. To get full commitment from students for collaborative work, grades need to be assigned for preparing for class and participating in everyday work. Both independent and group learning activities need to included in assigning final grade if students are to take the collaborative

Using Collaborative Learning Methods to Engage and Empower…

323

work seriously. Details of what I grade and the associated points are provided in the examples in Section II.

Providing Clear Guidelines for Success As faculty we are primarily concerned with covering the course content and pay attention to the extent of student learning whereas students focus on their grades as a measure of their success in a course. Even though this is frustrating for the faculty, it is really quite sensible – grades have consequences for student‘s progress toward a degree or affect their ability to get into professional schools. When we change how we teach, students rightly become concerned about their ability to succeed in this new format. Students have learned to navigate the lecture-based format over many years and therefore find it overwhelming to try a new, unknown path. Thus, one of the key elements to engaging students in the new approach is to clearly define the paths for their success. Students‘ need to assured that they would learn the material and the methods for testing and grading them will be fair.

Planning Assessment Improving our teaching, and hence student learning, requires formal and informal assessment. During the development stage of a new course, it is important to have conversations with assessment experts so that assessment (direct and indirect measures) becomes an integral part of the teaching plan; this also helps to clarify the learning goals. In collaborative-learning approach students‘ ability to learn to learn is an important learning goal, thus, their ability to ask appropriate questions and find logical solutions needs to be assessed routinely and should be part of their formal assessment. However, to improve (―to close the loop‖ in assessment lingo) the course in its future iterations, effectiveness of this approach in meeting the overall learning goals has to be evaluated. Students can provide useful feedback on their comfort level, motivation and knowledge of the material while taking the course (formative assessment) and at the end (summative assessment). One method of assessing the value of group work is to give individual and group tests on the same material. To compare content learning to prior traditional courses, use of traditional exams and quizzes is also effective. It is advisable to start by using small sections of collaborative learning and to assess the effectiveness of these activities before converting the entire course to a new method. During the early stages of implementation of any new approach, assessment should be done early and often to determine what is working and what isn‘t.

SECTION II: EXAMPLES OF COLLABORATIVE LEARNING I use collaborative learning in all my classes. The extent of collaborative learning varies widely among these for different pedagogical and non-pedagogical reasons. Three different courses are presented below that have collaborative learning and/or community engagement components.

324

Neena Grover

Organic Chemistry Course Description. This is a traditional introductory organic chemistry course that is taught by several faculty, with a majority of them using the lecture-based format. The textbook and the content of the course are collectively determined to maintain consistency. It is the first course in a series of three courses and has two general chemistry courses as prerequisites. Class size is twenty-four students. Collaborative-Learning Approach. Group worksheets are interspersed with mini-lectures to teach the basic concepts. Textbook is the primary resource. Grading. The majority of the course grades are determined by performance on traditional exams. A small percent of grades (3-5%) are assigned to participate and prepare for the portion of the class that is taught in the collaborative learning format. Students are expected to prepare for the class each day by reading the appropriate book chapter or other assigned materials before coming to the class. Students are divided into random groups of four students each day. The activity used to divide the students into six groups is based on some concept that was previously taught. These activities also serve as assessment tools and are often straightforward and quick exercises such as naming molecules or identifying different isomers. These activities are sometimes graded as a quiz. One of the learning goals early in the course involves training students to read the textbook; students work in groups to generate a list key topics. When students are asked to limit the number of topics (say, to four), they learn to negotiate whether a topic is the main topic or a sub-topic. This simple exercise serves to enhance their reading and comprehension on a daily basis. Each group works on worksheets provided by the instructor on questions derived from their reading and some questions that apply these concepts to biological molecules. The professor‘s role is to move between groups to determine if student discussions are on topic, to determine the extent to which students read and understood the material, and to discuss the areas of difficulty within each small group. Often students in different groups ask the same questions. How these questions are answered is based on the learning goals for the material – questions can be answered by asking further questions, students can be given hints about how to think about the material and sometimes a mini-lecture can be used to explain a difficult concept. In general, the material in the course is relatively straightforward and easy to lecture on and it is tempting to provide the answers instead of letting students struggle with finding their own answers. The value of students working in small groups are many: students who don‘t ask a question in a class are comfortable asking questions in small groups, students discuss areas of difficulty with each other, students provide multiple perspectives for each other, students develop confidence in their own ability to answer questions, the professor observes prior knowledge and its application, professor determines where and when the students need help, professor interacts with students in small groups and with individual students, professor can push students to go further with their logic, professor is not the sole provider of information, and the professor learns multiple ways in which the students‘ process the same information to enhances his or her own teaching. A major portion of the group work in this course can fall under cooperative learning category.

Using Collaborative Learning Methods to Engage and Empower…

325

Students in this class are exposed to both the traditional lectures (by other faculty members) and collaborative work. Students show a clear preference for working in small groups even though it requires significantly more work from them on a daily basis. Student stress levels are clearly lower when they have opportunities to ask questions and discuss topics with their peers. Students become comfortable asking professors for help with concepts. Students report that greater the connection to biological world, the greater their interest in learning about the material. This is confirmed by student interest when they are asked to discuss real life concepts, such as cis and trans fatty acids, over the abstract concepts (cis and trans alkenes). Students also bring more thoughtful questions to the class discussion when they are inherently interested in the material (Splenda versus the haloalkanes). The group activities demonstrate students‘ willingness to put in the time needed even when the tasks are difficult. However, students would still prefer that answers be provided to them and will request more lectures.

Protein Biochemistry Course Description. This is the first of the two biochemistry courses. Topics include proteins, enzymes and fundamentals of intermediary metabolism. This class has prerequisite of two organic chemistry courses. Students work in pairs in the laboratory. The class size is sixteen students. Collaborative-Learning Approach. This class is primarily based on discussions on the material (Grover, 2007). In-class group worksheets are utilized prior to discussion on complex topics, such as binding of oxygen and other ligands to hemoglobin. Students are divided into permanent groups of three or four students each for the duration of the course. In the laboratory, students design their projects for purification of an enzyme. Textbook and some literature resources are used as course material. Grading. Students are graded on preparation (10%), class participation (10%), one traditional exam (20%), two research exams – one of these is individual and one a group exam (35%), poster preparation (5%), and laboratory work (20%). This class is primarily based on group-led discussions (Grover, 2007). Students are often skeptical about a discussion-based class. One of the keys issues with discussions in the science courses is that students and professors often don‘t understand the components of a good discussion. Professors expect students to be able to discuss the material without any guidance whereas students are baffled by the idea of discussing science, as they expect discussions to be possible only when one has original ideas or opinions on the topics. Hence, students need to be taught to discuss scientific topics through modeling effective discussions. Students (and professors) have to understand the difference between presentation and discussion. Groups have to be taught to lead discussions. The professor has to learn to let students struggle with a given topic and expect them to provide some explanations before talking. Professor has to provide the questions that link students‘ background knowledge to current concepts (such as, derivation of Henderson-Hasselbach equation for pKa which is linked to amino acid properties), provide appropriate materials to prepare students for the discussions (e.g. group problem sets on difficult concepts), and to make sure that students

326

Neena Grover

stay on topic. This class additionally engages students through research projects – for example, the first examination in this class is based on link between structure and function of proteins. Students learn to use secondary structure prediction models and are taught to use protein databases to visualize structures in 3-D – this links their class discussion to a protein of interest. This work and the associate research paper can be an individual or group assignment. Students often learn more in a group assignment and can be required to submit multiple drafts of the paper to learn scientific writing as an additional goal. With some help from the professor, students become quite engaged in the research and discussions that are required part of the course. Students in this class report that it is one of the first classes where they learned to read the textbook thoroughly before coming to class. Students report that class preparation and participation is challenging. Students like the format of the class, find it to be a difficult course, and yet do not want the class to change. They would prefer more lectures but don‘t remember the three lectures on enzyme kinetics that are already a part of the course. Students develop greater confidence in their own ability to learn the material. They begin to develop confidence in the approach quickly, as their understanding of the concepts is deepened upon participating in the class discussion. The number of activities in this class does not distract them from learning the material. The depth of student learning is much greater in this format than when they are lectured on the same material. For example, once students began developing their own protocols for protein isolation by reading primary literature, their understanding of each technique improved greatly. Students pay significantly more attention to the material when they know need the information for some other reason – for example, developing their own laboratory protocols.

Nucleic Acids Biochemistry Course Description. This is the second of the two biochemistry courses and is focused primarily on nucleic acids. The laboratory portion of the course is research-based and is linked to research in my laboratory. The protein biochemistry is a prerequisite for this course. The class size is limited to sixteen students. Collaborative-Learning Approach. This course is taught as a Problem-based Service Learning (PBSL) course where students learn nucleic acid chemistry through learning about HIV/AIDS biochemistry (Grover, 2004). The class is a based on reading literature articles in the field of nucleic acid biochemistry and HIV/AIDS research. This class follows a discussion-based format. Students also work at the Southern Colorado AIDS clinic for one afternoon per week as part of the Service Learning portion of the course. Students prepare information for the community and give a public presentation of the viral life cycle, infection, and associated antiretroviral drug therapy. Grading. All the exams are oral or written presentations of literature in the field. At least one exam is individual and two exams are group exams. Student grades are assigned for course preparation and participation (20%), laboratory (25%), Service Learning (10%), and examinations (45%).

Using Collaborative Learning Methods to Engage and Empower…

327

Students are divided into random groups of two or three students and remain in these groups for the duration of the course. The class starts with group research projects to find primary literature articles on specified topics. Each group is responsible for certain topics and its discussions. In the laboratory, students‘ participate in ongoing research on nucleic acid thermodynamics. Students design their own projects on a particular region of HIV genome. A single theme of HIV/AIDS connects the readings in this class and allows students to see connections between basic and applied research. For example, students learn about DNA and RNA polymerases before they compare these to the retroviral reverse transcriptase. As many biochemistry students are interested in going into biomedical fields, they are keenly interested in understanding HIV-1 retrovirus and hence, are willing to put in the time to read and understand the literature articles. The students‘ connection to the material is strengthened by interaction with people at Southern Colorado AIDS Project (SCAP). Class discussions invariably touch on the social impact of the disease. When students begin to discuss science behind HIV and AIDS with their friends and family, they begin to see their own ability to make a difference. On the last day of the class students present a workshop to the local community on HIV-1 infection cycle and biochemistry of treatment. This exercise requires students to present their work in English without using biochemical jargon. Students reveal the extent of their true understanding of the material during the preparation for this workshop. Students report that it is a challenging course, which they consider appropriate for an upper level course. Students are willing to work hard to learn to read the literature. Students like the thematic connection to HIV/AIDS and their work with the community and prefer that these components of the course be maintained. Many students find the experience of this class to be significant in determining their future career.

CONCLUSION Collaborative learning approaches allow professors to treat students as participants in their own learning, provide them with tools needed for learning new concepts, and give them opportunities to apply their learning in effective ways. If students have positive and empowering experiences in their science courses, they will encourage others to participate in it, and in the future support the endeavor of scientific research. We need to take a greater role in changing the way our students experience science in our classrooms. Creative ways of engaging students will keep our classrooms and intellects alive while providing all students with a quality of education that befits this century.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT This work is funded by the National Science Foundation grant NSF-MCB 0621509 to NG.

328

Neena Grover

REFERENCES Anderson, J. (1993). Rules of the mind. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Angelo, T. A. & Cross, K. P. (1993). Classroom assessment techniques: A handbook for college teachers. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Aronson, E. & Patnoe, S. (1997). The jigsaw classroom: Building cooperation in the classroom. New York: Addison Wesley Longman. Barkley, E. F., Cross, K. P. & Major, C. H. (2005). Collaborative learning techniques: A handbook for college faculty. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Beckman, M. (1990). Collaborative Learning: Preparation for the workplace and democracy. College Teaching, 38, 128-133. Bloom, B. S. & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of education goals, by a committee of college and university examiners, Handbook I: The Cognitive Domain, New York: Longmans. Bonwell, C. C. & Eison, J. A. (1991). Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom, Washington, DC: The George Washington University, School of Education and Human Development. Bruner, J. (1996). The culture of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Collier, K. G. (1980). Peer-Group learning in higher education: The Development of Higherorder skills. Studies in Higher Education, 5, 55-62. Cronbach, L. & Snow, R. (1977). Aptitudes and instructional methods: A handbook for research on interaction. New York: W. H. Freeman. Cross, K. P. (1981). Adult as learners. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Davis, B. G. (1993). Tools for teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences: The Theory in Practice. New York: Basic Books. Goodsell, A., Maher, M., Tinto, V., Smith, L. & MacGregor, J. (1992). Collaborative learning: A sourcebook for higher education. University Park: Pennsylvania State University, National Center on Postsecondary Teaching, learning, and assessment. Grover, N. (2004). Introductory course based on a single problem: learning nucleic acid biochemistry from AIDS research. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 32, 367-372. Grover, N. (2007). How to create successful discussions in science classrooms. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 35, 397-403. Hertz-Lazarowitz, R., Benveniste, K. V. & Miller, N. (1992). Implications of current research on cooperative interaction on classr oom application. Oxford, Uk: Cambridge University Press. Johnson, D. W. (1970). Social psychology of education. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company. Johnson, D. W. & Johnson, F. (1991). Joining together: Group theory and Group skill, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Johnson, D. W. & Johnson, R. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and research,. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company. Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T. & Smith, K. A. (1998). Active learning: Cooperation in college classrooms. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.

Using Collaborative Learning Methods to Engage and Empower…

329

Kadel, S. & Keehner, J. (1994). Collaborative learning: A sourcebook for higher education. Syracuse, NY: National Center on Postsecondary Teaching, Learning, and Assessment, Syracuse University. Kuh, G. (2008). High-Impact educational practices - What they are, who has access to them and why they matter. Washington D.C: Anerican Association of Colleges and Universities. Magolda, M. B. B. (2000). Teaching to promote holistic learning and development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. McKeachie, W. J. (1994). Teaching tips. Washington D.C: Heath and Company. Millis, B. J & Cottell, P. G. (1998). Cooperative learning for higher education faculty. Phoenix: American Council on Education/Oryx Press. Perry, W. G. (1998). Forms of ethical and intellectual development in the college years: A Scheme. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Piaget, J. (1970). The science of education and the psychology of the child. New York: Grossman. Smith, M. K., Wood, W. B., Adams, W. K., Wieman, C., Knight, J. K, Guild, N. & Su, T. T. (2009). Why Peer discussion improves student performance on in-class concept questions. Science, 323, 122-124. Snow, R. P. F. W. M. (1980). Aptitude, learning, and instruction. 1 and 2. Spiro, R. J., Feltovich, P. J., Jacobson, M. J. & Coulson, R. L. (1992). Cognitive flexibility, constructivism and hypertext: Random access instruction for advanced knowledge acquistion in ill-structured domains. In: Duffy, T. & Jonassen, D. eds. Constructivism and the Technology of Instruction. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

In: Collaborative Learning: Methodology, Types… Editors: E. Luzzatto, G. DiMarco, pp. 331-340

ISBN: 978-1-60876-076-3 © 2010 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Chapter 13

MEDITATIVE DIALOGUE: A METHOD FOR ENGAGING WITH STUDENTS IN COLLABORATIVE LEARNING PROCESSES Susan A. Lord University of New Hampshire, Durham, New Hampshire

ABSTRACT This chapter offers an in-depth description of a teaching approach that uses meditation and postmodern practices to encourage a sense of joint ownership, collaboration and mutual responsibility for learning in a final Master‘s in Social Work (MSW) practice class at the University of New Hampshire (UNH) in Durham, New Hampshire. It elaborates on practices that have been described elsewhere (Lord, 2007) and that continue to evolve and expand. It delineates processes through which students and instructor aim to become equal partners in developing collective knowledges, participating actively in the collaborative practices that they are learning about as they move from positions of inexpert learners to expert colleagues in preparation for graduation and entry into the social work field. Included is a discussion of current students‘ evaluation of the meditative dialogue method and their views on how it has impacted their learning experience and professional development.

INTRODUCTION In recent years, social constructionist theorists and practitioners have challenged the traditional hierarchical structures that have defined how we operate in psychotherapy, supervision, consultation and in education (Anderson, 1997; Anderson & Goolishian, 1992; Bruffee, 1994, 1999; Holzman, 1997; Lowe, 2005; McNamee, 2007; Seikkula & Trimble, 2005). In education there has been a paradigm shift from ―valuing and encouraging students to be silent so as to actively listen and learn from a more knowledgeable other (teacher), to becoming knowledgeable by speaking and elaborating on content knowledge‖ (Remedios, Clarke & Hawthorne, 2008, p. 201). The paradigm shift includes a collaborative approach

332

Susan A. Lord

that involves mutuality, joint responsibility, and innovative alternatives to traditional methods of teaching and learning (Anderson, 2007; Bruffee, 1999; Holzman, 1997; McNamee, 2007). This chapter offers an in-depth description of a teaching approach that uses meditation and postmodern practices to encourage a sense of joint ownership, collaboration and mutual responsibility for learning in a final Master‘s in Social Work (MSW) practice class at the University of New Hampshire (UNH) in Durham, New Hampshire.

COLLABORATIVE APPROACH The collaborative approach is a postmodern approach that challenges the assumption that there are universal knowledges of an objective and fathomable world ―out there‖ that can be captured, measured, understood and conveyed. It assumes that knowledge is local and is linguistically constructed through communal processes. Language is characterized as ―the primary vehicle through which we construct and make sense of our world… Language is the vehicle of the process and search through which we try to understand and create meaning knowledge about our world and ourselves. Language thus limits and shapes our thoughts and our expressions‖ (Anderson, 2007, p. 9). According to Smith (2008), ―collaborative learning is a process by which small, heterogeneous, and interdependent learner groups co-construct knowledge (Vygotsky, 1978) to achieve consensus and share classroom authority‖ (Bruffee, 1999, p. 326). Knowledge is said to be fluid, ever-evolving, and generative.

Knowledge and Power Foucault (1980) spoke of the hegemony of knowledge and ways in which education has traditionally been structured such that knowledge is considered to be a form of power that "reaches into the very grain of individuals, touches their bodies and inserts itself into their actions and attitudes, their discourses, learning processes and everyday lives" (p. 39). Those who hold knowledge in a given society are, according to Foucault, people in positions of power who then disseminate the particular knowledge that they determine to be important to those less powerful. Knowledge is said to be transmitted through, and always linked to, avenues of power in a society. Questions abound. What constitutes ―knowledge‖? Who determines which knowledge is important to convey? Who decides how knowledge is to be disseminated? What constitutes teaching? What constitutes learning? How do we know what we know? How do we know what we need to know? McNamee (2007) challenges our tendency to fall into what she terms a ―professional competency trap - a trap of being the expert who ignores the expertise of those with whom I am engaged‖ (p. 315). She proposes a ―relational practice‖ of education in which she endeavors to engage with her students in collaborative conversations in which the focus is on the multiple ways in which teaching and learning can occur and on the multiple knowledges that each individual owns and can share. She has conversations with her students in which

Meditative Dialogue: A Method for Engaging with Students in…

333

they discuss what and how they will learn, how their learning will be measured, and what their grades will be. Holzman, in her book Schools for Growth: Radical Alternatives to Current Educational Models (1997) purports that ―embodied activities‖ in which participants have meaningful experiences through which they are affected and changed, are potentially more meaningful mechanisms for teaching and learning than are traditional methods. Based on Vygotsky‘s idea that students grow and develop by ―performing beyond themselves‖ (Holzman, 1997, p. ix), she and her students in the Bronx in New York City have developed a program called the ―All Stars Talent Show Network, one of the country‘s largest and most effective anti-violence programs for inner-city youth‖ (p. 77). In this program the students are supported to ―become who they are by being who they are not… they create new options for who and how they want to be‖ (p. 78). Suoranta (2008) goes so far as to argue that we have lost sight of our goals in teaching and learning and have become caught up in ―a blind drive for measurement, evaluation and accountability in academic work‖ (p. 711). She says, ―We need to replace our current teaching and assessment methods with more collaborative methods of teaching and assessment‖ (p. 711). Promotion of dialogue and collaborative work between teachers and students and between students and students is encouraged. According to Bruffee (1994, 1999), traditional education has encouraged passivity and apathy in higher education. Students have become accustomed to being entertained, spoonfed, and taught what their teachers determine to be important. Lowe (2005) speaks of the importance of ―remaining present and engaged‖ in a process of ―participatory understanding‖ (p. 68), in a conversational style of teaching in which information is exchanged ―in more creative, improvisational, and ‗living‘ ways‖ (p. 65). In their ―Open Dialogue‖ approach, Seikkula and Trimble (2005) use a process that they describe as ―embodied‖ and ―emotional‖ dialogue in their larger systems meetings. In this method, each question in the conversation is not planned, but is rather generated from the previous answer and a collaborative interaction ensues.

Dialogue Dialogue is distinguished from other ―language activities‖ such as discussions or arguments or monological interactions, in which the other is dominated or viewed as passive, and is described as ―relational and collaborative activity‖ (Anderson, 2007, p. 34) that is both generative and transformative. According to Bakhtin (1984), ―truth is not born nor is it to be found inside the head of an individual person, it is born between people collectively searching for truth, in the process of their dialogic interaction‖ (p.110). Dialogue includes inner and outer conversations, conversations between people and, I would add, conversations with the energy in the space in the middle of the room.

334

Susan A. Lord

WHAT IS MEDITATIVE DIALOGUE ? Meditative dialogue is a method that involves practices of mindfulness, ―not knowing‖ (Anderson & Goolishian, 1992), and deep listening/speaking that offer instructor and students ways to engage in collaborative learning processes. It offers avenues through which they are able to deepen their experience so that each participant becomes activated, enlivened and changed in ways that are meaningful to them, both individually and collectively as a sense of community and joint ownership of the process develops. The goal is to cultivate ―beginner‘s mind‖, for ―in the beginner‘s mind there are many possibilities; in the expert‘s mind there are few‖ (Suzuki, 1973, p. 21).

Description of the Process The focus of this final MSW practice course is on aspects of therapeutic positioning, use of self, embodied practice, deepening of listening and facilitation skills, critical thinking about the evolution of power and knowledge, and integration of prior coursework. Because this is a course offered by an accredited MSW program, the broad outlines of what must be taught in the course are predetermined by the Council of Social Work Education. There is some room for academic freedom, however, and particular choices, such as particular books and articles to be read and use of the meditative dialogue method, are at the discretion of the instructor. The meditative dialogue process works toward altering the hierarchical structures that are traditional in higher education (Bruffee, 1994, 1999), and that students have become acculturated to in the MSW program. This is a major paradigm shift for most students and can precipitate much anxiety and resistance, or what I think of as attempts at stabilizing themselves, as they work to regain their balance. We use practices of meditation like breath work, mindfulness and full attention (Germer, Siegal & Fulton, 2005; Hick & Bien, 2008; Kabat-Zinn, 2003) in each class in preparation for beginning the dialogue process. Meditation, according to Muktananda (1991) consists of four aspects. The first is a Focus on a particular object of meditation – in this instance the focus is on the assigned readings that we have prepared for the week‘s discussion. Second is Mantra – an object of concentration that is said to harness the mind‘s tendency toward scattered mental energy or streams of random thoughts or ―chatter‖. We might suggest, for example, a specific word signifying the theme for the week‘s discussion. Third is Asana – a relaxed posture or bodily position that is assumed to help with presence and focus. Fourth is Breath – which links the body with the mind and spirit, bringing one into a quiet and steady presence. Rather than sitting in rows that face the front of the room where the professor conveys knowledge from behind a podium, chairs are arranged in a circle and each week students and instructor sit in a different place with people they do not normally sit with. This is an attempt to intensify our sense of community and constantly alter positions, perhaps perturbing systems and moving people out of their comfort zones. All participants commit to a process of interacting with everyone when they participate, not only with the instructor as a figure of authority, or with familiar people. ―We move our chairs forward and back to develop a sense of the space in the middle, using our distance and

Meditative Dialogue: A Method for Engaging with Students in…

335

closeness as parts of a bellows to fan the flame of our collective knowledges. We focus on how we take up space in the room, on whether we are quiet or talkative, and whether we speak to demonstrate our knowledge or to move the process along‖ (Lord, 2007, p. 335). We follow a clearly defined set of guidelines: 1. The focus of each week‘s discussion is set by the course syllabus. For example, the focus of week seven is on trauma, and all participants come to class having read the assigned readings on the dynamics of trauma and ways of working with trauma. 2. We begin with a brief meditation. 3. Listen deeply. 4. Experience the silence and the space. 5. Reflect, contemplate, pause. 6. Allow the speech to arise from the silence. 7. Say only what needs and wants to be said. 8. Notice assumptions, reactions, and judgments. 9. Observe identities and roles. 10. Give the speech and the speaker full attention. 11. Listen to fully hear. Using these guidelines we sit together and engage in deep listening and speaking. Each class begins with a few minutes of silent meditation. The dialogue arises from the space in the middle of the room, giving voice to inner and outer resonances. ―Like an improvisational drumming circle we co-create an integration through diverse contributions, attaining a whole larger than the sum of its parts. The facilitator‘s role is, paradoxically, to become a nonfacilitator, to get out of the way as all assume mutual responsibility for the dialogue. As with meditation, whatever happens is perfect‖ (Lord, 2007, p. 336). The conversation generally begins with someone discussing their response to one of the readings. They might talk about a question, a reaction, a particular way in which they resonated with the reading, or a way that it applied to their practice at their internship. Others slowly begin to chime in, asking clarifying questions, offering their take on the reading, expanding on their understanding and particular questions, and folding in a dialogue about other assigned readings for the week.

