Advertisement

Fixed group and opportunistic collaboration in a CSCL environment

  • Tuya Siqin
  • Jan van Aalst
  • Samuel Kai Wah Chu
Article
First Online:

Abstract

This study investigated synchronous discourses involving student collaboration in fixed groups during an introductory research methods course’s first 8-week phase, and opportunistic collaboration during its second 8-week phase. Twenty-seven Chinese undergraduates participated in online discourse on Knowledge Forum as part of the course. A multi-faceted analysis was performed to examine different aspects of collaboration – interaction patterns, knowledge characteristics distributed over inquiry, discourse patterns, and knowledge advances that emerged from discourse threads. The results show little variation in social interactions, but substantial differences in knowledge distribution between fixed groups. Groups that were productive in constructive discourse tended to generate higher-level questions and ideas. When engaged in opportunistic collaboration, the students were capable of engaging in a large range of interactions and of contributing higher-level questions and ideas; however, they were constrained by making little use of metacognition and having scattered interactions. Additionally, this study tested the relationship between online discourse and individual performance in the end-of-course assessment tasks. The results indicate that actively participating and contributing high-level ideas were positively correlated with students’ domain knowledge. The study’s implications for understanding online discourse dynamics within and across fixed groups and opportunistic collaboration in a computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) environment are discussed.

