Advertisement

Role taking and knowledge building in a blended university course

  • Donatella Cesareni
  • Stefano Cacciamani
  • Nobuko Fujita
Article
First Online:

Abstract

Role taking is an established approach for promoting social cognition. Playing a specific role within a group could lead students to exercise collective cognitive responsibility for collaborative knowledge building. Two studies explored the relationship of role taking to participation in a blended university course. Students participated in the same knowledge-building activity over three consecutive, five-week modules and enacted four roles designed in alignment with knowledge building pedagogy (Scardamalia and Bereiter 2010). In Study 1, 59 students were distributed into groups with two conditions: students who took a role in Module 2 and students who did not take a role, using Module 1 and 3 as pre and post tests. Results showed no differences in participation in Module 1, higher levels of writing and reading for role takers in Module 2, and this pattern was sustained in Module 3. Students with the Synthesizer role were the most active in terms of writing and the second most active for reading; students with the Social Tutor role were the most active for reading. In Study 2, 143 students were divided into groups with two conditions: students who took a role in Module 1 and students who did not take a role. Content analysis revealed that role takers tended to vary their contributions more than non-role takers by proposing more problems, synthesizing the discourse, reflecting on the process and organization of activity. They also assumed appropriate responsibilities for their role: the Skeptic prioritizes questioning of content, the Synthesizer emphasizes synthesizing of content, and the Social Tutor privileges maintaining of relationships. Implications of designing role taking to foster knowledge building in university blended courses are discussed.