STUDENTS‟ EVALUATION OF THE MEDITATIVE DIALOGUE METHOD Students were asked to participate in a study, approved by the UNH Office for Sponsored Research, in which they filled out a questionnaire soliciting feedback about their perceptions of the meditative dialogue process, their sense of the impact of the process on their professional development, and their sense of its usefulness for their learning processes. They were told that participation was voluntary and anonymous and would not in any way impact their grades. The questionnaire asked whether they would recommend using the method in future practice classes, what they found most rewarding or positive about the method, what was most difficult or negative, and whether they had any suggestions about the method and its

336

Susan A. Lord

use in the class. Of the 30 students enrolled in the two sections of the course, 26 filled out the questionnaire which was administered during class. The 4 who did not participate were absent that day. The students were quite positive and enthusiastic about the meditative dialogue method. Although the change from the traditional hierarchical mode of education in which there is an expert professor imparting wisdom to students in the learning position, to a more collaborative mode in which all develop agency and take mutual responsibility for what occurs in the classroom was said to be difficult at first, most reported that they found it to be empowering and freeing.

REWARDING OR POSITIVE ASPECTS Mutual Responsibility for Learning All of the respondents (N=26) said that they would recommend using the method in future practice classes. Several people commented on the switch from a traditional hierarchical approach to education that they have become acculturated to in the program and throughout their prior years of education, to a collaborative learning style in which they must develop agency and assume mutual responsibility for what happens in the classroom:  



 

‗It forced me to do all the readings and to pay attention to the material. It has helped me to look into myself in a new way.‘ ‗It provides a safe and supportive environment for active participation. I enjoy having the instructor join our circle as an equal. Our comments are directed to the group as a whole instead of to the ―leader‖. I feel I have been a more active listener since starting this process.‘ ‗I love the feeling of learning this way - it takes a lot of trust. I appreciate the respect given to students to be in charge of learning and the sense of safety that develops in the room. It has deepened my interest and ability to collaborate and act in partnership with my clients.‘ ‗I enjoy learning about this material this way instead of being lectured at. Most rewarding is the rich discussion we tend to have when we get in a tight circle.‘ ‗It brings forth really in-depth conversations; it has provided some of the best learning experiences in the program.‘ ‗I feel like it‘s the only section of practice in which I feel like I truly learned something.‘

Depth of Communication and Sense of Community Many spoke of the depth of communication engendered through the meditative dialogue process, and of the safety and sense of community that they felt with their colleagues:

Meditative Dialogue: A Method for Engaging with Students in…   

 

337

‗It‘s a great way to wrap up our MSW education. People are able to truly share thoughts and feelings because the class is so close and comfortable with each other.‘ ‗It feels safe and creates an environment for rich discussion.‘ ‗I love the way that meditative dialogue gives open opportunity for participation. The environment allows for a more comfortable process. I feel that I am able to comfortably speak my thoughts and that the professor is not there to approve or disapprove.‘ ‗Most positive is connecting with everyone in the class.‘ ‗It allows for the class to control the direction and we are more involved. Most rewarding were the excellent discussions that arose. I thought more about the positive aspects of silence.‘

Applications to Practice Some spoke of the importance of having an in vivo experience of what they are learning about, saying that it has helped them in their practice with clients: 



‗It‘s uncomfortable at first but very useful, and it helps me think about how to engage my clients – individually and in groups. Most rewarding is the idea of really listening – not interrupting and following someone with their thought. Pursuing it fully to better understand what they mean rather than take it at face value. It has helped me to engage with the literature more and it has helped me to really consider other viewpoints and opinions and to consider those opinions as valid.‘ ‗It is a great way to tie together all the skills we have learned. It has helped me be more present with clients and in all relationships as I practice active listening. It is good practice for the work we will do with clients; it brings it all to life.‘

Mindfulness Some identified the importance of the practices of mindfulness and presence:  ‗It creates a new dynamic where people are invited to dip their hearts into a collective experience. I think it pushes us to be as honest as we can be in the moment.‘  ‗I think taking time to focus energy and thought gives focus to thought. The process provides space for a more organic experience. It creates an intention of mindfulness. It has given me permission to slow down, and do what feels natural in the given unfolding process – connecting body with mind and perhaps soul.‘

Multiplicity of Voices Others spoke of the multiplicity of voices and the development of a respect for and tolerance of difference:

338

Susan A. Lord 





‗It challenges students to step outside their comfort zone and talk about real issues. Listening and conversing with others gives the student the opportunity to consider other points of view, helping them grow and expand their knowledge base. It forces them to challenge their beliefs in search of greater understanding. It‘s excellent for working with clients and examining the therapeutic relationship. Helps me appreciate other points of view and ways of approaching difficult situations. It helps me to learn how to collaborate with others who may have differing opinions.‘ ‗I really appreciate the input of my classmates and the diversity of opinions on various topics. Most positive was the widening scope of comfort with a variety of opinions. The increased openness to the ideas and feelings of others. I find sitting in a tight circle symbolic of the desire to see and hear from everyone. If this is expanded into the world, perhaps there is a better chance for people of varying viewpoints to hear and understand each other.‘ ‗We all have unique experiences to share, and unique interpretations of topics.‘

DIFFICULT/NEGATIVE ASPECTS When asked to identify difficult or negative aspects of the method, students identified such things as:        

‗It was hard allowing myself to be vulnerable.‘ ‗At the beginning it was difficult to figure out what was expected.‘ ‗I had trouble learning to deal with the silence, feeling pressure to talk. It forced me to do all of the readings.‘ ‗It was hard when the conversation moved too quickly – people seem to be thinking about what they want to say and not what others are saying.‘ ‗Disagreement/confrontation are difficult. It takes courage to speak your mind knowing it may be challenged.‘ ‗The actual meditating – focusing my mind was challenging for me.‘ ‗Self-directed learning is difficult. Sometimes I don‘t feel motivated to direct myself.‘ ‗High levels of the emotional content of discussions could be difficult to handle.‘

Despite these identified negative aspects, all seemed to feel that the method was useful and said that they would like to continue using it in class.

CONCLUSION The meditative dialogue method offers an embodied experience of learning in which students and instructor become activated and engaged in the process. They develop a sense of community and safety in which each individually and jointly assumes responsibility for what occurs. In this way they are able to come forward, entering into deep dialogue with one

Meditative Dialogue: A Method for Engaging with Students in…

339

another and gaining a sense of competence and mastery of the material. Although students say that they are at first uncomfortable with the expectations of a collaborative learning culture, they grow to appreciate, feel enlivened by, and thrive in this new context. The meditative dialogue method completely changes the classroom interaction. Rather than engaging in a hierarchical expert/learner dynamic, we become collaborative participants in the generation and integration of knowledge.

REFERENCES Anderson, H. (1997). Conversation, language and possibilities: A postmodern approach to therapy. New York: Basic Books. Anderson, H. (2007). A postmodern umbrella: Language and knowledge as relational and generative, and inherently transforming. In H. Anderson & D. Gehart (Eds.),Collaborative therapy: Relationships and conversations that make a difference, (pp.7-19). New York: Routledge. Anderson, H. & Goolishian, H. (1992). The client is the expert: a not-knowing approach to therapy. In Gergen, K. & McNamee, S. (Eds.), Therapy as social construction, (pp. 25-39). London: Sage. Bakhtin, M. (1984). Problems of Dostoevsky‘s poetics. M. Holquist, (Ed.), and C. Emerson, and M. Holquist, (Trans.). Austin, Texas: University of Texas Press. Bruffee, K. A. (1994). Making the most of knowledgeable peers. Change, 26(3), 39-46. Bruffee, K. A. (1999). Collaborative learning, higher education, independence and the authority of knowledge. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Foucault, M. (1980) Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings, 1972-1977. New York: MacMillan. Germer, C. K., Siegel, R. D. & Fulton, P. R. (Eds.) (2005). Mindfulness and Psychotherapy. New York: Guilford Press. Hick, S. & Bien, T., (Eds.). (2008). Mindfulness and the therapeutic relationship. N.Y.: Guilford Press. Holzman, L. (1997). Schools for growth: Radical alternatives to current educational methods. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Kabat-Zinn, J. (2003). Mindfulness-based interventions in context: Past, present, and future. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 10, 144-156. Lord, S. (2007). Meditative dialogue: A tool for engaging students in collaborative learning processes. Journal of Family Therapy, 29(4), 34-337. Lowe, R. (2005). Structured methods and striking moments: Using question sequences in living ways. Family Process. 44, 65-75. McNamee, S. (2007). Relational practices in education: teaching as conversation. In H. Anderson, & D. Gehart, (Eds.) Collaborative Therapy: Relationships and Conversations that Make a Difference, (pp. 313–335). New York: Routledge. Muktananda, S. (1991). Meditate. Albany, New York: State University of NY Press.Remedios, L. Clarke, D. & Hawthorne, L. (2008). The silent participant in small group collaborative learning contexts. Active Learning in Higher Education, 9(3), 201-216.

340

Susan A. Lord

Seikkula, J. & Trimble, D. (2005). Healing elements of therapeutic conversation: dialogue as an embodiment of love. Family Process, 44, 461–475. Smith, R. (2008). The paradox of trust in online collaborative groups. Distance Education, 29(3), 325-340. Suoranta, J. (2008). Teaching sociology: Toward collaborative social relations in educational situations. Critical Sociology, 34(5), 709-723. Suzuki, S. (1973). Zen mind, beginner‟s mind. New York: Weatherhill.

In: Collaborative Learning: Methodology, Types… Editors: E. Luzzatto, G. DiMarco, pp. 341-362

ISBN: 978-1-60876-076-3 © 2010 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Chapter 14

CASE STUDY OF COLLABORATIVE LEARNING IN TWO CONTEXTS: WHAT DO ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS GAIN? Sally Ashton-Haya* and Hitendra Pillayb a

Language Programs Educator Queensland University of Technology Victoria Park Road Kelvin Grove 4059 Brisbane, Australia b Professor School of Learning and Professional Studies Queensland University of Technology Victoria Park Road Kelvin Grove 4059 Brisbane Australia

ABSTRACT This paper describes the use of collaborative learning as an approach to enhance English language learning by students from non-English speaking backgrounds. Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) principles were applied to two case studies, one comprising of undergraduate English as Foreign Language learners in Turkey and the other involved English as Second Language learners in Australia. Social constructivism inspired communicative language teaching using collaborative learning activities such as team work, interactive peer-based learning; and iterative stages of learning matrix were incorporated to enhance students learning outcomes. Data collected after the CLT intervention was made up of field notes, reflective logs and focus group interviews which revealed complementarities, as well as subtle differences between the two cases. The findings were summarized as learning dispositions; speaking competence, proficiency and confidence; learning diagnostics and completion deficiencies; task engagement, flow theory and higher order thinking skills; in addition to self efficacy and development of student identity. CLT has the potential to provide a more inclusive and dynamic education experience for diverse learners through vital outcomes and benefits which resonate with the real world.

342

Sally Ashton-Hay and Hitendra Pillay

CASE STUDY OF COLLABORATIVE LEARNING IN TWO CONTEXTS: WHAT DO ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS GAIN? INTRODUCTION In an era of increased globalization, the demand for English language teaching and learning, as well as the development of creative thinkers, (Bozkurt, 2006; Kalantzis & Cope, 2005; Kinzer, 2001) has accelerated rapidly. Diverse learners globally are filling classrooms and English language teaching has swiftly become an international enterprise (Kubota & Lin, 2006). Educators are challenged to develop integrated pedagogical practices that improve learning outcomes, and to provide inclusive education (Keeffe & Carrington, 2006). While an integrated pedagogical approach may enhance learning outcomes it also reduces redundancy by eliminating convoluted practices and consequently allows for complementarities to accelerate learning outcomes. The case studies reported here were drawn from two contexts where the demand for English language learning is viewed as a key to the future success of learners in a globalized economy. Recognition of the importance of collaboration and learner interaction has led to many new pedagogical practices. One such practice is the use of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT). CLT was integrated into the existing language learning courses in a Turkish University where students were studying to become English teachers and in an Australian university where foreign students came to learn English language to enroll in other programs. The two cases are analyzed to identify different patterns of learning experience of the participating students.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) strategies are informed by principles of social constructivism (Vygotsky, 1962, 1987, 1997). Constructivism argues that learning is a social process and it is in this sense that constructivism informs learning enterprises. Nunan (1999, p. 304) defines constructivism as ―a philosophical approach that argues that knowledge is socially constructed rather than having its own independent existence‖ and that it places more emphasis on the cumulative process of learning rather than memorizing discrete language forms such as grammar. Although the ‗communicative method‘ is common in literature, CLT is not a ―monolithic packaged set of procedures‖ but more frequently regarded as a ―justification for a process of change taking place‖ (Hall & Hewings, 2001). This change is from traditional language teaching methods involving grammar translation, memorization and rote learning to a more active, learner-focused and communicative view of language teaching. Such dialogic interaction or social constructivism is argued to most likely happen when the learning is within his/her zone of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1962, 1987, 1997) and emphasizes the ‗ripening‘ functions of learners rather than the ripe skills (1997, p.188). Thus the experiential and social interaction qualities of CLT inspired by social constructivism place *

Corresponding Author: Email: [email protected] Or home email: [email protected]

Collaborative Learning

343

importance on the process of learning, self-inquiry and social and communicative skills, which have led to current educational reforms calling for more active student engagement (Aviram, 2000; H. Brown, 2000; T. H. Brown, 2006; Buchberger, 2001; Buchberger, Campos, Kallos, & Stephenson, 2000; Chimombo, 2001; De Corte, Verschaffel, Entwistle, & van Merriënboer, 2003; Gerjets & Hesse, 2005; Hart, 2002; Lesgold, 2004; Liao, 2004; Lowyck, Lehtinen, & Elen, 2004; Niemi, 2002; Palincsar & Herrenkohl, 2002; Salomon, 1998; Satyal, 2005; Van Petegem, De Loght, & Shortridge, 2003). The influence of social constructivism on educational reform is important for several reasons. First, the underlying philosophy places emphasis on learner constructed knowledge through social interaction. The social interaction process in learning facilitates and encourages the use of new language skills to create meaning and build understanding through the communicative process. Vygotsky (1997) recognized the connection between thought and language as a mediated activity and the significance of this mediated process in developing higher mental functions where thoughts must first pass through meanings and then through words. In this way, he argues that ―what a child can do in cooperation today he can do alone tomorrow‖ (Vygotsky 1997, p.188). The collaboration and dialogic action with others is a key to developing awareness, experience and opportunities for reflection. Vygotsky argues that higher mental functions may be more likely to develop as a result of mediated activities such as the interactive learning process which is central to communicative language teaching. Furthermore, social constructivism places the learner in the midst of the learning process because of the recognition that language is more than an external body of grammatical structures or lexical items to be transferred. The focus on making meaning emphasizes the notion of communicative competence (Hymes, 1971, 1972), or knowing when and how to say what to whom. CLT and the related peer interactions encourage the learners to speak, make meaning, build understanding and thus, may also influence the development of higher order thinking skills.

COMMUNICATIVE LANGUAGE TEACHING Communicative language teaching shifted the focus to learner-centered instruction and created an important influence in the field of language teaching (Nunan, 1999). The knowledge development processes and outcomes of learners are shaped by the dialogic, communicative interaction activities in which they are engaged, the context of the activities and the surrounding culture (J. S. Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989). CLT classrooms encourage interactive learners, dialogic activities and active participation in knowledge creation by engaging learners in communicative tasks. Through actively using the language, learners develop greater proficiency, as well as achieve more profound and purposeful dialogic meaning-making. Students are encouraged to create, negotiate and practice meaningmaking through the active use of language and activities which encourage communication. Such strategies reinforce the constructivist approach to teaching and learning that knowledge is not only transmitted to learners from teachers or books, but that both meaning and knowledge can be created collectively by learners and teachers (Celce-Murcia, 2001). CLT places an emphasis on the learner and the learning process as central through the capacity of communication (Breen, 1984), because the learners use the language to create meaning and

344

Sally Ashton-Hay and Hitendra Pillay

practice with the language so that familiarity and proficiency can be developed and remembered for subsequent applications. Progressively, as learners develop proficiency, the objective of CLT is that the learner can apply and transfer the language skills to other contexts of language use such as writing technical reports, making public presentations, etc. In this way, CLT through its inherent peer interactions can expand the horizon of language learners, enable them to benefit from collaborative practice, and build on their existing knowledge to create meaning. An interesting feature of active, communicative approaches to language learning is its function as a correction to the perceived shortcomings of other approaches and methods, such as ‗Grammar Translation‘ and the ‗Direct Method‘ (Mitchell, 1994 in Bax, 2003). Language educators now view language as much more than a system of rules to be learned because of the notions of communicative competence (Hymes, 1971). Nunan (2001) argues that successful communicators in second language distinguish between ‗learning that‘ and ‗knowing how‘. Being able to make such distinctions differentiates knowledge of discrete grammar points and recitation of dialogues, from the ability to interact with other speakers and to communicate genuinely, spontaneously and meaningfully (H. Brown, 2000). Savignon (2001) describes the communicative approach as having a collaborative and active nature where the receptive and productive language skills are combined in interpretation, expression and negotiation of meaning. Another feature of CLT is the engagement and pleasurable learning experience it offers for learners to rehearse real meaning making activities. Small groups can be motivated by friendly competition, challenge and flow experiences (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996, 1997a, 1997b). Communicative competence is required for participation, combining both grammatical competence and pragmatic competence. The main emphasis in CLT is peer interaction—on communicating, socially or informationally, through a variety of real world simulations and problem-solving exercises. Communicative Language Teaching and Interactive Peer-based Learning thus involve an integrated approach where active learners negotiate and create meaning in a second language through a range of activities designed to assist communication in the classroom and informed by social constructivist theoretical philosophy. Against the above background, Figure 1 presents an interactive peer-based instructional iterations matrix synthesizing the theoretical underpinning and linking this theory with practical CLT inspired learning strategies and learning activities. The matrix provides the conceptual framework for the research interventions. As noted in the matrix, specific activities make up the CLT approach, all of which involve peer interaction as the basis for meaning making and consequently learning the language. Both meaning and knowledge can be created collectively by learners or by learners and teachers with regards to the problem in hand and the contextual issues (Celce-Murcia, 2001). The complementarities in this approach to language teaching have the potential to reduce redundancy and accelerate learning outcomes. The Interactive Peer-Based Teaching Iteration matrix demonstrates how social constructivist theory underpins and informs the learning strategies, learning activities, and learning outcomes for more collaborative English language learning. Through successive iterations, students have more opportunities to become involved in learning, reflect on their previous participation, and build knowledge by adding and linking to previous experience. The successive iterations enhance basic social skill development and prepare students to communicate and collaborate on a deeper level. Without sufficient iterations to develop basic

Collaborative Learning

345

social skills, communicative competence may be limited. Once students have become more skilled at social interaction through listening, responding and negotiating with others, interdependent teamwork becomes more viable. Subsequent interactive peer-based teaching repetitions offer more opportunities for students to participate in collaborative activities and progress interdependent learning strategies. Through active learning, sharing and reflecting, implementing interpersonal skills and creating meaning in the language, students progress through zones of proximal development with the assistance of their peers and teachers. By adapting the matrix to various contexts, educators have a key tool for the provision of more inclusive, dynamic and accelerated learning outcomes. This chapter will outline several strategies implemented in the research study and illustrate how these strategies contributed toward increasing learning outcomes in social skills, collaboration and developing complexity in learning from the students‘ own voices.

Figure 1. Interactive Peer-Based Teaching Iterations Matrix

METHODOLOGY Emphasis on student voice as ―expert witnesses‖ (Rudduck 1999, p. 42), the ―consultative wing of student participation‖ and the contemporary educational initiatives with a social constructivist view call for more active student engagement (Aviram, 2000; H. Brown, 2000; T. H. Brown, 2006; Buchberger, 2001; Buchberger et al., 2000; Chimombo, 2001; De Corte et al., 2003; Gerjets & Hesse, 2005; Hart, 2002; Lesgold, 2004; Liao, 2004; Lowyck et al., 2004; Niemi, 2002; Palincsar & Herrenkohl, 2002; Salomon, 1998; Satyal, 2005; Van Petegem et al., 2003). The above researches provide the impetus for this study, as they recognize and emphasize the significance of student views as an important and critical source of data for understanding student learning behaviors—what engages them and what kinds of support are valued most in a language learning context. In a similar vein, (CookSather, 2006) argues that in order to reposition students in current educational reform, educators need to listen to what they have to say and take seriously the difficulties learners have in coping (Boud, Cohen, & Sampson, 2001). With the increasing importance of constructivist learning to educational reform, active participation not only involves students in

346

Sally Ashton-Hay and Hitendra Pillay

discussions about teaching and learning but also offers an opportunity to include the passive ESL or EFL learners. In this way, student responses to collaborative and interactive peerbased learning experiences will provide insight into what students gain from integrated pedagogical approaches and whether such complementarity actually allows for enhanced or accelerated learning outcomes. Communicative Language Teaching approaches encourage students to work together in activities to solve problems, conduct research, or give a seminar presentation. Students are encouraged to create, negotiate and practice meaning making through a range of experiential activities which integrate communication and active use of the language with pragmatic knowledge of what to say to whom, as well as how and when to say it. For example, students may work in teams to solve problems, debate issues, develop and perform role plays, or conduct research and present seminars on a topic. Each member of the team has a responsibility for contributing and developing ideas. To capture the interactions during the CLT experience and interpret student cognitive and social behaviors requires an in-depth qualitative inquiry; hence a case study approach was used to research the learning outcomes of students from two cases. The insight of what is possible and adequate in these case studies may enable educators to be more responsive to change in their own situations (Weber, 1970).

Context and Sample Two cohorts of 167 undergraduates participated in the study. One comprised 79 Turkish students of which 45 were females and 34 males. These students were generally between 19 22 years of age and were from the English Language Teaching (ELT) Department of Foreign Languages and the English Language and Literature Faculty of Letters in a large Turkish university. All of these students were generally expected to become English teachers in Turkey or in their home country after graduation. These students were studying English as a Foreign Language (EFL). The CLT interventions were implemented in the subject Teaching English to Children. These Turkish undergraduates formed teams and chose teaching topics such as ‗reading‘ and created informative seminar presentations for their classmates. Aspects of the seminars were shared and preparatory research divided among the team to cover various elements such as: the importance of literacy, beginning reading activities; ways to improve reading skills; and various types of reading activities. Through such seminars, the student teams were required to share responsibilities, develop interdependence and integrate their research into a comprehensive presentation. In the second case, 88 international students studying English language at a college affiliated to an Australian university took part. The sample was made up of 39 males and 49 females and was aged between 19 – 22 years. These students had traveled to Australia from countries such as Japan, Korea, China, Taiwan, Singapore, United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Vietnam, Thailand, Brunei, India and New Caledonia, in order to acquire English language proficiency which in turn will help achieve their educational goals. These students were majoring in various subjects such as International Business, IT, Economics, Nursing, Engineering or Education but they were enrolled in a core Communication course as part of the requirements for their chosen faculty. These students were studying English as a second language (ESL). The CLT intervention was implemented in the Communication for Business subject. Students in this cohort discussed and created a

Collaborative Learning

347

solution for a business transaction case study with ethical concerns. The discussions centered on ways to solve the problem in the best interests of the company and society, as each group reported back to the class with their proposed solution and relevant reasons for that choice. Since students were from diverse cultures, negotiation and compromise were integral to the formation of a solution.

Distinction between ESL and EFL Two case studies are designed to investigate and provide comparative views on the epistemology of each experience (Denzin & Lincoln, 2003) involving separate yet similar contexts of language learning. How we learn from particular cases is related to how a case is like and/or unlike other cases mostly through comparison. The epistemology of the particular cases under investigation here relates to English as Second Language learners and English as Foreign Language learners. The distinction between ESL and EFL teaching is important to highlight in this study since the differences between EFL and ESL are not frequently noted (Hiep, 2005; Li, 1998). The influence of immersion in an English-speaking environment where students learn the language at the same time as the culture has been regarded as an advantage in language learning (Montgomery & Eisenstein, 1985; Schmidt & Frota, 1986). Researchers have suggested that classroom immersion and naturalistic acquisition studies indicate that when instruction is meaning focused only, learners do not develop the linguistic features at target-like levels (Doughty & Williams, 1998). Therefore, in their native country, EFL students may frequently revert to their mother tongue as soon as they leave the classroom, offering fewer opportunities for extended second language production. EFL teaching contexts may also lack English resources and local teachers may teach the second language by relying on the first language. English-speaking teachers have also been cautioned against causing discomfort to students who are accustomed to being taught in their mother tongue because they may not understand every word or be able to respond to questions in a second language (Savignon, 2001). Whereas ESL provides the opportunity for ‗immersion‘ in a second language with increased opportunities to use the language, greater availability of teaching resources and appropriate use of teaching strategies may create beneficial influences for learners in a language teaching context.

