Advertisement

Learning to learn together with CSCL tools

  • Baruch B. Schwarz
  • Reuma de Groot
  • Manolis Mavrikis
  • Toby Dragon
Article
First Online:

Abstract

In this paper, we identify Learning to Learn Together (L2L2) as a new and important educational goal. Our view of L2L2 is a substantial extension of Learning to Learn (L2L): L2L2 consists of learning to collaborate to successfully face L2L challenges. It is inseparable from L2L, as it emerges when individuals face problems that are too difficult for them. The togetherness becomes a necessity then. We describe the first cycle of a design-based research study aimed at promoting L2L2. We rely on previous research to identify collective reflection, mutual engagement and peer assessment as possible directions for desirable L2L2 practices. We describe a CSCL tool: the Metafora system that we designed to provide affordances for L2L2. Through three cases in which Metafora was used in classrooms, we describe the practices and mini-culture that actually developed. In all contexts, groups of students engaged either in mathematical problem solving or in scientific inquiry and argumentation. These cases show that L2L2 is a tangible educational goal, and that it was partially attained. We show how the experiments we undertook refined our view of L2L2 and may help in improving further educational practice.

Keywords

Learning to learn Collaborative learning Inquiry learning Mathematical problem solving Peer assessment 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Barron, B. (2003). When smart groups fail. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 307–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bereiter, C. (2002). Education and mind in the knowledge age. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  3. Claxton, G. (2004). Teaching children to learn: Beyond flat-packs and fine words. Burning Issues in Primary Education No. 11 Birmingham: National Primary Trust.Google Scholar
  4. Cobb, P., & Bauersfeld, H. (Eds.). (1995). The emergence of mathematical meaning: Interaction in classroom culture. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  5. Cobb, P., Stephan, M., McClain, K., & Gravemeijer, K. (2001). Participating in classroom mathematical practices. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10(1&2), 113–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Collins, A., Joseph, D., & Bielaczyc, K. (2004). Design research: Theoretical and methodological issues. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13, 15–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. de Groot, R., Dragon, T., Mavrikis, M., Harrer, A., Pfahler, K., McLaren, B., Wegerif, R., Kynigos, C., & Schwarz, B. B. (2013). The Metafora tool: Supporting learning to learn together. In N. Rummel, M. Kapur, M. Nathan, and S. Puntambekar (Eds.), See the world at a grain of sand: Learning across levels of space, time and scale (pp. 392–396).Google Scholar
  8. Dochy, F. M. Segers, D. Sluijsmans (1999). The use of self-, peer and co-assessment in higher education: A review. Studies in Higher Education, 24(3).Google Scholar
  9. Dragon, T., McLaren, B. M., Mavrikis, M., & Geraniou, E. (2012). Scaffolding collaborative learning opportunities: Integrating microworld use and argumentation. In L. Ardissono (Ed.), Advances in user modeling: Selected papers from UMAP 2011 workshops (pp. 18–30). Girona: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fischer, G., Nakakoji, K., Ostwald, J., Stahl, G., & Sumner, T. (1993). Embedding critics in design environments. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 8(4), 285–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fredriksson, U., & Hoskins, B. (2007). The development of learning to learn in a European context. Curriculum Journal, 18(2), 127–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Geraniou, G., Mavrikis, M., Hoyles, C., & Noss, R. (2010). In B. Ubuz (Ed.), Students’ justification strategies on equivalence of quasialgebraic expressions (pp. 393–400). Ankara: Proceedings of the International Conference on Psychology of Mathematics Education.Google Scholar
  14. Higgins, S., Wall, K., Baumfield, V., Hall, E., Leat, D. & Woolner, P. (2006). Learning to learn in schools phase 3 evaluation: Year two report. London: Campaign for Learning. http://www.campaign-for-learning.org.uk/projects/L2L/The%20Project/phase3/year2.htm
  15. Kollar, I., & Fischer, F. (2010). Peer assessment as collaborative learning: A cognitive perspective. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 344–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kynigos, C., & Latsi, Μ. (2007). Turtle’s navigation and manipulation of geometrical figures constructed by variable processes in 3D simulated space. Informatics in Education, 6, 359–372.Google Scholar