Keywords

Computer-mediated communication Cooperative/collaborative learning Knowledge building Pedagogical issues Post-secondary education Role taking Teaching/learning strategies 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Bereiter, C. (2002). Education and mind in the knowledge age. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  2. Black, E., Dawson, K., & Priem, J. (2008). Data for free: Using LMS activity logs to measure community in an online course. Internet and Higher Education, 11(2), 65–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cacciamani, S., Cesareni, D., Martini, F., Ferrini, T., & Fujita, N. (2012). Influence of participation, facilitator styles, and metacognitive reflection on knowledge building in online university courses. Computers and Education, 58(3), 874–884.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Collazos, C. A., Guerrero, L. A., Pino, J. A., & Ochoa, S. F. (2002). Evaluating collaborative learning processes. In Groupware: Design, implementation, and use (pp. 203–221). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.Google Scholar
  5. De Laat, M. F., & Lally, V. (2004). It’s not so easy: Researching the complexity of emergent participant roles and awareness in asynchronous networked learning discussions. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20, 165–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. De Wever, B., Schellens, T., Valke, M., & Van Keer, H. (2006). Content analysis schemes to analyze transcripts of online asynchronous discussion groups: A review. Computers & Education, 46, 6–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. De Wever, B., Van Keer, H., Schellens, T., & Valke, M. (2010). Role as a structuring tool in online discussion groups: The differential impact of different roles on social knowledge construction. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 516–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dillenbourg, P. (2002). Over-scripting in 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 University of the Netherlands.Google Scholar
  9. Dubrovsky, V. J., Kiesler, S., & Sethna, B. N. (1991). The equalization phenomenon: Status effects in computer-mediated and face-to-face decision making groups. Human-Computer Interaction, 6, 119–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Engel, D., Woolley, A. W., Jing, L. X., Chabris, C. F., & Malone, T. W. (2014). Reading the mind in the eyes or reading between the lines? Theory of Mind predicts collective intelligence equally well online and face-to-face. PLoS ONE, 9(12), e115212. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0115212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fahy, P. J. (2001). Addressing some common problems in transcript analysis. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 1(2). Retrieved October, 3rd, 2014 from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/321/531
  12. Fischer, F., Kollar, I., Stegmann, K., & Wecker, C. (2013). Toward a script theory of guidance in computer-supported collaborative learning. Educational Psychologist, 48(1), 56–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fujita, N. (2013). Critical reflections on multivocal analyses and implications for design-based research. In D. Suthers, K. Lund, C. Rosé, C. Teplovs, & N. Law (Eds.), Productive multivocality in the analysis of group interactions (pp. 435–455). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2–3), 87–105.Google Scholar
  15. 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
  16. Hare, A. P. (1994). Types of roles in small groups: A bit of history and a current perspective. Small Group Research, 25, 443–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Henri, F. (1992). Computer conferencing and content analysis. In Collaborative learning through computer conferencing (pp. 117–136). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.Google Scholar
  18. Hewitt, J. (2005). Towards an understanding of how threads die in asynchronous computer conferences. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(4), 567–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hewitt, J., & Scardamalia, M. (1998). Design principles for the support of distributed knowledge building processes. Educational Psychology Review, 10(1), 75–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hickey, D. T., McWilliams, J., & Honeyford, M. (2011). Reading Moby-Dick in a participatory culture: Organizing assessment for engagement in a new media era. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 45(2), 247–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Barrows, H. S. (2008). Facilitating collaborative knowledge building. Cognition and Instruction, 26, 48–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hrastinski, S. (2008). Asynchronous & synchronous e-learning. Educause Quarterly, 4, 51–55.Google Scholar
  23. Kollar, I., Fischer, F., & Hesse, F. W. (2006). Collaboration scripts - a conceptual analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 18(2), 159–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Morris, M., & Ogan, C. (1996). The Internet as mass medium. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 1(4). Retrieved from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol1/issue4/morris.html.
  25. Muukkonen, H., Hakkarainen, K., & Lakkala, M. (2004). Computer-mediated progressive inquiry in higher education. In T. S. Roberts (Ed.), Online collaborative learning: Theory and practice (pp. 28–53). Hershey: Information Science Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Nonnecke, B., & Preece, J. (2001). Why lurkers lurk. Paper presented at the Americas Conference on Information Systems. Boston. Retrieved from http://skeeter.socs.uoguelph.ca/~nonnecke//research/whylurk.pdf
  27. O’ Reilly, T. (2005). What is Web 2.0. Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. Retrieved from http://oreilly.com/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html
  28. Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2007). Building learning communities in cyberspace: Effective strategies for the online classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  29. Pontecorvo, C. (1987). Discussing for reasoning: The role of argument in knowledge construction. In E. De Corte, J. G. L. C. Lodewijks, R. Parmentier, & P. Span (Eds.), Learning and Instruction (pp. 71–82). Oxford: Leuven University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Pozzi, F. (2011). The impact of scripted roles on online collaborative learning processes. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6, 471–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Preece, J., Nonnecke, B., & Andrews, D. (2004). The top five reasons for lurking: improving community experience for everyone. Computers in Human Behavior, 20, 201–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Salmon, G. (2000). E-Moderating: The key to teaching and learning online. London, UK: Kogan Page.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Scardamalia, M. (2002). Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of knowledge. In B. Smith (Ed.), Liberal education in a knowledge society (pp. 76–98). Chicago: Open Court.Google Scholar
  34. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1999). Schools as knowledge-building organizations. In D. Keating & C. Hertzman (Eds.), Today’s children, tomorrow’s society: The developmental Health and Wealth of Nations (pp. 274–289). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  35. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2002). Knowledge building. In J. W. Guthrie (Ed.), Encyclopedia of education (2nd ed.). New York: Macmillan Reference, USA.Google Scholar
  36. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy, and technology. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2010). A brief history of Knowledge Building. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 36(1). Retrieved from http://www.cjlt.ca/index.php/cjlt/article/view/574.
  38. Schellens, T., Van Keer, H., & Valcke, M. (2005). The impact of role assignment on knowledge construction in asynchronous discussion groups: A multilevel analysis. Small Group Research, 36, 704–745.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Schellens, T., Van Keer, H., De Wever, B., & Valcke, M. (2007). Scripting by assigning roles: Does it improve knowledge construction in asynchronous discussion groups? International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learing, 2(2–3), 225–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Selwyn, N. (2012). I Social Media nell’educazione formale e informale tra potenzialità e realtà. Tecnologie didattiche, 20(1), 4–10.Google Scholar
  41. Spada, H. (2010). Of scripts, roles, positions and models. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 547–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Spadaro, P. F., Sansone, N., & Ligorio, M. B. (2009). Role-taking for knowledge building in a blended learning course. Je-LKS, 5(3), 11–21.Google Scholar
  43. Stahl, G. (2006). Group cognition: Computer support for building collaborative knowledge. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  44. Strijbos, J. W., & De Laat, M. F. (2010). Developing the role concept for computer-supported collaborative learning: An explorative synthesis. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 495–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Strijbos, J. W., & Weinberger, A. (2010). Emerging and scripted roles in computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 491–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Strijbos, J. W., Martens, R., Jochems, W. M. G., & Broers, N. J. (2004). The effect of functional roles on group efficiency: Using multilevel modeling and content analysis to investigate computer-supported collaboration in small groups. Small Group Research, 35(2), 195–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Teplovs, C., & Fujita, N. (2013). Socio-dynamic latent semantic learner models. In D. Suthers, K. Lund, C. Rosé, C. Teplovs, & N. Law (Eds.), Productive multivocality in the analysis of group interactions (pp. 382–396). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  48. Wallace, R. (2003). Online learning in higher education: A review of research on interactions among teachers and students. Education, Communication and Information, 3(2), 241–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Weinberger, A., Stegman, K., & Fisher, F. (2010). Learning to argue online: scripted groups surpass individuals (unscripted groups not). Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 506–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 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, 445–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wise, A. F., Saghafian, M., & Padmanabhan, P. (2012). Towards more precise design guidance: specifying and testing the functions of assigned student roles in online discussions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60(1), 55–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Woolley, A. W., Chabris, C. F., Pentland, A., Hashmi, N., & Malone, T. W. (2010). Evidence for a collective intelligence factor in the performance of human groups. Science, 330, 686–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Xenos, M., & Foot, K. (2008). Not your father’s Internet: The generation gap in online politics. In W. L. Bennett (Ed.), Civic life online: Learning how digital media can engage youth (pp. 51–70). Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  54. Zhang, J., Scardamalia, M., Reeve, R., & Messina, R. (2009). Designs for collective cognitive responsibility in Knowledge-Building Communities. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18(1), 7–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society of the Learning Sciences, Inc. 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Donatella Cesareni
    • 1
  • Stefano Cacciamani
    • 2
  • Nobuko Fujita
    • 3
  1. 1.University of Rome “Sapienza”RomeItaly
  2. 2.University of Valle d’AostaAostaItaly
  3. 3.University of WindsorWindsorCanada

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options