Procedure and Data Collection As noted above, CLT intervention activities were developed and implemented for an English language subject at each of the two sites. Students enrolled in the selected subjects were invited to participate in the study. Recognizing that the interventions will only help develop the English language proficiency, all students from both sites willingly volunteered to participate and signed ethical clearances. Data collection was done from three different sources to allow triangulating the data and improving the validity of the findings. The first data source was from each student‘s reflective log (RL). At the beginning of the semester students were shown how write and maintain a reflective log which was also a requirement for participating in the study. The student participants responded to weekly focus

348

Sally Ashton-Hay and Hitendra Pillay

questions throughout the semester, posed by the researcher, and made entries in their reflective logs. The journal entries were aligned to the CLT intervention activities, so after each CLT activity focus questions related to the learning experience were posed by the researcher and students made entries in their journals. Responding to the focus questions through log writing occurred during weeks 4-10 of the semester. After experiencing all the CLT intervention activities the participants submitted their logs two weeks before the end of the semester. The student entries ranged from a single paragraph to two pages in length. The second data set was from focus group (FG) interviews. Students volunteered to meet in focus groups to discuss emerging themes in a recorded discussion at the end of the semester. Three focus groups were made up of 10 students from Turkey and two groups from Australia comprised of 6 and 11 in each group. Everyone met at a mutually agreed place after semester classes had finished but before the final exams. The focus group interviews were approximately 60-75 minutes long to ensure every participant‘s views were heard. The stimulus questions for the FG interviews were the emerging issues noted in the student reflective logs. The focus group discussions were recorded for transcription and analysis. The third data set was from researcher field notes (RFN). The researcher made observations and wrote field notes throughout the semester during and after CLT interventions as well as after informal interviews with students. The CLT interventions involved a range of collaborative interactive activities and were similar for both case studies although, as noted above, the curriculum varied. The CLT activities involved brain storming in groups, sharing ideas, debating and discussing issues while working on set projects, conducting team research, leading discussions, preparing and presenting seminars, solving problems in teams, conducting surveys, debating issues, peer editing and participating in role plays. As students participated in the collaborative and interactive learning activities, students were encouraged to respond to these research questions in their reflective log books:   



Which educational strategies do you prefer and why? (e.g., listening to a lecture, studying alone, doing group work, working with a partner, etc.) Describe how working with others makes a difference or not to your learning? How does working with others help you to understand the subject/topic of the lesson? Describe how interactive peer-based learning compared with other teaching and learning strategies helped you in your learning. Which strategies/approaches are most beneficial for English language learners? Why? What do you gain from interactive peer-based learning?

THE RESEARCH INTERVENTION The matrix shown in Figure 1 illustrates the conceptual logic for the implementation process of interactive peer-based teaching through an iterative design in which the study results achieved more depth and richness through successive iterations (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998). Based on the theoretical principles of social constructivism which link with collaborative learning teamwork strategies, the research intervention developed learning activities where students conducted research, shared knowledge and presented seminars in roles for the class. As the participants engaged in

Collaborative Learning

349

this activity they collaborated with their peers to share reading, discuss meaning, listen to each others‘ pronunciation, fill in gaps in knowledge, develop interdependent task responsibility, and reflect on their learning experiences. For some ESL and EFL learners, it was the first time to lead discussion using the English language . This challenged the participants‘ confidence and speaking fluency as students listened to each other, created the presentation products and synthesized multidimensional group ideas. Successive iterations developed depth across levels of basic social skills , then collaborative skills and finally complexity in thinking. By revisiting teamwork learning strategies through various learning activities, a broader range of learning outcomes resulted. The research intervention took on a real world application in both cases. In the Turkish case study, student groups chose an aspect of English teaching, such as developing reading skills, to research as they prepared presentations in role as teachers. The purpose of the activity was to give a seminar presentation, lead discussion and demonstrate teaching knowledge in role as teachers. The collaborative process required basic social skills to share, listen, discuss, solve problems and choose or create the products to use during the presentation. Some class time was given to discus s and prepare but students were also required to research and interact outside of class. In the case of Australian international students, participants researched a topic, prepared surveys, analyzed the data, wrote reports with graphs to represent findings, and then conducted group business meeting discussions in role to demonstrate their findings. As well as demonstrating knowledge and research ability, the group teams took on roles as business professionals, where the expectation was to lead discussion with some pragmatic acumen of knowing what to say to whom and when. Again, some class time was allocated for discussion, sharing research and planning roles. Both cohorts were challenged by interactive peer-based learning tasks which reflected real world applications and the next section will discuss the themes emerging from this research study.

THE EMERGING THEMES FROM THE TWO CASES The data analysis and synthesis involved identification of emergent themes between the two cases and synthesizing into the most dominant ones, as shown in Table 1. Clarity and preciseness is very important at this stage given the overlapping constructs that are usually found in the education literature. Initially and at a macro level, there were many emergent themes in both cases that appeared to be similar. However, further probing through detailed analysis revealed subtle variations in how the two cases experienced the CLT approach. The dominant emergent themes are presented in Table 1 with the themes listed on the left side of the table and include learning dispositions that is shaped by contextual and cultural issues; speaking competency which involves pronunciation and fluency; communicative feedback which involved skill deficiency diagnostic and practice; engagement and self efficacy involved confidence and willing to share ideas. Extracts from raw data illustrating the student peer-interaction voices will be used to support the discussion in this section. In the table each

350

Sally Ashton-Hay and Hitendra Pillay

theme is illustrated with a student quotation descriptor from each case to show the subtle variations. The next section will discuss each of the themes from the study and substantiated with extracts from the raw data, will also be linked to current literature.

Learning Dispositions – “Just like Soap Foam” and “Duty to Learn” Participants from the two cohorts viewed teaching and learning slightly differently. The Turkish cohort considered memorization and rote learning as obligatory for learning. This can be attributed to their exam culture where recalling information was valued despite the extensive research finding (Biggs, 1998, 2003; Biggs, Burville, & Telfer, 1993; Bozkurt, 2006; Chamot & O'Malley, 1999; Kalantzis & Cope, 2005; Kinzer, 2001; Marton, Hounsell, & Entwistle, 1984; McWilliam & Jackson, 2008; Pillay, Clarke, & Taylor, 2006; Strong, Silver, & Perini, 2000) suggesting that this type of learning was not a particularly deep form of learning. The main objective for them was to pass the examinations. The Turkish undergraduates claimed that memorization was just like soap foam (1RL 1/6/06) because it only worked temporarily and was not sustainable. Other undergraduates believed that rote learning cripples our country‟s economic development and students don‟t understand what they learn (1RL 1/6/06) and another undergraduate who concurred students are not encouraged to think, form new ideas, imagine, produce or how to improve themselves; thinking should be active and education should lead us to be productive (1FG 3/6/06). The EFL students had noted a difference between passive and active learning outcomes as illustrated in Figure 1 interactive peer-based instructional iterations matrix. In comparison, the Australian international group had a more focused purpose with a definite duty to learn disposition. Consequently, this cohort developed a range of learning strategies to assist with their learning such as doing prior preparation, checking with the lecturers to clarify thinking, and putting in longer hours. Students insisted that in Australia they have to always be prepared because teacher will ask questions every time (2FG 24/9/07) whereas in other cultures the teachers may not ask questions. This led to strategies where students usually do homework maybe one or two weeks before, then communicate with friends and the tutor to clarify my thinking (2FG 24/9/07). The Australian international students found such strategies helpful because we pay money and we want to study here, we have to be able to read and understand study information; we‟ve got to improve our knowledge (2FG24/9/07). Another international student agreed I think because you come here, you pay your money for studying. If you don‟t want to study you lose your money, just waste your money (3FG 5/10/07). To the Australian cohort, an effective learning disposition required more concentration than ‗soap foam.‘ The commitment and sacrifice that came with choosing to study overseas, made them feel compelled to exert a greater effort to succeed and not lose the value of family investment. As a result, the over dependence on an examination culture did not arise among the Australia cohort of ESL learners. Instead, these students discussed ―learning as a duty‖ and ―loss of face syndrome‖ (Pillay, 2002) which sharpened the value of success and motivated them to work harder. Thus, Figure 1 matrix lists several learning outcomes for this group which were responsibility and challenge.

Collaborative Learning

351

Speaking Competency – “Can‟t Speak” and “Just Hesitating” The second emerging theme related to speaking English as a Foreign Language for the Turkish students or speaking English as a Second Language for the Australian cohort. Both cohorts of students expressed similar trepidation for speaking in the English language but for slightly different reasons. The Turkish cohort expressed an overwhelming lack of confidence and inability to speak in English while the Australian cohort was fearful of participative speaking due to power distance (Hofstede, 1980) between lecturers and students as well as international students and native speakers. Despite years of studying English in the Teacher Training High Schools, the Turkish group claimed they lacked opportunities to use the language. The common anecdotes from interaction with students included: no one can speak in class while others reflected we never spoke in English in high school, just wrote and read, we were not active in language learning (1RL 1/6/06). Another remarked: Teachers teach all the grammar structures but in English classes students don‟t speak and only do exercises without knowing (1RL 1/6/06). A fourth student believed that there was too much emphasis on structural rules because when they teach us English, they only teach grammatical rules, but it isn‟t enough because our people know all of the structures but they can‟t speak (1RL 5/6/2006). Another student lamented how can we become English teachers when we can‟t even speak? (1FG 3/6/06). In contrast to the Turkish cohort, the Australian cohort was afraid and self conscious of participating in discussions and claimed this was one of the main reasons why they remained silent in class. These students expressed concern about their pronunciation, did not understand the Australian accent and use of slang, lacked precise vocabulary and consequently had to guess what was being discussed in lectures and were not able to confidently participate with native speakers because of the fast pace of the spoken English used by native speakers. One Korean student noted the different culture of teaching and learning and said: Even if I know the answer I cannot talk – I know it but I‟m just hesitating, afraid to speak out in front of all. Although I know exactly what is the answer I‟m afraid in front of classmates, in front of the teacher (2FG 24/9/07). Many students from the Australian cohort mentioned that power distance (Hofstede, 1980) caused them to be afraid of lecturer (2FG 24/9/07). The power distance apparent between teachers and students is more significant in Asian cultures and was confounded by lack of supportive nature by some native speakers. One student said: Australian people don‟t think that I can speak English properly; they don‟t really know how to encourage my speaking (3FG 5/10/07). Thus, power distance played a significant role in causing the Australian cohort to lack confidence in speaking in class discussions or in front of others, in addition to speech production concerns. Despite these specific difficulties, both cohorts concurred that face-to-face interaction and direct experience was necessary (1FG 3/6/06) and a better way to learn (2FG 24/9/07). Students commented that speaking in small groups was easy like talking to friends with no power distance issues and more relaxed (2RL 1/6/06). These comments support a key social skill in language learning where learners, through peer discussions experience enjoyment, confidence and develop more fluency in speaking. The interactive peer-based learning builds on civic skills and the basic pragmatic competence required to use the language effectively

352

Sally Ashton-Hay and Hitendra Pillay

(Alexander, Argent, & Spencer, 2008). Students are not confronted with the fear of speaking in front of others alone or the possible embarrassment and loss of face that an uttered error might cause. Both cohorts acknowledged that interactive peer-based learning encourages speaking opportunities in a non-threatening environment, helps expand vocabulary, increase the speed of English speaking and provided friendly warnings from friends about mispronunciation. This perhaps is best illustrated by several Turkish students who wrote how happy, energetic and very creative they felt in speaking lessons because of sharing ideas with my friends or discussing with a partner and also I want to ask the teacher some questions (1RL 1/6/06). Similar comments were made by the Australian international cohort after peer interactive training: the more I talk, the more confidence I feel (3FG 5/10/07) while the researcher noted how the students‘ speaking was slowly improving along with more abundant class contributions 2RFN 31/7/07). These comments demonstrate learning outcomes listed in the Figure 1 matrix which includes social skills, increasing confidence and speaking fluency as fears of speaking inability and power distance fade from peer-based learning. Another CLT activity that helped develop speaking confidence and proficiency was collaboration among student groups and teams in problem solving tasks. Both terms of team and group are used interchangeably to indicate students working together. The collaboration encouraged them to work together more intensively. Roles were assigned to group members such as recorder or reporter. Australian international students discussed case studies at length to agree on ethical solutions. Turkish students began to plan and conduct research for group presentations. The collaborative problem solving experience was noted by one Turkish student as the best aspect was enjoyment and active involvement in the process of learning. Other Turkish students mentioned how team work helps improve social skills and provides a more real-life scenario because you taste what you will have to do in the real world. You learn to express your ideas and concerns and accept others‟ ideas and concerns (both quotes from 1RL 1/6/06). The collaborative problem solving had generated more fluency in using the language and enhanced students social skills and confidence collaborating effectively by discussing in groups. The third CLT activity of leading discussion further developed students‘ confidence and proficiency. For instance Turkish students in the English Literature class began to volunteer to lead discussions on poetry. The lecturer listed poets and poems to be covered in the next session and noted suddenly, students began asking to “present” those poems. It surprised me as I was only informing them, not requesting their participation (20/3/06). New confidence from iterative peer collaboration appeared to motivate students to volunteer leading discussions in front of the class which demonstrated a more complex learning outcome than previously encountered. The willingness and aspiration to lead discussion on English metaphysical poetry indicates the students‘ deepening skills (Vygotsky, 1962, 1987, 1997) in language learning and a more intensive engagement with the content. Roach (2000) claims an essential part of acquiring fluency in English is speech production without pauses or gaps between words. As noted above speaking challenges resulted in increased proficiency and competency from interactive peer-based learning activities. The inhibiting and enhancing factors noted above have also been developed through research findings on cooperative learning where students have more opportunities to speak at any one time in the classroom (Johnson & Johnson, 2002; Kagan, 1994), thus providing increased communication skills practice and little power distance to provoke fears of speaking. The budding confidence through small interactive groups was valued by a

Collaborative Learning

353

Turkish student who said: by group work, slowly you see that everyone‟s pronunciation is improving. They learn better (1FG 3/6/06).

Learning Diagnostic: “Correct Deficiencies” and “Like a Missing Jigsaw” Communicative feedback which involves skill deficiency diagnostic followed with practice to improve is a key attribute in language learning. Related to this diagnostic are the constructive effects of interactive peer-based learning and the knack of pinpointing and complementing gaps in learning such as pronunciation skills without embarrassing the learner. In this theme, both cohorts discussed how peer learning assisted them to address such deficiencies and fill in the missing jigsaw pieces in their learning process. The students refer to ‗jigsaw‘ as a metaphor for completing their understanding of a topic or subject rather than as a communicative language teaching approach. Similar to a picture puzzle with many pieces, they gained new ideas to enhance their own understanding of a bigger picture. Using peer interaction provides a non threatening environment for students to identify gaps in their peers‘ pronunciation, vocabulary and also meaning making and inform of the gaps. As a result of this opportunity, students became aware of pronunciation difficulties and vocabulary because active learning encouraged them to engage and reflect. As a consequence, the Turkish students became more aware of their speaking strengths and weaknesses. One undergraduate Turkish student wrote that it was useful to identify and correct my deficiencies with the help of my friends (1RL 1/6/06) and others said we can notice our deficits on topics and we can complete them easily before the exams (1FG 3/6/06); while another student wrote the knowledge I gain from interactive learning remains for a long time in my mind (1RL 1/6/06). In these respects, interactive peer-based learning encouraged a constructive and reflective quality for the English language learners. This concurs with Vygotsky‘s (1997) assertion that thought and speech are close to human consciousness. As students dialogued together, social skills developed along with increasing diagnostic awareness of individual strengths and weaknesses. Students became more aware of their own merits and deficiencies through interactive peer-based learning dialogues. This was apparent as Turkish students began collaborating to plan and research teaching methodology presentations. Groups had been allocated a topic such as ‗reading‘ or ‗listening‘ for seminar presentations in the Teaching English to Children class. Some discussion and preparation time was allowed at the end of class for group members to check progress and discuss plans. It was noted that group members were correcting each other‟s comprehension on topics and reorienting understanding in a positive and very productive way (1RFN 24/4/06). A collaboration learning outcome was evident as students were participating intensively for longer periods and using each other as diagnostic resources to complete gaps in their language proficiency and understanding. Their final presentations demonstrated complex higher order thinking as student groups shared responsibilities to create a holistic seminar and present it in English. The first group member discussed the importance of reading skills; the second person demonstrated research about reading strategies; the third showed a range of useful reading activities and the fourth conversed about reading assessment methods. The presentations developed interdependence, responsibility, and required students to collaborate on a more complex level using English language skills as an English teacher, another real world application for language learning.

354

Sally Ashton-Hay and Hitendra Pillay

In the context of this theme, the Australian international students claimed that working with peers could give inspiration like a missing jigsaw piece (2FG 24/9/07). One female student explained that while engaged in a peer interactive activity, she might have the extra piece of information that someone else needs to complete the bigger picture or vice versa, forcing the student to engage in conversation to negotiate a solution. Students praised the multi-dimensional perspectives of viewing problems and solutions through another‘s eyes, particularly from another cultural dynamic or ideology. One student mentioned a reflective and dialogic benefit from working with peers because it helps you think, ponder over the thing you try to explain, talk to other friends, tell your ideas to them; in return, they give the same to you; this is both enjoyable and useful. (2RL 10/10/07). These comments arose after students had engaged in collaborative group work to discuss ethical case studies in Communication for Business classes and endeavored to find solutions. Their comments illustrate a collaborative learning outcome where group members are working more intensively, efficiently and productively. Researcher field notes also observed that iterative peer learning had a collaboration learning outcome when many students automatically began asking each other questions or offering help. It‟s good to see them begin to rely on each other instead of always expecting help/advice/assistance from the teacher only (21/8/07). In this particular entry, the researcher also noted that pairs of students only asked for assistance after a lengthy peer-review process and coming to the end of their own resources. Both case study cohorts agreed that CLT and peer-to peer interactive activities facilitated more cognitive engagement and brain storming and so this was an advantage to expand ideas. Students commented that the success potential increases in the group (1FG 3/6/06); somebody from the group forms an idea and others improve it (1FG 3/6/06); and what one person will do is limited but when we do something all together, that‟s more creative (2FG 24/9/07). Even though some structure was provided by the lecturer and through collaborative group structures, the social and non-threatening nature of interactive peer-based learning was considered more multi-dimensional learning (1FG 3/6/06) with more dimensions and ideas from your idea (3FG 5/10/07). A similar notion was discussed by McGee-Cooper (1998) who asserted that when teams know how to dialogue, collective intelligence rises higher than the brightest group member. This thesis is also reiterated in the bestseller The Wisdom of Crowds (Surowiecki, 2004) where diversity of opinions can provide greater insight and perception. The additive awareness through peer interactive learning offers a diagnostic capacity for learners which is a much neglected area (Alderson, 2005) in modern language teaching. Other learning outcomes were collaboration, responsibility, engagement and multidimensional learning. The multi-dimensional potential of interactive peer-based learning led to the next theme of group motivation and time passing more quickly.

Engagement: “Cherish your Time,” Motivation and Peak Challenge The Turkish cohort claimed that traditional didactic lectures were often boring, causing them to lose concentration or fall asleep. In contrast, the same cohort recognized and valued the positive attributes of interactive peer-based learning such as, time passes more quickly; concentration isn‟t lost; the lack of boredom; having fun and lessons that were more enjoyable and memorable with an abundance of ideas (1RL 1/6/06). Students claimed to learn more effectively and remember better because of jokes, stories or events that happen

Collaborative Learning

355

(1RL 1/6/06). Learners liked the brainstorms that come about because learning this way increases your creativity and imagination (1RL 1/6/06). Associating learning experiences with memorable and pleasant events in the class helps students to remember the content by reflecting on the events. Another Turkish student said that working alone is not enjoyable, lonely and difficult but that group work is enjoyable because you cherish your time (1FG 3/6/06). Many Turkish students commented about the pleasure and rapid passage of time when engaged with companions in learning activities. In comparison, the Australian cohort of international students spoke about the ―friendly competition” from engagement and learning in group work. Their comments included more fun compared to self-learning; lectures are too boring but group activities are more enjoyable, more challenging and learn more; working in groups motivates me to perform better and be more hard working; and a good chance to upgrade myself (2RL 10/10/07). Another student from this cohort insisted that collaborative group work had motivated him because when I see other members work hard, I am influenced by them. I will work harder, I don‟t want to be a worse person in my group (3RL 10/9/07). These student comments could be associated with flow theory which describes a mental state resulting from peak experiences in which the level of challenge is high but manageable given a person‘s skills (Csikszentmihalyi 1996, 1997; Tardy & Snyder, 2004). During flow experiences, attention is fully focused and devoted which leads to a loss of self-consciousness and a distorted sense of time. Csikszentmihalyi (1997, p. 33) has likened flow experience to ―a magnet for learning‖ because continued realization of flow requires new challenges, reminiscent of Vygotsky‘s (1997) ripening new skills. Students were aware of increased engagement, peak challenge, developing new skills and commented on how their identity changed in response to overcoming the learning challenges. One student explained we have to get involved, communicate with other people and it changes our personality (2FG 24/9/07). Thus peer interactive learning lead to learning outcomes of engagement, satisfaction and enjoyment, creativity and peak challenge. Sometimes students went beyond the class time to complete the task so as not to let the group fall behind. These student identity changes lead into discussion of the next theme.

Self Efficacy: Civic Skills, Leadership and Development of Student Identity The awareness of developing identity through interactive peer-based learning was apparent in both case study groups. Leadership, self-efficacy and the development of student identity appeared to be cultivated through communication tasks centered on basic civic skills arising from learning to work together. This was especially evident with the Turkish cohort. By learning social skills and collaboration, students listened to diverse viewpoints, solved problems negotiated solutions and assisted one another which provided a more holistic purpose for learning English language. A range of comments illustrated the CLT participation for instance, when students spoke about how working together intensified social skills and helped transform those into civic skills by helping them to appreciate other views, cooperating together, as well as negotiating and resolving differences. According to undergraduates, the benefits include how to study in a more democratic way; discuss problems in a civilized manner; have respect for diverse viewpoints; listen and help each other and the importance of unity (1RL 1/6/06). Relationship building was important as

356

Sally Ashton-Hay and Hitendra Pillay

students commented on how friendship improves by spending time together (1FG 3/6/06); as well as the memorable quality of the lesson content mentioned previously. This was a significant shift for the Turkish cohort who grew up knowing examination was the only learning need for being successful in life. The Australian cohort of international students also affirmed learning civic skills from the cross-cultural dynamic experienced in the English language class. This was interesting but not surprising given that while these students were in Australia their Asian cultural background seemed to be changing from the strong focus on examination to more meaningful learning. They believed that mutual respect developed through listening, sharing, giving and receiving feedback, while at the same time analyzing and evaluating fostered critical thinking, tolerance and respect for others. More peer relationships resulted in multi-dimensional problem-solving approaches, greater cooperation and comparison of cultural ideology. Students commented that these experiences changed their character. One student explained the personality is getting changed – I mean more active. Now it‟s not very difficult to speak in front of people (2FG 24/9/07). Similar comments related to the development of assertive skills, negotiation techniques, and becoming more expressive about their opinions because sometimes in our country teachers didn‟t expect us to share our experience, our ideas, so sometimes we change our personality (2FG 24/9/07. This exploration of identity was enabled through peer interactive learning which served as a ―cognitive bridge between the present and the future, specifying how individuals may change from how they are now to what they will become‖ (Markus & Nurius 1986, p. 956). The Australian cohort emphasized their resilience in overcoming the obstacles of adapting to life in Australia, an English speaking country. Students believed that a greater sense of self-efficacy developed from peer learning as well as gaining confidence from speaking with others outside of the learning context. One of the greatest challenges was the stress caused by having to live in a foreign culture and coping with a new learning environment alone (Khawaja & Dempsey, 2008). Students admitted that international students suffer from a lot of stress but believed that they were stronger than domestic because of the challenges they overcome. One undergraduate claimed this peer learning helps us be stronger. And if we have difficulty in the future it‟s easy for us to cope with. (2FG 24/9/07). One of the most interesting contributions to this category came from an international student who reflected on his new potential for leadership as he explained: I think I learned how to be a leader. Because we don‟t have any chance to be a leader in school but… I know how to be a leader and how to encourage my group members. It helped me to realize that maybe I have more leadership talent. (3FG 5/10/07) This student‘s reflection on his future potential as a leader demonstrates Vygotsky‘s (1997, p. 30) notion that speech is an expression of that process of becoming aware. The student appeared to become aware of his own developing skills in leading others and was reflecting on possibilities for those skills in his future. He may envision himself in an international leadership capacity in the future due to his increased language confidence. Vygotsky‘s quote ―What the child can do in cooperation today he can do alone tomorrow‖ (p. 188) illustrates the zone of proximal development for this student and his maturing leadership skills. International career aspiration became more achievable with increased confidence.

Collaborative Learning

357

Similarly, Bandura (1997) introduced the construct of self-efficacy which refers to a personal action control or agency. He argues that a person who believes in being able to do something may conduct a more active and self-determined life course with such ―can do‖ cognition. This belief in being able to control challenges has also been likened to a selfconfident view in being able to deal with any life issues. Some researchers explain it as a ―triadic reciprocal causation where learning environments have an epistemology of their own which together with the learner‘s own epistemological beliefs about learning triggers a reciprocal engagement‖ (Pillay et al., 2006). Other researchers (Tschannen-Moran, Hoy, & Hoy, 1998) suggest that once efficacy beliefs are established they may be somewhat resistant to change. These ideas diverge from universal patterns of adult identity stages linked to chronological age. The learner‘s own efforts to construct a more positive self-perception are evident through peer learning and could hold great potential for educational programs and lifelong learners. If English language learners develop greater self-efficacy through collaborative civic skills, leadership and self-identity, English language learning programs may consider developing more non-traditional teaching approaches to accelerate learning and self-efficacy through peer-based strategies. The potential is also promising for remedial inclusion of students through peer collaboration.

