Advertisement

Cracking her codes: understanding shared technology resources as positioning artifacts for power and status in CSCL environments

  • Amber Simpson
  • Nicole Bannister
  • Gretchen Matthews
Article
First Online:

Abstract

There is a positive relationship between student participation in computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) environments and improved complex problem-solving strategies, increased learning gains, higher engagement in the thinking of their peers, and an enthusiastic disposition toward groupwork. However, student participation varies from group to group, even in contexts where students and teachers have had extensive training in working together. In this study, we use positioning theory and interaction analysis to conceptualize and investigate relationships between student interactions across two partner pairs working with technology in an all-female cryptography summer camp and their negotiated positions of power and status. The analysis resulted in uneven participation patterns, unequal status orderings, and an imbalance of power in both comparison cases. We found a reflexive relationship between partner interactions around shared technology resources and negotiated positions of power and status, which leads us to conclude that interactions around technology function as an important indicator of negotiated positionings of power and status in CSCL settings, and vice-versa. With that said, we found qualitative differences in the ways emergent status problems impacted each team’s productivity with the cryptography challenge, which has important implications for future research on CSCL settings and classroom practice.

Keywords

Interaction analysis Participation Power Status Positioning theory Technology 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

Funding for the camp was received from the Mathematical Association of America (MAA), the American Mathematical Society (AMS), and the Engineering Information Foundation (EiF).