Keywords

Online discourse Opportunistic collaboration Fixed groups 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Arvaja, M., Salovaara, H., Häkkinen, P., & Järvela, S. (2007). Combining individual and group-level perspectives for studying collaborative knowledge construction in context. Learning and Instruction, 17(4), 448–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aviv, R., Erlich, Z., Ravid, G., & Geva, A. (2003). Network analysis of knowledge construction in asynchronous learning networks. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(3), 1–23.Google Scholar
  3. Barron, B. (2003). When smart groups fail. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(3), 307–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bereiter, C. (2002). Education and mind in the knowledge age. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  5. Beuchot, A., & Bullen, M. (2005). Interaction and interpersonality in online discussion forums. Distance Education, 26(1), 67–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bielaczyc, K., & Collins, A. (1999). Learning communities in classrooms: A reconceptualization of educational practice. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models (Vol. II, pp. 269–292). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  7. Blatchford, P., Kutnick, P., Baines, E., & Galton, M. (2003). Toward a social pedagogy of classroom group work. International Journal of Educational Research, 39, 153–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Caswell, B., & Bielaczyc, K. (2001). Knowledge Forum: altering the relationship between students and scientific knowledge. Education, Communication and Information, 1(3), 181–305.Google Scholar
  9. Chi, M. T. H. (1997). Quantifying qualitative analyses of verbal data: a practical guide. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6(3), 271–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cornelius, L. L., Herrenkohl, L. R., & Wolfstone-Hay, J. (2013). Organizing collaborative learning experiences around subject matter domains: The importance of aligning social and intellectual structures in instruction. In C. E. Hmelo-Silver, C. A. Chinn, C. K. K. Chan, & A. M. O’Donnell (Eds.), The international handbook of collaborative learning (pp. 333–350). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Cress, U. (2008). The need for considering multilevel analysis in CSCL research—an appeal for the use of more advanced statistical methods. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3, 69–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. De Jong, T. (2006). Scaffolds for scientific discovery learning. In J. Elen & D. Clark (Eds.), Handling complexity in learning environments: Theory and research (pp. 107–128). Boston: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  13. De Laat, M., Lally, V., & Lipponen, L. (2007). Investigating patterns of interaction in networked learning and computer-supported collaborative learning: a role for social network analysis. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2, 87–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. De Simone, C. (2008). Problem-based learning: a framework for prospective teachers’ pedagogical problem solving. Teacher Development: An International Journal of Teachers Professional Development, 12(3), 179–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. De Wever, B., Schellens, T., Valcke, M., & Van Keer, H. (2006). Content analysis schemes to analyze transcripts of online asynchronous discussion groups: a review. Computers & Education, 46(1), 6–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. De Wever, B., Van Keer, H., Schellens, T., & Valcke, M. (2007). Applying multilevel modelling to content analysis data: methodological issues in the study of role assignment in asynchronous discussion groups. Learning and Instruction, 17(4), 436–447.CrossRefGoogle 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. Dillenbourg, P., Baker, M., Blaye, A., & O’Malley, C. (1996). The evolution of research on collaborative learning. In E. Spada & P. Reiman (Eds.), Learning in humans and machine: Towards an interdisciplinary learning science. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  19. Gunawardena, C. N., Lowe, C. A., & Anderson, T. (1997). Analysis of a global online debate and the development of an interaction analysis model for examining social construction of knowledge in computer conferencing. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 17(4), 397–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hadwin, A., & Oshige, M. (2011). Self-regulation, coregulation, and socially shared regulation: exploring perspectives of social in self-regulated learning theory. Teachers College Record, 113(2), 240–264.Google Scholar
  21. Hakkarainen, K. (2003). Emergence of progressive-inquiry culture in computer-supported collaborative learning. Learning Environments Research, 6(2), 199–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hakkarainen, K., Lipponen, L., & Jarvela, S. (2002). Epistemology of inquiry and computer-supported collaborative learning. In T. Koschmann, R. Hall, & N. Miyake (Eds.), CSCL 2: Carrying forward the conversation (pp. 11–41). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  23. Haythornthwaite, C. (1996). Social network analysis: an approach and technique for the study of information exchange. Library and Information Science Research, 18(4), 323–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Haythornthwaite, C. (2002). Strong, weak, and latent ties and the impact of New Media. The Information Society, 18, 305–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hewitt, J., & Brett, C. (2007). The relationship between class size and online activity patterns in asynchronous computer conferencing environments. Computers & Education, 49(4), 1258–1271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2003). Analyzing collaborative knowledge construction: multiple methods for integrated understanding. Computers & Education, 41(4), 397–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: a response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jahng, N., Nielsen, W. S., & Chan, E. K. H. (2010). Collaborative learning in an online course: a comparison of communication patterns in small and whole group activities. Journal of Distance Education, 24(3), 39–58.Google Scholar
  29. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1994). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  30. Kim, J. (2013). Influence of group size on students’ participation in online discussion forums. Computers & Education, 63, 123–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: an analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kumpulainena, K., & Mutanenb, M. (1999). The situated dynamics of peer group interaction: an introduction to an analytic framework. Learning and Instruction, 9(5), 449–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lam, I. C. K., & Chan, C. K. K. (2008). Fostering epistemological and conceptual change in chemistry using knowledge building. In P. A. Kirschner, F. Prins, V. Jonker, & G. Kanselaar (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference of the Learning Sciences 2008 (Vol. 1, pp. 461–468). Netherlands: Utrecht University.Google Scholar
