Advertisement

Guided reciprocal questioning to support children’s collaborative storytelling

  • Giulia Gelmini-Hornsby
  • Shaaron Ainsworth
  • Claire O’Malley
Article
First Online:

Abstract

Developing shared understanding is essential to productive collaboration where a product is jointly constructed. This is especially true when the different collaborators’ contributions need to build coherently on one another, as, for example, when making a story together. This study investigated whether encouraging children to engage in discussion through a Guided Reciprocal Peer Questioning (GRPQ) script whilst drawing together leads to better collaborative storytelling. Thirty-six 6–7 year old children used a computer-drawing application called KidPad to tell collaborative stories supported by interactive drawings, and were trained in the GRPQ script. Using a within-subjects design, it was shown that the GRPQ script promoted engagement in interactive discussion and led to the production of richer and more coherent collaborative stories. Furthermore, this benefit was often maintained once the explicit support was withdrawn. These findings suggest that the GRPQ script is an effective way to improve children’s collaborative storytelling and one that children can internalise and apply themselves.

Keywords

Collaborative learning Storytelling Scripting Guided Reciprocal Peer Questioning 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Ananny, M., Cassell, J. (2001). Telltale: A toy to encourage written literacy skills through oral storytelling. Paper presented at the Winter Conference on Text, Discourse & Cognition, Jackson, USA.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, R. J., Hoyer, C., Wolfman, S. A., Anderson, R. (2004). study of digital ink in lecture presentation, Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 567–574): ACM.Google Scholar
  3. Baker, M., & Lund, K. (1997). Promoting reflective interactions in a CSCL environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 13(3), 175–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bamberg, M., & Damrad-Frye, R. (1991). On the ability to provide evaluative comments: Further explanations of children's narrative competencies. Journal of Child Language, 18, 689–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barron, B. (2003). When smart groups fail. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(3), 307–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Benford, S., Benford, S., Bederson, B. B., Åkesson, K. P., Bayon, V., Druin, A., Hansson, P., et al. (2000). Designing storytelling technologies to encouraging collaboration between young children, Proceedings of CHI 2000 (pp. 556–563): ACM.Google Scholar
  7. Chi, M. T. H. (2009). Active-constructive-interactive: A conceptual framework for differentiating learning activities. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1(1), 73–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cohen, E. G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64(1), 1–15.Google Scholar
  9. de Westelinck, K., Valcke, M., De Craene, B., & Kirschner, P. (2005). Multimedia learning in social sciences: Limitations of external graphical representations. Computers in Human Behavior, 21, 555–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Devescovi, A., & Baumgartner, E. (1993). Joint-reading a picture book: Verbal interaction and narrative skills. Cognition and Instruction, 11(3), 299–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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. 7–47). Heerlen: Open University of the Netherlands.Google Scholar
  12. Dillenbourg, P., & Jermann, P. (2006). Designing integrative scripts. In F. Fischer, I. Kollar, H. Mandl, & J. Haake (Eds.), Scripting computer-supported collaborative learning: Cognitive, computational and educational perspectives (pp. 275–301). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  13. Dillenbourg, P., & Traum, D. (2006). Sharing solutions: Persistence and grounding in multi-modal collaborative problem solving. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(1), 121–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Donaldson, J., & Scheffer, A. (2000). Monkey puzzle. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  15. Hayes, D. S., & Casey, D. M. (2002). Dyadic versus individual storytelling by preschool children. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 163(4), 445–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hunt, K. W. (1970). Syntactic maturity in schoolchildren and adults. Monographs for the Society for Research into Child Development, 35(1). Google Scholar
  17. King, A. (1999). Discourse patterns for mediating peer learning. In A. M. O'Donnell & A. King (Eds.), Cognitive perspectives on peer learning (pp. 87–116). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  18. King, A., & Rosenshine, B. (1993). Effects of guided cooperative questioning on children’s knowledge construction. The Journal of Experimental Education, 61, 127–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kobbe, L., Weinberger, A., Dillenbourg, P., Harrer, H., Hämäläinen, R., & Fischer, F. (2007). Specifying computer-supported collaboration scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2, 211–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Krauss, R. M., & Fussell, S. R. (1991). Perspective-taking in communication: The determination of others' knowledge and referential language use. Social Cognition, 9, 2–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lloyd, P., Camaioni, L., & Ercolani, M. (1995). Assessing referential communication skills in the primary school years: A comparative study. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 13, 13–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mayer, M. (1969). Frog where are you? New York: Dial Press.Google Scholar