CONCLUSION The study reported here demonstrates a number of useful insights into teaching English as Foreign Language learners as well as English as a Second Language learners through collaborative interactive peer teaching. When peer interactive learning strategies and activities are repeated in iterative learning cycles (as noted in Figure 1 Interactive Peer-Based Instructional Iteractions), students are afforded more opportunities to respond. In this study, five main themes are reported including learning dispositions, speaking competency, diagnostic feedback, engagement and self efficacy. Student participants discussed the benefits of peer-based learning in reflective logs and focus group discussions. The learning outcomes included social skill development, confidence, speaking fluency, diagnostic feedback, intensified collaboration, engagement, multidimensional learning, fun and enjoyment, creativity, challenge, responsibility, higher order thinking, civic skills, tolerance, leadership and greater self efficacy. The majority of seventy-nine Turkish students preferred active learning in comparison to their traditional style of passive learning and rote memorization. The eighty-eight international students‘ duty to learn (Pillay, 2002) kept them focused despite initial difficulties and cultural adjustments including the fear of speaking English in class which was confounded by power distance (Hofstede, 1980) with regards to their lecturers and other native speakers. Both groups appreciated the increased opportunities for developing fluency in speaking English language and minimizing the translation time-lag between thinking in their own native language and then translating into English. Both groups also recognized the capacity of social dialogic learning to improve their skills and provide a diagnostic for individual deficiencies. This increased awareness that collaborative interactive peer-based learning has the potential to diagnose pronunciation and knowledge deficiencies, while filling in the ―missing jigsaw pieces‖ during peak periods of challenge, enjoyment and rapid passage of time was important and beneficial for the students because engagement

358

Sally Ashton-Hay and Hitendra Pillay

increased (Csikszentmihalyi, 1997a, 1997b). One of the key sources of identity formation is engagement in practice (Wenger, 1998) and offers students opportunities to explore their future identities, or possible selves, as English language speakers (Markus & Nurius, 1986). Apart from the language learning, both case study cohorts stated they developed civic and leadership skills as well as critical thinking processes which are key to effectively making meaning in a new language. The communicative language skills development and the empowerment experienced by the Australian international students were instrumental in transcending their expectations and rising to a new level. They had begun to identify themselves with their ideal English-speaking future careers and changing themselves as a person. The complementary social interaction, reflection and knowledge construction in communicative interactive peer-based learning assisted the development of a range of new skills through greater self expression and civic leadership which caused positive identity changes and the formation of self-efficacy. Towards the end of the semester the international students were committed to success and thus turned every obstacle into an opportunity through discussing, debating and personal meaning making with peer interactions in the class and outside of the classrooms (in the case of the Australian cohorts). The lived experience went beyond the classroom although in Turkey, the language learning experience did not go beyond the classroom. For the majority of students, interactive peer-based learning was viewed positively and their gains, elaborated through the quotes, endorse the conclusion that peer learning is a vital for high quality teaching and learning environments (Boud et al., 2001). It must be cautioned that it is not the only approach but an important one in achieving complementary outcomes and benefits for the learners. The challenge for educators is how to create everyday learning environments that go beyond the classroom and resonate with the real world.

About the Authors Sally Ashton-Hay is a Lecturer in English language programs at the International College of Queensland University of Technology in Australia. While posted as a Senior English Language Fellow from 2003-2006, she researched one of the case studies reported here at the largest state university in Turkey. She has been a literacy educator for Aboriginal students, non-elite English language micro scholarship students and a teacher trainer. Her current interest is student voice and designing blended technological learning applications. Hitendra Pillay is a Professor in the School of Learning and Professional Studies at Queensland University of Technology in Australia. His interest in the nature and development of knowledge and the systems theory has led to a diverse academic research portfolio that includes areas such as distributed/social cognition and learning, adult and community education, industry based training, and technology based learning.

Collaborative Learning

359

APPENDIX A Table 1. Summary of the significant comparative themes from two case studies Theme 1. Learning Dispositions  Responsibility  Collaboration  Higher order thinking (Biggs, 1998; Biggs et al., 1993; Marton et al., 1984; Pillay et al., 2006; Strong et al., 2000)

2. Speaking Fluency  Fluency  Social skills  Confidence (Hymes, 1972; Li, 2001; Nunan, 1999; Savignon, 2001)

3. Learning Diagnostic  Diagnostic feedback  Challenge  Multi dimensional (Mitchell 1994 in Bax, 2003)

4. Engagement  Peak challenge  Creativity  Enjoyment

Turkey

Australia

“Just like Soap Foam” ―Duty to learn” Rote learning, passive memorization, superficial

Sacrifice and cost to study abroad, more preparation

―Not able to speak” “Afraid to speak” Learn only grammar; unable to speak

Power distance; not used to expressing opinions

“Complete deficiencies” “Just like a jigsaw” Awareness of skill gaps from peers

Peers fill in missing pieces of lesson “Don‟t want to be the worst in the group‖

“Cherish your time” Motivates friendly competition, peak challenge

(Csikszentmihalyi, 1996, 1997a, 1997b; Tardy & Snyder, 2004)

Fun and enjoyable learning

REFERENCES Alderson, J. C. (2005). Diagnosing foreign language proficiency: The interface between learning and assessment. London: Continuum. Alexander, O., Argent, S., & Spencer, J. (2008). EAP Essentials: A teacher's guide to principles and practice. Reading: Garnet Publishing Ltd. Aviram, A. (2000). Beyond Constructivism: Autonomy-Oriented Educaton. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 19(5 - 6), 465-489.

360

Sally Ashton-Hay and Hitendra Pillay

Bandura, A. (1997). Self Efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman. Biggs, J. (1998). Learning from the Confucian heritage: so size doesn't matter? International Journal of Educational Research, 29(8), 723-738. Biggs, J. (2003). Teaching for Quality Learning at University. Maidenhead: The Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press. Biggs, J., Burville, J., & Telfer, R. (1993). The Process of Learning. New York: Prentice Hall. Boud, D., Cohen, R., & Sampson, J. (2001). Peer Learning in Higher Education: learning from & with each other. London: Kogan Page Limited. Bozkurt, G. (2006, October 1). Turkey debates free expression of thought. Turkish Daily News. Breen, M. P. (1984). Process syllabuses for the language classroom. In C. Brumfit (Ed.), General English Syllabus Design: Curriculum and Syllabus Design for the General English Classroom. Oxford: British Council and Pergamon Press. Brown, H. (2000). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching (Fourth ed.). White Plains: Pearson Education. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42. Brown, T. H. (2006). Beyond constructivism: navigationism in the knowledge era. On the Horizon, 14(3), 108. Buchberger, F. (2001). Active Learning in Powerful Learning Environments. Retrieved 21/1/06, 2006, from http://www.palinz.ac.at/team/homepage/BuchbergerF/01%20FB%20Activec.pdf Buchberger, F., Campos, B. P., Kallos, D., & Stephenson, J. (2000). Green Paper on Teacher Education in Europe. Umea, Sweden: Umea University. Celce-Murcia, M. E. (2001). Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language (3rd ed.). Singapore: Heinle & Heinle Thomson Learning. Chamot, A. U., & O'Malley, J. M. (1999). Using Learning Strategies to Develop Skills in English as a Second Language. In J. Orr (Ed.), Growing Up With English (pp. 131143). Washington, D.C.: United States Department of State. Chimombo, J. (2001). Educational innovations in developing countries: implications and challenges for policy change in Malawi. Journal of International Cooperation in Education, 4(2), 39-54. Cook-Sather, A. (2006). Sound, Presence, and Power: "Student Voice" in Educational Research and Reform. Curriculum Inquiry, 36(4), 359-390. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Intrinsic Motivation and Effective Teaching. In J. L. Bess (Ed.), Teaching Well and Liking It: Motivating Faculty to Teach Effectively (pp. 72-92). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997a). Finding Flow. New York: Basic Books. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997b). Finding flow: the Psychology of Engagement with Everyday Life. New York: Basic Books. De Corte, E., Verschaffel, L., Entwistle, N., & van Merriënboer, J. (2003). Powerful Learning Environments: Unravelling basic components and dimensions. Elsevier Science. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2003). Strategies of Qualitative Inquiry. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (1998). Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gerjets, P. H., & Hesse, F. W. (2005). When are powerful learning environments effective? The role of learner activities and of students' conceptions of educational technology. International Journal of Educational Research, 41(6), 445-465.

Collaborative Learning

361

Goker, S. D. (2006). Impact of peer coaching on self-efficacy and instructional skills in TEFL teacher education. System, 34(2), 239-254. Hall, D., & Hewings, A. (2001). Innovation in English Language Teaching: A Reader. New York: Routledge. Hart, N. (2002). Intra-group autonomy and authentic materials: a different approach to ELT in Japanese colleges and universities. System, 30(1), 33-46. Hiep, P. H. (2005). "Imported" Communicative Language Teaching: Implications for Teachers. English Teaching Forum, 43(4), 2-9. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values. Beverly Hills: Sage. Hymes, D. (1971). Competence and performance in linguistic theory. In R. Huxley & E. Ingram (Eds.), Language Acquisition: Models and Methods (pp. 3-28). London: Academic Press. Hymes, D. (1972). On Communicative Competence. In J. P. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguistics: Selected Readings (pp. 269-293). Harmondsworth: Penguin. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2002). Learning together and alone: overview and metaanalysis. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 22, pp.95-105. Kagan, S. (1994). Cooperative Learning. San Clemente, CA: Kagan Publications. Kalantzis, M., & Cope, B. (2005). Learning by Design. Melbourne: Victorian Schools Innovation Commission. Keeffe, M., & Carrington, S. (2006). Schools and Diversity. Frenchs Forest: Pearson SprintPrint. Khawaja, N., & Dempsey, J. (2008). A Comparison of International and Domestic Tertiary Students in Australia. Australian Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 18(1), 30-46. Kinzer, S. (2001). Crescent & Star: Turkey Between Two Worlds. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Kubota, R., & Lin, A. (2006). Race and TESOL: Introduction to Concepts and Theories. TESOL Quarterly, 40(3), 471-493. Lesgold, A. (2004). Contextual requirements for constructivist learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 41(6), 495-502. Li, D. (1998). "It's always more difficult than you plan and imagine": Teachers' perceived difficulties in introducing the communicative approach in South Korea. TESOL Quarterly, 32(4). Li, D. (2001). Teachers' Perceived Difficulties in Introducing the communicative Approach in South Korea. In D. Hall & A. Hewings (Eds.), Innovations in English Language Teaching: A Reader (pp. 149-166). London: Routledge. Liao, X. (2004). The need for Communicative Language Teaching in China. ELT Journal, 58(3), 270. Lowyck, J., Lehtinen, E., & Elen, J. (2004). Students' perspectives on learning environments. International Journal of Educational Research, 41(6), 401-406. Markus, H., & Nurius, P. (1986). Possible Selves. American Psychologist, 41, 954-969. Marton, F., Hounsell, D., & Entwistle, N. (1984). The Experience of Learning. Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press. McWilliam, E., & Jackson, N. (2008, July 2). No Longer Tuned in to his Master's Voice. The Australian, p. 25. Montgomery, C., & Eisenstein, M. (1985). Real reality revisited; An experimental communication course in ESL. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 317-334. Niemi, H. (2002). Active learning--a cultural change needed in teacher education and schools. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(7), 763-780.

362

Sally Ashton-Hay and Hitendra Pillay

Nunan, D. (1999). Second Language Teaching & Learning. Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers. Palincsar, A., & Herrenkohl, L. (2002). Designing Collaborative Learning Contexts. Theory Into Practice, 41(1), 26. Pillay, H. (2002). Understanding Learner-centredness: does it consider the diverse needs of individuals? Studies in Continuing Education, 24(1), 93-102. Pillay, H., Clarke, J., & Taylor, P. (2006). Learning agency in new learning environments: An Australian case study of the influence of context. In A. D. Figueiredo & A. P. Afonso (Eds.), Managing Learning in Virtual Settings: The Role of Context (pp. 333). Hershey: Information Science Publishing. Salomon, G. (1998). Novel constructivist learning environments and novel technologies: some issues to be concerned with. Learning and Instruction, 8(Supplement 1), 3-12. Satyal, R. (2005). Education system of less developed countries needs fundamental change. Retrieved August 2, 2005, 2005, from http://www2.unesco.org/wef/Lconf_toc.htm Savignon, S. J. (2001). Communicative Language Teaching for the Twenty-First Century. In M. E. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language (3rd ed.). London: Heinle & Heinle. Schmidt, R., & Frota, S. (1986). Developing basic conversational ability in a second language: A case study of an adult learner of Portuguese. In R. Day (Ed.), Talking to Learn: Conversation in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 237-326). Rowley: Newbury House. Strong, R., Silver, H., & Perini, M. (2000). So Each May Learn: integrating learning styles and multiple intelligences. Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Surowiecki, J. (2004). The Wisdom of Crowds. New York: Doubleday. Tardy, C., & Snyder, B. (2004). 'That's why I do it': Flow and EFL teachers' practices. ELT Journal, 58(2), 118. Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Tschannen-Moran, M., Hoy, A. W., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher Efficacy: its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 202-244. Van Petegem, P., De Loght, T., & Shortridge, A. M. (2003). Powerful Learning Is Interactive: A Cross-Cultural Perspective. Retrieved 24/01/06, from http://www.usq.edu.au/electpub/ejist/docs/vol7_no1/FullPapers/Powerful_learning.htm Vygotsky, L. (1962). Thought and Language. Cambridge: MIT Press. Vygotsky, L. (1987). Zone of Proximal Development. In M. Cole (Ed.), Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes (pp. 52-91). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Vygotsky, L. (1997). Thought and Language (A. Kozulin, Trans.). Cambridge: The MIT Press. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice. Learning, Meaning and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

In: Collaborative Learning: Methodology, Types… Editors: E. Luzzatto, G. DiMarco, pp. 363-382

ISBN: 978-1-60876-076-3 © 2010 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Chapter 15

THE INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN OF ONLINE COLLABORATIVE LEARNING Laurie Posey and Laurie Lyons The George Washington University

ABSTRACT Much has been written about the potential for deep, meaningful learning through shared problem-solving and joint knowledge construction during online collaborative learning (OCL). By requiring the integration of diverse perspectives, collaborative experiences foster critical thinking and can help to move learners beyond what they are able to achieve independently. With these important educational benefits come significant challenges related to team building, participation equity, effective facilitation of critical discourse, student assessment, and the logistical challenges associated with separation of time and place. Perceived and experienced implementation difficulties often inhibit instructor‘s adoption of collaborative learning strategies in online courses. The challenges associated with online collaborative learning can be addressed through careful instructional design. There is an array of educational research exploring the effects of instructional variables on the effectiveness and outcomes of OCL. The prevalence of small, diverse studies focused on specific aspects of collaborative learning makes it difficult for practitioners to draw conclusions to guide instructional practice. The literature includes many descriptions of what effective collaboration looks like, but little specific guidance about how to get there. To bridge this gap, this chapter translates collaborative learning research into practical application. It explores key instructional design considerations for the design and implementation of effective online collaborative learning including technology selection; activity design; group formation and role assignment; team building; scaffolding and facilitation; and learner assessment. A synthesis of research findings related to each of these considerations is presented along with checklists of recommendations to guide the instructional design of OCL.

364

Laurie Posey and Laurie Lyons

INTRODUCTION Designing and facilitating online collaborative learning (OCL) is not without its challenges. Consider these comments from a survey of graduate students regarding the educational value of a collaborative assignment within an online course (Posey, 2007):  

   

Working collaboratively online is very difficult due to travel and personal schedules. My group included many strong personalities; therefore more time was needed for discussion of varying viewpoints. We felt pressured to pull something together; it was not our best work. Most of us are professionals who work in a team setting. I find these assignments to be completely ineffective learning tools. One of our team members was unresponsive, difficult to reach and generally had no contribution to the project. The timeframe was too short to sort out personalities, strengths, and weaknesses in addition to understanding, prioritizing and focusing issues. I felt like I was helping others get an A on the assignment.

Though only a small sample, these student reflections are consistent with recurrent themes in the collaborative learning literature. As summarized by Roberts and McInnerey (2007), common problems include student apathy and hostility toward group work; difficulties with group selection; a lack of essential group-work skills; the free-rider; possible inequalities in student abilities; and appropriate assessment of individuals within a group. With so many potential pitfalls, it‘s no wonder many instructors shy away from OCL. There are, after all, a host of other instructionally sound, learner-motivating strategies to choose from. Why should they bother? To be productive members of today‘s knowledge society, graduates of academic programs must be able to work on diverse tasks and solve problems collaboratively (Grabinger & Dunlap, 2002; Mandl & Kraus, 2003). The workforce is in need of graduates who look beyond their individual needs and limited points of view; who invite dialogue and debate because they know it will deepen their own understanding; who recognize the value that others bring to the table; and who are motivated to work together for the greater good. In short, society needs people who know how to collaborate. And like the development of any other complex competency, collaboration needs to be taught and its mastery requires practice. Educators have a responsibility to help students understand, value, and participate effectively in the collaborative process. Of course, collaborative learning also provides important educational benefits. The process of examining situations and problems from multiple perspectives, discussing and clarifying ideas, and evaluating the ideas of others promotes the development of critical thinking skills (Gokhale, 1995). The critical dialogue and argumentation that takes place during collaborative problem-solving creates a dissonance that forces students to evaluate their own ideas as well as those of others, which is important for deep levels of learning (Reiser, 2002; Jonnasen & Remidez, 2002). Collaboration can also foster transformative learning. As participants become more critically aware of their assumptions and expectations,

The Instructional Design of Online Collaborative Learning

365

their way of thinking becomes more inclusive, reflective, open, discriminating, and flexible (Mezirow, 2000). Despite the challenges associated with separation of time and space, collaboration is especially beneficial in online learning environments. By fostering trust, shared values, shared goals, and interdependence, collaborative learning can reduce feelings of isolation and contribute to a sense of community (Sitzmann, Ely & Wisher, 2007; Cox & Cox, 2008). Asynchronous discussion – a staple of the online classroom – promotes democracy and equality among learners, and leads to more thoughtful, careful communication (Uribe, Klein, & Sullivan, 2003; Wegerif, 1998; Wheeler & Nistor, 2003; Meyer, 2003). The online environment may also help introverted learners express themselves more openly (Hsu, Chou, Hwang & Chou, 2008). As Garrison (2003) has noted, the ability to move iteratively and deliberately between critical discourse and personal reflection is enhanced in online forums. Clearly, OCL is worth the effort. The important question now is how to implement it most efficiently and effectively. What is it that separates effective collaborative learning activities from ineffective ones? How can technology support, rather than inhibit, socialization and communication? How does the selection and design of the learning activity impact the success of OCL? What is the best way to group students? What makes for a cohesive, well functioning team? How can instructors best facilitate and support the collaborative learning process? These are some of the questions that we examine in this chapter. While our findings may be applicable to teaching learners of all ages, this chapter focuses on collaboration among adult, online learners.

DEFINITIONS & THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS Online collaborative learning, as defined for this chapter, refers to activities that challenge learners in distributed locations to work interdependently to achieve a shared learning goal. Learners may use a combination of synchronous and asynchronous technologies to communicate, share knowledge and resources, and/or develop joint projects. Interdependence is a key component of this definition. Interdependence means that students rely on one another to solve problems and complete project tasks, and that the result(s) of this interaction exceed what participants are able to achieve alone. Since every exchange of understandings enriches the learning of all parties, any activity that engages participants in critical dialogue or shared problem solving, with or without an end product, can be considered collaborative learning. The focus is as much on process as it is on outcome(s). Collaborative learning is sometimes confused with cooperative learning, and several authors have attempted to distinguish between these constructs. Early researchers of cooperative learning have defined it as the instructional use of small groups working together on carefully structured problems or tasks (Johnson & Johnson, 1990; Slavin, 1995). Building on this definition, Roberts (2005) distinguishes collaborative learning from cooperative group work by its emphasis on student-to-student interaction. Olivares (2007) concludes that whereas cooperative learning is highly structured, carefully facilitated, and focused on developing specific skills, collaborative learning is purposely unstructured to foster open debate, and is focused on knowledge construction and problem solving. We concur with Smith and MacGregor‘s (1992) characterization of collaborative learning as ―an umbrella

366

Laurie Posey and Laurie Lyons

term for a variety of educational approaches involving joint intellectual effort by students, or students and teachers together‖ (p. 10). Collaborative learning requires cooperation among group members, but by definition goes beyond working together on a shared project. True collaboration involves interdependence – a reliance on one another in problem solving or achieving mutual goals (Heinemann & Zeiss, 2002). Essential collaborative processes include shared decision making, conflict resolution, reciprocal trust and respect, shared leadership, and equality of influence (Gardner, 1998). Cognitive diversity, critical dialogue, negotiation of meaning and the synthesis of perspectives enable collaborative groups to achieve integrative solutions that exceed the capability of individual members (Gardner, 2005; Senge, 1990). The emphasis on student-to-student interaction, interdependence, and critical dialogue links OCL most closely with a field of study called Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL). CSCL refers to technology-supported problem-solving activities that challenge learners with different knowledge, skills, and attitudes to negotiate common understandings, contribute to a common pool of knowledge, and reach common conclusions. In contrast to cooperative group work, in which learners may simply share responsibility for a common task, CSCL focuses on the joint construction of knowledge and how technology and other mediators interact with this process (Koschmann, 2002). CSCL encompasses all kinds of computer-mediated collaboration, whether in the classroom or online. As such, OCL as discussed in this chapter may be seen as a subset of CSCL. Another relevant area of research revolves around the Communities of Inquiry model, which illustrates the complementary and overlapping relationships among cognitive presence, social presence, and teaching presence in online learning (Archer, Garrison, Anderson & Rourke, 2001). In a community of inquiry, learners move iteratively between dialogue (social presence) and personal reflection (cognitive presence) when solving a problem or completing a learning task (teaching presence) (Garrison, 2003). Community of inquiry research focuses on the relationship between these presences which form the basis for interaction in online learning environments. Through this lens, we can see that OCL is closely related to inquirybased facilitated discussions that prompt learners to share perspectives and/or solve problems collaboratively. OCL is a type of community of inquiry that results in some kind of tangible, collaboratively-developed outcome. Learners may engage in discussion synchronously or asynchronously (social presence); and reflect on, research, and create contributions (cognitive presence). The instructor‘s role is to provide structure and support to enable the collaborative process (teaching presence).

TECHNOLOGY SELECTION In online environments, communication technologies are essential to the collaborative process. To collaborate, students must be able to communicate. The choice of technology can play a key role in the ease and effectiveness of communication. For this reason, the characteristics and features of communication technologies must be carefully considered in the design of OCL. Kirschner, Strijbos, Kreijns and Beers (2004) emphasize the need for interaction design in support of collaborative online learning -- the need to take into account not only the

The Instructional Design of Online Collaborative Learning

367

usability of the learning environment, but also its utility. As these authors note, ―a system that is usable but does not have the functionalities the user needs is worthless‖ (p. 52). In OCL, a technology is useful if it supports learners‘ needs at any given moment during the collaborative activity. A paradox of online communication technologies is that they both enable and inhibit personal connections. Whether through email, instant messaging, voice over internet technologies, or social networking, communicating at a distance has never been easier. Why is it, then, that web-based communication is often viewed as a barrier to socialization and interaction among online learners? For example, Hishina, Okada and Suzuki (2005) point out that a lack of verbal cues can inhibit the development of interpersonal relationships. Similarly, Lee and Kim (2005) note that the relatively few opportunities for face-to-face problem solving in a web-based environment makes it difficult for groups to develop a shared understanding of group project tasks. The success of OCL within LMS-driven online classrooms may depend on using the right communication tool at the right time. Synchronous communications that provide for natural language transmission, multiple cues, and immediate feedback may be more appropriate for tasks that require debate or more immediate, efficient information exchange (Havard, Du, & Xu, 2008). Based on a review of research comparing the effects of synchronous and asynchronous environments, Sitzmann et al. (2007) concluded that students learn more through synchronous technologies, and recommend the use of chat rooms and virtual classrooms rather than email and discussion boards. As these authors note, the use of synchronous communications eliminates the frustration associated with waiting to receive an answer to a question. Immediacy has the added benefit of enhancing social presence, which facilitates trust-building, information seeking, and conflict resolution (Havard et al., 2008). In contrast, in their look at several studies, Clark and Mayer (2008) conclude that asynchronous communication that takes place over a longer period of time is more effective for facilitating learning outcomes that benefit from reflection and independent research. They emphasize the importance of matching the technology with the specific desired goal of the learning activity. Although students who are new to online learning may not always select the most appropriate technologies for the task at hand (Havard et al., 2008), there is evidence that learners have the capacity to choose communication vehicles wisely. Thomas and MacGregor (2005) found that students selected synchronous or asynchronous communication technologies based on the demands of the task. Students preferred asynchronous systems for up-front planning and tasks that required more time, reflection, and critical thinking; and synchronous systems for brainstorming, free-flowing discussion, team building, socialization, and the development of work products. Similarly, Cawthon and Harris (2007) found that students used different forms of communication based on the content of the task (i.e., email when detailed communication was required; discussion boards to receive input/feedback from the entire group). To meet the unique needs of diverse participants working on varied tasks, Cawthon and Harris (2007) provided learners collaborating in an online research lab with multiple communication formats (i.e., discussion boards, email, chat, and telephone). These authors noted several important benefits of weekly, synchronous chats, including facilitator monitoring of student understanding, providing specific feedback, observing and engaging in ―live‖ thinking processes, and enhancing social connections. To avoid potential problems associated with periodic technology failures (e.g., servers down), the authors recommend

368

Laurie Posey and Laurie Lyons

having back up plans and using alternative communication strategies such as email for the exchange of essential, time-sensitive information. Every technology has a unique set of characteristics and features that support learning and communication in different ways. In online learning settings the features and functionality of the Learning Management System (LMS), and how the instructor makes use of it, are the primary drivers of the type and quality of communication that takes place. There are many different LMSs, each with different features and affordances. Most LMSs used in higher-education settings enable learners to communicate in a variety of ways: synchronously through chat or virtual classrooms; and asynchronously through email, discussion forums, blogs or wikis. Blackboard, one of the most commonly used LMSs in higher education, enables instructors to create private group areas with chat, asynchronous discussion forums, file exchange, and email capabilities. Despite these built-in communication vehicles, Blackboard and LMSs like it may not be ideal settings for OCL. Payne and Reinhart (2008) analyzed how well the features of Blackboard support the development of collaborative, learner-centered environments and concluded that it was more instructor-centered than learner-centered, with ―inherent tendencies toward fragmentation, individualization and isolation‖ (p. 35). As these authors note, student control over the nature of interaction is limited to what the instructor provides them, and the division of communications into isolated forums can impede the evolution of natural, integrated conversation. Rollett, Lux, Strohmaier, and Dosinger (2007) also looked at this issue and noted that traditional LMSs can limit peers from collaborating effectively, and do not sufficiently address social factors, such as trust and motivation. They found that the high degree of structure in traditional LMSs hinders creativity and limits learners‘ selfdirected activity. Online instructors can expand opportunities for collaboration in online environments through the use of social technologies known as ―Web 2.0,‖ including wikis, social bookmarking, social networking, and virtual worlds, all of which may facilitate OCL. Rollet et al. (2007) point out advantages of social technologies over traditional LMSs, particularly the conversations, communities, networks, and ideas these technologies facilitate. In an ethnographic study of the use of blogs, wikis, Second Life, Facebook, and Delicious, Hemmi, Bayne and Land (2009) noted social media‘s orientation towards collaborationSocial technologies enable all of the essential elements of OCL, including student-to-student interaction; interdependence, (in the form of social creation); open discussion and debate; joint problem solving; and examination of situations and problems from multiple perspectives. Social media technologies are also being used as LMSs. Rienzo and Han (2009) compared Google Docs and Microsoft‘s Office Live for course management, including rating the degree of cooperation and collaboration provided by each. They considered groups on a cooperation-collaboration continuum and found that collaborative groups benefited from the simultaneous editing capabilities and more versatile organizational possibilities offered in the Google system, when compared to the more hierarchical structure of the Microsoft system. Selecting Web 2.0 technologies can be challenging due to the great many options available. Examples include Blogger, Tumblr, Typepad, and Wordpress for blogging; Flickr, Vimeo, and YouTube for sharing videos and other media; CiteULike, Connotea, Delicious, Reddit, and StumbleUpon for sharing and commenting on links/bookmarks; Goodreads and Librarything for sharing and discussing books; MediaWiki, Wetpaint, and Wikispaces for

The Instructional Design of Online Collaborative Learning

369

wikis; and Facebook and Google for group work and online space for groups to do many of these activities. Given the advantages social technologies have in regard to collaborative work, instructors may benefit from trying some of these tools. However, it is also important to note the potential pitfalls of using these relatively new technologies. As Rollett et al. (2007) noted, caution should be used when relying on services provided by new companies that may not yet have a viable business model.

