The affordance of anchored discussion for the collaborative processing of academic texts

Article

Abstract

A system for “anchored discussion” is compared with a system for traditional forum discussion (Blackboard), and their collaborative and communicative affordances for the collaborative processing of academic texts are investigated. Results show that discussion in the system for anchored discussion is more directed at processing the meaning of texts than discussion in the traditional forum, which is more oriented towards the sharing of personal opinions and experiences. This difference in orientation produces a more constructive collaboration in the system for anchored discussion, versus a more debate-like collaboration in the forum discussion. Additionally, while messages in the traditional forum resemble usual discussion or email conversation and contain social and regulative comments, discussion in the system for anchored discussion is seen to be more efficient and “to-the-point.” We conclude that for collaborative text comprehension by undergraduate students, anchored discussion might be more suitable than traditional forum discussion. Finally, the observed differences can be explained by the stronger defined collaborative context in the system for anchored discussion, which focuses participants’ collaborative intentions and their frames of reference.

Keywords

CSCL Anchored discussion Annotation Collaborative literature processing Theory oriented discussion Mutual understanding 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 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: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  2. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 708–722.Google Scholar
  3. Bernheim Brush, A. J., Bargeron, D., Grudin, J., Borning, A., & Gupta, A. (2002). Supporting interaction outside of class: Anchored discussion vs. discussion boards. In G. Stahl (Ed.), Computer support for collaborative learning: Foundations for a CSCL community. Proceedings of CSCL 2002 (pp. 425–434). Hillsdale, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  4. Boekaerts, M., & Simons, P. R. J. (1995). Leren en instructie: Psychologie van de leerling en het leerproces. (Learning and instruction: Psychology of the student and the learning process). Assen: Van Gorcum.Google Scholar
  5. Cadiz, J. J., Gupta, A., & Grudin, J. (2000). Using web annotations for asynchronous collaboration around documents. In D. G. Durand (Ed.), Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work 2000 (pp. 309–318). New York: ACM.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clark, H. H., & Brennan, S. E. (1991). Grounding in communication. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S. D. Teasly (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 127–149). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clark, D. B., Weinberger, A., Jucks, I., Spitulnik, M., & Wallace, R. (2003). Designing effective science inquiry in text-based computer-supported collaborative learning environments. International Journal of Educational Policy, Research, & Practice, 4(1), 55–82.Google Scholar
  8. Davis, J. R., & Huttenlocher, D. P. (1995). Shared annotation for cooperative learning. In J. L. Schnase & E. L. Cunnius (Eds.), Proceedings of CSCL 1995 (pp. 84–88). Bloomington: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  9. De Laat, M. (2002). Network and content analysis in an online community discourse. In G. Stahl (Ed.), Computer support for collaborative learning: Foundations for a CSCL community. Proceedings of CSCL 2002 (pp. 625–626). Hillsdale, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  10. Dillenbourg, P. (1999). What do you mean by collaborative learning? In P. Dillenbourg, (Ed.), Collaborative-learning: Cognitive and computational approaches (pp. 1–19). Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  11. Fay N., Garrod, S. C., & Carletta J. (2000). Group discussion as interactive dialogue or as serial monologue: The influence of group size. Psychological Science, 11(6), 481–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fussell, S. R., & Benimoff, N. I. (1995). Social and cognitive processes in interpersonal communication: Implications for advanced telecommunications technologies. Human Factors, 37, 228–250.Google Scholar
  13. Gay, G., Sturgill, A., Martin, W., & Huttenlocher, D (1999). Document-centered peer collaborations: An exploration of the educational uses of networked communication technologies. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 4(3).Google Scholar
  14. Gergle, D., Kraut, R. E., & Fussell, S. R. (2004). Language efficiency and visual technology: Minimizing collaborative effort with visual information. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 23, 491–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gunawardena, C. N., Lowe, C. A., & Anderson, T. (1997). Analysis of a global online debate and the development of an interaction analysis model for examining social construction of knowledge in computer conferencing. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 17(4), 397–431.Google Scholar
  16. Guzdial, M., & Turns, J. (2000). Effective discussion through a computer-mediated anchored forum. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(4), 437–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Herrmann, T., & Kienle, A. (2003, January). Integration of communication, coordination and learning material—A guide for the functionality of collaborative learning environments. Paper presented at the 36th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Hilton Waikoloa, Hawaii.Google Scholar
  18. Hewitt, J., & Teplovs, C. (1999). An analysis of growth patterns in computer conferencing threads. In C. Hoadley & J. Roschelle (Eds.), Designing new media for a new millennium: Collaborative technology for learning, education, and training proceedings of CSCL 1999 (pp. 232–241). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  19. Hunt, R. A. (1998). Electronic discussions in learning and teaching: Why they don’t work, and how they might. Connexions: The Newsletter of the International Society for the Exploration of Teaching Alternatives, 10(2), 1–7.Google Scholar