  23. Munneke, L., Van Amelsvoort, M., & Andriessen, J. (2003). The role of diagrams in collaborative argumentation-based learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 39, 113–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. O’Connor, Kerawalla, L. & Luckin, R. (2005). The use of conversation prompts to scaffold parent-child collaboration around a computer-based activity. Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education, (pp 176–183) Amsterdam: IOS Press.Google Scholar
  25. O’Donnell, A. M., & Dansereau, D. F. (1992). Scripted cooperation in student dyads: A method for analysing and enhancing academic learning and performance. In R. Hertz-Lazarowitz & N. Miller (Eds.), Interaction in cooperative groups: The theoretical anatomy of group learning (pp. 120–144). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Peterson, C., & McCabe, A. (1997). Extending Labov and Waletsky. Journal of Narrative and Life History, 7(251), 258.Google Scholar
  27. Pozzi, F. (2011). The impact of scripted roles on online collaborative learning processes. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning. doi: 10.1007/s11412-011-9108-x.
  28. Prangsma, M. E., Van Boxtel, C. A. M., & Kanselaar, G. (2008). Developing a 'big picture': Effects of collaborative construction of multimodal representations in history. Instructional Science, 36, 117–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Robertson, J., Good, J., & Pain, H. (1998). BetterBlether: The design and evaluation of a discussion tool for education. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 9, 219–236.Google Scholar
  30. Roschelle, J., & Teasley, S. (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.Google Scholar
  31. Rumelhart, D. E. (1975). Notes on a schema for stories. In D. G. Bobrow & A. Collins (Eds.), Representation and understanding: Studies in cognitive science (pp. 185–210). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  32. Rummel, N., Spada, H., & Hauser, S. (2009). Learning to collaborate while being scripted or by observing a model. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4(1), 69–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Salomon, G., & Globerson, T. (1989). When teams do not function the way they ought to. International Journal of Educational Research, 13, 89–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Scaife, M., & Rogers, Y. (1996). External cognition: How do graphical representations work? International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 45, 185–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schwartz, D. L. (1995). The emergence of abstract representations in dyad problem solving. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(3), 321–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Soller, A. L. (2001). Supporting social interaction in an intelligent collaborative learning system. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 12(1), 40–62.Google Scholar
  37. Stein, N., & Glenn, C. (1979). An analysis of story comprehension in elementary school children. In R. D. Freedle (Ed.), New directions in discourse processing (Vol. 2, pp. 53–119). Norwood: Ablex.Google Scholar
  38. Suthers, 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
  39. Tager-Flusberg, H., & Anderson, M. (1991). The development of contingent discourse ability in autistic children. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 32, 1123–1134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Tannen, D. (1980). Oral and literate strategies in discourse. The Linguistic Reporter, 22(9), 1–3.Google Scholar
  41. Tartaro, A. & Cassell, J. (2008). Playing with Virtual Peers: Bootstrapping Contingent Discourse in Children with Autism. Paper presented at the International Conference of the Learning SciencesGoogle Scholar
  42. Ukrainetz, T. A., Justice, L. M., Kaderavek, J. N., Eisenberg, S. L., & Gillam, R. B. (2005). The development of expressive elaboration in fictional narratives. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 48, 1363–1377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Webb, N. (1992). Testing a theoretical model of student interaction and learning in small groups. In R. Hertz-Lazarowitz & N. Miller (Eds.), Interaction in cooperative groups: The theoretical anatomy of group interaction (pp. 102–119). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Weinberger, A., Ertl, B., Fischer, F., & Mandl, H. (2005). Epistemic and social scripts in computer-supported collaborative learning. Instructional Science, 33(1), 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Yarrow, F., & Topping, K. J. (2001). Collaborative writing: The effects of metacognitive prompting and structured peer interaction. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(2), 261–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Yu, F. Y. (2009). Scaffolding student-generated questions: Design and development of a customizable online learning system. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(5), 1129–1138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  • Giulia Gelmini-Hornsby
    • 1
  • Shaaron Ainsworth
    • 2
  • Claire O’Malley
    • 2
  1. 1.School of PsychologyUniversity of NottinghamUniversity ParkUK
  2. 2.School of Psychology and Learning Sciences Research InstituteUniversity of NottinghamUniversity ParkUK

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options