Advertisement

“I guess my question is”: What is the co-occurrence of uncertainty and learning in computer-mediated discourse?

  • Michelle E. Jordan
  • An-Chih Janne Cheng
  • Diane Schallert
  • Kwangok Song
  • SoonAh Lee
  • Yangjoo Park
Article

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to contribute to a better understanding of learning in computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) environments by investigating the co-occurrence of uncertainty expressions and expressions of learning in a graduate course in which students collaborated in classroom computer-mediated discussions. Results showed that uncertainty expressions appeared related to the kinds of intellectual work engaged by students in online discussion, co-occurring with learning in systematic ways. For example, direct expressions of uncertainty were likely to co-occur with learning categories associated with presenting a new idea and with applications of an idea whereas indirect expressions were more strongly associated with elaborating on a new idea. These findings suggest that the ability to deal with and express uncertainty appropriately may be related to learning as it takes place in online environments. We contend that the role of uncertainty in learning is currently undervalued, and that educators and researchers may benefit from considering how uncertainty can be productive for learning in CSCL environments.

Keywords

Learning theory Computer-mediated discourse Hybrid course Uncertainty 

References

  1. Alexander, P. A., Schallert, D. L., & Reynolds, R. E. (2009). What is learning anyway? A topographical perspective considered. Educational Psychologist, 44, 209–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Almasi, J. (1995). The nature of fourth graders’ sociocognitive conflicts in peer-led and teacher-led discussions of literature. Reading Research Quarterly, 30(3), 314–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson, R. C., Nyuyen-Jahiel, K., McNurlen, B., Archodidou, A., Kim, S., Reznetskaya, A., et al. (2001). The snowball phenomenon: Spread of ways of talking and ways of thinking across groups of children. Cognition & Instruction, 19, 1–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aukerman, M., Glasheen, G., & Riley, K. (2008). The role of teacher and student questions in fostering third grade peer-to-peer discussions of literary texts. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Reading Conference, Orlando.Google Scholar
  5. Babrow, A. S. (2001). Uncertainty, value, communication, and problematic integration. Journal of Communication, 51, 553–573. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2001.tb02896.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barnes, D. (1992). The role of talk in learning. In K. Norman (Ed.), Thinking voices: The work of the National Oracy Project (pp. 123–128). London: Hodder & Stoughton.Google Scholar
  7. Barr, D. J. (2003). Paralinguistic correlates of conceptual structure. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 462–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (2003). Learning to work creatively with knowledge. In E. De Corte, L. Verschaffel, N. Entwistle, & J. van Merriënboer (Eds.), Powerful learning environments: Unraveling basic components and dimensions (pp. 55–68). (Advances in Learning and Instruction Series). Oxford: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
  9. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1993). Surpassing ourselves: An inquiry into the nature and implications of expertise. Chicago: Open Court.Google Scholar
  10. Berger, C. R. (2005). Interpersonal communication: Theoretical perspectives, future prospects. Journal of Communication, 55, 415–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Beth, A., Jordan, M. E., Schallert, D. L., Reed, J. L. & Kim, M. (2013). Responsibility and generativity in online learning environments. Interactive Learning Environments. doi: 10.1080/10494820.2013.788035.
  12. Bloom, P. (2002). Mindreading, communication, and the learning of names for things. Mind & Language, 17, 37–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bonk, C. J., & Cunningham, D. J. (1998). Searching for learner-centered, constructivist, and socio-cultural components of collaborative educational learning tools. In C. J. Bonk & K. S. King (Eds.), Electronic collaborators: Learner-centered technologies for literacy, apprenticeship, and discourse (pp. 25–50). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  14. Bransford, J. D., & Schwartz, D. L. (1999). Rethinking transfer: A simple proposal with multiple implications. In A. Iran-Nejad & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Review of Research in Education, 24 (pp. 61–100). Washington: American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
  15. Brennan, S. E., & Ohaeri, J. O. (1999). Why do electronic conversations seem less polite?: The costs and benefits of hedging. SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, 24(2), 227–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Brookfield, S. D., & Preskill, S. (2005). Discussion as a way of teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  17. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1978). Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. In E. N. Goody (Ed.), Questions and politeness: Strategies in social interactions (pp. 56–289). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Bruner, J. (1981). The pragmatics of language acquisition. In W. Deutsch (Ed.), The child’s construction of language (pp. 39–55). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  19. Bruner, J. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Byrne, D., & Callaghan, G. (2014). Complexity theory and the social sciences. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Chan, C., Burtis, J., & Bereiter, C. (1997). Knowledge building as a mediator of conflict in conceptual change. Cognition & Instruction, 15(1), 1–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Channell, J. M. (1994). Vague language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Cheng, A. C., Jordan, M. E., Schallert, D. L., & the D-Team. (2013). Reconsidering online learning and assessment. Computers & Education, 68, 51–59. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2013.04.022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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