  17. Lee, E. Y. C., Chan, C. K. K., & van Aalst, J. (2006). Students assessing their own collaborative knowledge building. International Journal for Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1, 277–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Loll, F., Pinkwart, N., Scheuer, O., McLaren, B.M. (2012). In: How tough should it be? Simplifying the development of argumentation systems using a configurable platform. Bentham Science Publishers.Google Scholar
  19. Mavrikis, M., Noss, R., Hoyles, C., & Geraniou, E. (2011). Sowing the seeds of algebraic generalisation: Designing epistemic affordances for an intelligent microworld. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(1), 68–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. OECD (2004). Education at a glance: OECD indicators. OECD iLibrary.Google Scholar
  21. Pólya, G. (1945). How to solve it: A new aspect of mathematical method (1st ed.). Princeton: Princeton.Google Scholar
  22. Rojano, T. (1996). Developing algebraic aspects of problem solving within a spreadsheet environment. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rummel, N., & Spada, H. (2005). Learning to collaborate: An instructional approach to promoting collaborative problem solving in computer-mediated settings. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(2), 201–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1999). Schools as knowledge building organizations. In D. Keating & C. Hertzman (Eds.), Today’s children, tomorrow’s society: The development of health and wealth in nations. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  25. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy, and technology. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 97–118). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1985). Mathematical problem solving. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  27. Schwarz, B. B. (2007). Escalate: The White Book. www.escalate.org.il
  28. Schwarz, B. B., & Asterhan, C. S. C. (2011). E-moderation of synchronous discussions in educational settings: A nascent practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20(3), 259–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Schwarz, B. B., Schur, Y., Pensso, H., & Tayer, N. (2011). Perspective taking and argumentation for learning the day/night cycle. The International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 6(1), 113–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sluijsmans, D. M. A., Brand-Gruwel, S., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2002). Peer assessment training in teacher education: Effects on performance and perceptions. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 27(5), 443--454.Google Scholar
  31. Stahl, G. (2006). Group cognition: Computer support for building collaborative knowledge. Acting with Technology Series. MIT Press.Google Scholar
  32. Stahl, G. (2013). Translating euclid: Designing a human-centered mathematics. San Rafael, CA: Morgan & Claypool Publishers. Web: http://GerryStahl.net/elibrary/euclid.
  33. Stahl, G. (2016). Constructing dynamic triangles together: The development of mathematical group cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Stahl, G., Koschmann, T., & Suthers, D. (2006). Computer-supported collaborative learning: An historical perspective. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 409–426). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Topping, K. (2003). Self- and peer assessment in school and university: Reliability, validity and utility. In M. Segers, F. Dochy, & E. Cacallar (Eds.), Optimising new modes of assessment: In search of qualities and standards (pp. 55–87). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Topping, K. (2009). Peer assessment. Theory Into Practice, 48, 20–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Webb, N. M. (2009). The teacher’s role in promoting collaborative dialogue in the classroom. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 1–28.Google Scholar
  38. Wegerif, R. B. (2007). Dialogic, education and technology: Expanding the space of learning. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wegerif, R. & De Laat, M. F. (2010). Reframing the teaching of higher order thinking for the network society. In S. Ludvigsen, A. Lund & R. Saljo (Eds.), Learning in social practices: ICT and new artefacts transformation of social and cultural practices. Routledge.Google Scholar
  40. Wertsch, J. V. (1998). Mind as action. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Yackel, E., & Cobb, P. (1996). Sociomathematical norms, argumentation and autonomy in mathematics. The Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 27, 458–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Zhang, J., Scardamalia, M., Reeve, M., & Messina, R. (2009). Designs for collective cognitive 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

  • Baruch B. Schwarz
    • 1
  • Reuma de Groot
    • 1
  • Manolis Mavrikis
    • 2
  • Toby Dragon
    • 3
  1. 1.Hebrew University of JerusalemJerusalemIsrael
  2. 2.London Knowledge LabInstitute of EducationLondonUK
  3. 3.Ithaca CollegeIthacaUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options