  20. Järvelä, S. & Häkkinen, P. (2000, June). Levels of Web-based discussion: Theory of perspective-taking as a tool for analysing interaction. In B. Fishman & S. O’Connor-Divelbiss (Eds.), Fourth International Conference on the Learning Sciences (pp. 22–26). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  21. Järvenoja, H., & Järvelä, S. (2005). How students describe the sources of their emotional and motivational experiences during the learning process: A qualitative approach. Learning and Instruction, 15(5), 465–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Laurillard, D. (1993). Rethinking university teaching. London: Routeledge.Google Scholar
  23. Lipponen, L. (2001). Computer-supported collaborative learning: From promises to reality. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Turku, Turku, Finland.Google Scholar
  24. Mäkitalo, K., Salo, P., Häkkinen, P., & Järvelä, S. (2001, August). Analysing the mechanisms of a common ground in Web-based interaction. Paper presented at the JURE pre-conference of the 9th European Conference for Research on Learning and Instruction, Fribourg, Switzerland.Google Scholar
  25. Marshall, C. C., & Bernheim Brush, A. J. (2002, April). From personal to shared annotations. Paper presented at CHI 2002, Minneapolis, MN, USA.Google Scholar
  26. McLoughlin, C., & Luca, J. (2000). Cognitive engagement and higher order thinking through computer conferencing: We know why but do we know how? In A. Herrmann & M. M. Kulski (Eds.), Flexible futures in tertiary teaching. Proceedings of the ninth annual teaching and learning forum. Perth, Australia: Curtin University of Technology.Google Scholar
  27. Moon, J. A. (1999). Reflection in learning and professional development. London: Stylus.Google Scholar
  28. Nokelainen, P., Miettinen, M., Kurhila, J., Floréen, P., & Tirri, H. (2005). A shared document-based annotation tool to support learner-centered collaborative learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(5), 757–770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pena-Shaff, J., & Nicholls, C. (2004). Analyzing student interactions and meaning construction in computer bulletin board discussions. Computers & Education, 42(3), 243–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Petraglia, J. (1998). Reality by design: The rhetoric and technology of authenticity in education. Mahwah, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  31. Phillips, D. C. (1995). The good, the bad, and the ugly: The many faces of constructivism. Educational Researcher, 24(7), 5–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pilkington, R. (2004). Developing discussion for learning. 2004 Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 20 (pp. 161–164). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  33. Schoonenboom, J. (2002). A template for discussing large texts on the web: The Pragglejaz site. British Journal of Educational Technology, 33(1), 103–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Schwartz, D. L., & Lin, X. D. (2000). Computers, productive agency, and the effort after shared meaning. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 12(2), 3–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Seltzer, W. (2000). Annotation engine (Technical report). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, Berkman Center for Internet & Society.Google Scholar
  36. Simons, P. R. J., Van der Linden, J., & Duffy, T. M. (2000). New learning: Three ways to learn in a new balance. In P. R. J. Simons, J. van der Linden, & T. M. Duffy (Eds.), New learning (pp. 1–20). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  37. Sringam, C.,w & Geer, R. (2000, September). An Investigation of an instrument for analysis of student-led electronic discussions. Paper presented at ASCILITE 2000, Coffs Harbour, Australia.Google Scholar
  38. Stahl, G. (2000). A model of collaborative knowledge-building. In B. Fishman & S. O’Connor-Divelbiss (Eds.), Proceedings of the fourth international conference of the learning sciences (pp. 70–77). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  39. Sumner, T., & Buckingham Shum, S. (2001). JIME: An interactive journal for interactive media. First Monday, 6(2). Google Scholar
  40. Suthers, D. (2005) Technology affordances for intersubjective learning: A thematic agenda for CSCL. In T. Koschmann, D. Suthers, & T. W. Chan (Eds.), Computer supported collaborative learning 2005: The next 10 years (pp. 135–144). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  41. Takeda, T., & Suthers, D. (2002, May). Online workspaces for annotation and discussion of documents. Poster session presented at WWW 2002, Honolulu, Hawaii.Google Scholar
  42. Van der Pol, J. (2002, January). Identifying and modeling variables in complex CSCL-situations. Case study: The use of asynchronous electronic discussions. Paper presented the Workshop on Designing Computational Models of Collaborative Learning Interaction at CSCL2002, Boulder, CO.Google Scholar
  43. Van der Pol, J., & Admiraal, W. (2003). Het succesvol inzetten van asynchrone elektronsiche discussies. (Succesfully implementing asynchronous online discussions). Onderzoek van Onderwijs, 32(2), 26–31.Google Scholar
  44. Van der Pol, J., Admiraal, W., & Simons, P. R. J. (2006). Context enhancement for co-intentionality and co-reference. AI & society, 22(3).Google Scholar
  45. Veerman, A. L. (2000). Computer-supported collaborative learning through argumentation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of Educational Science, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  46. Veldhuis-Diermanse, E. (2002). CSCLearning? Unpublished doctoral dissertation, IVLOS, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  47. Wan, D., & Johnson, P. M. (1994). Experiences with Clare: A computer supported collaborative environment. International Journal of Human–Computer Systems, 41, 851–879.Google Scholar
  48. Warschauer, M. (1997). Computer-mediated collaborative learning: Theory and practice. Modern Language Journal, 81(3), 470–481.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society of the Learning Sciences, Inc.; Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. van der Pol
    • 1
  • W. Admiraal
    • 1
  • P. R. J. Simons
    • 1
  1. 1.IVLOSUniversity of Utrecht, The NetherlandsUtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations