Advertisement

Making rounds: The routine work of the teacher during collaborative learning with computers

  • Christian Greiffenhagen
Article
First Online:

Abstract

This paper provides a detailed analysis of the work of the teacher during collaborative-learning activities. Whilst the importance of the teacher for the success of collaborative learning has frequently been recognized in the CSCL literature, there is nevertheless a curious absence of detailed studies that describe how the teacher intervenes in pupils’ collaborative-learning activities, which may be a reflection of the ambivalent status of teachers within a field that has tried to transfer authority from teachers to pupils. Through a close analysis of different types of teacher interventions into pupils working in pairs with a storyboarding tool, this paper argues, firstly, that concerns of classroom management and pedagogy are typically intertwined and, secondly, that although there may be tensions between the perspectives of teachers and pupils these do not take the form of antagonistic struggles. The paper concludes that it may be time to renew our interest in the work of teachers in the analysis of collaborative-learning activities.

Keywords

Teacher interventions Teacher’s role Classroom management Scaffolding Collaborative learning Cooperative learning Ethnomethodology 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

I am most indebted to the two teachers and their pupils who helped me with this project by allowing me to spend an extensive period of time in their classrooms. Without their generosity this study could not have been conducted. I would also like to thank Jacqueline Eke, Tim Koschmann, Oskar Lindwall, Douglas Macbeth and Wes Sharrock for very helpful comments and criticisms on earlier versions of this paper. Part of this research was supported through a British Academy Postdoctoral Fellowship and a Simon Research Fellowship (funded through an endowment made to the University of Manchester).

