Advertisement

Cultural ways of constructing knowledge: the role of identities in online group discussions

  • Murat Öztok
Article
First Online:

Abstract

Learning scientists and the CSCL community have argued that knowledge construction is a process of collective thinking; a process that is simultaneously personal and social that requires group cognition. However, while CSCL researchers have investigated situated knowledge in the process of collective thinking, little work has been done to fully understand how different identification categories play a role in sense-making and knowledge construction. This research, therefore, explores in detail how individuals operationalize identification categories when they engage in group discussions in online learning environments. Results demonstrate that individuals do not experience online learning through only one aspect of their identity. Rather, learning experiences evoke different elements of their identities that are used continuously and simultaneously when they collaborate with each other in the phases of knowledge construction.

Keywords

Identification Group work Online discussions Knowledge construction Identity Case studies Culture 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Arvaja, M. (2012). Personal and shared experiences as resources for meaning making in a philosophy of science course. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 7(1), 85–108. doi: 10.1007/s11412-011-9137-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arvaja, M., Salovaara, H., Häkkinen, P., & Järvelä, S. (2007). Combining individual and group-level perspectives for studying collaborative knowledge construction in context. Learning and Instruction, 17(4), 448–459. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.04.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Atwood, S., Turnbull, W., & Carpendale, J. I. M. (2010). The Construction of Knowledge in Classroom Talk. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(3), 358–402. doi: 10.1080/10508406.2010.481013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). In C. Emerson & M. Holquist (Eds.), Speech genres and other late essays (Trans: McGee, V.W.) (Second Printing). Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
  5. Baym, N. (2009). What constitutes quality in qualitative internet research? In A. Markham & N. Baym (Eds.), Internet inquiry: Conversations about method (pp. 173–189). Thousands Oak: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bently, J. P. H., & Tinney, M. V. (2003). Does culture influence learning? A report on trends in learning styles and preferences across cultures. Presented at the The Annual Conference of the Association for Educational Communication & Technology, Anahaim, CA.Google Scholar
  7. Bereiter, C. (2002). Education and mind in the knowledge age. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  8. Brubaker, R., & Cooper, F. (2000). Beyond “identity.”. Theory and Society, 29(1), 1–47. doi: 10.1023/A:1007068714468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Buckingham, D. (2008). Introducing identity. In D. Buckingham (Ed.), Youth, identity, and digital media (pp. 1–22). Cambridge: MIT Press Journals.Google Scholar
  10. Charmaz, K. (2005). Grounded theory methods in social justice research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 507–535). Thousands Oak: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  11. Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Creswell, J. W. (2006). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.). Thousands Oak: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  13. Engle, R. A. (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. doi: 10.1207/s15327809jls1504_2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  15. Fairclough, N. (2001). Language and power (2nd ed.). London: Longman.Google Scholar
  16. Fine, G. A. (1993). Ten lies of ethnography: Moral dilemmas of field research. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 22(3), 267–294. doi: 10.1177/089124193022003001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gee, J. P. (2011). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  18. Gramsci, A. (2000). In D. Forgacs (Ed.), An Antonio gramsci reader: Selected writings 1916–1935. New York: Schocken Books.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. Gutiérrez, K. D., & Rogoff, B. (2003). Cultural ways of learning: Individual traits or repertoires of practice. Educational Researcher, 32(5), 19–25. doi: 10.3102/0013189X032005019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hall, S. (1996). Who needs “identity”? In P. du Gay & S. Hall (Eds.), Questions of cultural identity (pp. 1–17). Thousands Oak: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  22. Heidegger, M. (1962). Being and time (Trans: Macquarrie, J. & Robinson, E.). New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  23. Hewitt, J. (2005). Toward an understanding of how threads die in asynchronous computer conferences. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(4), 567–589. doi: 10.1207/s15327809jls1404_4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hine, C. (2000). Virtual ethnography. Thousands Oak: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  25. Holland, D., Lachicotte, W., Jr., Skinner, D., & Cain, C. (1998). Identity and agency in cultural worlds. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Jenkins, R. (2008). Social identity (3rd ed.). New York: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  27. Jordan, B., & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(1), 39–103. doi: 10.1207/s15327809jls0401_2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ke, F., Chávez, A. F., Causarano, P.-N. L., & Causarano, A. (2011). Identity presence and knowledge building: Joint emergence in online learning environments? International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6(3), 349–370. doi: 10.1007/s11412-011-9114-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kim, K.-J., & Bonk, C. J. (2006). Cross-cultural comparisons of online collaboration. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 8(1). doi: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2002.tb00163.x.