OCL Design Checklist: Technology Selection     

Provide multiple synchronous and asynchronous communication technology options. Match the technology to the desired learning outcome. Provide education and support to ensure that students (a) know how to use available technologies; and (b) recognize the unique affordances of each as it relates to OCL. Allow and encourage students to choose the best technology for the task at hand. Take advantage of evolving Web 2.0 technologies to support collaboration (e.g., blogs, wikis, instant messaging, social networking, video chat, virtual worlds, etc.).

ACTIVITY DESIGN Moving beyond a simple division of effort to foster the joint knowledge construction and interdependent teamwork that characterizes true collaborative learning requires that participants (a) welcome alternative perspectives and complementary talents; and (b) integrate perspectives and use their complementary talents to achieve learning outcomes that exceed what they can accomplish individually. To achieve this goal, instructors in OCL must push participants beyond their individual comfort zones. The most effective OCL activities promote critical thinking through inquiry, critical thinking, or problem-solving; and are challenging enough to require true collaboration, including significant contribution from all participants. Learning domains that are ill-structured provide a natural foundation for OCL. Illstructured domains reflect real-world complexities and are characterized by complex concepts, or combinations of concepts, whose application may vary across case situations (Spiro, Feltovich, Jacobson, & Coulson, 1992). Cases or problems that are ill-structured can help to promote interdependence among collaborative learners. Interacting with peers around ill-structured problems leads to rich problem representation with consideration for a wide range of factors and constraints (Ge and Land, 2004). Brooke (2007) recommends using case- or problem-based learning to promote learnerlearner interaction through Socratic dialogue and collaborative learning. By evaluating alternative opinions, recognizing uncertainties, clarifying ideas, correcting misconceptions, and seeking new information to resolve conflicts, participants build critical thinking skills (Gokhale, 1995; Ge and Land, 2004). Dissonance and argumentation prompt collective knowledge building as informed, divergent opinions converge (Reiser, 2002; Jonassen and Remidez, 2002).

370

Laurie Posey and Laurie Lyons

Keeping learners focused on collaboration and moving productively toward a successful outcome in the context of complex activity requires careful planning. According to Kirschner et al. (2004), designers of OCL must consider the interactions among educational, social, and technology processes, as well as the characteristics of the learning task. Their interaction design model includes six iterative stages that emphasize analyzing, evaluating, and reflecting upon learners needs and experiences throughout the process. Within this process, the authors recommend considering three key dimensions of the learning task:   

Task ownership, including individual accountability for work products and interdependence among team members to achieve learning goals. Task character, including the selection of well or ill-structured tasks and problems. Task control, which involves providing appropriate technology supports and flexibility to enable learners to customize the experience according to their unique needs and interests.

Having planned an appropriate activity along with the tasks, processes, and supports needed to foster good collaboration, instructors must effectively communicate OCL requirements and logistics to their students. Clear, unambiguous goals and guidelines are a prerequisite to effective OCL. Providing advance instructions to prepare students for OCL can contribute to a more successful collaborative process (Ge, Yamashiro, & Lee, 2000). Summarizing research in both face-to-face and online collaborative learning, Clark and Mayer (2008) state that ―outcomes are influenced by the instructions given to the team as well as by specific roles assigned within the team‖ and emphasize that structured assignments are critical to maximizing the benefits from collaborative work. Clark and Mayer discourage giving generalized assignments such as ―discuss these issues‖ and assert that clear guidance and objectives help learners avoid extraneous mental processing. They offer structured controversy and problem-based learning as two examples of providing structure in collaborative settings.

OCL Design Checklist: Activity Design    

Provide clear, unambiguous goals and guidelines for success. Make the process of collaboration an explicit learning goal. Use complex, inquiry or problem-based activities to promote interdependence. Carefully structure activities to facilitate the collaborative process and keep learners moving productively toward a successful outcome.

GROUP FORMATION When grouping students into OCL teams, instructors must decide whether to assign students to groups, or to allow them to choose their groups based on previous relationships or common interests. As Roberts and McInnerney (2007) observe, when given a choice, students are likely to team with friends from similar backgrounds; and instructors‘ purposeful grouping of students with a goal of mixing students by age, gender, and cultural background

The Instructional Design of Online Collaborative Learning

371

can help to improve collaborative skills. It makes intuitive sense that mixed groups of students learn more from each other, however, findings related to the impacts of heterogeneous vs. homogenous grouping on OCL are mixed. In addition, the construct ―heterogeneous‖ is ambiguous, as every learner embodies a variety of characteristics that can be mixed and matched in the hopes of fostering better collaboration. Several authors have examined the impact of grouping students by learning style on team performance. Alfonseca et al. (2006) investigated the effects of grouping students by learning styles on collaborative work outcomes. Students were grouped into homogenous and heterogeneous pairs based on five learning style dimensions (sensing-intuitive, visual-verbal, inductive-deductive, active-reflective, and sequential-global). Learning style did appear to affect the composition of students‘ self-selected groups. Although the sample size was too small to demonstrate statistically significant differences in performance, heterogeneous pairs (active-reflective and sensing-intuitive) achieved the highest average score. Notably, all groups performed well, regardless of learning style composition. In a related study, Jeong and Lee (2008) examined critical discourse interactions among groups composed of active learners only, reflective learners only, active–reflective learners and reflective-active learners and found that groups with higher ratios of reflective to active learners engaged in more critical discourse than more homogenous groups. The authors suggest that online instructors strive to create groups with a balanced mix of active and reflective learners to promote discourse across learning styles. Hsu, et al. (2008) studied the impacts of personality-based grouping (introvert, extrovert, and hybrid groups) on team dynamics and performance. They observed the highest task conflict and lowest workload sharing among hybrid groups, moderate task conflict and workload sharing among introvert groups, and the lowest task conflict and highest workload sharing among extrovert groups. However, there were no notable differences in team performance. While this research may infer that grouping students with diverse personalities together can lead to increased conflict within collaborative teams, it is also important to note that a certain degree of conflict among team members can have a positive impact on the depth and quality of critical discussion and decision-making. Diversity within teams creates a tension which can either support or inhibit the collaborative process (Posey, 2007). Williams, Duray and Reddy (2006) examined the impacts of group size and participant disposition toward teamwork on cohesiveness and learning success. In this study, smaller teams were more cohesive (i.e., the number of team members was negatively correlated with cohesiveness); and participant disposition toward teamwork was related to group cohesiveness and learning success. These authors suggest grouping those who value teamwork together, and increasing instructor facilitation of team process for groups of individuals with negative attitudes toward teamwork. This research also supports the use of smaller group sizes for improved team cohesion. Based on student surveys and experimentation with different group sizes over several semesters, Colwell and Jenks (2004) found three to be an optimal group size. They assert that groups of three promote a well-rounded discussion without the opportunity for some individuals to opt out of the process. Students also indicated a preference for groups of three. The larger the group, the more difficult it may be to coordinate schedules, gain consensus, and ensure equitable participation among team members (Yuselturk & Cagiltay, 2007). Similarly, Clark and Mayer (2008) recommend heterogeneous groups of three to five members. They particularly recommend this group size for learning what they refer to as far-

372

Laurie Posey and Laurie Lyons

transfer problems. Far-transfer refers to strategies, such as customer service, as opposed to near-transfer procedures, such as filling out a form. Several researchers have explored the potential for automated, technology-based grouping based on learner models. Muehlenbrock (2006) identified a range of support functions that could be integrated into a system to support group formation and facilitation of collaboration, including: intelligently mediated peer help (matching learners based on complementary skills/knowledge or competition); intelligently mediated expert tutoring; teacher/tutor support for supervising exercises; group formation around given problems; and selection of adequate problems for a given group. Student information needed for the development of such a model would be elicited through explicit questions, initial testing, or anticipated learner characterizations. Alfonseca et al., (2006) have also explored the benefits of developing a user model based on learning styles to provide automated grouping rules to guide the formation of more productive collaborative groups within an adaptive online course. Notably, our research did not reveal any conclusive evidence regarding the efficacy of these kinds of systems.

OCL Design Checklist: Group Formation   

Promote natural heterogeneity, motivation, and cohesion within groups by allowing choice of topics or projects, rather than choice of teammates. Encourage learners to become aware of and reflect on the personality and/or learning style make-up of group members and its influence on group process. Use small group sizes (3-4 students per group).

TEAM BUILDING Establishing appropriate conditions to foster the development of effective teams is one of the most important, and challenging, aspects of OCL. Diverse team processes including communication, coordination, and monitoring of project tasks; identity and role development; and a feeling of belonging and community affect the quality and success of OCL (De Laat and Lally, 2004). Group cohesiveness, characterized by trust and cooperation among group members, is prerequisite to these processes, and thus a primary team building goal. Developing cohesive, interdependent, productive teams is especially difficult online, where opportunities for socialization and community-building are more limited and time-consuming than in face-to-face environments. As Orvis and Lassiter (2007) observe, separation of time and space can create barriers to interaction, which can impede the development of trust, belonging, efficacy, and shared cognition among team members. Groups that communicate regularly develop higher levels of trust than those with more irregular communication patterns (Bulu & Yildirim, 2008). Sustained interaction is especially important when teams are just getting to know one another, resolving conflicts, and working on difficult problemsolving tasks (Havard et al., 2008). Real-time communication technologies that support the immediate exchange of rich information increase social presence and can contribute to team cohesion (Havard et al., 2008).

The Instructional Design of Online Collaborative Learning

373

Not surprisingly, there is a clear relationship between the level of interaction among team members and group performance. Thomas and MacGregor (2005) observed that the highest achieving collaborative teams start early, communicate regularly, organize and coordinate tasks effectively, and engage in productive, thought-provoking discussions. In contrast, low achieving groups tend to start late, communicate erratically, do not form bonds, are not effective task organizers, and engage in shallow discussions. Thomas and MacGregor (2005) also examined team member interactions during different phases of the project. Interactions were generally positive during the planning phase, characterized by humor, acceptance, and relationship building, with some minor conflict. During design, teams grew closer and relationships evolved, with team members helping, praising, and showing empathy to one another. Conflict increased during development, primarily due to students‘ failure to meet task commitments. It is important to note that conflict among collaborators is not always a bad thing. The tension that arises from diversity of perspectives is an important aspect of collaborative problem-solving. Brooke (2007) highlights an important distinction between destructive conflict, such as personality disputes, and constructive conflict, such as disagreement about ideas or project-related issues. Levi (2001) studied the relationships among diversity of personal attributes (i.e., personality, values, attitudes, demographics) and functional attributes (i.e., knowledge, abilities and skills) and their impacts on different types of group tasks (i.e., performance, intellective, and creativity/judgment) and group process (i.e., cohesion and conflict); and concluded that both personal and functional diversity have a positive impact on group creativity and judgment, while personal diversity can cause conflict and cohesion problems. Inequitable workload and slacking within collaborative teams is a commonly reported problem in OCL (Ashcraft & Treadwell, 2007). The authors recommend a number of strategies to reduce this problem, including:      

Making team member contributions identifiable (e.g., color coding of individual contributions to a collaborative document). Using small groups so that participants cannot become anonymous. Encouraging members to share leadership responsibility. Requiring team members, rather than instructors, to resolve their own problems. Encouraging extensive communications to ensure that team members remain aware of what other members are doing. Encouraging groups to develop a team identity (e.g., selecting a name, logo and motto).

Team member participation appears to be a key factor in the development of team cohesion and trust (Posey, 2007). Bulu and Yildirim (2008) observed high levels of trust in groups with whose members all took initiative and had a role to play. Cawthon and Harris (2007) noted that non-participation by some students had a negative impact on the sense of community. Doubts regarding team member abilities and work ethic may cause a lack of trust that may persist throughout a project, or be overcome when teams share a mutual definition of collaboration and common sense of purpose (Havard, et al,, 2008). Providing team members

374

Laurie Posey and Laurie Lyons

with pre-defined, functional roles can contributes to individual accountability and positive interdependence within collaborative teams (Kirschner et al., 2004).

OCL Design Checklist: Team Building     

Build time and a process for team socialization into the collaborative activity. Provide education and guidance related to team process and role development. Emphasize the importance of frequent, regular interaction among team members. Specify a process for mediation and resolution of interpersonal/teamwork problems (e.g., personality conflicts, lack of participation). Require evidence of participation and specify consequences for non-participation.

FACILITATION & SCAFFOLDING In addition to providing activities and conditions that foster team building and effective collaboration, it is important for instructors to actively support these processes. Although the terms facilitation and scaffolding are sometimes used interchangeably, they are distinct concepts. Facilitation refers to the instructor‘s role in guiding the learning activity. Effective facilitators of OCL provide appropriate prompts and feedback to stimulate a constructive, meaningful shared learning experience without impeding or controlling the collaborative process. Scaffolding refers to more formal, pre-planned instructional supports designed to assist students with challenging tasks, which are gradually withdrawn as students gain the knowledge and skills needed to work independently. Instructional scaffolds may consist of prompts and questions that guide students through a collaborative problem solving process. Scaffolds may also be built into software that has been specially designed to support collaboration. Ge and Land (2004) propose that scaffolding is needed to facilitate the cognitive and metacognitive processes required for ill-structured problem solving (i.e., problem representation, generating solutions, making justifications, and monitoring and evaluation). They identify two types of scaffolds: question prompts, including procedural, elaboration, and reflection questions; and peer interactions, such as providing and receiving explanations, coconstructing ideas, resolving conflicts, and negotiating meaning. They note that the educational benefits of collaborative problem-solving may be stifled by students‘ lack of training in the process of critical discourse, and that the teacher can play a key role in monitoring and guiding peer interactions. As Murphy (2004) points out, instructors must understand what good collaboration looks like if they are to facilitate it effectively. She has defined six key phases that can be used to guide the collaborative process including establishing social presence; articulating individual perspectives; accommodating or reflecting the perspectives of others, co-constructing shared perspectives and meanings, building shared goals and purposes, and producing shared artifacts. It is common for teams to get stuck in the early phases of collaboration, and instructors can play an important role in helping students reach deeper levels of collaboration. Murphy (2004) found that students participating in online collaboration engaged in substantial socialization presence and sharing of perspectives, but evidence of accommodating the

The Instructional Design of Online Collaborative Learning

375

perspectives and co-construction of meaning was limited. Similarly, Littleton and Whitelock (2005) observed that OCL students primarily engaged in a ―cumulative social mode of thinking‖ (i.e., pooling ideas and resources). While this played an important role in establishing common ground among students, ―critical engagement‖ (i.e., challenges and counter-challenges) were rare. The authors recommend providing specific support for the development of critical evaluation and argumentation skills. In addition to scaffolding collaborative problem-solving, it is important to provide support for the development of group process skills (Resta & Lafierriére, 2007). As Brooke (2007) notes, students who are new to online learning may need guidance in communicating effectively in the absence of body language and interpersonal cues; and in the development of group interaction skills such as brainstorming, conflict management, and positive team decision-making. The ability to use communication technologies efficiently and effectively is essential for socialization and the development of trust among team members, and so an orientation to these technologies may be required and particularly helpful for new students (Bulu & Yildirim, 2008). Instructors may also need to devise ways to overcome preconceptions and help students develop more positive attitudes toward online collaboration (Nel & Wilkinson, 2006). To overcome resistance to collaboration and help students reflect on and develop their collaborative skills, Roberts and McInnerney (2007) recommend pointing out the benefits of developing collaboration skills. Skills such as communication, leadership, cooperative work, organization, delegation, and negotiation can all be improved through OCL. There is evidence to suggest that students can learn to collaborate more effectively, and that up-front education and practice can improve OCL outcomes. Cawthon and Harris (2007) used instruction and feedback cycles to model work tasks and allow for peer to peer feedback, and observed that communication strategies modeled by instructors in early cycles were later integrated by students. Rummel and Spada (2005) studied the impacts of two types of prework (observational learning from a collaboration example, and learning from a scripted collaborative problem-solving) on subsequent collaborative learning. Teams that learned by observing a collaboration example produced ―significantly better elaborated and justified diagnoses‖ than teams in the scripted and two control conditions (unscripted problem-solving and no pre-work) conditions. Both instructional conditions resulted in better teamwork (i.e., well-balanced proportion of individual and joint work) and outcomes (therapy treatment plans) than teams in the control conditions. One approach to facilitation and scaffolding in online group discussions is to have students think critically about their discussion contributions by classifying or otherwise analyzing each one. A number of investigators have developed technology-based support for critical dialog and argumentation, with mixed results. Jeong and Juong (2007) used message constraints - requiring students to categorize their posts within a critical discussion as argument, challenge, supporting evidence, or explanation - and found no differences in knowledge gains, or the ability to apply learned content to the group problem-solving process. In fact, the use of message constraints reduced the number of challenges to arguments. In contrast, Lee and Kim (2005) tested the Collaborative Representation Supporting Tool (CRST), which provides nodes and links aligned with the six phases of problem-based learning. The CRST had statistically positive effects on both process and outcomes for collaborative teams involved in a Problem-based Learning (PBL) activity. Similarly, Kirschner, et al., (2004) examined the use of formalism, implemented as a ―negotiation

376

Laurie Posey and Laurie Lyons

widget‖ that defined specific message types in an online discussion (i.e., contribution, clarification, verification, and elaboration) and rules about when participants could post certain types of messages. The authors found that formalism groups spent more time on negotiation and varied discussion topics more than groups without formalism, and concluded that the process of making contributions explicit had a positive impact on collaborative processes.

OCL Design Checklist: Facilitation and Scaffolding      

Understand the collaborative process and make it explicit to students. Provide teams with a structured set of prompts and questions designed to stimulate elaboration and critical thinking and guide collaborative problem-solving. Provide opportunities for students to learn about and practice collaboration in advance of more formal OCL. Be a guide on the side; monitor team processes and intercede only when input is needed to help move students toward deeper levels of collaboration. Integrate structured checkpoints and feedback into the OCL process. Be an advocate for collaboration; emphasize its educational benefits.

LEARNER ASSESSMENT Appropriate and fair assessment of individuals on a collaborative project is an important and challenging consideration in the design of OCL. Group members are likely to differ in ability and level of effort. It is difficult for instructors to discern individual contributions to collaborative projects, and those who excel or contribute more than others may feel cheated when all members receive the same grade. Careful design can help to overcome these challenges. For example, Macdonald (2003) found that requiring students to submit their contributions for individual evaluation promoted greater levels of participation. Palloff, Pratt and Palloff (2007) believe that ―collaborative assignments should be assessed collaboratively‖ (p. 214). These authors suggest a 360-degree feedback approach in which self-perception is compared to feedback from the instructor and peers. Similarly, Nel and Wilkinson (2006) recommend peer evaluation of group members‘ contributions; and instructor review of online discussions to assess group process individual contributions toward the final product. This viewpoint has been supported by Colwell and Jenks (2004), who studied peer evaluation of individual contributions to a collaborative project. They found a peer grading system, in which ratings are sent directly to the instructor via email, to be effective in motivating all participants to complete their share of the work. They also found that peer evaluations allowed students to learn from each other and engage in higher level critical thinking, analysis, and evaluation; and prompted students to think about how to judge work and how their work might be judged. Notably, when students evaluated other group members written assignments, Colwell and Jenks found it necessary to provide guidelines for student comments. They state that ―without appropriate guidelines, student comments tend to be unstructured and of little value to their peers‖ (p. T1C-8).

The Instructional Design of Online Collaborative Learning

377

Increasingly, assessment is regarded as an important part of the learning process. New assessment approaches based on constructivism propose that learners actually construct knowledge through assessment. To provide evidence for this premise, Shen, Hiltz and Bieber (2006) studied whether a collaborative online exam, which involved student participation in various phases through small group activities, would further enhance student interaction, learning, and satisfaction. They compared this collaborative exam to a participatory exam, in which students were actively but individually involved in the exam process, and a traditional exam. The experiment involved 485 students at an American university and used the threaded discussion forums in BlackBoard and WebCT for the participatory and collaborative groups. In this study, students in the collaborative exam condition exhibited significantly higher levels of interaction and perceived learning than those taking the traditional exam. The collaborative exam also contributed to a sense of a learning community that was lacking in both the participatory and traditional exam groups. Van Aalst and Chan (2007) encourage educators to take advantage of the scaffolding opportunities provided through formative assessment, particularly in computer-supported learning environments where the collaborative learning process is captured electronically and available for student reflection to improve learning outcomes. They studied the use of electronic portfolios as formal course assessments in both the graduate and secondary school levels. Students were asked to analyze the collective discussion as a way of reconstructing their own knowledge and understanding. Their portfolio approach was ―designed capture both individual and collective aspects of knowledge building‖ (p. 211). Van Aalst and Chan found that ―the portfolio approach was effective in fostering collaborative inquiry and domain understanding‖ (p. 209).

OCL Design Checklist: Learner Assessment    

Use formative assessment to reveal opportunities for facilitation and scaffolding. Take a 360 degree approach to collaborative learning assessment, integrating individual, peer and instructor evaluations. Consider using collaborative assessments as a teaching and learning activity, rather than just for evaluation. Use tiered rubrics to guide and measure student achievement of expectations.

CONCLUSION Many of the challenges associated with OCL can be overcome through careful instructional design. In this chapter, we have summarized and synthesized research related to OCL with the goal of translating it into tangible guidelines for educational practice. Notably, these studies vary widely in setting, purpose, learner type, and effect size, and these variations limit generalizability. Our review is consistent with others that have highlighted a lack of empirical evidence and a need for additional, focused research (Resta & Laferriere, 2007; Clark & Mayer, 2008). Notably, the practice of collaborative learning has a well established, successful history, in and outside of the classroom, with and without technology support.

378

Laurie Posey and Laurie Lyons

Many important questions have been investigated and this work has revealed important insights. As you have seen in this chapter, OCL research is evolving rapidly and there is a substantial base of lessons learned to guide educational practice. We have presented our research and recommendations in the context of six key areas to consider when designing online collaborative learning: activity design and goal setting; technology selection; group formation and role assignment; team building; scaffolding and facilitation; and learner assessment. It is important to note that these categories are not mutually exclusive. For example, the complexities associated with communicating through technology necessitate increased attention to activity design (e.g., instructions/provisions to facilitate seamless, consistent interactions among collaborators); group formation (e.g., considering time zones when establishing partnerships); and team building (e.g., allowing sufficient time and mechanisms for groups to establish common ground and build trust before tackling complex tasks). Finally, we have provided recommendations, not rules. Our suggestions may not work perfectly in all settings. We encourage you to think carefully about your unique educational goals and context, and to continually evolve your approaches to OCL through experience and reflective practice. Our hope is that this chapter will help you transcend a few hurdles, reduce your prep time, increase the positive and reduce the negative feedback from students, and encourage you to explore opportunities to integrate collaborative learning in your online classrooms.

