Advertisement

Life history of a topic in an online discussion: a complex systems theory perspective on how one message attracts class members to create meaning collaboratively

  • Jane S. Vogler
  • Diane L. Schallert
  • Michelle E. Jordan
  • Kwangok Song
  • Anke J. Z. Sanders
  • Yueh-hui Yan Te Chiang
  • Ji-Eun Lee
  • Jeongbin Hannah Park
  • Li-Tang Yu
Article
First Online:

Abstract

Complex adaptive systems theory served as a framework for this qualitative study exploring the process of how meaning emerges from the collective interactions of individuals in a synchronous online discussion through their shared words about a topic. In an effort to bridge levels of analysis from the individual to the small group to the community, we analyzed how a group of students introduced, sustained, and eventually let go of one topic while participating in a classroom discussion that took place in a CSCL environment. Our purpose was to examine a single posted message’s influence not only through the responses it garnered, but also by how individuals reacted to it intellectually. Participants were eight students and their teacher in a graduate-level seminar. Data sources included the online discussion’s final transcript, screen-captured recordings of each participant’s computer screen, video recordings of participants’ actions, and observation notes. Our analyses revealed three key understandings: (a) the interdependencies of process and content are manifestations of the complex development of co-created understandings in computer-supported discussions, (b) private individual processes and particular meanings co-mingle in a social space to create publicly shared experiences, and (c) the importance of attending to the content was shown in the details of a topic’s incipience, its developing “mid-life,” and how factors conspired to its end. These findings help illustrate how co-created meaning-making experiences emerge in a system through interactions among individual agents, suggesting ways instructors may work to foster student learning in CSCL contexts.

Keywords

Computer-supported collaborative learning Complex adaptive systems Online discourse Meaning making 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank YangJoo Park and Yi-Jeng Chen for their help on this project.

