Advertisement

Group practices: a new way of viewing CSCL

  • Gerry StahlEmail author
Article

Abstract

The analysis of group practices can make visible the work of novices learning how to inquire in science or mathematics. These ubiquitous practices are invisibly taken for granted by adults, but can be observed and rigorously studied in adequate traces of online collaborative learning. Such an approach contrasts with traditional pre/post comparisons that miss sequential interactional processes or that reduce group phenomena to individual or social factors. The analysis of the enactment of practices by small groups in CSCL contexts can systematically inform the design, testing, and refinement of collaborative-learning software, curriculum, pedagogy, and theory. CSCL can be re-conceptualized as the design of technology to foster the adoption of group practices by student teams.

Keywords

Group practices CSCL theory CSCL methodology Design-based research 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Thanks to everyone who participated in the VMT project and who collaborated on the analysis of its data. Also, to the anonymous reviewers, who prompted me to elaborate several aspects and implications of this view of CSCL.

References

  1. Barron, B. (2003). When smart groups fail. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(3), 307–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bourdieu, P. (1972/1995). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Cakir, M. P., Zemel, A., & Stahl, G. (2009). The joint organization of interaction within a multimodal CSCL medium. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4(2), 115–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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(1), 69–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Descartes, R. (1633/1999). Discourse on method and meditations on first philosophy. New York: Hackett.Google Scholar
  6. Dillenbourg, P., Baker, M., Blaye, A., & O'Malley, C. (1996). The evolution of research on collaborative learning. In P. Reimann & H. Spada (Eds.), Learning in humans and machines: Towards an interdisciplinary learning science (pp. 189–211). Oxford: Elsevier http://tecfa.unige.ch/tecfa/publicat/dil-papers-2/Dil.7.1.10.pdf.Google Scholar
  7. Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  8. Giddens, A. (1984). Elements of the theory of structuration. In The constitution of society (pp. 1–40). Oakland, CA: U of California Press.Google Scholar
  9. Hammond, M. (2015). A Habermasian perspective on joint meaning making online: What does it offer and what are the difficulties? International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 10(3), 223–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hutchins, E. (1996). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  11. Jeong, H., Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Yu, Y. (2014). An examination of CSCL methodological practices and the influence of theoretical frameworks 2005-2009. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 9(3), 305–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kant, I. (1787/1999). Critique of pure reason. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Kapur, M., & Kinzer, C. K. (2009). Productive failure in CSCL groups. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4(1), 21–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Medina, R., Suthers, D. D. & Vatrapu, R. (2009). Representational practices in VMT. In G. Stahl (Ed.), Studying virtual math teams (ch. 10, pp. 185–205). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  15. Öner, D. (2016). Tracing the change in discourse in a collaborative dynamic-geometry environment: From visual to more mathematical. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 11(1), 59–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Reckwitz, A. (2002). Toward a theory of social practices: A development in culturalist theorizing. European Journal of Social Theory, 5, 243–263 http://est.sagepub.com/content/5/2/243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Rogoff, B. (1995). Sociocultural activity on three planes. In B. Rogoff, J. Wertsch, P. del Rio, & A. Alvarez (Eds.), Sociocultural studies of mind (pp. 139–164). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2014). Knowledge building and knowledge creation: Theory, pedagogy and technology. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Schatzki, T. R., Knorr Cetina, K., & Savigny, E. V. (Eds.). (2001). The practice turn in contemporary theory. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  20. Schwartz, D. (1995). The emergence of abstract representations in dyad problem solving. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(3), 321–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Schwarz, B., & Baker, M. (2017). Dialogue, argumentation and education: History, theory and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational Researcher, 27(2), 4–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Sfard, A. (2008). Thinking as communicating: Human development, the growth of discourses and mathematizing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Stahl, G. (1993). Interpretation in design: The problem of tacit and explicit understanding in computer support of cooperative design. Unpublished Dissertation, Ph.D., Department of Computer Science, University of Colorado. Boulder, CO. http://GerryStahl.net/elibrary/tacit.
  25. Stahl, G. (2006a). Group cognition: Computer support for building collaborative knowledge. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  26. Stahl, G. (2006b). Supporting group cognition in an online math community: A cognitive tool for small-group referencing in text chat. Journal of Educational Computing Research (JECR) special issue on Cognitive tools for collaborative communities, 35(2), 103–122 http://GerryStahl.net/pub/jecr.pdf.Google Scholar
  27. Stahl, G. (2009). Studying virtual math teams. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Stahl, G. (2012a). Ethnomethodologically informed. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 7(1), 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Stahl, G. (2012b). Traversing planes of learning. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 7(4), 467–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Stahl, G. (2013a). Learning across levels. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 8(1), 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Stahl, G. (2013b). Translating Euclid: Designing a human-centered mathematics. San Rafael: Morgan & Claypool Publishers.Google Scholar
  32. Stahl, G. (2014). The constitution of group cognition. In L. Shapiro (Ed.), Handbook of embodied cognition (ch. 32, pp. 335–346). New York: Routledge. http://GerryStahl.net/pub/embodied.pdf.
  33. Stahl, G. (2015). Conceptualizing the intersubjective group. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 10(3), 209–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Stahl, G. (2016a). Constructing dynamic triangles together: The development of mathematical group cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Stahl, G. (2016b). From intersubjectivity to group cognition. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 25(4), 355–384 http://GerryStahl.net/pub/intersubjectivity.pdf.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Stahl, G. (2016c). The group as paradigmatic unit of analysis: The contested relationship of CSCL to the learning sciences. In M. A. Evans, M. J. Packer & R. K. Sawyer (Eds.), Reflections on the learning sciences (ch. 5, pp. 76–102). New York: Cambridge University Press. http://GerryStahl.net/pub/ls.pdf.
  37. Stahl, G., Zhou, N., Çakir, M. P. & Sarmiento-Klapper, J. W. (2011). Seeing what we mean: Co-experiencing a shared virtual world. In the Proceedings of CSCL 2011. Lulu: ISLS. Proceedings (pp. 534–541). http://GerryStahl.net/pub/cscl2011.pdf.
  38. Suthers, D. D., Dwyer, N., Medina, R., & Vatrapu, R. (2010). A framework for conceptualizing, representing, and analyzing distributed interaction. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5(1), 5–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Vygotsky, L. (1930/1978). Mind in society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research. Design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  41. Zemel, A., Çakir, M. P. & Stahl, G. (2009). Understanding and analyzing chat in CSCL as reading’s work. In the Proceedings of CSCL 2009. Rhodes, Greece. http://GerryStahl.net/pub/cscl2009zemel.pdf.

Copyright information

© International Society of the Learning Sciences, Inc. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Drexel UniversityChathamUSA

Personalised recommendations