  30. Koschmann, T. (1996). Paradigm shifts and instructional technology. In T. Koschmann (Ed.), CSCL: Theory and practice of an emerging paradigm (pp. 1–23). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  31. Ku, H.-Y., Pan, C.-C., Tsai, M.-H., Tao, Y., & Cornell, R. A. (2004). The impact of instructional technology interventions on asian pedagogy. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(1), 88–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (enlarged, second edition). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  33. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ligorio, M. B., Loperfido, F. F., & Sansone, N. (2013). Dialogical positions as a method of understanding identity trajectories in a collaborative blended university course. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 8(3), 351–367. doi: 10.1007/s11412-013-9174-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lyotard, J.-F. (1984). The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  36. Maxwell, J. A. (2004). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (2nd ed.). Thousands Oak: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  37. Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  38. Mills, J., Eyre, G., & Harvey, R. (2005). What makes provision of e-learning successful? Charles Sturt University’s experience in Asia. Education for Information, 23(1), 43–55.Google Scholar
  39. Nasir, N. S., & Cooks, J. (2009). Becoming a hurdler: How learning settings afford identities. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 40(1), 41–61. doi: 10.1111/j.1548-1492.2009.01027.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Nasir, N. S., & Hand, V. (2008). From the court to the classroom: Opportunities for engagement, learning, and identity in basketball and classroom mathematics. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17(2), 143–179. doi: 10.1080/10508400801986108.
  41. Nasir, N. S., Rosebery, A. S., Warren, B., & Lee, C. D. (2005). Learning as a cultural process. In R. K. Sawyer & R. K. Sawyer (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 489–504). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Oztok, M. (2013). Tacit knowledge in online learning: Community, identity, and social capital. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 22(1), 21–36. doi: 10.1080/1475939X.2012.720414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Oztok, M. (2016). Reconceptualizing the pedagogical value of student facilitation. Interactive Learning Environments, 24(1), 85–95. doi: 10.1080/10494820.2013.817440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Oztok, M., & Brett, C. (2011). Social presence and online learning: A review of research. The Journal of Distance Education, 25(3). Retrieved from http://www.ijede.ca/index.php/jde/article/view/758/1299.
  45. Oztok, M., Zingaro, D., & Makos, A. (2013). What social capital can tell us about social presence. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(6), E203–E206. doi: 10.1111/bjet.12079.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Oztok, M., Zingaro, D., Makos, A., Brett, C., & Hewitt, J. (2015). Capitalizing on social presence: The relationship between social capital and social presence. The Internet and Higher Education, 26, 19–24. doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.04.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Pea, R. D. (1993). Practices of distributed intelligence and designs for education. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 47–87). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Rovai, A. P., & Ponton, M. K. (2005). An examination of sense of classroom community and learning among African American and Caucasian graduate students. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 9(3), 77–92.Google Scholar
  49. Salomon, G. (Ed.). (1993). Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Saukko, P. (2005). Methodologies for cultural studies: An integrative approach. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 343–356). Thousands Oak: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  51. 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
  52. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge-building communities. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(3), 265–283. doi: 10.1207/s15327809jls0303_3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Stahl, G. (2005). Group cognition in computer-assisted collaborative learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(2), 79–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Stahl, G. (2006). Group cognition: Computer support for building collaborative knowledge. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  55. Stahl, G., & Hesse, F. (2009). Paradigms of shared knowledge. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4(4), 365–369. doi: 10.1007/s11412-009-9075-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Sterne, J. (1999). Thinking the internet: Cultural studies versus the millennium. In S. Jones (Ed.), Doing internet research: Critical issues and methods for examining the net (pp. 257–288). Thousands Oak: SAGE Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sullivan, P. (2001). Gender differences and the online classroom: Male and female college students evaluate their experiences. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 25(10), 805–818.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Suthers, D. D. (2006). Technology affordances for intersubjective meaning making: A research agenda for CSCL. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(3), 315–337. doi: 10.1007/s11412-006-9660-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Tee, M., & Karney, D. (2010). Sharing and cultivating tacit knowledge in an online learning environment. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5(4), 385–413. doi: 10.1007/s11412-010-9095-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. van Aalst, J. (2006). Rethinking the nature of online work in asynchronous learning networks. British Journal of Educational Technology, 37(2), 279–288. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2006.00557.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. van Aalst, J. (2009). Distinguishing knowledge-sharing, knowledge-construction, and knowledge-creation discourses. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4(3), 259–287. doi: 10.1007/s11412-009-9069-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Wise, A., & Chiu, 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. doi: 10.1007/s11412-011-9120-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 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. doi: 10.1080/10508400802581676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Zingaro, D. (2012). Student moderators in asynchronous online discussion: A question of questions. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching (JOLT), 8(3), 159–173.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society of the Learning Sciences, Inc. 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Educational ResearchLancaster UniversityLancasterUK

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options