REFERENCES Alfonseca, E., Carro, R. M., Martín, E., Ortigosa, A. & Paredes, P. (2006). The impact of learning styles on student grouping for collaborative learning: A case study. User Modeling and User - Adapted Interaction, 16(3-4), 377. Archer, W., Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T. & Rourke, L. (2001). A framework for analyzing critical thinking in computer conferences. Paper presented at EURO-CSCL 2001, Maastricht, Netherlands. Ashcraft & Treadwell (2007). The Social Psychology of Online Collaborative Learning: The Good, the Bad, and the Awkward. In K. L. Orvis, & A. L. R. Lassiter (Eds.), Computersupported collaborative learning: Best practices and principles for instructors (pp. 141161). Hershey, PA: IGI. Brooke, S. L. (2007). The case method and collaborative learning. In K. L. Orvis, & A. L. R. Lassiter (Eds.), Computer-supported collaborative learning: Best practices and principles for instructors (pp. 66-88). Hershey, PA: IGI. Bulu, S. T. & Yildirim, Z. (2008). Communication behaviors and trust in collaborative online teams. Educational Technology & Society, 11(1), 132-147. Cawthon, S. W. & Harris, A. L. (2007). Developing a community of practice in an online research lab. In K. L. Orvis, & A. L. R. Lassiter (Eds.), Computer-supported collaborative learning: Best practices and principles for instructors (pp. 41-65). Hershey, PA: IGI.

The Instructional Design of Online Collaborative Learning

379

Clark, R. C. & Mayer, R. E. (2008). E-learning and the science of instruction: Proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer. Colwell, J. L. & Jenks, C. F. (2004). Using peer evaluations and teams in online classes. Paper presented at the, 1 T1C-5-T1C-9. Cox, B. & Cox, B. (2008). Developing interpersonal and group dynamics through asynchronous threaded discussions: The use of discussion board in collaborative learning. Education, 128(4), 553. De Laat, M. & Lally, V. (2004). It's not so easy: Researching the complexity of emergent participant roles and awareness in asynchronous networked learning discussions. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20(3), 165-171. Gardner, D. B. (1998). Effects of conflict types and power use among health professionals in interdisciplinary team collaboration. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, George Mason University. Gardner, D. B. (2005). Ten lessons in collaboration. Online Journal of Issues in Nursing. 10(1). Retrieved July 10, 2005, from http://www.nursingworld.org/ojin/topic26/ tpc26_1.htm. Garrison, D. R. (2003). Cognitive presence for effective asynchronous online learning: The role of reflective inquiry, self-direction and metacognition. In J. Bourne & J. C. Moore (Eds.), Elements of quality in online education: Practice and direction (pp. 47-58), Needham, MA: The Sloan Consortium. Ge, X. & Land, S. M. (2004). A conceptual framework for scaffolding ill-structured problemsolving processes using question prompts and peer interactions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(2), 5-22. Ge, X., Yamashiro, K. A., & Lee, J. (2000). Pre-class planning to scaffold students for online collaborative learning activities. Educational Technology & Society 3(3). Retrieved September 16, 2006, from http://ifets.ieee.org/periodical/vol_3_2000/b02 .html Gokhale, A. A. (1995). Collaborative learning enhances critical thinking. Journal of Technology Education, 7(1), 1-8. Retrieved June 15, 2005, from http://scholar .lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JTE/jte-v7n1/gokhale.jte-v7n1.html Grabinger, S. & Dunlap, J. (2002). Applying the REAL model to web-based instruction: An overview. In P. Barker, & S. Rebelsky (Eds.), Proceedings of world conference on educational multimedia, hypermedia and telecommunications 2002 (pp. 447-452). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Havard, B., Du, J. & Xu, J. (2008). Online collaborative learning and communication media. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 19(1), 37. Heinemann, G. D. & Zeiss, A. M. (2002). Team performance in health care : Assessment and development. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. Hemmi, A., Bayne, S., & Land, R. (2009). The appropriation and repurposing of social technologies in higher education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25(1), 19-30. Hishina, M., Okada, R. & Suzuki, K. (2005). Group formation for web-based collaborative learning with personality information. International Journal on ELearning, 4(3), 351. Hsu, J. L., Chou, H.W., Hwang, W.Y., & Chou, S.B. (2008). A two-dimension process in explaining learners‘ collaborative behaviors in CSCL. Educational Technology and Society, 11(4), 66-80.

380

Laurie Posey and Laurie Lyons

Jeong, A. & Joung, S. (2007). Scaffolding collaborative argumentation in asynchronous discussions with message constraints and message labels. Computers and Education, 48(3), 427-445. Jeong, A. & Lee, J. (2008). The effects of active versus reflective learning style on the processes of critical discourse in computer-supported collaborative argumentation. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(4), 651-665. Heinemann, G. D. & Zeiss, A. M. (Eds.). (2002). Team performance in health care: Assessment and development. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. Johnson, D.W. and Johnson, R.T., 1990. Cooperative learning and achievement. In: Sharan, S. (Ed.), Cooperative Learning: Theory and Research (pp. 23–37). NY: Praeger. Jonassen, D. H. & Remidez, R. (2002). Mapping alternative discourse structures onto computer conferences. In G. Stahl (Ed.), Computer support for collaborative learning: Foundations for a CSCL Community. Proceedings of CSCL 2002 (pp. 237-244). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Kirschner, P., Strijbos, J. W., Kreijns, K. & Beers, P. J. (2004). Designing electronic collaborative learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(3), 47-66. Koschmann, T. (2002). Dewey‘s contribution to the foundations of CSCL research. In G. Stahl (Ed.), Computer support for collaborative learning: Foundations for a CSCL community. proceedings of CSCL 2002 (pp. 17-22). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Lee, M. & Kim, D. (2005). The effects of the collaborative representation supporting tool on problem-solving processes and outcomes in web-based collaborative problem-based learning (PBL) environments. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 16(3), 273. Levi, D. (2001). Group dynamics for teams. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Littleton, K. & Whitelock, D. (2005). The negotiation and co-construction of meaning and understanding within a postgraduate online learning community. Learning, Media and Technology, 30(2), 147-164. Macdonald, J. (2003). Assessing online collaborative learning: Process and product. Computers and Education, 40(4), 377-391. Mandle, H. & Kraus, U. (2003). Learning competence for the knowledge society. In N. Nistor, S. English, S. Wheeler & M. Jalabeanu (Eds.), Toward the virtual university: International online perspectives (pp. 65-86). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Meyer, K. A. (2003). Face-to-face versus threaded discussions: The role of time and higherorder thinking. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(3), 55-65. Retrieved July 20, 2005, from http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/jaln/v7n3/pdf/v7n3_meyer.pdf Mezirow, J. (2000). Learning to think like an adult: Core concepts of transformation theory. Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress (pp. 3-34). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Moving From Theory to Practice in the Design of Web-Based Learning From the Perspective of Constructivism. (2003). Murphy, E. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 2009 (April 10) Retrieved from http://www.ncolr.org/jiol/issues/PDF/1.4.4.pdf Muehlenbrock, M. (2006). Learning group formation based on learner profile and context. International Journal on ELearning, 5(1), 19.

The Instructional Design of Online Collaborative Learning

381

Murphy, E. (2004). Recognising and promoting collaboration in an online asynchronous discussion. British Journal of Educational Technology, 35(4), 421-431. Nel, L. & Wilkinson, A. (2006). Enhancing collaborative learning in a blended learning environment: Applying a process planning model. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 19(6), 553-576. Orvis, K. L. & Lassiter, A. L. R. (2008). Computer-supported collaborative learning: Best practices and principles for instructors. Hershey, PA: Information Science Publishing. Palloff, R. M. & Pratt, K. (2007). Building online learning communities: Effective strategies for the virtual classroom (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Payne, C. R. & Reinhart, C. J. (2008). Can we talk? course management software and the construction of knowledge. On the Horizon, 16(1), 34. Posey, L, (2007). Critical thinking and collaboration in online health professional education. Applied Dissertation, Fischler School of Human Resources and Education, Nova Southeastern University. Reiser, B. J. (2002). Why scaffolding should sometimes make tasks more difficult for learners. In G. Stahl (Ed.), Computer support for collaborative learning: Foundations for a CSCL community. Proceedings of CSCL 2002 (pp. 255-264). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Resta, P. & Laferrière, T. (2007). Technology in support of collaborative learning. Educational Psychology Review, 19(1), 65-83. Rienzo, T. & Han, B. (2009). Microsoft or Google Web 2.0 Tools for Course Management. Journal of Information Systems Education, 20(2) 123-127. Roberts, T. S. (2005). Computer-supported collaborative learning in higher education. Information Management, 18(1/2), 11. Roberts, T. S. & McInnerney, J. M. (2007). Seven problems of online group learning (and their solutions). Educational Technology & Society, 10(4), 257-268. Rollett, H., Lux, M., Strohmaier, M., & Dosinger, G. (2007). The web 2.0 way of learning with technologies. International Journal of Learning Technology, 3(1), 87-107. Rummel, N. & Spada, H. (2005). Learning to collaborate: An instructional approach to promoting collaborative problem solving in computer-mediated settings. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(2), 201-241. Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline the art and practice of the learning organization. Burnsville, Minn.: ChartHouse International Learning Corporation. Shen, J., Hiltz, S. R. & Bieber, M. (2006). Collaborative online examinations: Impacts on interaction, learning, and student satisfaction. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics Part A:Systems and Humans, 36(6), 1045-1053. Sitzmann, T., Ely, K. & Wisher, R. (2007). Designing web-based training courses to maximize learning. In K. L. Orvis, & A. L. R. Lassiter (Eds.), Computer-supported collaborative learning: Best practices and principles for instructors (pp. 1-18). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference. Smith, B. L. & MacGregor, J. T. (1997). What is collaborative learning? In A. Goodsell, M. Maher & V. Tinto (Eds.), Collaborative learning: A sourcebook for higher education (pp. 9-22). University Park, PA: National Center on Postsecondary Teaching, Learning, and Assessment. Spiro, R.J., Coulson, R. L., Feltovich, P. J., & Anderson, D. K. (1988). Cognitive flexibility theory: Advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains (Technical Report No. 441). Champaign: University of Illinois, Center for the Study of Reading.

382

Laurie Posey and Laurie Lyons

Strijbos, J. W., Martens, R. L. & Jochems, W. M. G. (2004). Designing for interaction: Six steps to designing computer-supported group-based learning. Computers and Education, 42(4), 403-424. Thomas, W. R. & MacGregor, S. K. (2005). Online project-based learning: How collaborative strategies and problem solving processes impact performance. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 16(1), 83-107. Uribe, D., Klein, J. D. & Sullivan, H. (2003). The effect of computer-mediated collaborative learning on solving ill-defined problems. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(1), 5-19. Van Aalst, J. & Chan, C. K. K. (2007). Student-directed assessment of knowledge building using electronic portfolios. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16(2), 175-220. Wegerif, R. (1998). The social dimension of asynchronous learning networks. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 2(1), 34-49. Wheeler, S. & Nistor, N., (2003). Human behavior in the online subculture. In N. Nistor, S. English, S. Wheeler, & M. Jalobeanu (Eds.), Toward the virtual university: International online perspectives (pp. 119-130). Greenwich, CT: Information Age. Williams, E. A., Duray, R. & Reddy, V. (2006). Teamwork orientation, group cohesiveness, and student learning: A study of the use of teams in online distance education. Journal of Management Education, 30(4), 592. Yuselturk, E. & Cagiltay, C. (2007). Collaborative work in online learning environments: critical issues, dynamics, and challenges. In K. L. Orvis, & A. L. R. Lassiter (Eds.), Computer-supported collaborative learning: Best practices and principles for instructors (pp. 66-88). Hershey, PA: IGI.

INDEX A academic performance, 80 acceleration, 175 accessibility, 90 accountability, xvi, 301, 302, 315, 333, 370, 374 accounting, 2 accuracy, 167, 172 achievement, 19, 50, 55, 68, 70, 80, 253, 258, 259, 276, 278, 380 acid, 252, 322, 325, 326, 327, 328 ACM, 133, 252, 253 action research, 231 activation, 5, 6, 7, 8, 194 adaptation, 42, 228 adolescence, 92, 94 adolescents, 163 adult, xvi, 139, 145, 171, 281, 282, 285, 286, 287, 292, 315, 357, 358, 362, 365, 380 adult learning, 315 adulthood, 92, 94 adults, 65, 93, 139, 159, 160, 171, 282, 287, 293, 318 AEP, 4 African American, 44 afternoon, 107, 108, 147, 326 age, 43, 62, 93, 94, 131, 137, 154, 301, 314, 339, 346, 357, 370 agent, 46, 97, 100, 101, 181, 187, 188 agents, 80, 181, 187, 191, 260 aggregation, 39, 200, 212, 219 aggression, 146, 151, 154, 155, 160, 162 aid, xiii, 96, 131, 176, 249 aiding, 180 AIDS, 326, 327, 328 air, 69, 173, 284, 286, 296, 299, 300 algorithm, 185 alkenes, 325 alpha, 27, 200, 219

alternative, xiv, 3, 9, 10, 11, 18, 58, 73, 87, 118, 120, 165, 178, 183, 252, 276, 312, 368, 369, 380 aluminum, 214 ambassadors, xvii, 317 ambient air, 299 ambulance, 142, 143 American Council on Education, 329 American Educational Research Association, 44, 77, 188 American Psychological Association, 192 amino, 325 amino acid, 325 Amsterdam, 45, 46, 196, 197 analog, 61 analysis of variance, 27 anatomy, 173 animals, 92, 141, 149, 152, 154, 158 animations, 235, 238, 241, 247, 254 antagonism, 201 antecedent variables, 215, 217 antecedents, 13, 198, 215, 216 anxiety, 245, 334 APA, 193 apathy, 333, 364 appendix, 286, 287, 292 applied research, 327 appropriate technology, 229, 370 Arabia, 346 argument, xiv, 15, 101, 107, 165, 170, 176, 177, 178, 181, 182, 183, 185, 188, 192, 196, 226, 251, 271, 279, 364, 369, 375, 380 articulation, 189, 302, 304 artificial intelligence, 166, 188 artistic, 236 Asia, 361 Asian, 351, 356 Asian cultures, 351 aspiration, 352, 356

384

Index

assessment, xiii, xviii, 2, 3, 38, 90, 95, 99, 107, 113, 114, 115, 116, 119, 121, 122, 123, 124, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 191, 193, 220, 316, 321, 323, 324, 328, 333, 353, 359, 363, 364, 376, 377, 378, 382 assessment techniques, 328 assessment tools, 324 assets, 100 assignment, xviii, 86, 88, 199, 203, 206, 218, 247, 326, 363, 364, 378 assumptions, 10, 99, 185, 226, 335, 364 asynchronous, xv, 119, 133, 177, 178, 188, 199, 220, 225, 228, 229, 234, 235, 237, 246, 247, 250, 254, 304, 365, 367, 368, 369, 379, 380, 381, 382 asynchronous communication, 177, 178, 229, 235, 237, 247, 367, 369 attitudes, xiii, 12, 80, 95, 112, 113, 116, 156, 168, 332, 366, 373 attractors, 35 Australia, xvii, 189, 193, 195, 341, 346, 348, 350, 356, 358, 359, 361 Austria, 133, 315 authority, 52, 65, 104, 332, 334, 339 autism, 311 automation, 234 autonomy, 53, 64, 66, 92, 181, 279, 315, 361 availability, 18, 21, 33, 107, 321, 347 aviation, 283, 284, 287, 292 awareness, 105, 173, 179, 184, 185, 253, 343, 353, 354, 355, 357, 379

B Baars, 54, 77 babies, 139 back, 34, 49, 75, 140, 141, 142, 144, 147, 148, 150, 156, 199, 213, 276, 321, 334, 347, 368 baggage, 57 barrier, 97, 98, 114, 115, 367 barriers, 99, 112, 114, 116, 176, 372 base rate, 27 batteries, 213 Bax, 344, 359 behavior, xvi, 34, 45, 92, 167, 181, 186, 202, 203, 205, 217, 218, 220, 224, 257, 259, 260, 262, 263, 264, 267, 268, 270, 271, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 295, 382 behaviorism, 91 beliefs, 10, 46, 65, 71, 168, 170, 212, 221, 235, 258, 338, 357 belongingness, 218 benchmarks, 321 beneficial effect, 3

benefits, xiv, xviii, 3, 39, 40, 96, 106, 109, 111, 115, 116, 119, 126, 135, 158, 202, 212, 221, 302, 341, 355, 357, 358, 363, 364, 367, 370, 372, 374, 375, 376 benign, 148 bias, 10, 50, 51, 70, 215, 221 binding, 146, 325 biochemistry, 173, 321, 322, 325, 326, 327, 328 biomolecules, 319 birth, 92, 93 bleeding, 143 blocks, 6, 7, 138, 149, 150, 154, 158, 159 blog, 68, 73, 76, 124, 305, 306 blogger, 305 blogs, xiii, 47, 48, 53, 58, 65, 67, 71, 73, 75, 305, 368, 369 blood, 143 body language, 375 bonding, 49, 313 bonds, 65, 373 borderline, 22 boredom, 61, 354 Boston, 78, 132, 163, 189, 191, 253, 255, 315, 362 bottom-up, 5, 7 boys, 137, 138, 139, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 156, 157, 158, 160, 163 brain, 43, 93, 300, 348, 354 brain damage, 43 brainstorming, 303, 367, 375 branching, 229 breathing, 185 broadband, 122, 193 Bronfenbrenner, 84, 89, 91, 94 Bronx, 333 budding, 352 Buenos Aires, 77 building blocks, 6 business environment, 98, 99, 104, 113, 131 business model, 369 business organisation, 96, 112, 115, 119, 125, 129 buttons, 285

C Calculators, 279 calculus, 278 calibration, 73, 242 Canada, 1, 187, 195, 196 caps, 308 cardboard, 149, 158 cardiology, 172 CAS, 277

Index case study, xi, xii, xiii, 2, 34, 44, 95, 104, 106, 107, 110, 114, 120, 121, 122, 133, 136, 181, 211, 295, 346, 347, 349, 354, 355, 358, 362, 378 casting, 126 categorization, 201, 215, 221 category a, 22, 26 catholic, 58 causality, 91 causation, 357 changing environment, 96, 132 cheating, 318 cheese, 162 chemicals, 230 chest, 142 child development, xiii, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 91, 139 childhood, xiii, xiv, 81, 82, 83, 86, 90, 91, 92, 94, 135, 137, 139, 154, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163 children, 82, 86, 87, 89, 93, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 170, 171, 177 China, 165, 346, 361 cis, 325 class size, 318, 325, 326 classes, xiii, 48, 50, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 62, 63, 64, 67, 68, 69, 71, 72, 75, 88, 89, 95, 107, 109, 134, 235, 261, 262, 263, 278, 283, 318, 319, 323, 326, 335, 336, 348, 351, 354, 379 classical, 13, 59 classification, 251, 286, 328 classroom culture, 260 classroom environment, 234, 259 classroom events, 19, 45 classroom settings, 99, 234 classroom teachers, 2, 259 classrooms, xvi, 90, 104, 126, 161, 220, 257, 260, 262, 268, 277, 315, 318, 319, 320, 327, 328, 342, 343, 358, 367, 368, 378 clients, 336, 337, 338 clouds, 89 CMC, xv, 198, 206 coaches, 277 codes, 27 coding, xv, 23, 38, 84, 165, 185, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 221, 223, 373 cognition, xi, xii, 1, 2, 4, 5, 11, 17, 39, 41, 42, 43, 44, 167, 168, 169, 175, 176, 185, 188, 190, 192, 193, 194, 195, 223, 243, 279, 357, 360, 372 cognitive ability, 217, 279 cognitive activity, 11

385

cognitive capacities, 270 cognitive development, 89, 93, 224 cognitive level, 158 cognitive load, 19, 35, 168, 169, 181, 196, 227 cognitive performance, 4, 5, 20, 21 cognitive perspective, 4, 166, 171, 196 cognitive process, xi, xii, 1, 3, 5, 8, 11, 17, 19, 22, 40, 43, 44, 93, 166, 167, 168, 169, 171, 172, 173, 174, 176, 231 cognitive tool, xiv, 39, 44, 165, 176, 191, 195 coherence, 5, 15, 120, 136, 178 cohesion, 166, 211, 216, 371, 372, 373 cohesiveness, 221, 371, 372, 382 cohort, 346, 350, 351, 352, 354, 355, 356 Collaboration, xv, 42, 43, 45, 46, 50, 64, 104, 120, 134, 180, 225, 227, 251, 301, 302, 303, 359, 364 collaborative approaches, 50 Collaborative learning, 49, 50, 64, 70, 104, 133, 168, 176, 182, 187, 195, 196, 223, 236, 282, 295, 302, 327, 328, 329, 339, 365, 379, 381 Collaborative Therapy, 339 colleges, 104, 361 collisions, 252 Colorado, 253, 317, 326, 327 colors, 176, 284 comfort zone, 334, 338, 369 communication processes, 61, 62, 77, 98 communication skills, 98, 105, 166, 230, 240, 352 communication strategies, 138, 153, 368, 375 communication systems, 169 communication technologies, 234, 235, 366, 367, 372, 375 communities, 45, 161, 167, 178, 192, 194, 227, 235, 255, 283, 315, 368, 381 community, xvii, 50, 67, 132, 139, 145, 167, 178, 221, 236, 251, 302, 304, 311, 313, 316, 317, 318, 322, 323, 326, 327, 334, 336, 338, 358, 365, 366, 372, 373, 377, 378, 380, 381 compatibility, 21 compensation, 21 competence, xiii, xvii, 44, 47, 48, 53, 54, 68, 70, 71, 93, 120, 304, 339, 341, 343, 344, 345, 351, 380 competency, 126, 301, 314, 332, 349, 352, 357, 364 competition, 88, 148, 191, 328, 344, 355, 359, 372 compilation, 173 complementarity, 39, 346 complex systems, 14, 42 complexity, xi, xii, 2, 16, 19, 22, 27, 33, 35, 37, 64, 66, 69, 157, 158, 160, 176, 181, 186, 215, 217, 218, 258, 345, 349, 379 components, 4, 7, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 23, 25, 26, 41, 61, 168, 175, 233, 241, 243, 250, 255, 318, 322, 323, 325, 327, 360

386

Index

composition, 71, 80, 137, 174, 212, 371 comprehension, xi, xii, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 18, 19, 21, 25, 30, 32, 33, 35, 36, 40, 42, 43, 46, 136, 163, 235, 324, 353 computation, 263 computer conferencing, 46, 132 Computer simulation, 252 computer simulations, 166, 175, 223, 252 computer software, 105 computer technology, xv, 166, 168, 225 computer-based exercises, 234 computer-mediated communication (CMC), xv, 198, 206 computing, 20, 131, 193, 213 concentrates, 109 concentration, 239, 252, 334, 350, 354 concept map, 176, 177, 181, 195, 303 conception, 49, 52, 53, 59, 76, 91 conceptual model, 112 conceptualization, 88, 220, 258 conceptualizations, xiii, 3, 81, 88, 90 concrete, 9, 18, 50, 52, 59, 64, 70, 93, 156 conditioning, 75, 92 conductivity, 284, 288, 300 confidence, xvii, 119, 259, 321, 324, 326, 341, 349, 351, 352, 356, 357 configuration, 14 confirmation bias, 10 conflict, xiii, 3, 62, 66, 67, 95, 114, 116, 136, 142, 145, 147, 148, 149, 150, 152, 161, 175, 177, 201, 211, 212, 213, 221, 223, 288, 366, 367, 371, 373, 375, 379 conflict resolution, 145, 366, 367 confrontation, 338 confusion, 92, 131 conjecture, 263, 264, 271 consciousness, 43, 53, 64, 66, 77, 353 consensus, 11, 104, 152, 175, 201, 226, 332, 371 consent, 138 conservation, 89 constraints, 4, 13, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 156, 159, 229, 307, 369, 375, 380 constructionist, 52, 77, 331 constructive conflict, 373 constructivist, xvii, 53, 61, 169, 194, 254, 279, 301, 304, 315, 316, 343, 344, 345, 361, 362 constructivist learning, 304, 345, 361, 362 consulting, 269 consumers, 305, 379 contact time, 235 content analysis, xiii, 81, 82, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 92, 207, 221, 222 contingency, 12, 22

control, xiii, xv, 3, 8, 15, 18, 23, 24, 25, 26, 30, 32, 36, 40, 47, 55, 131, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 152, 159, 200, 208, 209, 210, 212, 222, 225, 232, 233, 244, 252, 263, 264, 265, 266, 268, 274, 292, 300, 319, 337, 357, 360, 368, 370, 375 control condition, 375 convergence, 189, 220 conversion, 15, 16, 120 convex, 284, 299 cooking, 150, 151 cooperative learning, 42, 48, 49, 50, 53, 63, 64, 67, 80, 90, 104, 114, 199, 201, 222, 324, 352, 365 correlation, 215 correlations, 200, 212, 213, 223 costs, 3 counseling, 90 course content, 178, 234, 323 covering, 237, 323 CPD, 129 CPS, 166, 167, 169, 170, 171, 174, 175, 176 creative thinking, 9 creativity, 70, 72, 149, 355, 357, 368, 373 credit, 105 critical analysis, 231 critical thinking, xviii, 166, 170, 191, 334, 356, 358, 363, 364, 367, 369, 376, 378, 379 critical thinking skills, 364, 369 cross-cultural, 356 crying, 89 crystals, 71 CSILE, 178 cues, 172, 312, 367, 375 cultural practices, 186 culture, xiii, 95, 97, 98, 100, 101, 103, 104, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 131, 134, 153, 159, 162, 188, 282, 328, 343, 347, 350, 351, 356, 360 curiosity, xvi, 55, 56, 60, 281, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289, 290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298 curriculum, xiv, 3, 41, 65, 96, 125, 135, 160, 162, 173, 174, 249, 251, 258, 279, 284, 286, 287, 348 Cybernetics, 381 cyberspace, 305, 311 cycles, 17, 38, 46, 181, 263, 274, 357, 375 cyclical process, 6