References

  1. Barnes, D., & Todd, F. (1977). Communication and learning in small groups. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  2. Birmingham, P., Davies, C., & Greiffenhagen, C. (2002). Turn to face the Bard: Making sense of three-way interactions between teacher, pupils and technology in the classroom. Education, Communication & Information, 2(2–3), 139–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Button, G. (Ed.). (1993). Technology in working order: Studies of work, interaction, and technology. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Button, G., & Sharrock, W. W. (1996). Project work: The organisation of collaborative design and development in software engineering. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 5(4), 369–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Çakir, M. P., Zemel, A., & Stahl, G. (2009). The joint organization of interaction within a multimodal CSCL medium. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4(2), 115–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cazden, C., John, V., & Hymes, D. (Eds.). (1972). Functions of language in the classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  7. Chiu, M. M. (2004). Adapting teacher interventions to student needs during cooperative learning: How to improve student problem solving and time on-task. American Educational Research Journal, 41(2), 365–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cohen, E. C. (1994 [1986]). Designing groupwork: Strategies for the heterogeneous classroom (2nd Ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  9. Colella, V. (2002). Participatory simulations: Building collaborative understanding through immersive dynamic modelling. In T. Koschmann, R. Hall, & N. Miyake (Eds.), CSCL2: Carrying forward the conversation (pp. 357–391). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  10. Coulter, J. (2001). Human practices and the observability of the ‘macro-social’. In T. R. Schatzki, K. Knorr-Cetina, & E. von Savigny (Eds.), The practice turn in contemporary theory (pp. 29–41). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Dekker, R., & Elshout-Mohr, M. (2004). Teacher interventions aimed at mathematical level raising during collaborative learning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 56(1), 39–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dillenbourg, P. (1999). Introduction: What do you mean by ‘collaborative learning’? In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Collaborative learning: Cognitive and computational approaches (pp. 1–19). Amsterdam: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  14. Dillenbourg, P. (2008). Integrating technologies into educational ecosystems. Distance Education, 29(2), 127–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dillenbourg, P., & Jermann, P. (2010). Technology for classroom orchestration. In M. S. Khine & I. M. Saleh (Eds.), New science of learning: Cognition, computers and collaboration in education (pp. 525–552). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  16. Ding, M., Li, X., Piccolo, D., & Kulm, G. (2007). Teacher interventions in cooperative-learning mathematics classes. Journal of Educational Research, 100(3), 162–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Emerson, R. M., & Pollner, M. (1976). Dirty work designations: Their features and consequences in a psychiatric setting. Social Problems, 23(3), 243–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ford, C. E. (1999). Collaborative construction of task activity: Coordinating multiple resources in a high school physics lab. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 32(4), 369–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Garcia, A. C., & Jacobs, J. B. (1999). The eyes of the beholder: Understanding the turn-taking system in quasi-synchronous computer-mediated communication. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 32(4), 337–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  21. Garfinkel, H. (2002). Ethnomethodology’s program: Working out Durkheim’s aphorism. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  22. Garfinkel, H., & Sacks, H. (1970). On formal structures of practical action. In J. C. McKinney & E. A. Tiryakian (Eds.), Theoretical sociology: Perspectives and developments (pp. 338–366). New York: Appleton.Google Scholar
  23. Gibson, R. (1998). Teaching Shakespeare. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Gillies, R. M. (2004). The effects of communication training on teachers’ and students’ verbal behaviours during cooperative learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 41(3), 257–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gillies, R. M., Ashman, A. F., & Terwel, J. (Eds.). (2008). The teacher’s role in implementing cooperative learning in the classroom. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  26. Glenn, P. J., Koschmann, T., & Conlee, M. (1999). Theory presentation and assessment in a problem-based learning group. Discourse Processes, 27(2), 119–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Greiffenhagen, C. (2008). Unpacking tasks: The fusion of new technology with instructional work. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 17(1), 35–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Greiffenhagen, C. (forthcoming). Visual grammar in practice: Negotiating the arrangement of speech bubbles in storyboards. Forthcoming in Semiotica.Google Scholar
  29. Greiffenhagen, C., & Sharrock, W. (2008). Where do the limits of experience lie? Abandoning the dualism of objectivity and subjectivity. History of the Human Sciences, 21(3), 70–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Greiffenhagen, C., & Sharrock, W. (forthcoming). Does mathematics look certain in the front, but fallible in the back? Forthcoming in Social Studies of Science doi: 10.1177/0306312711424789.
  31. Greiffenhagen, C., & Watson, R. (2009). Visual repairables: Analysing the work of repair in human-computer interaction. Visual Communication, 8(1), 65–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gumperz, J., & Hymes, D. (Eds.). (1972). Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of communication. New York: Hold, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
  33. Hammer, D. (2002). Powerful technology and powerful instruction. In T. Koschmann, R. Hall, & N. Miyake (Eds.), CSCL2: Carrying forward the conversation (pp. 399–403). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  34. Heap, J. L. (1989a). Collaborative practices during word processing in a first grade classroom. In C. Emihovich (Ed.), Locating learning: Ethnographic perspectives on classroom research (pp. 263–288). Norwood: Ablex.Google Scholar
  35. Heap, J. L. (1989b). Sociality and cognition in collaborative computer writing. In D. Bloome (Ed.), Classroom and literacy (pp. 135–157). Norwood: Ablex.Google Scholar
  36. Heath, C., & Luff, P. (1992). Collaboration and control: Crisis management and multimedia technology in London underground line control rooms. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 1(1–2), 69–94.Google Scholar
  37. Heath, C., Jirotka, M., Luff, P., & Hindmarsh, J. (1995). Unpacking collaboration: The interactional organisation of trading in a city dealing room. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 3(2), 147–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Heath, C., Hindmarsh, J., & Luff, P. (2010). Video in qualitative research: Analysing social interaction in everyday life. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  39. Hertz-Lazarowitz, R., & Shachar, H. (1990). Teachers’ verbal behaviour in cooperative and whole-class instruction. In S. Sharan (Ed.), Cooperative learning: Theory and research (pp. 77–94). New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  40. Hughes, E. C. (1971). The sociological eye: Selected papers. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
  41. Ivarsson, J. (2010). Developing the construction sight: Architectural education and technological change. Visual Communication, 9(2), 171–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Johnson, D. W., & R. T. Johnson (1994 [1975]). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning (4th Ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  43. Karlsson, G. (2010). Animation and grammar in science education: Learners’ construal of animated educational software. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5(2), 167–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kelly, G., Crawford, T., & Green, J. L. (2001). Common task and uncommon knowledge: Dissenting voices in the discursive construction of physics across small laboratory groups. Linguistics and Education, 12(2), 135–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Koschmann, T. (Ed.). (1996). CSCL: Theory and practice of an emerging paradigm. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  46. Koschmann, T. (1999). Computer support for collaboration and learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8(3&4), 495–497.Google Scholar