  25. Clore, G. L. (1992). Cognitive phenomenology: The role of feelings in the construction of social judgment. In A. Tesser & L. L. Martin (Eds.), The construction of social judgments (pp. 133–164). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  26. Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. L. (2008). Basics of qualitative research. Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
  27. Davis, B., & Sumara, D. (2006). Complexity and education: Inquiries into learning, teaching, and research. Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  28. Dennis, M., Sugar, J., & Whitaker, H. A. (1982). The acquisition of tag questions. Child Development, 53, 1254–1257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. DeSantis, N. (2012). Online-education start-up teams with top-ranked universities to offer free courses. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/Cheating-Goes-High-Tech/132093/
  30. Dewey, J. (1929). The quest for certainty. New York: Minton, Balch, & Company.Google Scholar
  31. Duffy, T. M., Dueber, B., & Hawley, C. L. (1998). Critical thinking in a distributed environment: A pedagogical base for the design of conferencing systems. In C. J. Bonk & K. S. King (Eds.), Electronic collaborators: Learner-centered technologies for literacy, apprenticeship, and discourse (pp. 51–78). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  32. Engle, R. A., & Conant, F. R. (2002). Guiding principles for fostering productive disciplinary engagement: Explaining an emergent argument in a community of learners classroom. Cognition & Instruction, 20, 399–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Feldman, C. F., & Wertsch, J. V. (1976). Context dependent properties of teachers’ speech. Youth & Society, 7, 227–258.Google Scholar
  34. Ford, L. A., Babrow, A. S., & Stohl, C. (1996). Social support messages and the management of uncertainty in the experience of breast cancer: An application of problematic integration theory. Communication Monographs, 63, 189–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Gill, E. A., & Babrow, A. S. (2007). To hope or to know: Coping with uncertainty and ambivalence in women’s magazine breast cancer articles. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 35, 133–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Green, M. (1984). Cognitive stage differences in types of speaker uncertainty markers. Language and Speech, 27(4), 323–331.Google Scholar
  37. Greeno, J. G., & van de Sande, C. (2007). Perspectival understanding of conceptions and conceptual growth in interaction. Educational Psychologist, 42, 9–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Haneda, M., & Wells, G. (2000). Writing in knowledge-building communities. Research in the Teaching of English, 34, 430–457.Google Scholar
  39. Hatano, G., & Inagaki, K. (1992). Desituating cognition through the construction of conceptual knowledge. In P. Light & G. Butterworth (Eds.), Context and cognition: Ways of knowing and learning (pp. 115–133). New York: Harvester.Google Scholar
  40. Hiebert, J., Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Fuson, K., Human, P., Muray, H., & Wearne, D. (1996). Problem solving as a basis for reform in curriculum and instruction: The case of mathematics. Educational Researcher, 25(4), 12–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Herrenkohl, L. R., & Guerra, M. R. (1998). Participant structures, scientific discourse, and student engagement in fourth grade. Cognition & Instruction, 16, 431–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Herring, S. C. (2001). Computer-mediated discourse. In D. Tannen, D. Schiffrin, & H. Hamilton (Eds.), Handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 612–634). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  43. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Barrows, H. S. (2008). Facilitating collaborative knowledge building. Cognition & Instruction, 26, 48–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Holtgraves, T. (1986). Language structure in social interaction: Perceptions of direct and indirect speech acts and interactants who use them. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(2), 305–314. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.51.2.305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Hughes, M., & Daykin, N. (2002). Towards constructivism: Investigating students’ perceptions and learning as a result of using an online environment. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 39(3), 217–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Jonassen, D. H., & Land, S. M. (Eds.). (2012). Theoretical foundations of learning environments. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  47. Jordan, M. E. (2012). Variation in fifth grade students’ propensities for managing uncertainty during collaborative engineering projects. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (pp. 421–425). Sydney: International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar
  48. Jordan, M. E. (2010). Collaborative robotics design projects: Managing uncertainty in multimodal literacy practice. Yearbook of the National Reading Conference, 59, 260–275.Google Scholar