References

  1. Anderson, R. C., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., McNurlen, B., Archodidou, A., Kim, S., Reznitskaya, A., Tillmans, M., & Gilbert, L. (2001). The snowball phenomenon: Spread of ways of talking and ways of thinking across groups of children. Cognition & Instruction, 19, 1–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Atkinson, J. W. (1957). Motivational determinants of risk-taking behavior. Psychological Review, 64(6), 359–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boyd, M. P., & Markarian, W. (2015). Dialogic teaching and dialogic stance: Moving beyond interactional form. Research in the Teaching of English, 49(3), 272–296.Google Scholar
  4. Byrne, D., & Callaghan, G. (2014). Complexity theory and the social sciences. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. (2002). Control processes and self-organization as complementary principles underlying behavior. Personality & Social Psychology Review, 6, 304–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cho, B. Y. (2013). Adolescents' constructively responsive reading strategy use in a critical internet reading task. Reading Research Quarterly, 48(4), 329–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cochran-Smith, M., Ell, F., Ludlow, L., Grudnoff, L., & Aitken, G. (2014). The challenge and promise of complexity theory for teacher education research. Teachers College Record, 116, 1–38.Google Scholar
  8. Coiro, J., & Dobler, E. (2007). Exploring the online reading comprehension strategies used by sixth-grade skilled readers to search for and locate information on the internet. Reading Research Quarterly, 42(2), 214–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cress, U., & Kimmerle, J. (2008). A systemic and cognitive view on collaborative knowledge building with wikis. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3, 105–122. doi: 10.1007/s11412-007-9035-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cress, U., Stahl, G., Ludvigsen, S., & Law, N. (2015). The core features of CSCL: Social situation, collaborative knowledge processes and their design. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 10(2), 109–116. doi: 10.1007/s11412-015-9214-2.Google Scholar
  11. Erickson, F. (1999). Going for the zone: The social and cognitive ecology of teacher-student interaction in classroom conversations. In D. Hicks (Ed.), Discourse, learning, and schooling (pp. 29–62). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Evans, S. K., Pearce, K. E., Vitak, J., & Treem, J. W. (2016). Explicating affordance: A conceptual framework for understanding affordance in communication research. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. Doi:10.111/jcc4.12180.Google Scholar
  13. Fleckenstein, K. S., Spinuzzi, C., Rickly, R. J., & Papper, C. (2008). The importance of harmony: An ecological metaphor for writing research. College Composition and Communication, 60(2), 388–419.Google Scholar
  14. Galatzer-Levy, R. M. (2009). Finding your way through chaos, fractals, and other exotic mathematical objects: A guide for the perplexed. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 57(5), 1227–1249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Halatchliyski, I., & Cress, U. (2014). How structure shapes dynamics: Knowledge development in Wikipedia – A network multilevel modeling approach. PloS One, 9(11), e111958.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Halatchliyski, I., Moskaliuk, J., Kimmerle, J., & Cress, U. (2014). Explaining authors’ contribution to pivotal artifacts during mass collaboration in the Wikipedia’s knowledge base. International Journal of Computer—Supported Collaborative Learning, 9, 97–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hancock, J. T., Curry, L. E., Goorha, S., & Woodworth, M. (2008). On lying and being lied to: A linguistic analysis of deception in computer-mediated communication. Discourse Processes, 45(1), 1–23. doi: 10.1080/01638530701739181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Harney, O. M., Hogan, M. J., Broome, B., Hall, T., & Ryan, C. (2015). Investigating the effects of prompts on argumentation style, consensus and perceived efficacy in collaborative learning. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 10(4), 367–394. doi: 10.1007/s11412-015-9223-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hull, G. A., & Katz, M. L. (2006). Crafting an agentive self: Case studies of digital storytelling. Research in the Teaching of English, 41(1), 43–81.Google Scholar
  20. Jacobson, M., Kapur, M., & Reimann, P. (2016). Conceptualizing debates in learning and educational research: Toward a complex systems conceptual framework of learning. Educational Psychologist, 51(2), 210–218. doi: 10.1080/00461520.2016.1166963.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jacobson, M., & Wilensky, U. (2006). Complex systems in education: Scientific and educational importance and implications for the learning sciences. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(1), 11–34. doi: 10.1207/s15327809jls1501_4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jordan, M., Schallert, D. L., Cheng, A., Park, Y., Lee, H., Chen, Y., et al. (2007). Seeking self-organization in classroom computer-mediated discussion through a complex adaptive systems lens. National Reading Conference Yearbook, 56, 304–318.Google Scholar
  23. Kapur, M. (2011). Temporality matters: Advancing a method for analyzing problem-solving processes in a computer-supported collaborative environment. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6, 39–56. doi: 10.1007/s11412-011-9109-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kapur, M., Voiklis, J., & Kinzer, C. (2008). Sensitivities to early exchange in synchronous computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) groups. Computers & Education, 51, 54–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kimmerle, J., Moskaliuk, J., Oeberst, A., & Cress, U. (2015). Learning and collective knowledge construction with social media: A process-oriented perspective. Educational Psychologist, 50(2), 120–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kincanon, E., & Powel, W. (1995). Chaotic analysis in psychology and psychoanalysis. The Journal of Psychology, 129(5), 495–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Koopmans, M., & Stamovlasis, D. (2016). Complex dynamical systems in education. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-27577-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kramsch, C. (Ed.). (2002). Language acquisition and language socialization: Ecological perspectives. New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
  29. Larsen-Freeman, D. (1997). Chaos/complexity science and second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 18, 141–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lee, S., Schallert, D. L., Song, K., Park, Y., Chiang, Y. V., Vogler, J. S., et al. (2011). Resistance phenomena in collaborative online discussions. Literacy Research Association Yearbook, 60, 370–388.Google Scholar