  47. Koschmann, T., Glenn, P. J., & Conlee, M. (2000). When is a problem-based tutorial not a tutorial? Analyzing the tutor’s role in the emergence of a learning issue. In D. Evensen & C. Hmelo (Eds.), Problem-based learning: A research perspective on learning interaction (pp. 53–74). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  48. Koschmann, T., Hall, R., & Miyake, N. (Eds.). (2002). CSCL 2: Carrying forward the conversation. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  49. Koschmann, T., Stahl, G., & Zemel, A. (2007). The video analyst’s manifesto (or the implications of Garfinkel’s policies for studying instructional practice in design-based research). In R. Goldman, R. Pea, B. Barron, & S. J. Derry (Eds.), Video research in the learning sciences (pp. 133–143). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  50. Lindwall, O., & Lymer, G. (2005). Vulgar competence, ethnomethodological indifference and curricular design. Proceedings of CSCL 2005 (Taipei, Taiwan, May 30–June 4, 2005), pp. 388–397.Google Scholar
  51. Lindwall, O., & Lymer, G. (2008). The dark matter of lab work: Illuminating the negation of disciplined perception in mechanics. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17(2), 180–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Luff, P., Hindmarsh, J., & Heath, C. (Eds.). (2000). Workplace studies: Recovering work practice and informing system design. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Lymer, G., Ivarsson, J., & Lindwall, O. (2009). Contrasting the use of tools for presentation and critique: Some cases from architectural education. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4(4), 423–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Lynch, M. (1997 [1979]). Preliminary notes on judges’ work: The judge as a constituent of courtroom ‘hearings’. In M. Travers & J. F. Manzo (Eds.), Law in action: Ethnomethodological and conversation analytic approaches to Law (pp. 99–130). Aldershot: Dartmouth.Google Scholar
  55. Macbeth, D. H. (1990). Classroom order as practical action: The making and un-making of a quiet reproach. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 11(2), 189–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Macbeth, D. H. (1991). Teacher authority as practical action. Linguistics and Education, 3(4), 281–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Macbeth, D. H. (1992). Classroom ‘floors’: Material organizations as a course of affairs. Qualitative Sociology, 15(2), 123–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Macbeth, D. H. (2003). Hugh Mehan’s Learning Lessons reconsidered: On the differences between the naturalistic and critical analysis of classroom discourse. American Educational Research Journal, 40(1), 239–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. McDermott, R. P., Gospodinoff, K., & Aron, J. (1978). Criteria for an ethnographically adequate description of concerted activities and their contexts. Semiotica, 24(3/4), 245–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. McHoul, A. W. (1978). The organization of turns at formal talk in the classroom. Language in Society, 7(1), 183–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  62. Mehan, H. (1989). Microcomputers in classrooms: Educational technology or social practice? Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 20(1), 4–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Mercer, N., & Fisher, E. (1992). How do teachers help children to learn? an analysis of teachers’ interventions in computer-based activities. Learning and Instruction, 2(4), 339–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. O’Connor, M. C., & Michaels, S. (1993). Aligning academic task and participation status through revoicing: Analysis of a classroom discourse strategy. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 24(4), 318–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Payne, G. C. F. (1976). Making a lesson happen: An ethnomethodological analysis. In M. Hammersley & P. Woods (Eds.), The process of schooling: A sociological reader (pp. 33–40). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  66. Payne, G. C. F., & Cuff, E. C. (Eds.). (1982). Doing teaching: The practical management of classrooms. London: Batsford.Google Scholar
  67. Pea, R. D. (1996). Seeing what we build together: Distributed multimedia learning environments for transformative communications. In T. Koschmann (Ed.), CSCL: Theory and practice of an emerging paradigm (pp. 171–186). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  68. Pea, R. D. (2004). The social and technological dimensions of scaffolding and related theoretical concepts for learning, education, and human activity. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 423–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Roschelle, J. (1992). Learning by collaborating: Convergent conceptual change. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(3), 235–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Roschelle, J., & Teasley, S. D. (1995). The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving. In C. O’Malley (Ed.), Computer supported collaborative learning (pp. 69–97). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Roth, W.-M. (1995). Affordances of computers in teacher-student interaction: The case of Interactive Physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(4), 329–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Sacks, H. (1992). In G. Jefferson (Ed.), Lectures on conversation. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  73. Schegloff, E. A. (1996). Confirming allusions: Toward an empirical account of action. American Journal of Sociology, 102(1), 161–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Schenkein, J. (1978). Sketch of an analytic mentality for the study of conversational interaction. In J. Schenkein (Ed.), Studies in the organization of conversational interaction (pp. 1–6). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  76. Sharrock, W. W., & Anderson, R. J. (1994). The user as a scenic feature of the design space. Design Studies, 15(1), 5–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Sharrock, W. W., & Watson, D. R. (1988). Autonomy among social theories: The incarnation of social structures. In N. G. Fielding (Ed.), Actions and structure: Research methods and social theory (pp. 56–77). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  78. Sørensen, E. (2009). The materiality of learning: Technology and knowledge in educational practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  79. Stahl, G. (2006). Group cognition: Computer support for collaborative knowledge building. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  80. Stahl, G. (Ed.). (2009). Studying virtual math teams. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  81. Suchman, L. A. (1987). Plans and situated actions: The problem of human-machine communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  82. Urhahne, D., Schanze, S., Bell, T., Mansfield, A., & Holmes, J. (2010). Role of the teacher in computer-supported collaborative inquiry learning. International Journal of Science Education, 32(2), 221–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Watson, R. (2009). Analysing practical and professional texts: A naturalistic approach. Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  84. Webb, N. M., Nemer, K. M., & Ing, M. (2006). Small-group reflections: Parallels between teacher discourse and student behaviour in peer-directed groups. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(1), 63–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Webb, N. M., Franke, M. L., De, T., Chan, A. G., Freund, D., Shein, P., et al. (2009). ‘Explain to your partner’: Teachers’ instructional practices and students’ dialogue in small groups. Cambridge Journal of Education, 39(1), 49–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Zemel, A., Koschmann, T., LeBaron, C., & Feltovich, P. (2008). ‘What are we missing?’ Usability’s indexical ground. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 17(1), 63–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Social SciencesUniversity of ManchesterManchesterUK

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options