Advertisement

Temporality matters: Advancing a method for analyzing problem-solving processes in a computer-supported collaborative environment

  • Manu Kapur
Article
First Online:

Abstract

This paper argues for a need to develop methods for examining temporal patterns in computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) groups. It advances one such quantitative method—Lag-sequential Analysis (LsA)—and instantiates it in a study of problem-solving interactions of collaborative groups in an online, synchronous environment. LsA revealed significant temporal patterns in CSCL group discussions that the commonly used “coding and counting” method could not reveal. More importantly, analysis demonstrated how variation in temporal patterns was significantly related to variation in group performance, thereby bolstering the case for developing and testing temporal methods and measures in CSCL research. Findings are discussed, including issues of reliability, validity, and limitations of the proposed method.

Keywords

Temporal methods Lag-sequential analysis Event-based process analysis Temporality Collaborative learning 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Adami, C., Ofria, C., & Collier, T. C. (2000). Evolution of biological complexity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 97, 4463–4468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Akhras, F. N., & Self, J. A. (2000). Modeling the process, not the product, of learning. In S. P. Lajoie (Ed.), Computers as cognitive tools, volume two: No more walls (pp. 3–28). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, J. R. (2000). Cognitive psychology and its implications. New York: Worth.Google Scholar
  4. Arrow, H., McGrath, J. E., & Berdahl, J. L. (2000). Small groups as complex systems: Formation, coordination, development, and adaptation. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  5. Bakeman, R., & Gottman, J. M. (1997). Observing interaction: An introduction to sequential analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barron, B. (2003). When smart groups fail. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(3), 307–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bar-Yam, Y. (2003). Dynamics of complex systems. Reading: Addison Wesley.Google Scholar
  8. Bransford, J. D., & Nitsch, K. E. (1978). Coming to understand things we could not previously understand. In J. F. Kavanaugh & W. Strange (Eds.), Speech and language in the laboratory, school, and clinic. Harvard: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  9. Burtsev, M. S. (2003). Measuring the dynamics of artificial evolution. In: W. Banzhaf, T. Christaller, P. Dittrich, J. T. Kim, & J. Ziegler (Eds.), Advances in artificial life. Proceedings of the 7th European Conference on Artificial Life, Dortmund, Germany, September 14–17.Google Scholar
  10. Chi, M. T. H. (1997). Quantifying qualitative analyses of verbal data: A practical guide. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6(3), 271–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chi, M. T. H., Bassok, M., Lewis, M., Reimann, P., & Glaser, R. (1989). Self-explanations: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive Science, 5, 145–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chi, M. T. H., de Leeuw, N., Chiu, M. H., & Lavancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18, 439–477.Google Scholar
  13. Clifford, M. M. (1984). Thoughts on a theory of constructive failure. Educational Psychologist, 19(2), 108–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  15. Cohen, E. G., Lotan, R. A., Abram, P. L., Scarloss, B. A., & Schultz, S. E. (2002). Can groups learn? Teachers College Record, 104(6), 1045–1068.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Collazos, C., Guerrero, L., Pino, J., & Ochoa, S. (2002). Evaluating collaborative learning processes. Proceedings of the 8th International Workshop on Groupware (CRIWG’2002). Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.Google Scholar
  17. Dillenbourg, P. (2002). Over-scripting CSCL: The risks of blending collaborative learning with instructional design. In P. A. Kirschner (Ed.), Three worlds of CSCL. Can we support CSCL (pp. 61–91). Heerlen: Open Universiteit Nederland.Google Scholar
  18. Erkens, G., Kanselaar, G., Prangsma, M., & Jaspers, J. (2003). Computer support for collaborative and argumentative writing. In E. De Corte, L. Verschaffel, N. Entwistle, & J. van Merrienboer (Eds.), Powerful learning environments: Unravelling basic components and dimensions (pp. 157–176). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
  19. Gall, M., Borg, W., & Gall, J. (1996). Education research: An introduction. White Plains: Longman.Google Scholar
  20. Holland, J. H. (1995). Hidden order: How adaptation builds complexity. New York: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  21. Jeong, A. (2005). A guide to analyzing message-response sequences and group interaction patterns in computer-mediated communication. Distance Education, 26(3), 367–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Towards a design theory of problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(4), 63–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jonassen, D. H., & Kwon, H. I. (2001). Communication patterns in computer-mediated vs. face-to-face group problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(1), 35–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kapur, M. (2008). Productive failure. Cognition and Instruction, 26(3), 379–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kapur, M. (2009). Productive failure in mathematical problem solving. Instructional Science. DOI:  10.1007/s11251-009-9093-x.
  26. Kapur, M. (2010). A further study of productive failure in mathematical problem solving: Unpacking the design components. Instructional Science. DOI:  10.1007/s11251-010-9144-3.