D danger, 154, 213, 288 data analysis, 39, 169, 262, 275, 349 data collection, 39, 145, 185, 202, 247 data set, 39, 177, 275, 348 database, 84, 180 de novo, 318

Index death, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 160, 162, 163 debates, 58, 360 decision making, 3, 39, 42, 70, 114, 136, 171, 185, 186, 188, 192, 220, 366 decision trees, 180 decision-making process, 172 decisions, 3, 10, 45, 66, 99, 154, 182, 229 declarative knowledge, 173 decomposition, 13, 15, 16, 17 deduction, 9, 10, 34 deductive reasoning, 9 defense, 209 deficiency, 349, 353 deficits, 353 definition, 49, 79, 104, 105, 112, 120, 125, 169, 199, 212, 218, 365, 373 dehydrate, 214 delivery, xiv, 96, 119, 125, 305 democracy, 226, 328, 365 demographics, 373 density, 284 dentist, 150 Department of Education, 197, 220 Department of State, 360 dependent variable, 219 desert, 211, 213, 214, 215 designers, 91, 315, 370, 379 developing countries, 360 developmental change, 76 developmental theories, 82 differential diagnosis, 172 differentiation, 12 diffusion, 51 directionality, 172 disabilities, 57 disappointment, 98 discipline, 72, 74, 131, 381 disclosure, 313 discomfort, 20, 347 discourse comprehension, xi, xii, 1, 5 Discovery, 208, 210, 252 diseases, 172, 173 disposition, 350, 371 disputes, 150, 155, 373 dissatisfaction, 168, 236 disseminate, 100, 332 distance education, 132, 227, 234, 254, 382 distance learning, 126, 228 distress, 68 distribution, 17, 51, 97, 169, 194, 287, 321 divergence, 217 diversity, 70, 97, 137, 211, 212, 215, 216, 217, 221, 223, 224, 226, 338, 354, 366, 373

387

division, 157, 193, 216, 227, 243, 368, 369 DNA, 327 doctors, 139, 141, 142, 143, 144, 152, 173 dominance, 162 downsizing, 99 drug therapy, 326 duration, 25, 121, 122, 127, 128, 240, 274, 325, 327 dynamic environment, 10

E eating, 156 ecology, xvi, 91, 167, 257, 258, 259, 274, 275, 276, 277 economic development, 350 educational institutions, 112, 115, 116, 131 educational objective, 328 educational practices, 329 educational programs, 357 educational psychology, xv, 44, 93, 174, 189, 192, 198, 315 educational research, xviii, 126, 166, 167, 363 educational settings, 206 educational software, 237, 255 educators, 2, 82, 90, 135, 154, 157, 159, 160, 282, 293, 344, 345, 346, 358, 377 ego, 91, 92 egocentrism, 62 elaboration, xi, xii, xiii, 2, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 19, 20, 21, 25, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 38, 40, 41, 47, 59, 62, 63, 136, 153, 170, 177, 187, 189, 196, 212, 213, 214, 215, 221, 374, 376 e-learning, 104, 122, 126, 234, 235, 254, 314 E-learning, 253, 379 electric field, 288, 300 electrical conductivity, 284, 300 electricity, 177, 288, 289 electronic portfolios, 316, 377, 382 elementary school, 44 elephants, 149 email, 187, 311, 342, 367, 368, 376 e-mail, xv, 103, 105, 107, 108, 109, 110, 178, 198. 206, 235 emerging issues, 348 emotional, xvi, 13, 65, 135, 145, 186, 281, 285, 287, 292, 293, 312, 333, 338 emotional experience, 293 emotional well-being, 145 emotions, 69, 287, 292 empathy, 373 employees, 98, 99, 101, 103, 115, 116, 129, 283 employers, 105, 116 employment, xiii, 82, 83, 84, 87, 96, 113, 115

388

Index

empowerment, 358 energy, 283, 333, 337 engagement, xvii, 226, 293, 317, 318, 323, 341, 343, 344, 345, 349, 352, 354, 355, 357, 375 England, 43, 46, 140, 192, 254 English Language, x, 341, 342, 346, 358, 361 English language proficiency, 346, 347 English language program, 358 enterprise, 342 enthusiasm, 119 environmental influences, xiv, 135 enzymes, 322, 325 epistemological, 357 epistemology, 347, 357 equality, 49, 365, 366 equating, 34 equity, xviii, 363 ERIC, 255, 278 error management, 211 ESL, 43, 346, 347, 349, 350, 361 ethical concerns, 347 ethical issues, 138 ethnic background, 222 ethnic diversity, 223 ethnicity, 138, 222 Euro, 188 Europe, 70, 360 evening, 284 evolution, 334, 368 examinations, 124, 318, 326, 350, 381 exchange relationship, 223 exclusion, 138, 146, 147 excuse, 56, 72 execution, 17, 32, 34, 36, 40, 41 executive processes, 3, 17 exercise, 74, 98, 231, 270, 319, 321, 324, 327, 360 exosystem, 94 expected probability, 27 experimental condition, 213 experimental design, 22, 39, 40, 174, 209, 219, 231 Expert System, 187 expert teacher, 19 expertise, xi, xii, xiv, 1, 2, 5, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 29, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 41, 42, 43, 45, 46, 100, 150, 165, 169, 171, 172, 173, 182, 183, 185, 189, 192, 193, 194, 199, 217, 219, 236, 315, 332 exponential functions, 260, 267 exposure, 106, 173 externalization, 170, 177 extinction, 89 extrovert, 371 eye, 299, 300, 312

eye contact, 312 eyes, 75, 148, 150, 354

F Facebook, xvii, 301, 302, 305, 312, 313, 314, 315, 368, 369 face-to-face interaction, 119, 191, 229, 250, 351 facilitators, 304, 374 failure, 10, 32, 52, 99, 103, 113, 373 faith, 320 false statement, 89 familial, 21 family, 54, 83, 91, 139, 140, 143, 144, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 155, 282, 294, 327, 350 family relationships, 155 fatty acids, 325 fear, 61, 288, 289, 352, 357 fears, 352 February, 134 feedback, 18, 55, 60, 66, 73, 74, 137, 167, 169, 174, 178, 180, 181, 190, 203, 212, 229, 235, 237, 240, 249, 261, 262, 263, 268, 269, 271, 274, 275, 305, 306, 307, 314, 323, 335, 349, 353, 356, 357, 359, 367, 374, 375, 376, 378 feelings, 61, 62, 68, 119, 229, 230, 337, 338, 365 feet, 141, 143 females, 94, 107, 212, 346 feminist, 94 films, 73, 292, 300 filters, 10 Finland, 315 fire, 139, 151, 154 firms, 98 first language, 347 flame, 335 flexibility, xiv, 62, 70, 96, 125, 177, 217, 235, 322, 329, 370, 381 floating, 299 flow, xvii, 49, 157, 229, 234, 341, 344, 355, 360 flow experience, 344, 355 fluid, 332 focus group, xvii, 134, 314, 341, 348, 357 focusing, xvi, 49, 63, 106, 168, 171, 181, 270, 281, 338, 364 folding, 335 food, 155, 158 football, 318 Ford, 3, 46 foreign language, 359 formal education, 198, 287 Foucault, 332, 339 fractals, 71

Index fragmentation, 368 free recall, 21 freedom, 153, 181, 185, 217, 334 free-ride, 364 Freud, 84, 91, 92 friction, 211 friendship, 61, 104, 138, 140, 145, 146, 147, 150, 151, 153, 154, 155, 161, 174, 356 frustration, 132, 146, 319, 367 fuel, 82 functional analysis, xv, 197, 201, 202, 204, 207 funding, 106, 129, 322 funds, 139

G games, 15, 78, 143, 146, 149 gas, 288, 300 gender, xiv, 135, 138, 144, 145, 146, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 157, 158, 160, 161, 174, 211, 212, 217, 283, 370 gender differences, 152, 153, 154, 155, 157, 161 gene, 38 general education, 54 general knowledge, 10 generalizability, 39, 40, 160, 377 generalization, 38, 171, 219 generation, 7, 8, 10, 13, 56, 73, 171, 174, 187, 191, 219, 305, 339 generativity, 92 Geneva, 190 genital stage, 92 genome, 327 Georgia, 163 Germany, 189 Gibbs, 252 girls, 137, 138, 139, 140, 142, 143, 144, 145, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 157, 162 glass, 300 globalization, 342 goal setting, 34, 378 goal-directed, 9 goals, xi, xii, 2, 3, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 16, 18, 19, 24, 25, 32, 34, 35, 41, 52, 56, 59, 65, 74, 75, 136, 166, 167, 173, 184, 186, 206, 207, 226, 229, 236, 249, 250, 251, 259, 275, 276, 302, 321, 323, 324, 328, 333, 346, 365, 366, 370, 374, 378 google, 309 government, 96, 106, 113, 115, 194 grades, 54, 322, 323, 324, 326, 333, 335 grading, 320, 323, 376 graduate students, 91, 364 grain, 22, 332

389

graph, 39, 41, 85, 86, 264, 266, 267, 272, 273, 274 Greece, 225 grounding, 187, 189, 227, 288 group activities, 73, 114, 226, 305, 325, 355, 377 group characteristics, 215, 224 group climate, 218 group identity, 51 group interactions, 50, 196, 228, 263 group membership, 201, 212 group processes, xv, 3, 198, 200, 209, 211, 218 group size, 201, 230, 371, 372 group variance, 218 group work, xiii, xiv, 3, 67, 88, 95, 96, 97, 98, 101, 103, 104, 105, 107, 109, 110, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 121, 131, 174, 175, 215, 227, 261, 262, 263, 268, 269, 270, 271, 274, 275, 276, 303, 310, 321, 323, 324, 348, 353, 354, 355, 364, 365, 366, 369 grouping, 370, 371, 372, 378 groupthink, 114, 216 growth, 45, 80, 82, 126, 258, 267, 339 guidance, xiii, xviii, 93, 96, 99, 114, 115, 170, 177, 178, 179, 180, 195, 232, 257, 305, 311, 321, 325, 363, 370, 374, 375 guidelines, 84, 101, 112, 259, 335, 370, 376, 377, 379 guilt, 89, 92 guns, 139, 151, 154, 161

H handling, 168, 230, 271 hands, 149, 150, 234, 249, 251, 283, 284, 293 harm, 157, 314 harmony, 157, 314 Harvard, 43, 44, 78, 91, 133, 162, 189, 196, 223, 295, 328, 362 Hawaii, 187, 190, 254 headache, 57 health, 193, 194, 196, 379, 380, 381 health care, 379, 380 heart, 99, 171, 321 heat, 213, 214 hegemony, 332 height, 300 helping behavior, 202, 218, 224 hemoglobin, 325 heterogeneity, 51, 69, 212, 215, 372 heterogeneous, xii, 2, 19, 37, 86, 134, 212, 332, 371 heuristic, 9, 14, 16 hidden curriculum, 65, 160 high school, 44, 46, 175, 176, 351 higher education, 103, 104, 105, 120, 125, 134, 251, 328, 329, 333, 334, 339, 368, 379, 381

390

Index

higher-order thinking, xiii, 81, 90, 166, 380 high-level, 15, 18 hip, 140, 149, 250 HIV/AIDS, 322, 326, 327 HIV-1, 327 holistic, 131, 329, 353, 355 holistic approach, 131 Holland, 45, 133, 154, 161 homework, 88, 202, 240, 350 homogeneity, 212 homogenous, 371 Hong Kong, 165, 346 horizon, 344 hospital, 141, 142, 143, 149, 182, 185 hospitalized, xiv, 165, 181 host, 235, 364 hostility, 364 House, 134, 362 households, 161 HSP, 174 human, 4, 5, 12, 17, 34, 61, 79, 83, 90, 91, 92, 93, 133, 166, 167, 168, 174, 181, 188, 191, 192, 195, 229, 236, 250, 293, 304, 307, 353 human activity, 250 human agency, 90, 93 human behavior, 92, 181 human cognition, 17, 34 human development, 79, 83, 91 hybrid, 371 hypermedia, 188, 379 hypertext, 329 hypothesis, 10, 11, 13, 19, 24, 35, 171, 172, 174, 191, 201, 212, 233, 236, 247, 250 hypothesis test, 10, 201 hypothetico-deductive, 19

I ICC, 200, 212 ICT, 98, 99, 101, 103, 106, 133, 278, 303, 308, 309 id, 91, 92 identification, 13, 18, 20, 41, 349 identity, xvii, 51, 62, 64, 66, 71, 80, 92, 120, 221, 341, 355, 356, 357, 358, 372, 373 ideology, 354, 356 idiosyncratic, 14 ill-defined problems, 382 Illinois, 381 illusions, 284 images, 133, 176, 238, 244, 247, 284, 299, 300, 313 imagination, 161, 355 imitation, 93 immersion, 347

immigrants, 57, 80 implementation, xvi, xvii, xviii, 3, 13, 16, 33, 90, 97, 99, 101, 103, 107, 112, 113, 115, 121, 134, 258, 281, 293, 317, 318, 323, 348, 363 impulsive, 309 in vivo, 337 incentive, 33, 93, 230 incentives, 322 incidence, 139, 155, 157 inclusion, 2, 49, 112, 357 independence, 22, 36, 219, 339 India, 346 indication, 33, 34, 35 indicators, 12 indices, 34 indirect measure, 323 individual action, 188 individual differences, 3, 22, 39 individual students, 268, 269, 271, 272, 274, 287, 293, 324 individualization, 368 individualized instruction, 80 induction, 9, 10, 34 industry, xiii, 92, 95, 98, 101, 103, 112, 113, 116, 194, 358 inertia, 54 infants, 156 infection, 326, 327 inferences, 5, 7, 10, 13, 14, 20, 24, 34, 43, 172, 268 inferiority, 92 Information Age, 301, 314, 380, 382 information and communication technologies, (ICT), 2, 99, 234, 235 information exchange, 18, 37, 212, 250, 367 information processing, xv, 45, 93, 188, 216, 220 information retrieval, 18, 37 information seeking, 367 information sharing, 222, 304 Information System, 133, 251, 381 Information Technology, 104, 119, 174, 222, 240, 249, 257 informed consent, 138 infrastructure, 120, 193 initial state, 13 initiation, 135 innovation, 20 Innovation, 95, 361 insight, 82, 160, 169, 207, 219, 258, 276, 346, 354 inspection, 277 inspiration, 354 instinct, 120, 126 institutions, 65, 66, 104, 106, 110, 112, 115, 116, 131, 294

Index instruction, xi, xii, xiii, 1, 12, 19, 21, 34, 37, 42, 45, 81, 120, 125, 171, 187, 191, 222, 231, 261, 262, 263, 264, 268, 270, 275, 278, 304, 314, 329, 343, 347, 375, 379 instructional activities, 41, 258, 260, 261, 262, 271 instructional design, xviii, 193, 363, 377 instructional materials, 41 instructional methods, 120, 126, 328 instructional planning, 5 instructional practice, xviii, 259, 363 instructional skills, 361 instructors, xiii, 81, 86, 90, 119, 179, 234, 235, 364, 365, 368, 369, 370, 371, 373, 374, 375, 376, 378, 381, 382 instruments, 129, 230, 233, 238, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 251, 278 integration, xiii, xv, xviii, 3, 5, 6, 7, 47, 158, 190, 213, 215, 225, 231, 249, 252, 253, 263, 271, 334, 335, 339, 363 integrity, 71, 92 intellect, 189 intellectual development, 318, 329 intelligence, 44, 46, 63, 91, 193, 315, 354 intentions, 16, 18, 62, 115, 136 interaction process, 196, 207, 260, 264, 343 interactivity, 226, 250, 252, 308, 313 interdependence, xvi, 51, 52, 134, 226, 301, 302, 346, 353, 365, 366, 368, 369, 370, 374 interdisciplinary, xiii, xvi, 42, 47, 48, 53, 58, 59, 67, 71, 301, 379 interest groups, 104 interface, 179, 217, 241, 245, 261, 263, 264, 359 interference, 293 internalization, 304 international students, 346, 349, 350, 351, 352, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358 Internet, 103, 105, 123, 133, 229, 233, 248, 251, 252, 253, 255, 310, 311, 316 internship, 335 interpersonal relations, 250, 367 interpersonal relationships, 367 interpersonal skills, 345 intervention, xi, xii, xvi, xvii, 2, 10, 11, 13, 24, 25, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 40, 64, 70, 136, 151, 158, 159, 162, 171, 257, 259, 261, 275, 276, 287, 307, 341, 346, 347, 348, 349 interview, 129 interviews, xiii, xvii, 71, 95, 186, 262, 286, 339, 348 intimacy, 92 intimidation, 146 intrinsic, 32, 55, 70, 88 introvert, 371 investigative, xvi, 257, 259, 261, 262, 271, 274, 276

391

investment, 98, 322, 350 iron, 131 isolation, 40, 90, 92, 119, 186, 209, 229, 365, 368 isomers, 324 Israel, 283, 293, 295 Italy, 294

J Japan, 189, 346 Japanese, 361 job satisfaction, 97 jobs, 66 joining, 52, 152 Jordan, 154, 162, 190 judge, 58, 180, 250, 322, 376 judgment, 220, 373 jumping, 140 jury, 58 justice, 94 justification, 15, 177, 342

K kappa, 200, 209 kindergarten, 137, 138, 139, 140, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 151, 152, 153, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 162 kindergarten children, 153, 157, 162 kinesthetic, 287 kinetics, 326 King, 141, 143, 152, 158, 175, 188, 191 knowledge acquisition, 43, 381 knowledge construction, xviii, 42, 177, 178, 182, 189, 190, 207, 224, 249, 282, 358, 363, 365, 369 knowledge transfer, 284 Kobe, 189 Korea, 346 Korean, 351

L labour, 226, 227 lack of confidence, 113, 351 Lafayette, 220 LAN, xv, 225, 237, 238, 239, 240, 243, 244, 245, 246, 250 language, xvii, 7, 27, 43, 45, 46, 82, 91, 144, 153, 155, 157, 158, 161, 163, 176, 319, 333, 339, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349, 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359, 360, 362, 367, 375

392

Index

language development, 158 language proficiency, 353 language skills, 343, 344, 353, 358 latency, 92 laughing, 285, 289, 291 law, 15, 58, 299 lawyers, 58 leadership, xiii, xiv, 47, 51, 60, 62, 63, 70, 73, 80, 87, 135, 138, 142, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 155, 160, 162, 215, 216, 217, 220, 221, 223, 224, 356, 357, 358, 366, 373, 375 leadership style, 145, 150, 152, 155 learning activity, 181, 182, 186, 365, 367, 374, 377 learning behavior, 218, 220, 345 learning culture, 339 learning difficulties, 45, 231 learning disabilities, 57 learning outcomes, xvi, xvii, 12, 48, 225, 229, 233, 251, 258, 302, 341, 342, 344, 346, 349, 350, 352, 354, 355, 357, 367, 369, 377 learning process, xvii, 59, 64, 67, 73, 74, 93, 101, 107, 116, 170, 190, 195, 208, 209, 215, 217, 218, 219, 227, 228, 232, 235, 250, 254, 260, 301, 303, 313, 314, 332, 334, 335, 339, 343, 353, 365, 377 learning styles, 90, 362, 371, 372, 378 learning task, 3, 49, 52, 65, 72, 135, 167, 187, 195, 196, 223, 227, 251, 310, 349, 366, 370 lens, 87, 366 lenses, 87, 284, 286, 298, 299 lesson plan, 11, 19, 21, 22, 37 liberal, 318 life course, 357 life cycle, 326 life style, 313 lifespan, 94 lift, 243 ligands, 325 likelihood, 22, 285 limitation, 66, 206, 292 limitations, 37, 38, 39, 75, 124, 200, 259 Lincoln, 347, 360 linear, 22, 27, 40, 72, 260, 299 linear function, 260 linguistic, 347, 361 linguistically, 332 links, 3, 8, 9, 38, 39, 58, 99, 128, 314, 326, 334, 366, 368, 375 listening, 54, 61, 75, 272, 319, 334, 335, 337, 345, 348, 356 literacy, 98, 145, 148, 161, 162, 346, 358 local area network (LAN), 241 local community, 327 location, 87, 109, 123, 125, 155, 230, 234

logging, 314 logistics, 370 London, 43, 78, 91, 131, 134, 161, 188, 221, 253, 254, 339, 359, 360, 361, 362 longitudinal study, 218 long-term impact, 294 long-term memory, 6, 7, 231 love, 336, 337, 340 low-level, 18 loyalty, 98 lying, 141

M M1, 214 machines, 167, 195 macrosystem, 94 magazines, 269 magnet, 355 maintenance, 51, 171, 180, 232 Malaysia, 346 males, 94, 107, 153, 212, 346 mammogram, 187 mammography, 172, 187 management, 15, 97, 99, 104, 115, 119, 122, 127, 131, 136, 176, 178, 179, 181, 185, 196, 211, 223, 235, 250, 368, 375, 381 manipulation, 9, 154, 230, 233, 240, 244, 282 manners, 11 manufacturing, 254 mapping, 177, 195, 303 Markov process, 27, 34, 40 Marx, 12, 45 mask, 300 mass media, 58 Massachusetts, 189 mastery, 339, 364 maternal, 154 mathematical knowledge, 260 mathematical thinking, 46, 220 mathematics, 45, 46, 80, 171, 176, 187, 191, 220, 224, 257, 258, 260, 276, 277, 278, 279 mathematics education, 257, 258, 276, 278, 279 matrix, xvii, 310, 341, 344, 348, 350, 352 maturation, 93 meals, 139 meaningful tasks, 90, 251 meanings, 53, 55, 59, 61, 71, 126, 166, 168, 169, 217, 343, 374 measurement, 198, 209, 211, 244, 245, 254, 302, 333 measures, xv, 198, 200, 211, 212, 323 media, 58, 126, 155, 218, 251, 368, 379 mediation, 93, 236, 374

Index mediators, 150, 230, 366 medical care, 185 medical expertise, 43, 45, 171, 193 medical student, xiv, 165, 181 medications, 182 meditation, xvii, 331, 332, 334, 335 membership, 145, 146, 153 memorizing, xvii, 230, 317, 342 memory, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 33, 42, 166, 169, 171, 175, 231, 293 men, 57, 77, 213 mental energy, 334 mental life, 92 mental model, xv, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 16, 169, 173, 180, 188, 198, 211, 216, 217, 220 mental processes, 93 mental representation, 5, 6, 9, 168 mental state, 355 mentor, 19, 181 mesosystem, 94 messages, 174, 177, 180, 229, 303, 311, 376 meta-analysis, 278, 361 metabolism, 322, 325 metacognition, 180, 181, 252, 379 metacognitive skills, 173 metaphor, 49, 61, 76, 259, 353 methodological implications, 198 methodological procedures, 230, 237, 249, 250 Microsoft, 84, 87, 88, 368, 381 microstructure, 5, 6, 7 microsystem, 94 middle-class families, 138 military, 194 minerals, 71 Ministry of Education, 135, 162 minorities, 221 minority, 12, 109, 121 mirror, 82, 90, 213, 214, 284, 286, 297, 299, 300 misconception, 264 misconceptions, 221, 231, 232, 237, 241, 247, 263, 274, 304, 369 misleading, 34 misunderstanding, 113, 115 MIT, 91, 190, 223, 362 mixing, 74, 370 mobile phone, 123 modalities, 51, 61 modality, 254 modeling, xi, xii, 1, 17, 22, 23, 37, 39, 42, 46, 88, 93, 167, 175, 180, 304, 325 models, xi, xii, xiii, xiv, xv, 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 14, 16, 34, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 46, 79, 93, 96, 112, 126, 169, 171, 173, 176, 179, 180, 181, 185, 188,

393

194, 198, 211, 216, 217, 220, 221, 229, 231, 279, 326, 372 modulation, 23 modules, xi, xii, xiii, 1, 95, 109, 125, 233, 235 molecular structure, 176 molecules, 319, 324 money, 89, 350 Monsters, 139 moral development, 94 morale, 97 morning, 107, 108, 137, 138, 146, 147, 150, 151, 158 morphemes, 7 mother tongue, 347 mothers, 171 motion, 66, 176, 234, 286, 299 motivation, xvii, 54, 57, 61, 69, 70, 105, 166, 179, 193, 222, 229, 236, 250, 294, 317, 319, 323, 354, 368, 372 motives, 63 motor skills, 149 mouse, 233, 245 movement, 89, 136, 146 MSW, xvii, 331, 332, 334, 337 multicultural, 226 multidimensional, 69, 208, 349, 354, 357 multimedia, 177, 229, 305, 306, 379 multiplicity, 40, 69, 337 multivariate, 27 music, 71, 76, 89 mutual respect, 356 mutuality, 49, 332 MySpace, 123

