Advertisement

Personal and shared experiences as resources for meaning making in a philosophy of science course

  • Maarit Arvaja
Article
First Online:

Abstract

The aim of this case study was to explore health-education students’ personal and collaborative meaning making activities during an online science philosophy course in the higher-education context. Through applying the dialogical perspective for learning, the focus was on studying how different contextual resources were used in building understanding within the philosophy of science and what kind of understanding the students constructed and reflected through these resources. The study focused especially on exploring how the students’ life experiences and fellow students served as resources in their meaning making activities. The results showed that prior work and discipline-related knowledge and experiences provided the students with resources for understanding the philosophical texts by applying, conceptualizing, or critically evaluating the philosophical knowledge presented in the texts. In their discursive activities, the students used fellow students as resources in elaborating the theoretical conceptualizations further, or they were engaged in sharing their similar work or discipline-related experiences and conceptions. These different resources offered tools for understanding, conceptualizing, and critically evaluating both the philosophical themes studied and the practices of one’s own work and those of the scientific community.

Keywords

Collaborative learning Contextual resources Dialogicality Intercontextuality Intertextuality Meaning making 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

I wish to thank three anonymous reviewers and Professor Gerry Stahl for their valuable comments and constructive criticism that helped me to revise the earlier version of this paper. I also wish to thank the philosophy course teacher, University Lecturer Petri Kuhmonen (University of Jyväskylä, Finland) for his collaboration in conducting this research, as well as the students who participated in the study. The research was supported by the Academy of Finland (project no. 7121097).

