The power of natural frameworks: Technology and the question of agency in CSCL settings

Article

Abstract

Students frame activities in school in specific ways which are fundamental for their learning and problem solving. The introduction of digital technology and multimedia applications leads to additional aspects to consider, creating a need for research on interaction and activities in relation to new tools. The aim of this study is to analyze how students frame computer-supported collaborative learning situations. The analytic agenda is based on sociocultural assumptions of learning. Data have been collected through video documentation of secondary school students’ interactions with educational software in mathematics. The results show that when the students work with task solving in educational software and “get stuck”, they negotiate how to understand the activity; sometimes they search for the answer in their own actions, and sometimes they consider the answer to be within the technology. Goffman’s concept of frameworks can be applied to understand this alternative as a continuous shift between employing social frameworks where the students themselves are playing an active role in the understanding of the task, and employing natural frameworks, where their difficulties are understood to be, in Goffman’s words, due to natural determinants, that is, to the design of the technology. The main conclusion is that, in interactional activities using digital technology, there is a possibility that the participants’ activities are framed in such a way that they do not consider themselves as being accountable for the lack of understanding of the educational content.

Keywords

Meaning making Word problems Problem solving Digital tools Multimedia tool Framing Frameworks Agency 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The research reported here has been funded by LearnIT, the research program for learning and ICT of the Knowledge (KK) Foundation. The work has been carried out at the Linnaeus Centre for Research on Learning, Interaction and Mediated Communication in Contemporary Society (LinCS).

References

  1. Arnseth, H. C. (2004). Discourse and artefacts in learning to argue: Analysing the practical management of computer supported collaborative learning. Norway: University of Oslo , Ph.D. dissertation.Google Scholar
  2. Arnseth, H. C., & Ludvigsen, S. (2006). Approaching institutional contexts: systemic versus dialogic research in CSCL. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (ijCSCL), 1(2), 167–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Carraher, T., Carraher, D., & Schliemann, A. (1985). Mathematics in streets and schools. British Journal of Development Psychology, 3, 21–29.Google Scholar
  4. Egenfeldt-Nielsen, S. (2006). Overview of research on the educational use of video games. Nordic Journal of Digital literacy (Digital competence, Special Issue), 48–77.Google Scholar
  5. Goffman, E. (1974/1986). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Boston: Northeastern University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Goffman, E. (1983). Felicity’s condition. American Journal of Sociology, 89(1), 1–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Iding, M., Crosby, M. E., & Speitel, T. (2002). Teachers and technology: beliefs and practices. International Journal of Instructional Media, 29(2), 153–170.Google Scholar
  8. Jordan, B., & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction analysis: foundations and practice. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(1), 39–103 Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Lagrange, J. -B., Artigue, M., Laborde, C., & Trouche, L. (2001). A meta study on IC technologies in education. Towards a multidimensional framework to tackle their integration into the teaching of mathematics. Available at http://didmat.dima.unige.it/miur/miur_dima/G/STORIA_DI_UNA_RICERCA/LAGRANGE.PDF Accessed April 2008.
  10. Lantz-Andersson, A., Linderoth, J., & Säljö, R. (2008). What’s the problem? Meaning making and learning to do mathematical word problems in the context of digital tools. Instructional Science. Published online: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11251-008-9050-0.
  11. Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics and culture in everyday life. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Lave, J. (1992). Word problems. A microcosm of theories of learning. In P. Light, & G. Butterworth (Eds.), Context and cognition: Ways of learning and knowing. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  13. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Limberg, L., Alexandersson, M., & Lantz-Andersson, A. (2008). To be lost and to be a loser through the web. In T. Hansson (Ed.), Handbook of digital information technologies: Innovations and ethical issues. Idea Group, Inc.Google Scholar
  15. Linderoth, J. (2004). Datorspelandets mening: Bortom idén om den interaktiva illusionen. (The meaning of gaming: Beyond the idea of the interactive illusion). Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.Google Scholar
  16. Luppinici, R. (2007). Review of computer mediated communication research for education. Instructional Science, 35, 141–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. McCormick, R., & Scrimshaw, P. (2001). Information and communication a technology, knowledge and pedagogy. Education, Communication and Information, 1(1), 37–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mercer, N. (1992). Culture, context and the construction of knowledge in the classroom. In P. Light, & G. Butterworth (Eds.), Context and cognition: Ways of learning and knowing. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  19. Schrum, L., Thompson, A., Sprague, D., Maddux, C., McAnear, A., Bell, L., et al. (2005). Advancing the field: Considering acceptable evidence in educational technology research. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 5(3/4), 202–209.Google Scholar
  20. Scribner, S. (1984). Studying working intelligence. In B. Rogoff, & J. Lave (Eds.), Everyday cognition: Its development in social context. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Säljö, R. (2000). Lärande i praktiken: Ett sociokulturellt perspektiv. Stockholm: Prisma.Google Scholar
  22. Säljö, R. (2005). Lärande och kulturella redskap—Om lärprocesser och det kollektiva minnet. Falun: Nordstedts Akademiska Förlag.Google Scholar
  23. Tannen, D. (Ed.). (1993). Framing in discourse. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Tolmie, A. (2001). Examining learning in relation to the contexts of use of ICT. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 17(3), 235–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Verschaffel, L., Greer, B., & De Corte, E. (2000). Making sense of word problems: Contexts of learning. Lisse, Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.Google Scholar
  26. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Wegerif, R. (2006). A dialogic understanding of the relationship between CSCL and teaching thinking skills. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (ijCSCL), 1, 143–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wertsch, J. V. (1998). Mind as action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Wyndhamn, J., & Säljö, R. (1988). A week has seven days. Or does it? On bridging linguistic openess and mathematical precision. For the Learning of Mathematics, 8, 16–19.Google Scholar
  30. Wyndhamn, J., & Säljö, R. (1997). Word problems and mathematical reasoning—a study of children’s mastery of reference and meaning in textual realities. Learning and Instruction, 7, 361–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society of the Learning Sciences, Inc.; Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.LinCS, Department of EducationGöteborg UniversityGöteborgSweden

Personalised recommendations