  34. Lee, E. Y. C., Chan, C. K. K., & Aalst, J. V. (2006). Students assessing their own collaborative knowledge building. International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(1), 57–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lin, X. (2001). Designing metacognitive activities. Educational Technology Research & Development, 49(1), 23–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lipponen, L., Rahikainen, M., Lallimo, J., & Hakkarainen, K. (2003). Patterns of participation and discourse in elementary students’ computer-supported collaborative learning. Learning and Instruction, 13, 487–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Muukkonen, H., & Lakkala, M. (2009). Exploring metaskills of knowledge-creating inquiry in higher education. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4(2), 187–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Muukkonen, H., Lakkala, M., & Hakkarainen, K. (2005). Technology-mediation and tutoring: how do they shape progressive inquiry discourse? The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(4), 527–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. OECD. (2008). Innovating to learn, learning to innovate. Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  40. Paavola, S., Lipponen, L., & Hakkarainen, K. (2004). Models of innovative knowledge communities and three metaphors of learning. Review of Educational Research, 74(4), 557–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Puntambekar, S., & Kolodner, J. L. (2005). Toward implementing distributed scaffolding: helping students learn science from design. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(2), 185–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Qiu, M., Hewitt, J., & Brett, C. (2012). Online class size, note reading, note writing and collaborative discourse. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 7(3), 423–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Reffay, C., & Martínez-Monés, A. (2013). Seeing to understand: Using visualizations to understand learning in technology-rich learning environments. In R. Luckin, S. Puntambekar, P. Goodyear, B. Grabowski, J. Underwood, & N. Winters (Eds.), Handbook of design in educational technology (pp. 457–471). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  44. Rourke, L., & Kanuka, H. (2007). Barriers to online critical discourse. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(1), 105–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sawyer, R. K. (2003). Emergence in creativity and development. In R. K. Sawyer, V. John-Steiner, S. Moran, R. J. Sternberg, D. H. Feldman, J. Nakamura, M. Csikszentmihalyi (Eds.), Creativity and development (pp. 12–60). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2003). Knowledge building environments: Extending the limits of the possible in education and knowledge work. In A. DiStefano, K. E. Rudestam, & R. Silverman (Eds.), Encyclopedia of distributed learning. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  47. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy, and technology. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 97–118). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Schrire, S. (2006). Knowledge building in asynchronous discussion groups: going beyond quantitative analysis. Computers & Education, 46(1), 49–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Scott, J. (1991). Social network analysis: A handbook. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  50. Scott, J. (2000). Social network analysis: A handbook (2nd ed.). Newberry Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  51. Stahl, G. (2006). Group cognition: Computer support for building collaborative knowledge. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  52. Stahl, G. (2013a). Learning across levels. International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 8, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Stahl, G. (2013b). Theories of cognition in collaborative learning. In C. Hmelo-Silver, C. Chinn, C. K. K. Chan, & A. O’Donnell (Eds.), The international handbook of collaborative learning (pp. 74–90). New York: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  54. Strijbos, J. W., Martens, R. L., & Jochems, W. M. G. (2004). Designing for interaction: six steps to designing computer-supported group-based learning. Computers & Education, 42, 403–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Suthers, D. D., Vatrapu, R., Medina, R., Joseph, S., & Dwyer, N. (2008). Beyond threaded discussion: representational guidance in asynchronous collaborative learning environments. Computers & Education, 50(4), 1103–1127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Szewkis, E., Nussbaum, M., Rosen, T., Abalos, J., Denardin, F., Caballero, D., Tagle, A., & Alcoholado, C. (2011). Collaboration within large groups in the classroom. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6(4), 561–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Tabak, I. (2004). Synergy: a complement to emerging patterns of distributed scaffolding. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 305–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Tabak, I., & Reiser, B. J. (1997). Complementary roles of sotware-based scaffolding and teacher-student interactions in inquiry learning. Paper presented at the CSCL: the Second International Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning, Mahwah, NJ.Google Scholar
  59. van Aalst, J. (2009). Distinguishing knowledge-sharing, knowledge construction, and knowledge-creation discourses. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4(3), 259–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. van Aalst, J., & Chan, C. K. K. (2007). Student-directed assessment of knowledge building using electronic portfolios. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16, 175–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. van Aalst, J., & Chan, C. K. K. (2012). Empowering students as knowledge builders. In L. Rowan & C. Bigum (Eds.), Future proofing education: Transformative approaches to new technologies and student diversity in future oriented classrooms (pp. 85–103). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Veerman, A. L., Andriessen, J. E. B., & Kanselaar, G. (2000). Learning through synchronous electronic discussion. Computers & Education, 34, 269–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1999). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Webb, N. M., Nemer, K. M., Chizhik, A. W., & Sugrue, B. (1998). Equity issues in collaborative group assessment: group composition and performance. American Educational Research Journal, 35, 607–651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Webb, N., Nemer, K., & Zuniga, S. (2002). Short circuits of superconductors? Effects of group composition on high-achieving students’ science assessment performance. American Educational Research Journal, 39(4), 943–989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Wise, A. F., & Chiu, M. M. (2011). Analyzing temporal patterns of knowledge construction in a role-based online discussion. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6(3), 445–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Woodruff, E., & Meyer, K. (1997). Explanations from intra- and inter-group discourse: students building knowledge in the science classroom. Research in Science Education, 27(1), 25–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Yap, K. C., & Chia, K. P. (2010). Knowledge construction and misconstruction: a case study approach in asynchronous discussion using Knowledge Construction – Message Map (KCMM) and Knowledge Construction – Message Graph (KCMG). Computers & Education, 55(4), 1589–1613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Zhang, J., Scardamalia, M., Lamon, M., Messina, R., & Reeve, R. (2007). Socio-cognitive dynamics of knowledge building in the work of 9- and 10-year-olds. Education Technology Research and Development, 55(2), 117–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Zhang, J., Scardamalia, M., Reeve, R., & Messina, R. (2009). Designs for collective cogniitve responsibility in knowledge-building communities. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18, 7–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society of the Learning Sciences, Inc. 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tuya Siqin
    • 1
  • Jan van Aalst
    • 2
  • Samuel Kai Wah Chu
    • 2
  1. 1.Education DepartmentChifeng University, Hong Shan DistrictChifengChina
  2. 2.Faculty of EducationUniversity of Hong KongHong KongChina

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options