  31. O’Connor, M. C., & Michaels, S. (1997). Shifting participant frameworks: Orchestrating thinking practices in group discussion. In D. Hicks (Ed.), Discourse, learning, and schooling (pp. 63–103). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  32. O’Connor, M. C., & Michaels, S. (2007). When is dialogue ‘dialogic’? Human Development, 50(5), 275–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Op’t Eynde, P., & Turner, J. E. (2006). Focusing on the complexity of emotion-motivation issues in academic learning: A dynamical component systems approach. Educational Psychology Review, 18, 361–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Paulson, E. J. (2005). Viewing eye movements during reading through the lens of chaos theory: How reading is like the weather. Reading Research Quarterly, 40(3), 338–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pennings, J. J. M., van Tartwijk, J., Wubbels, T., Claessens, L. C. A., van der Want, A. C., & Brekelmans, M. (2014). Real-time teacher-student interactions: A dynamic systems approach. Teaching and Teacher Education, 37, 183–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ranker, J. (2007). Designing meaning with multiple media sources: A case study of an eight-year-old student’s writing processes. Research in the Teaching of English, 41(4), 43–81.Google Scholar
  37. Reimann, P. (2009). Time is precious: Variable- and event-centred approaches to process analysis in CSCL research. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4(3), 239–257. doi: 10.1007/s11412-009-9070-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Reinking, D. (1997). Me and my hypertext:) A multiple digression analysis of technology and literacy (sic). The Reading Teacher, 50(8), 626–643.Google Scholar
  39. Remer, R. (2005). An introduction to chaos theory for psychodramatists. Journal of Group Psychotherapy, Psychodrama & Sociometry, 58(3), 130–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rivera, E. T., Wilbur, M. F.-S., Roberts-Wilbur, J. P., & Garrett, M. T. (2005). Group chaos theory: A metaphor and model for group work. The Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 30(2), 111–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Roth, W., & Duit, R. (2003). Emergence, flexibility, and stabilization of language in a physics classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(9), 869–897.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Schallert, D. L., Chiang, Y. V., Park, Y., Jordan, M. E., Lee, H., Cheng, A. J., et al. (2009). Being polite while fulfilling different discourse functions in online classroom discussions. Computers & Education, 53(3), 713–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Schallert, D. L., Lissi, M. R., Reed, J. H., Dodson, M. M., Benton, R. E., & Hopkins, L. F. (1996). How coherence is socially constructed in oral and written classroom discussions of reading assignments. In D. J. Leu, C. K. Kinzer, & K. Hinchman (Eds.), Forty-fifth Yearbook of the National Reading Conference. Chicago, IL: The National Reading Conference, Inc..Google Scholar
  44. Schneider, B., & Pea, R. (2014). Toward collaboration sensing. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 9(4), 371–395. doi: 10.1007/s11412-014-9202-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Paradigms and research programs in the study of teaching. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 3–36). NY: Macmillan Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  46. Stahl, G. (2000). A model of collaborative knowledge building. In B. Fishman & S. O’Connor-Divelbiss (Eds.), Fourth international conference of the learning sciences (pp. 70–77). Mahwah, NJ: Earlbaum.Google Scholar
  47. Stahl, G. (2013). Learning across levels. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 8(1), 1–12. doi: 10.1007/s11412-013-9169-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Stamovlosis, D. (2016). Nonlinear dynamical interaction patterns in collaborative groups: Discourse analysis with orbital decomposition. In M. Koopmans & D. Stamovlasis (Eds.), Complex dynamical systems in education. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-27577-2_13.Google Scholar
  49. 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
  50. 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. doi: 10.1007/s11412-009-9081-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Tudini, V. (2015). Extending prior posts in dyadic online text chat. Discourse Processes, 52(8), 642–669. doi: 10.1080/0163853Z.2014.969138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Turner, J. C., & Fulmer, S. M. (2013). Observing interpersonal regulation of engagement during instruction in middle school classrooms. In S. Volet & M. Vauras (Eds.), Interpersonal regulation of learning and motivation: Methodological advances (pp. 147–169). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  53. Vauras, M., Kinnunen, R., Kajamies, A., & Lehtinen, E. (2013). Interpersonal regulation in instructional interaction: A dynamic systems analysis of scaffolding. In S. Volet & M. Vauras (Eds.), Interpersonal regulation of learning and motivation: Methodological advances (pp. 125–146). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  54. Vogler, J. S., Schallert, D. L., Park, Y., Song, K., Chiang, Y. V., Jordan, M. E., et al. (2013). How reading, thinking, and writing intermingle when a classroom discussion takes place online. Journal of Literacy Research, 45(3), 211–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wigfield, A., Cambria, J., & Eccles, J. S. (2012). Motivation in education, The Oxford handbook of human motivation (pp. 463–478). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wise, A. F., Hausknecht, S. N., & Zhao, Y. (2014). Attending to others’ posts in asynchronous discussions: Learners’ online “listening” and its relationship to speaking. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 9(2), 185–209. doi: 10.1007/s11412-014-9192-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Zuiker, S., Anderson, K., Jordan, M. E., & Stewart, O. (2016). Complementary lenses: Using theories of situativity and complexity to understand collaborative learning as systems-level social activity. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 9, 80–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society of the Learning Sciences, Inc. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jane S. Vogler
    • 1
  • Diane L. Schallert
    • 2
  • Michelle E. Jordan
    • 3
  • Kwangok Song
    • 4
  • Anke J. Z. Sanders
    • 5
  • Yueh-hui Yan Te Chiang
    • 6
  • Ji-Eun Lee
    • 7
  • Jeongbin Hannah Park
    • 8
  • Li-Tang Yu
    • 9
  1. 1.School of Educational Foundations, Leadership, and AviationOklahoma State UniversityStillwaterUSA
  2. 2.Department of Educational PsychologyUniversity of TexasAustinUSA
  3. 3.Mary Lou Fulton Teachers CollegeArizona State UniversityTempeUSA
  4. 4.Department of Curriculum and TeachingUniversity of KansasLawrenceUSA
  5. 5.SandEd - Educational Services and MaterialHoustonUSA
  6. 6.Dharma Drum Mountain Buddhist FoundationTaiwanRepublic of China
  7. 7.Middle School attached to College of EducationDongguk UniversitySeoulSouth Korea
  8. 8.Department of Literature, Writing, and RhetoricSt. Edward’s UniversityAustinUSA
  9. 9.Department of English Language and LiteratureFu Jen Catholic UniversityTaiwanRepublic of China

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options