N NAEYC, 162 naming, 324 Nanyang Technological University, 301 narratives, 67, 69, 71, 145, 159, 162 National Science Foundation, 277, 327 natural, 51, 58, 74, 93, 294, 337, 367, 368, 369, 372 negative attitudes, 371 negotiating, 166, 169, 345, 355, 374 negotiation, 21, 51, 131, 145, 154, 170, 177, 178, 185, 220, 250, 304, 344, 347, 356, 366, 375, 380 nervousness, 69 Netherlands, 45, 46, 187, 190, 191, 195, 196, 197, 220, 222, 223, 257, 260, 278, 378 network, 6, 193, 229, 237, 241 networking, 127 neurologist, 92 New Jersey, 79, 161, 188, 339 New Orleans, 188, 193

394

Index

New York, 43, 44, 45, 46, 77, 78, 79, 80, 91, 134, 161, 188, 189, 190, 192, 193, 194, 196, 219, 254, 279, 328, 329, 333, 339, 340, 360, 361, 362, 379, 380 New Zealand, xiv, 135, 138, 160, 162, 163 newspapers, 269 NIE, 306, 309, 311 nodes, 6, 375 noise, 143, 158, 160 non-English speaking, xvii, 341 non-linearity, 72 nonverbal, 203 normal, 145, 156, 269 norms, 55, 258, 259, 276, 279 Norway, 140 novel stimuli, 285 nucleic acid, 322, 326, 327, 328 nurse, 182, 184, 185 nursery school, 163 nurses, 149

O object-oriented design, 180 obligation, 63, 82 obligations, 263, 268, 277 observational learning, 93, 375 observations, xv, 22, 144, 225, 232, 241, 244, 247, 260, 261, 262, 263, 270, 271, 273, 277, 284, 348 omnibus, 27, 30 online, xviii, 114, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 126, 127, 128, 132, 133, 134, 176, 180, 183, 190, 195, 220, 223, 234, 235, 246, 252, 295, 303, 307, 311, 312, 315, 340, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369, 370, 371, 372, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379, 380, 381, 382 online communication, 367 online learning, 119, 120, 123, 126, 235, 312, 315, 365, 366, 367, 368, 375, 379, 380, 381, 382 open spaces, 154 openness, 70, 338 operator, 14, 177 opposition, 19, 152 optical, 243, 284 optics, 283, 284, 287 oral, 70, 92, 155, 326 orbit, 299 organic, 319, 322, 324, 325, 337 organizational behavior, 224 orientation, 58, 62, 66, 94, 178, 208, 368, 375, 382 overload, 35 ownership, xvii, 72, 307, 331, 332, 334, 370 oxygen, 325

P Pacific, 361 packets, 158 pain, 288 paradigm shift, 191, 331, 334 paradox, 340, 367 parameter, 239 parental consent, 138 parents, 71, 141, 154 particles, 288, 300 partnership, 336, 378 partnerships, 378 passive, 55, 63, 231, 304, 333, 346, 350, 357, 359 patient management, 185 patients, 149, 171, 173, 181, 185 patterning, 71 PBL, 171, 174, 175, 182, 186, 375, 380 PCs, 237, 245 PCT, 132 peak experience, 355 pedagogies, 315, 318 pedagogy, 41, 48, 49, 58, 67, 114, 127, 153, 279, 320 peer group, 222 peer relationship, 356 peer tutoring, 220 peers, xv, 153, 154, 156, 163, 166, 170, 177, 180, 185, 198, 217, 227, 232, 235, 239, 240, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 250, 251, 258, 263, 264, 274, 282, 284, 287, 293, 306, 314, 320, 325, 339, 345, 349, 354, 359, 368, 369, 376 Pennsylvania, 328 perception, 5, 284, 354, 357, 376 perceptions, 161, 222, 335 performers, 217 periodic, 367 periodicity, 71 Peripheral, 77 permit, 40, 119 personal computers, 244 personal learning, 294 personal life, 69, 104 personal responsibility, 236 personality, 211, 212, 213, 221, 319, 355, 356, 371, 372, 373, 374, 379 personality type, 212, 213 persuasion, 153, 177 pets, 139, 152 pH, 252, 254 Philadelphia, 161 philosophical, 51, 342 philosophy, 104, 123, 160, 343, 344 Phoenix, 79, 329

Index phone, 143, 151 photographs, 137, 138 physical force, 146, 153 physicians, 10, 171, 185 physics, 41, 176, 177, 195, 223, 252 physiology, 173 pilot study, 316 pitch, 300 planning, xi, xii, xvii, 1, 3, 4, 5, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21, 25, 32, 33, 37, 38, 39, 41, 42, 44, 45, 46, 64, 70, 114, 158, 160, 175, 185, 201, 251, 262, 311, 317, 321, 349, 367, 370, 373, 379, 381 plants, 267 plasma, 284, 287, 288, 289, 293 plastic, 158 platforms, 48, 73, 127, 235, 250 plausibility, 10, 11, 24 play, xiv, 14, 89, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 167, 169, 183, 185, 186, 218, 258, 282, 302, 304, 366, 373, 374 play activity, 154, 163 pleasure, 92, 355 pleasure principle, 92 poison, 142, 148 police, 146, 147, 154 politics, 15 polling, 311 pond, 267 poor, 105, 200, 218 population, xiv, 96, 125 portfolio, 51, 53, 303, 358, 377 Portugal, 133 positive attitudes, 166, 375 positive reinforcement, 89 positive relation, xv, 197, 217, 313 positive relationship, 217, 313 posture, 152, 334 power, 22, 61, 62, 63, 97, 145, 147, 149, 152, 154, 155, 159, 162, 188, 235, 260, 264, 265, 266, 269, 270, 272, 273, 332, 334, 351, 352, 357, 379 praxis, 104 prediction, 27, 326 prediction models, 326 preference, 154, 157, 234, 325, 371 prejudice, 215, 216 preoperational stage, 93 preschool, 89, 153, 156, 161, 162 preschool children, 156, 161 preschoolers, 162 preservice teachers, xiii, 81, 82, 86 press, 180, 186, 190, 191, 193, 223, 240, 294, 295

395

pressure, 75, 105, 288, 299, 300, 338 primacy, 146 primary school, 294, 306 primitives, 12, 39 prior knowledge, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 13, 15, 24, 87, 114, 167, 169, 194, 222, 237, 241, 247, 288, 304, 324 privacy, 313 probability, 16, 27, 28, 32, 36 problem space, 13, 14, 16, 41, 169, 175, 182, 184, 185, 195 problem-based learning, 175, 187, 189, 190, 196, 321, 322, 369, 370, 375, 380 problem-solving, xviii, 2, 5, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 24, 28, 30, 33, 34, 35, 79, 105, 161, 172, 182, 183, 188, 190, 192, 196, 199, 201, 203, 204, 218, 261, 304, 315, 344, 356, 363, 364, 366, 369, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 379, 380 problem-solving task, 17, 20, 372 procedural knowledge, 19, 173 producers, 76 production, xi, xii, 1, 3, 5, 38, 127, 347, 351, 352 productivity, 65, 97, 99, 105, 217 professional development, xvii, 2, 42, 43, 67, 316, 331, 335 program, xi, xii, xv, 2, 22, 37, 56, 58, 59, 71, 175, 188, 203, 208, 225, 239, 241, 333, 334, 336 programming, 179, 196 projector, 88, 244, 245, 318 proliferation, 98, 120, 125 pronunciation, 349, 351, 353, 357 proposition, 6, 10 prosthetics, 191 protection, 159, 214 proteins, 322, 325, 326 protocols, 22, 38, 171, 183, 185, 200, 208, 209, 260, 267, 268, 269, 271, 326 prototype, 125, 127, 128, 129, 131 proxy, 93 psychiatrist, 92 psychic energy, 285 psychoanalysis, 92 Psychoanalysis, 82, 84, 92 psychological processes, 91, 223, 295 psychologist, 60, 92, 93, 94 psychology, 43, 44, 45, 46, 53, 79, 91, 192, 193, 194, 209, 221, 316, 328, 329 psychotherapy, 331 puberty, 92, 94 public, 58, 101, 119, 137, 282, 283, 314, 326, 344 public sector, 101 punishment, 89, 92 pupil, 10, 34 pupils, 53

396

Index

purification, 325 PVA, 22

Q qualifications, 137, 160 qualitative research, 278 quality improvement, 97 Quebec, 187 questioning, 264, 284, 304 questionnaire, xiii, 95, 99, 101, 107, 109, 117, 121, 122, 125, 127, 128, 212, 218, 241, 335 questionnaires, 101, 129, 200, 209, 212, 218 quizzes, 235, 250, 252, 323

R race, 78 radiologists, 172 random, 201, 324, 327, 334 range, 9, 39, 49, 85, 105, 139, 153, 157, 158, 159, 160, 175, 177, 186, 200, 284, 344, 346, 348, 349, 350, 353, 355, 358, 369, 372 ratings, 215, 376 rats, 92 readership, 83 reading, xi, xii, 1, 7, 8, 21, 34, 45, 57, 80, 86, 91, 246, 248, 314, 324, 326, 335, 346, 349, 353 reading assessment, 353 reading skills, 346, 349, 353 real time, 106, 182, 228, 233, 244, 245, 246, 309 reality, 8, 44, 66, 80, 90, 92, 233, 245, 250, 304, 361 reasoning skills, 20, 41 recall, 19, 21, 56, 89 recalling, 350 recession, 94 reciprocal relationships, 135 reciprocity, 199 recognition, 41, 49, 104, 171, 175, 230, 343 reconstruction, 170, 304 redundancy, 342, 344 reflection, 3, 21, 51, 60, 67, 76, 177, 184, 189, 201, 235, 249, 259, 262, 266, 268, 271, 277, 300, 309, 311, 314, 343, 356, 358, 365, 366, 367, 374, 377 reflective practice, 378 reflexivity, 211 reforms, 4, 343 regular, 106, 120, 122, 123, 144, 145, 147, 157, 320, 374 regulation, xii, 2, 17, 37, 42, 135, 180, 190, 222, 235 regulations, 251 Reimann, 179, 193

reinforcement, 88, 89, 92 rejection, 10 relationship, 3, 5, 6, 17, 43, 48, 52, 54, 55, 57, 61, 62, 63, 65, 66, 71, 72, 76, 93, 149, 151, 155, 160, 180, 211, 212, 213, 217, 223, 249, 250, 258, 259, 276, 292, 302, 312, 313, 338, 339, 366, 373 relationships, 48, 49, 54, 61, 62, 64, 65, 66, 68, 70, 73, 135, 144, 146, 155, 160, 168, 176, 177, 178, 186, 215, 223, 224, 239, 286, 295, 337, 356, 366, 370, 373 relativity, 53 relevance, xiv, 10, 57, 96, 249, 262 reliability, 105, 170, 200, 203, 209, 212, 213, 215, 219, 220, 221, 223, 244 Reliability, 221 repetitions, 345 Research and Development, 379, 380, 382 research design, 219 resilience, 356 resistance, 99, 101, 103, 113, 275, 277, 334, 375 resolution, 15, 19, 20, 145, 150, 366, 367, 374 resources, xiv, 16, 65, 70, 78, 84, 106, 119, 126, 129, 136, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 165, 167, 168, 205, 230, 234, 237, 243, 249, 250, 303, 304, 305, 306, 310, 312, 325, 347, 353, 354, 365, 375 responsibilities, 3, 49, 51, 139, 275, 276, 346, 353 responsibility for learning, xvii, 331, 332 restructuring, 7 retention, 166 retina, 299 retrovirus, 327 returns, 140 reverse transcriptase, 327 rhythm, 69, 75 rigidity, 62 risk, 67 RNA, 327 role playing, 64, 136 role-playing, 149, 182, 254 rolling, 286, 296, 300 rote learning, 342, 350 routines, 103, 160 rubrics, 38, 308, 377 Russian, 93, 94

S sabotage, 99 safety, 143, 159, 220, 230, 336, 338 sample, xi, xii, 1, 21, 28, 32, 34, 38, 39, 84, 91, 107, 194, 203, 346, 364, 371 sampling, 39, 262 sand, 147

Index SAS, 22, 23 satisfaction, 5, 6, 68, 97, 212, 316, 322, 377, 381 Saudi Arabia, 346 scaffold, 177, 178, 182, 183, 185, 379 scaffolding, xiv, xviii, 45, 93, 165, 171, 178, 179, 183, 184, 185, 186, 193, 222, 271, 304, 305, 308, 363, 374, 375, 377, 378, 379, 381 scarcity, 33 scheduling, 233 schema, 7, 11, 12, 15, 20, 172 schemas, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, 14, 16, 19, 33 scholarship, 282, 322, 358 schooling, 82 science department, 287 science education, 189, 230, 232, 233, 237, 243, 249, 250, 295 scientific community, 236 scientific knowledge, 251 scores, 27, 200, 212, 213 scripts, 3, 11, 18, 41, 54, 65, 77 search, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 52, 55, 59, 72, 81, 84, 107, 127, 171, 172, 175, 196, 221, 223, 310, 332, 338 searches, 169 searching, 172, 174, 248, 290, 333 Seattle, 253 second language, 70, 344, 346, 347, 362 secondary education, 278 secondary school students, 135 secret, 77 security, 55 selecting, 41, 87, 373 Self, 65, 120, 181, 188, 211, 227, 338, 355, 360 self-assessment, 247 self-confidence, 154, 318 self-consciousness, 355 self-definition, 161 self-efficacy, 355, 356, 357, 358, 361 self-esteem, 154 self-evaluations, 67 self-identity, 357 self-management, 131 self-monitoring, 136 self-paced learning, 126 self-reflection, 51, 52 self-regulation, xii, 2, 17, 42, 180, 222, 235 self-reports, 211, 216, 218 semantic, 9, 43, 186 sensation, 69, 75 sensing, 371 sensitivity, 7 sensory experience, 233 sensory modality, 254

397

sentences, 6, 153 separateness, 65 separation, xviii, 178, 227, 363, 365, 372 sequencing, 12, 20, 25, 29, 36, 38 series, xiv, 2, 3, 11, 21, 22, 37, 42, 44, 96, 101, 112, 115, 127, 166, 174, 251, 260, 324 services, 83, 161, 369 SES, 133 sex, 78, 153, 154 shade, 214, 215 shame, 92 shape, 54, 92, 175, 178 shaping, 89 shares, 10, 49, 245, 311 sharing, 53, 59, 67, 75, 90, 98, 100, 126, 136, 145, 160, 170, 180, 195, 205, 222, 231, 236, 237, 250, 292, 302, 304, 305, 306, 311, 345, 348, 349, 352, 356, 368, 371, 374 Shell, 129, 134 shoot, 142, 144 short period, 230, 249 short supply, 98 shortages, 98 short-term, 12, 18, 19, 150, 166, 171 short-term memory, 171 shoulders, 91 shy, 136, 364 sibling, 161 signaling, 214, 215 signals, 213 signs, xiv, 159, 165, 181, 182, 184, 185 similarity, 199 simulations, xiv, xv, 64, 165, 166, 175, 185, 223, 225, 229, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 240, 249, 250, 252, 254, 344 Singapore, 134, 301, 306, 311, 346, 360 siphon, 99 sites, 303, 347 situation awareness, 173, 184, 185 skeleton, 300 skill shortages, 98 Skinner box, 92 Skinner, B. F., 91 Slovenia, 133 sociability, 191, 253 social behavior, 346 social behaviour, 161 social change, 134 social cognition, 17, 39, 358 social construct, xvii, 77, 90, 166, 167, 226, 229, 301, 304, 331, 339, 342, 343, 344, 345, 348 social constructivism, 304, 342, 343, 348 social context, 62, 258, 292

398

Index

social contract, 162 social environment, 119, 126 social factors, 98, 368 social group, 145 social identity, 221 social learning, 88, 183 social network, 121, 126, 127, 312, 367, 368, 369 social norms, 258 social order, 94 social presence, 366, 367, 372, 374 social problems, 120 social psychology, xv, 197, 198, 209, 221 social regulation, 216 social relations, 48, 340 social relationships, 48 social roles, 179 social sciences, 16 social skills, xiii, 47, 51, 52, 57, 58, 60, 61, 62, 63, 70, 72, 158, 161, 251, 345, 349, 352, 353, 355 social structure, 104 social support, 3 social systems, 169 social work, xvii, 331 socialisation, 114, 115, 119, 126 socialization, 91, 365, 367, 372, 374, 375 sociocultural, 93, 163, 315 sociology, 90, 223, 340 software, 100, 106, 107, 119, 121, 122, 124, 126, 127, 128, 129, 193, 196, 203, 217, 222, 231, 233, 249, 252, 374, 381 sounds, 214 South Korea, 361 space-time, 295 Spain, 48 spatial, 177, 284 special education, xi, xii, 1, 21 specialization, 172 species, 120, 126 specific knowledge, 70, 174 specificity, 181 spectroscopy, 253 spectrum, 254 speech, 39, 146, 153, 180, 217, 335, 351, 352, 353, 356 speed, 352 spheres, 299 spreadsheets, 247 SPSS, 200, 203, 208 stabilize, xiv, 165, 185, 186 stages, xvii, 6, 9, 53, 62, 70, 92, 93, 94, 115, 173, 184, 237, 318, 323, 341, 357, 370 stakeholders, 103, 112, 119, 125 standards, 65, 94, 304

statistical analysis, 27, 208, 239 statistics, 25, 27, 30, 34, 41, 180, 185, 200 STEM, 322 stimulus, 144, 348 storage, 18, 37, 159, 303 strategy use, 38, 40 streams, 288, 300, 334 strength, 149, 249 stress, 49, 50, 61, 65, 173, 184, 207, 213, 325, 356 stress level, 325 structuring, 178, 190, 193, 230, 304 student achievement, xvi, 80, 252, 257, 258, 319, 377 student behavior, 224 student group, xiii, xiv, 95, 96, 109, 110, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 179, 216, 349, 352, 353, 378 student teacher, xi, xii, 1, 2, 3, 4, 19, 21, 25, 29, 30, 35, 305, 306, 308, 309, 310, 311 students‘ understanding, 19 subgroups, 182, 211, 216 subjective, 54, 55, 63, 70, 217, 229 substances, 143 subtasks, 17 subtraction, 44 summer, 125 Sun, 17, 37, 46 superego, 92 supervision, 73, 331 supervisor, 53, 311 surface structure, 6 surprise, xvii, 120, 125, 317, 318 surveillance, 160 survival, 94, 211, 215 Sweden, 360 symbols, xvi, 7, 177, 281, 282 symmetry, 49, 226, 288, 300 symptoms, 20, 172 synchronous, xv, 119, 169, 177, 178, 199, 225, 228, 229, 234, 235, 237, 250, 253, 255, 304, 309, 365, 367, 369 syndrome, 350 synthesis, xviii, 34, 112, 349, 363, 366

T Taiwan, 189, 346 talent, 53, 319, 356 tangible, 366, 377 targets, 35 task demands, xv, 225 task difficulty, 193, 217 task performance, 227 taste, 352

Index taxonomic, 163 taxonomy, 136 tea, 247 teacher instruction, 19, 243 teacher preparation, 90 teacher thinking, 41 teacher training, 82 teaching effectiveness, 32 teaching experience, 137, 160 teaching process, 3, 45, 51 teaching strategies, 41, 160, 347 teaching/learning process, 104 team members, 87, 104, 173, 364, 370, 371, 372, 373, 374, 375 technicians, 50 technological advancement, 113 teenagers, 62 telecommunication, 237 telecommunications, 379 telephone, 284, 367 temperature, 239 temporal, 7, 178, 284 tension, 268, 371, 373 Texas, 81, 339 textbooks, 135, 173, 260, 263 Thailand, 346 therapeutic relationship, 338, 339 therapy, 52, 162, 163, 339, 375 thermodynamics, 327 Thessaloniki, 225 think critically, 375 thinking, xvii, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 53, 59, 64, 68, 69, 77, 78, 82, 89, 90, 110, 120, 125, 132, 168, 170, 174, 178, 220, 231, 232, 235, 238, 255, 258, 266, 308, 311, 338, 341, 343, 349, 350, 353, 357, 359, 365, 367, 369, 375, 381 Thomson, 360 threat, 83 threatened, 147 threatening, xiv, 96, 125, 352, 353, 354 threats, 153 three-dimensional, 176 threshold, 27 time frame, 309 timing, 94 title, 77, 84, 284 titration, 252 toddlers, 156 tolerance, 70, 337, 356, 357 top management, 223 top-down, 6, 7, 18 toys, 154, 163 tracking, 179, 188, 303

399

trade, 181 trade-off, 181 tradition, 4 traditional model, 41 traffic, 159, 180 training, xi, xii, xiii, 1, 20, 23, 37, 50, 54, 60, 63, 65, 67, 82, 96, 99, 101, 103, 104, 106, 107, 109, 110, 112, 114, 115, 119, 125, 129, 131, 166, 173, 194, 247, 248, 249, 250, 314, 318, 324, 352, 358, 374, 381 traits, 63 trajectory, 279 trans, xviii, 325, 363 transcript, 23 transcriptase, 327 transcription, 21, 348 transcripts, 23, 160, 220, 278 transfer, 39, 53, 64, 70, 100, 174, 241, 271, 344, 372 transformation, 7, 9, 10, 13, 35, 52, 53, 64, 66, 67, 80, 96, 103, 169, 380 transition, 20, 27, 34, 35, 36, 48, 67 transitions, xi, xii, 2, 16, 27, 28, 29, 32, 35, 36, 38, 39, 40 translation, 342, 357 transmission, 49, 50, 52, 61, 100, 226, 234, 236, 250, 251, 367 transparency, 278 transparent, 155, 300 transportation, 94, 154 trauma, 335 travel, 89, 106, 364 trees, 180 trial, 275, 276, 321 triangulation, 223 triggers, 11, 169, 357 trust, 52, 61, 65, 68, 69, 75, 92, 211, 223, 336, 340, 365, 366, 367, 368, 372, 373, 375, 378 trusts, 52, 76 Turkey, xvii, 341, 346, 348, 358, 359, 360, 361 turnover, 153 tutoring, 12, 37, 45, 46, 92, 133, 178, 188, 191, 193, 196, 199, 203, 372 two-dimensional, 310 two-way, 305, 315

U ultraviolet, 254 uncertainty, 18, 173 undergraduate, xiii, xvii, 95, 99, 104, 121, 125, 127, 283, 341, 350, 353, 356 undergraduates, 120, 125, 129, 346, 350, 355 uniform, 158

400

Index

United Arab Emirates, 346 United States, 140, 360 units of analysis, 39 universities, xiii, 96, 104, 105, 119, 235, 250, 361 university education, 70 university students, xiii, 95, 112, 129, 306 updating, 8, 16, 45, 184 upload, 305, 312

V Valencia, 47 validation, 9, 10, 38, 235 validity, 347 values, 18, 27, 34, 49, 55, 63, 65, 66, 82, 98, 212, 229, 232, 265, 266, 268, 365, 373 variables, xviii, 49, 63, 174, 180, 207, 208, 209, 210, 215, 228, 232, 236, 247, 363 variance, 27, 201, 218 variation, 5, 72, 199, 217 vegetation, 213 vehicles, 127, 155, 367, 368 vein, 19, 345 velocity, 175, 210 Victoria, 78, 341 videoconferencing, 105, 193, 206, 254 video-recording, 261 videotape, 137 Vietnam, 346 violence, 333 violent, 139 virtual university, 380, 382 virtual world, 368, 369 viscosity, 253 visible, 40, 209, 245, 254 vision, 63, 66, 234, 249, 284 visualization, 176, 177, 181, 182, 189, 193 VLS, 234, 235 vocabulary, 136, 319, 351, 352, 353 vocalizations, 136 vocational, xvi, 257, 260, 261 vocational education, xvi, 257, 260, 261 voice, 53, 68, 91, 106, 146, 152, 158, 217, 335, 345, 358, 367 voting, 311 Vygotsky, 84, 91, 93, 170, 196, 201, 223, 282, 293, 332, 342, 343, 352, 362

W waking, 140

Wales, 254 walking, 152 war, 154 water, 147, 148, 151, 155, 157, 158, 214, 215 wealth, 153, 194, 304 wear, 139 web, xvi, 48, 53, 67, 68, 73, 120, 126, 127, 129, 132, 188, 190, 229, 234, 254, 255, 301, 302, 303, 305, 307, 309, 315, 316, 367, 379, 380, 381 Web 2.0, x, xiv, 96, 119, 125, 126, 127, 128, 131, 132, 301, 305, 368, 369, 381 web pages, 305, 307 web sites, 303 web-based, 120, 126, 188, 190, 229, 234, 254, 303, 305, 309, 316, 367, 379, 380, 381 web-based instruction, 379 Weblog, xvii, 301, 302, 305, 306, 307, 315 websites, 122, 128 well-being, 145 winning, 89 wires, 243 wisdom, 133, 336 withdrawal, 150 witnesses, 58, 345 women, 77, 213 wood, 142 work environment, xvii, 317 work ethic, 373 workers, xvi, 151, 158, 301 workforce, xvi, 301, 364 workload, 371, 373 workplace, 94, 100, 103, 302, 328 workspace, 180, 253, 303 World Wide Web, 174 worry, 311 writing, 79, 80, 155, 159, 178, 205, 251, 252, 279, 309, 321, 326, 344, 348 written plans, 19 WWW, 133, 193

Y yes/no, 109, 127 yield, 14 younger children, 156

Z Zen, 340