  27. Kapur, M., & Kinzer, C. (2007). The effect of problem type on interactional activity, inequity, and group performance in a synchronous computer-supported collaborative environment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(5), 439–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kapur, M., & Kinzer, C. (2009). Productive failure in CSCL groups. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4(1), 21–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kapur, M., Voiklis, J., & Kinzer, C. (2005). Problem solving as a complex, evolutionary activity: A methodological framework for analyzing problem-solving processes in a computer-supported collaborative environment. Proceedings the Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) Conference. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  30. Kapur, M., Voiklis, J., Kinzer, C., & Black, J. (2006). Insights into the emergence of convergence in group discussions. In S. Barab, K. Hay, & D. Hickey (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference on the Learning Sciences (pp. 300–306). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  31. Kapur, M., Hung, D., Jacobson, M., Voiklis, J., Kinzer, C., & Chen, D.-T. (2007). Emergence of learning in computer-supported, large-scale collective dynamics: A research agenda. In C. A. Clark, G. Erkens, & S. Puntambekar (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference of Computer-supported Collaborative Learning (pp. 323–332). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  32. Kapur, M., Voiklis, J., & Kinzer, C. (2008). Sensitivities to early exchange in synchronous computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) groups. Computers & Education, 51, 54–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kauffman, S. (1995). At home in the universe. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Lee, E. Y. C., Chan, C. K. K., & van Aalst, J. (2006). Student assessment of collaborative learning in a CSCL environment. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(1), 57–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. McGrath, J. E., & Tschan, F. (2004). Temporal matters in social psychology: Examining the role of time in the lives of groups and individuals. Washington: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Muukkonen, H., Hakkarainen, K., Konsonen, K., Jalonen, S., Heikkil, A., Lonka, K., et al. (2007). Process-and context-sensitive research on academic knowledge practices: Developing CASS-tools and methods. In C. Chinn, G. Erkens, & S. Puntambekar (Eds.), Minds, mind, and society. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Computer-supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL 2007) (pp. 541–543). New Brunswick: International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar
  37. Olson, G. M., Herbsleb, J. D., & Rueter, H. H. (1994). Characterizing the sequential structure of interactive behaviors through statistical and grammatical techniques. Human-Computer Interaction, 9, 427–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Poole, M. S., & Holmes, M. E. (1995). Decision development in computer-assisted group decision making. Human Communication Research, 22(1), 90–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rabiner, L. (1989). A tutorial on Hidden Markov Models and selected applications in speech recognition. Proceedings of the IEEE, 77(2), 257–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Reimann, P. (2009). Time is precious: Variable- and event-centred approaches to process analysis in CSCL research. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4(3), 239–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rourke, L., & Anderson, T. (2004). Validity in quantitative content analysis. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(1), 5–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Ross, S. M. (1996). Stochastic processes. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
  43. Sanderson, P., & Fisher, C. (1994). Exploratory sequential data analysis: Foundations. Human-Computer Interaction, 9, 251–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Scardamalia, M. (1989). Computer-supported intentional learning environments. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 5(1), 51–68.Google Scholar
  45. Scardamalia, M. (1992). Educational applications of a networked communal database. Interactive Learning Environments, 2(1), 45–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Schellens, T., & Valcke, M. (2006). Fostering knowledge construction in university students through asynchronous discussion groups. Computers & Education, 46, 349–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Schmidt, R. A., & Bjork, R. A. (1992). New conceptualizations of practice: Common principles in three paradigms suggest new concepts for training. Psychological Science, 3(4), 207–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Schwartz, D. L., & Bransford, J. D. (1998). A time for telling. Cognition and Instruction, 16(4), 475–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Soller, A., Wiebe, J., & Lesgold, A. (2002). A machine learning approach to assessing knowledge sharing during collaborative learning activities. In G. Stahl (Ed.), Proceedings of Computer Support for Collaborative Learning (pp. 128–137). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  50. Spada, H., Meier, A., Rummel, N., & Hauser, S. (2005). A new method to assess the quality of collaborative process in CSCL. Proceedings of the Computer-supported Collaborative Learning conference 2005, Taipei, Taiwan.Google Scholar
  51. Stahl, G. (2005). Group cognition in computer-assisted collaborative learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21, 79–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Strijbos, J. W., Martens, R. L., Prins, F. J., & Jochems, W. M. G. (2006). Content analysis: What are they talking about? Computers & Education, 46, 29–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Suthers, D. D. (2006). Technology affordances for intersubjective meaning making: A research agenda for CSCL. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(3), 315–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Suthers, D. D., Dwyer, N., Medina, R., & Vatrapu, R. (2007). A framework for eclectic analysis of collaborative interaction. In C. Chinn, G. Erkens, & S. Puntambekar (Eds.), Minds, mice, and society. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Computer-supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL 2007) (pp. 694–703). New Brunswick: International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar
  55. Van Lehn, K., Siler, S., Murray, C., Yamauchi, T., & Baggett, W. B. (2003). Why do only some events cause learning during human tutoring? Cognition and Instruction, 21(3), 209–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Voiklis, J., Kapur, M., Kinzer, C., & Black, J. (2006). An emergentist account of collective cognition in collaborative problem solving. In R. Sun (Ed.), Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 858–863). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  57. Wampold, B. E. (1992). The intensive examination of social interaction. In T. R. Kratochwill & J. R. Levin (Eds.), Single-case research design and analysis: New directions for psychology and education (pp. 93–131). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  58. Zumbach, J., Schonemann, J., & Reimann, P. (2005). Analyzing and supporting collaboration in cooperative computer-mediated communication. Proceedings of the Computer-supported Collaborative Learning Conference 2005, Taipei, Taiwan.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society of the Learning Sciences, Inc.; Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Institute of EducationNanyang Technological UniversitySingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options