References

  1. Anderson, K. T. (2009). Applying positioning theory to the analysis of classroom interactions: Mediating micro-identities, macro-kinds, and ideologies of knowing. Linguistics and Education, 20, 291–310.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2009.08.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arnseth, H. C., & Krange, I. (2016). What happens when you push the button? Analyzing the functional dynamics of concept development in computer supported science inquiry. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 11, 479–502.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-016-9244-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arvaja, M., Häkkinen, P., & Kankaanranta, M. (2008). Collaborative learning and computer-supported collaborative learning environments. In J. Voogt & G. Knezek (Eds.), International handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education (pp. 267–279). New York, NY: Springer Science+Business Media, LLC.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Azevedo, H. J., Scalabrin, E. E., Faria, M. D. P., & Manfroi, F. (2004). Implementing agents for a collaborative online learning environment. Journal of Computer Science & Technology, 4(2), 98–104.Google Scholar
  5. Baker, M., Bernard, F. X., & Dumez-Féroc, I. (2012). Integrating computer-supported collaborative learning into the classroom: The anatomy of a failure. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 28(2), 161–176.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00435.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barron, B. (2003). When smart groups fail. The Journal of the Learning Science, 12(3), 307–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barron, B. (2006). Interest and self-sustained learning as catalysts of development: A learning ecology perspective. Human Development, 49, 193–224. doi: 10.1159/000094368
  8. Barros-Castro, R. A., Córdoba-Pachón, J. R., & Pinzón-Salcedo, L. A. (2014). A systemic framework for evaluating computer-supported collaborative learning—Mathematical problem-solving (CSCL-MPS) initiatives: Insights from a Colombian case. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 27(3), 265–285.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-013-9279-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bento, R., & Schuster, C. (2003). Participation: The online challenge. In A. Aggarwal (Ed.), Web-based education: Learning from experience (pp. 156–164). Hershey: Information Science Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bishop, J. P. (2012). She’s always been the smart one. I’ve always been the dumb one: Identities in the mathematics classroom. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 43(1), 34–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Burgoon, J. K., Buller, D. B., Hale, J. L., & Turck, M. A. (1984). Relational messages associated with nonverbal behaviors. Human Communication Research, 10(3), 351–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chavez, J., & Romero, M. (2012). Group awareness, learning, and participation in computer supported collaborative learning (CSCL). Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 3068–3073.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cohen, E. G. (1994). Status treatments for the classroom [video]. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  14. Cohen, E. G., & Lotan, R. A. (1995). Producing equal-status interaction in the heterogeneous classroom. American Educational Research Journal, 32(1), 99–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cohen, E. G., & Lotan, R. A. (Eds.). (1997). Working for equity in heterogeneous classrooms: Sociological theory in practice. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  16. Cohen, E. G., & Lotan, R. A. (2014). Designing groupwork: Strategies for the heterogeneous classroom (3rd. ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  17. Cohen, E. G., Lotan, R. A., Scarloss, B. A., & Arellano, A. R. (1999). Complex instruction: Equity in cooperative learning classrooms. Theory Into Practice, 38(2), 80–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Correll, S. J., & Ridgeway, C. L. (2003). Expectation states theory. In J. Delamater (Ed.), Handbook of social psychology (pp. 29–51). New York: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
  19. Crypto Club Project & Eduweb (n.d.). Caesar cipher. Retrieved from www.cryptoclub.org/tools/caesar_cipher.php.
  20. Davies, B., & Harré, R. (1990). Positioning: The discursive production of selves. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 20(1), 43–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Davies, B., & Hunt, R. (1994). Classroom competencies and marginal positionings. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 15(3), 389–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dillenbourg, P. (1999). What do you mean by ‘collaborative learning’? In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Collaborative-learning: Cognitive and computational approaches (pp. 1–19). Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  23. Dillenbourg, P., Järvelä, S., & Fischer, F. (2009). The evolution of research on computer-supported collaborative learning: From design to orchestration. In N. Balacheff, S. Ludvigsen, T. de Jong, A. Laxonder, & S. Barnes (Eds.), Technology-enhanced learning (pp. 3-19). Springer Netherlands.Google Scholar
  24. Esmonde, I. (2009). Mathematics learning in groups: Analyzing equity in two cooperative activity structures. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18(2), 247–284.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10508400902797958.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Esmonde, I., & Langer-Osuna, J. M. (2013). Power in numbers: Students participation in mathematical discussions in heterogeneous spaces. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 44(1), 288–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Featherstone, H., Crespo, S., Jilk, L. M., Oslund, J. A., Parks, A. N., & Wood, M. B. (2011). Smarter together! Collaboration and equity in the elementary math classroom. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  27. Hakkarainen, K., & Palonen, T. (2003). Patterns of female and male students' participation in peer interaction in computer-supported learning. Computers & Education, 40(4), 327–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hall, J. A., Coats, E. J., & LeBeau, L. S. (2005). Nonverbal behavior and the vertical dimension of social relations: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 131(6), 898–924.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.131.6.898.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Harré, R., & van Langenhove, L. (Eds.). (1999). Positioning theory: Moral contexts of intentional action. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