References

  1. Akkerman, S. & Van Eijck, M. (2011). Re-theorizing the student dialogically across and between boundaries of multiple communities. British Educational Research Journal. Google Scholar
  2. Arvaja, M. (2011). Analyzing the contextual nature of collaborative activity. In S. Puntambekar, G. Erkens, & C. Hmelo-Silver (Eds.), Analyzing interactions in CSCL: Methods, approaches and issues, Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Series, Vol 12 (pp. 25–46). NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  3. Baker, M. (2010). Approaches to understanding students’ dialogues: articulating multiple modes of interpretation. Keynote speaker lecture in EARLI Sig 17 meeting on “Methodology in Research on Learning”, Jena, Germany.Google Scholar
  4. Bazerman, C. (2004). Intertextuality: How texts rely on other texts. In P. Prior & C. Bazerman (Eds.), What writing does and how it does it: An introduction to analyzing texts and textual practices (pp. 83–96). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  5. Black, L. (2007). Analysing cultural models in socio-cultural discourse analysis. International Journal of Educational Research, 46(1–2), 20–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bliss, J., & Säljö, R. (1999). The human-technological dialectic. In J. Bliss, R. Säljö, & P. Light (Eds.), Learning sites: Social and technological resources of learning (pp. 1–16). Amsterdam: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  7. Castanheira, M. L., Green, J., Dixon, C., & Yeagerb, B. (2007). (Re)Formulating identities in the face of fluid modernity: An interactional ethnographic approach. International Journal of Educational Research, 46, 172–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Crook, C. (2000). Motivation and the ecology of collaborative learning. In R. Joiner, K. Littleton, D. Faulkner, & D. Miell (Eds.), Rethinking collaborative learning (pp. 161–178). London: Free Association Books.Google Scholar
  9. Edwards, A. (2005). Relational agency: Learning to be a resourceful practitioner. International Journal of Educational Research, 43, 168–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ellis, R., Goodyear, P., Prosser, M., & O’Hara, A. (2006). How and what university students learn through online and face-to-face discussions: conceptions, intentions and approaches. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22, 244–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Engle, R. (2006). Framing interactions to foster generative learning: A situative explanation of transfer in a community of learners classroom. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(4), 451–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Erickson, F., & Shultz, J. (1981). When is a context? Some issues and methods in the analysis of social competence. In J. Green & C. Wallat (Eds.), Ethnography and language in educational settings (pp. 147–160). Norwood: Ablex.Google Scholar
  13. Floriani, A. (1993). Negotiating what counts: Roles and relationships, texts and contexts, content and meaning. Linguistics and Education, 5, 241–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gee, J., & Green, J. (1998). Discourse analysis, learning and social practice: A methodological study. Review of Research in Education, 23, 119–169.Google Scholar
  15. Goodwin, C. (2000). Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 1489–1522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Goodwin, C., & Duranti, A. (1992). Rethinking context: an introduction. In A. Duranti & C. Goodwin (Eds.), Rethinking context: Language as interactive phenomenon (pp. 1–42). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Goodyear, P., & Zenios, M. (2007). Discussion, collaborative knowledge work and epistemic fluency. British Journal of Educational Studies, 55(4), 351–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Grossen, M. (2009). Social interaction, discourse and learning. Methodological challenges of an emergent transdisciplinary field. In K. Kumpulainen, C. Hmelo-Silver, & M. César (Eds.), Investigating classroom interaction (pp. 263–276). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  19. Gudzial, M., & Carroll, K. (2002). Exploring the lack of dialogue in computer-supported collaborative learning. In G. Stahl (Ed.) Computer support for collaborative learning: Foundations for a CSCL community. (pp. 418–424). Proceedings of the conference on computer-supported collaborative learning 2002, Boulder, Colorado, USA.Google Scholar
  20. Hämäläinen, R. (2011). Using a game environment to foster collaborative learning: a design-based study. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 20(1), 61–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Heikkinen, R-L. & Laine, T. (1997). (Eds) Hoitava kohtaaminen. [Caring encounter] Helsinki: Kirjayhtymä.Google Scholar
  22. Jeong, H., & Hmelo-Silver, C. (2010). Productive use of resources in an online problem-based learning environment. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 84–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kiikeri, M., & Ylikoski, P. (2004). Tiede tutkimuskohteena: Filosofinen johdatus tieteentutkimukseen. [Science as research object: philosophical introduction to science research]. Helsinki: Gaudeamus.Google Scholar
  24. Kleine Staarman, J., Aarnoutse, C., & Verhoeven, L. (2003). Connecting discourses: Intertextuality in a primary school CSCL practice. International Journal of Educational Research, 39(8), 807–816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Linell, P. (1998). Approaching dialogue. Talk, interaction and contexts in dialogical perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  26. Linell, P. (2009). Rethinking language, mind and world dialogically: Interactional and contextual theories of human sense making. Charlotte: Information age publishing.Google Scholar
  27. Linell, P. & Korolija, N. (1997). Coherence in multi-party conversation: Episodes and contexts in interaction. In T. Givón (ed.) Conversation: Cognitive, communicative and social perspectives (pp. 167–206). Typological studies in language 34. John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  28. Lipponen, L., & Kumpulainen, K. (2011). Acting as accountable authors: Creating interactional spaces for agency work in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27, 812–819.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Marton, F., Dall’alba, G., & Beaty, E. (1993). Conceptions of learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 19, 277–300.Google Scholar
  30. Mercer, N. (2008). The seeds of time: Why classroom dialogue needs a temporal analysis. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17(1), 33–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mercer, N., & Littleton, K. (2007). Dialogue and the development of children’s thinking. A sociocultural approach. NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  32. Miles, M., & Huberman, A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  33. Niiniluoto, I. (1984). Tiede, filosofia ja maailmankatsomus: Filosofisia esseitä tiedosta ja sen arvosta. [Science, philosophy and world view: philosophical essays about knowledge and its value]. Helsinki: Otava.Google Scholar
  34. Nikander, P. (2008). Constructionism and discourse analysis. In J. Holstein & J. Gubrivm (Eds.), Handbook of constructionist research (pp. 413–428). NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  35. Paakkari, L., Tynjälä, P., & Kannas, L. (2011). Critical aspects of student teachers’ conceptions of learning. Learning and Instruction, 21(6), 705–714.Google Scholar
  36. Raatikainen, P. (2004). Ihmistieteet ja filosofia. [Human sciences and philosophy]. Helsinki: Gaudeamus.Google Scholar
  37. Sins, P. (2010). Integrating between perspectives and epistemologies: Analysing tensions in collaborative work. Workshop in EARLI Sig 17 meeting on “Methodology in Research on Learning”, Jena, Germany.Google Scholar
  38. Stahl, G. (2002). Rediscovering CSCL. In T. Koschmann, R. Hall, & N. Miyake (Eds.), CSCL 2: Carrying forward the conversation (pp. 169–181). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  39. Stahl, G. (2004). Building collaborative knowing. Elements of a social theory of CSCL. In P. Dillenbourg (Series Ed.) & J. W. Strijbos, P. A. Kirschner, & R. L. Martens (Vol Eds.), Computer-supported collaborative learning, Vol 3. What we know about CSCL… and implementing it in higher education (pp. 53–85). Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  40. Tee, M. Y., & Karney, D. (2010). Sharing and cultivating tacit knowledge in an online learning environment. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5(4), 385–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Valsiner, J., & van der Veer, R. (2000). The social mind: Construction of the idea. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  42. van Oers, B., & Hännikäinen, M. (2001). Some thoughts about togetherness: an introduction. International Journal of Early Years Education, 9(2), 101–108.Google Scholar
  43. Varto, J. (1992). Laadullisen tutkimuksen metodologia. [Methodology of qualitative research]. Helsinki: Kirjayhtymä.Google Scholar
  44. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind and society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Wells, G. (2007). Who we become depends on the company we keep and on what we do and say together. International Journal of Educational Research, 46(1–2), 100–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wertsch, J. (1991). A sociocultural approach to socially shared cognition. In L. Resnick, J. Levine, & S. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 85–100). Washington: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Zenios, M. (2011). Epistemic activities and collaborative learning: Towards an analytical model for studying knowledge construction in networked learning settings. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27(3), 259–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Zittoun, T. (2011). Sense-making through and across spheres of experiences. Paper presented in a Symposium “Learning in movement: conceptualizing in-between and across site learning” at the 14th European Conference for Research on Learning and Instruction (EARLI), Exeter, Great Britain.Google Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Educational ResearchUniversity of JyväskyläJyväskyläFinland

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options