  49. Jordan, M. E., & Babrow, A. S. (2013). Communication in creative collaborations: The challenges of uncertainty and desire related to task, identity, and relational goals. Communication Education, 62(2), 105–126. doi: 10.1080/03634523.2013.769612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Jordan, M. E., & McDaniel, R. (2014). Managing uncertainty during collaborative problem solving in elementary school teams: The role of peer influence in robotics engineering activity. Journal of the Learning Sciences. doi: 10.1080/10508406.2014.896254.Google Scholar
  51. Jordan, M. E., Schallert, D., Cheng, A., Park, Y., Lee, H., Chen, Y., & Chang, Y. (2007). Seeking self-organization in classroom computer-mediated discussion through a complex adaptive systems lens. Yearbook of the National Reading Conference, 56, 39–53.Google Scholar
  52. Jordan, M. E., Schallert, D. L., Park, Y., Lee, S. A., Chiang, Y. V., Cheng, A. C., & Kim, T. (2012). Expressing uncertainty in computer-mediated discourse: Language as a marker of intellectual work. Discourse Processes, 49(8), 660–692. doi: 10.1080/0163853X.2012.722851.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Kapur, M. (2008). Productive failure. Cognition and Instruction, 26, 379–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Kapur, M., & Bielaczyc, K. (2012). Designing for productive failure. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 21, 45–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Kapur, M., & Kinzer, C. (2009). Productive failure in CSCL groups. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4, 21–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Kapur, M., & Kinzer, C. K. (2008). Sensitivities to early exchange in synchronous computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) groups. Computers & Education, 54(1), 54–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Kim, I., Anderson, R. C., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., & Archodidou, A. (2007). Discourse patterns during children’s collaborative online discussions. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16(3), 333–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Knowlton, D. S. (2009). Evaluating college students’ efforts in asynchronous discussion: A systematic process. In A. Orellana, T. L. Hudgins, & M. Simonson (Eds.), The perfect online course: Best practices for designing and teaching (pp. 311–326). Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  59. Lakoff, G. (1973). Hedges: A study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 2, 458–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Langer, J. A., & Applebee, A. N. (1987). How writing shapes thinking. Urbana: National Council of Teachers of English.Google Scholar
  61. Lee, S., Schallert, D., Song, K., Park, Y., Chiang, Y., Vogler, J., & Park, J. (2011). Resistance phenomena in collaborative online discourse. Yearbook of the Literacy Research Association, 60, 370–388.Google Scholar
  62. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  63. McNeill, D. (1992). Hand and mind: What gestures reveal about thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  64. McAlister, S., Ravensroft, A., & Scanlon, E. (2004). Combining interaction and context design to support collaborative argumentation using a tool for synchronous CMC. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20, 194–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Mercer, N. (2008). The seeds of time: Why classroom dialogue needs a temporal analysis. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17, 33–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Moje, E. B. (2000). To be part of the story: The literacy practices of “gangsta” adolescents. Teachers College Record, 102, 652–690.Google Scholar
  67. Moje, E. B., & Lewis, C. (2007). Examining opportunities to learn literacy: The role of critical sociocultural literacy research. In C. Lewis, P. Enciso, & E. B. Moje (Eds.), Reframing sociocultural research on literacy: Identity, agency, and power (pp. 15–48). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  68. Na, Y. (2004). A Bakhtinian analysis of computer-mediated communication: How students create animated utterances in graduate seminar discussions. National Yearbook Conference Yearbook, 53, 67–89.Google Scholar
  69. Nystrand, M. (1997). Opening dialogue: Understanding the dynamics of language and learning in the English classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  70. Nguyen, D., & Fussell, S. (2013). The expression of involvement in instant messaging conversations. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Text and Discourse, ValenciaGoogle Scholar
  71. Parry, M. (2010). Tomorrow’s college. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/Tomorrows-College/125120
  72. Pear, J. J., & Crone-Todd, D. E. (2002). A social constructivist approach to computer-mediated instruction. Computers & Education, 38(1–3), 221–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Penrose, A. M. & Geisler, C. (1994). College Composition and Communication,45(4), 505–520.Google Scholar
  74. Piaget, J. (1972). Intellectual evolution from adolescence to adulthood. Human Development, 15, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Pifarre, M., & Cobos, R. (2010). Promoting metacognitive skills through peer scaffolding in a CSCL environment. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5, 237–253. doi: 10.1007/s11412-010-9084-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Potter, J. (2003). Discourse analysis and discursive psychology. In P. M. Camic, J. R. Rhodes, & L. Yardley (Eds.), Qualitative research in psychology: Expanding perspectives in methodology and design (pp. 73–94). Washington: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  77. Radinsky, J. (2008). Students’ roles in group-work with visual data: A site of science learning. Cognition & Instruction, 26, 145–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Reiser, B. J. (2004). Scaffolding complex learning: The mechanisms of structuring and problematizing student work. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13, 273–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Rogoff, B. (1994). Developing understanding of the idea of communities of learners. Mind Culture and Activity, 1, 209–229.Google Scholar