  30. Harré, R., Moghaddam, F. M., Cairnie, T. P., Rothbart, D., & Sabat, S. R. (2009). Recent advances in positioning theory. Theory & Psychology, 19(1), 5–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Henley, N. M. (1977). Body politics. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  32. Herbel-Eisenmann, B. A., Wagner, D., Johnson, K. R., Suh, H., & Figueras, H. (2015). Positioning in mathematics education: Revelations on an imported theory. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 89(2), 185–204.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-014-9588-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Herrenkohl, L. R. (2006). Intellectual role taking: Supporting discussion in heterogeneous elementary science classes. Theory Into Practice, 45(1), 47–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hirsch, D. (2007). Experiences of poverty and educational disadvantage. York, England: Joseph Rowntree FoundationGoogle Scholar
  35. Horn, L. (2012). Strength in numbers: Collaborative learning in secondary mathematics. Reston: NCTM.Google Scholar
  36. Janssen, J., Erkens, G., Kanselaar, G., & Jaspers, J. (2007). Visualization of participation: Does it contribute to successful computer-supported collaborative learning? Computers & Education, 49(4), 1037–1065.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2006.01.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Jefferson, G. (1985). An exercise in the transcription and analysis of laughter. In T. van Dijk (Ed.), Handbook of discourse analysis (Vol. 3: Discourse and Dialogue, pp. 25–34). London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  38. Johnston, M., & Kerper, R. M. (1996). Positioning ourselves: Parity and power in collaborative work. Curriculum Inquiry, 26(1), 5–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Jordan, B., & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(1), 39–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kalelioğlu, F. (2015). A new way of teaching programming skills to K-12 students: Code.org. Computers in Human Behavior, 52, 200–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kapur, M., & Kinzer, C. K. (2007). Examining the effect of problem type in a synchronous computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) environment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(5), 439–459.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-007-9045-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Keiser, G., & Altman, I. (1976). Relationship of nonverbal behavior to the social penetration process. Human Communication Research, 2, 147–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lai, K. W., Khaddage, F., & Knezek, G. (2013). Blending student technology experiences in formal and informal learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(5), 414–425. doi: 10.1111/jcal.12030
  44. Langer-Osuna, J. M. (2016). The social construction of authority among peers and its implications for collaborative mathematics problem solving. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 18(2), 107–124.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10986065.2016.1148529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Law, N., Ludvigsen, S., Cress, U., & Rosé, C. P. (2017). Fostering targeted group practices as a Core focus for CSCL task and technology design. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 12(1), 1–7.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-017-9253-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Leander, K. M. (2002). Locating Latanya: The situated production of identity artifacts in classroom interaction. Research in the Teaching of English, 37(2), 198–250.Google Scholar
  47. Lei, J., & Zhao, Y. (2008). One-to-one computing: What does it bring to schools? Journal of Educational Computing Research, 39(2), 97–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lemke, J. L. (2000). Across the scales of time: Artifacts, activities, and meanings in ecosocial systems. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 7(4), 273–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lipponen, L. (2001). Computer-supported collaborative learning: From promises to reality. Unpublished doctoral dissertation (Series B, Humaniora, 245). University of Turku, Turku, Finland.Google Scholar
  50. Lipponen, L., Rahikainen, M., Lallimo, J., & Hakkarainen, K. (2003). Patterns of participation and discourse in elementary students’ computer-supported collaborative learning. Learning and Instruction, 13(5), 487–509.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(02)00042-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Lyons, R., Dsouza, N., & Quigley, C. (2016). Viewing equitable practices through the lens of intersecting identities. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 11, 941–951.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-015-9699-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Major, B., & Heslin, R. (1982). Perceptions of cross-sex and same-sex nonreciprocal touch: It is better to give than to receive. Journal of Noverbal Behavior, 6, 148–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Martin, D. B. (2006). Mathematics learning and participation as racialized forms of experience: African American parents speak on the struggle for mathematics literacy. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 8(3), 197–229.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327833mtl0803_2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Mehrabian, A. (1969). Significance of posture and position in the communication of attitude and status relationships. Psychological Bulletin, 71(5), 359–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Moghaddam, F. M., Harré, R., & Lee, N. (2008). Positioning and conflict: An introduction. In F. M. Moghaddam, R. Harré, & N. Lee (Eds.), Global conflict resolution through positioning analysis (pp. 3–20). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Nasir, N., Cabana, C., Shreve, B., Woodbury, E., & Louie, N. (2014). Mathematics for equity: A framework for successful practice. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  57. National Science Foundation [NSF]. (2015). Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2015/nsf15311/digest/nsf15311-digest.pdf
  58. Ochs, E. (1979). Transcription as theory. In E. Ochs (Ed.), Developmental pragmatics (pp. 43–72). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  59. Paulus, T., Stewart, H., Reece, A., & Long, P. (2009). Positioning theory as analytical tool for understanding intersubjective meaning-making. In Proceedings of the 9th international conference on computer supported collaborative learning (Vol. 2). Rhodes, Greece: International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar
  60. Penuel, W. R. (2006). Implementation and effects of one-to-one computing initiatives: A research synthesis. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(3), 329–348.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2006.10782463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Peppler, K., Halverson, E. R., & Kafai, Y. B. (2017). Introduction to this volume. In K. Peppler, E. R. Halverson, & Y. B. Kafai (Eds.), Makeology: Makerspacers as learning environments (pp. 1–11). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  62. Perrotta, C., & Evans, M. A. (2013). Orchestration, power, and educational technology: A response to Dillenbourg. Computers & Education, 69, 520–522.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.04.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Prinsen, F. R., Volman, M. L. L., & Terwel, J. (2007). Gender-related differences in computer-mediated communication and computer-supported collaborative learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(5), 393–409.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2007.00224.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Ritchie, S. M. (2002). Student positioning within groups during science activities. Research in Science Education, 32, 35–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Rivest, R., Shamir, A., & Adleman, L. (1978). A method for obtaining digital signatures and public-key cryptosystems. Communications of the ACM, 21(2), 120–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Roth, W. M. (2015). Rigorous data analysis: Beyond “anything goes”. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Salomon, G., & Globerson, T. (1989). When teams do not function the way they ought to. International Journal of Educational Research, 13(1), 89–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Salovaara, H. (2005). An exploration of students' strategy use in inquiry-based computer-supported collaborative learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(1), 39–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Shaw, R. S. (2013). The relationships among group size, participation, and performance of programming language learning supported with online forums. Computers & Education, 62, 196–207.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.11.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Shell, D. F., Husman, J., Turner, J. E., Cliffel, D. M., Nath, I., & Sweany, N. (2005). The impact of computer supported collaborative learning communities on high school students' knowledge building, strategic learning, and perceptions of the classroom. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 33(3), 327–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Sinha, S., Rogat, T. K., Adams-Wiggins, K. R., & Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2015). Collaborative group engagement in a computer-supported inquiry learning environment. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 10(3), 273–307.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-015-9218-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Song, Y. (2014). Bring your own device (BYOD) for seamless science inquiry in a primary school. Computers & Education, 74, 50–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Stahl, G. (2017). Group practices: A new way of viewing CSCL. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 12(1), 113–126.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-017-9251-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Strijbos, J. W., Martens, R. L., Jochems, W. M., & Broers, N. J. (2007). The effect of functional roles on perceived group efficiency during computer-supported collaborative learning: A matter of triangulation. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(1), 353–380.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2004.10.016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Tait-McCutcheon, S. L., & Loveridge, J. (2016). Examining equity of opportunities for learning mathematics through positioning theory. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 28, 327–348.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-016-0169-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Tissenbaum, M., Berland, M., & Lyons, L. (2017). DCLM framework: Understanding collaboration in open-ended tabletop learning environments. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 12, 35–64.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-017-9249-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. van Langenhove, L., & Harré, R. (1995). Cultural stereotypes and positioning theory. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 24(4), 359–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. van Langenhove, L., & Harré, R. (1999). Introducing positioning theory. In R. Harré & L. van Langenhove (Eds.), Positioning theory: Moral contexts of intentional action (pp. 14–31). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
  79. Wagner, D., & Herbel-Eisenmann, B. (2009). Re-mythologizing mathematics through attention to classroom positioning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 72(1), 1–15.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-008-9178-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Wang, S. L., & Lin, S. S. (2007). The effects of group composition of self-efficacy and collective efficacy on computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(5), 2256–2268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Webb, N. M., Ing, M., Kersting, N., & Nemer, K. M. (2006). Help seeking in cooperative learning groups. In S. A. Karabenick (Ed.), Strategic help seeking: Implications for learning and teaching (pp. 45–115). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc..Google Scholar
  82. West-Olatunji, C., Pringle, R., Adams, T., Baratelli, A., Goodman, R., & Maxis, S. (2007). How African American middle school girls position themselves as mathematics and science learners. The International Journal of Learning, 14(9), 219–227.Google Scholar
  83. White, T. (2006). Code talk: Student discourse and participation with networked handhelds. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(3), 359–382.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-006-9658-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Winters, F. I., & Alexander, P. A. (2011). Peer collaboration: The relation of regulatory behaviors to learning with hypermedia. Instructional Science, 39(4), 407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Wohlwend, K. (2009). Mediated discourse analysis: Researching young children’s non-verbal interactions as social practice. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 7(3), 228–243.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1476718X09336950.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Wolfram Alpha LLC. (2016). Wolfram|Alpha Retrieved from www.wolframalpha.com/.
  87. Wood, M. B., & Kalinec, C. A. (2012). Student talk and opportunities for mathematical learning in small group interactions. International Journal of Educational Research, 51–52, 109–127.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2011.12.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Yoon, B. (2008). Uninvited guests: The influence of teachers’ roles and pedagogies on the positioning of English language learners in the regular classroom. American Educational Research Journal, 45(2), 495–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society of the Learning Sciences, Inc. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Amber Simpson
    • 1
  • Nicole Bannister
    • 2
  • Gretchen Matthews
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Teaching, Learning, and Educational LeadershipBinghamton UniversityBinghamtonUSA
  2. 2.College of EducationClemson UniversityClemsonUSA
  3. 3.Department of Mathematical SciencesClemson UniversityClemsonUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options