  80. Rowland, T. (2000). The pragmatics of mathematics education: Vagueness in mathematical discourse. London: Falmer.Google Scholar
  81. Rumelhart, D. E., & Norman, D. A. (1978). Accretion, tuning, and restructuring: Three modes of learning. In J. W. Cotton & R. L. Klatzky (Eds.), Semantic factors in cognition (pp. 37–53). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  82. Ryser, G., Beeler, J., & McKenzie, C. (1995). Effects of a computer-supported intentional learning environment (CSILE) on students’ self-concept, self-regulatory behavior, and critical thinking ability. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 13, 375–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking in conversation. Language, 50, 696–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Schallert, D. L., Lissi, M. R., Reed, J. H., Dodson, M. M., Benton, R. E., & Hopkins, L. F. (1996). How coherence is socially constructed in oral and written classroom discussions of reading assignments. In D. J. Leu, C. K. Kinzer, & K. A. Hinchman (Eds.), Literacies for the 21st century: Research and practice, 45th Yearbook of the National Reading Conference. Chicago: The National Reading Conference.Google Scholar
  85. Schallert, D. L., Reed, J. H., Kim, M., Beth, A. D., Chen, Y., Yang, M., & Chang, Y. (2004). Online learning or learning on the line: Do students learn anything of value in a CMD? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Reading Conference, San Antonio, TXGoogle Scholar
  86. Schallert, D. L., Reed, J. H., & the D-Team. (2003–2004). Intellectual, motivational, textual, and cultural considerations in teaching and learning with computer-mediated discussion. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36, 103–118.Google Scholar
  87. Schellens, T., Van Keer, H., Valcke, M., & De Wever, B. (2007). Learning in asynchronous discussion groups: A multilevel approach to study the influence of student, group, and task characteristics. Behaviour & Information Technology, 26, 55–71. doi: 10.1080/01449290600811578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Schunn, C. D. (2010). From uncertainly exact to certainly vague: Epistemic uncertainty and approximation in science and engineering problem solving. In: The Psychology of Learning and Motivation: Advances in Research and Theory, 53 (pp. 227–252). Academic Press.Google Scholar
  89. Schwartz, D. L., & Bransford, J. D. (1998). A time for telling. Cognition and Instruction, 16(4), 475–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Schwartz, D. L., & Martin, T. (2004). Inventing to prepare for future learning: The hidden efficiency of encouraging original student production in statistics instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 22(2), 129–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Schwarz, N., & Clore, G. L. (2007). Feelings and phenomenal experiences. In E. T. Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (2nd ed., pp. 385–407). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  92. Sieber, J. E. (1969). Lessons in uncertainty. The Elementary School Journal, 69, 304–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Smithson, M. (1989). Ignorance and uncertainty: Emerging paradigms. New York: Springer Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Stigler, J., & Hiebert, J. (2009). The teaching gap: Best ideas from the world’s teachers for improving education in the classroom. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  95. Turner, G. J., & Pickvance, R. E. (1973). Social class differences in the expression of uncertainty in five-year-old children. In B. Bernstein (Ed.), Class, codes, and control (pp. 303–325). London, England: Routledge.Google Scholar
  96. Wade, S. E., & Fauske, J. R. (2004). Dialogue online: Prospective teachers’ discourse strategies in computer-mediated discussions. Reading Research Quarterly, 39, 134–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Wegerif, R., Mercer, N., & Dawes, L. (1999). From social interaction to individual reasoning: An empirical investigation of a possible socio-cultural model of cognitive development. Learning and Instruction, 9, 493–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry: Towards a sociocultural practice and theory of education. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization Science, 16(4), 409–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: learning, meaning and identity, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  101. Wertsch, J. V. (1991). A sociocultural approach to socially shared cognition. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 85–100). Washington: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society of the Learning Sciences, Inc. 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michelle E. Jordan
    • 1
  • An-Chih Janne Cheng
    • 2
  • Diane Schallert
    • 3
  • Kwangok Song
    • 4
  • SoonAh Lee
    • 5
  • Yangjoo Park
    • 6
  1. 1.Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College, Farmer Education BuildingArizona State UniversityTempeUSA
  2. 2.DePaul UniversityChicagoUSA
  3. 3.University of Texas at AustinAustinUSA
  4. 4.Arkansas State UniversityJonesboroUSA
  5. 5.Chonnam National UniversityGwangjuSouth Korea
  6. 6.Institute of Distance EducationKorea National Open UniversitySeoulSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations