Advertisement

Conceptualizing the designs of authentic computer-supported collaborative learning environments in schools

  • Yotam HodEmail author
  • Ornit Sagy
Article

Abstract

A major perspective within research on computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) approaches learning as a cultural practice and considers the implications of this on the way classroom learning environments are designed. Often referred to as authentic learning, many innovative approaches to the design of learning environments come with the intention that practices of the people who are experts in a domain are enculturated by the participating students. Different approaches taken given the constraints of educational settings have led to conceptual fragmentation in this area of CSCL scholarship. Therefore, the dual aim of this research is to advance our understanding of the relevant cultures at play when designing for authenticity and show how these cut across different approaches taken for the design of authentic CSCL environments in schools. Using the constant-comparative method, we looked back at the past quarter century of sociocultural research to analyze the way different variations of sociocultural activities, scenes, participants, time, and cultural tools have been designed within authentic CSCL environments. A refined conceptualization of authentic learning that elucidates the relationships between intended, current, and authentic cultures emerged coupled with a novel coding scheme and visualization tool that can help the field rise above the wide variation in designs for authenticity.

Keywords

Authentic learning CSCL Design Enculturation Sociocultural 

Notes

References

  1. Akkerman, S., & Bakker, A. (2011). Boundary crossing and boundary objects. Review of Educational Research, 81(2), 132–169.Google Scholar
  2. Akkerman, S., & Bruining, T. (2016). Multilevel boundary crossing in a professional development school partnership. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 25(2), 240–284.Google Scholar
  3. Arnseth, H. C., & Ludvigsen, S. (2006). Approaching institutional contexts: Systemic versus dialogic research in CSCL. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(2), 167–185.Google Scholar
  4. Barab, S. A., & Kirshner, D. (2001). Guest editors' introduction: Rethinking methodology in the learning sciences. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10(1–2), 5–15.Google Scholar
  5. Barab, S. A., Cherkes-Julkowski, M., Swenson, R., Garrett, S., Shaw, R. E., & Young, M. (1999). Principles of self-organization: Learning as participation in autocatakinetic systems. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8(3–4), 349–390.Google Scholar
  6. Barab, S. A., Hay, K. E., & Yamagata-Lynch, L. C. (2001). Constructing networks of action-relevant episodes: An in situ research methodology. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10(1–2), 63–112.Google Scholar
  7. Barab, S. A., Barnett, M., & Squire, K. (2002). Developing an empirical account of a community of practice: Characterizing the essential tensions. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(4), 489–542.Google Scholar
  8. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (2003). Learning to work creatively with knowledge). In E. De Corte, L. Verschaffel, N. Entwistle, & J. van Merrienboer (Eds.), Unravelling basic components and dimensions of powerful learning environments (pp. 55–68). Chicago, IL: Open Court.Google Scholar
  9. Berland, L. K. (2011). Explaining variation in how classroom communities adapt the practice of scientific argumentation. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20(4), 625–664.Google Scholar
  10. Bielaczyc, K., & Ow, J. (2014). Multi-player epistemic games: Guiding the enactment of classroom knowledge-building communities. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 9(1), 33–62.Google Scholar
  11. Bielaczyc, K., Kapur, M., & Collins, A. (2013). Cultivating a community of learners in K-12 classrooms. In C. E. Hmelo-Silver, C. A. Zhang, C. K. Chan, & A. M. O’Donnell (Eds.), International handbook of collaborative learning (pp. 233–249). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1994). Guided discovery in a community of learners. In K. McGilly (Ed.), Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice (pp. 229–272). Cambridge, UK: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  13. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., Duguid, P., & Brown, S. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.Google Scholar
  14. Bugental, J. F. (1981). The search for authenticity: An existential-analytic approach to psychotherapy. Irvington Publications.Google Scholar
  15. Burke, K. (1969). A grammar of motives. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  16. Charmaz, K. (2008). Grounded theory as an emergent method. In S. N. Hesse-Biber & P. Leavy (Eds.), Handbook of emergent methods (pp. 155–172). New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  17. Chin, C., & Osborne, J. (2010). Supporting argumentation through students' questions: Case studies in science classrooms. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(2), 230–284.Google Scholar
  18. Cho, Y. H., Caleon, I. S., & Kapur, M. (2015). Authentic problem solving and learning in the 21st century: Perspectives from Singapore and beyond. Singapore: Springer.Google Scholar
  19. Clement, J. J., & Steinberg, M. S. (2002). Step-wise evolution of mental models of electric circuits: A “learning-aloud” case study. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(4), 389–452.Google Scholar
  20. Cole, M., & Packer, M. (2016). Design-based intervention research as the science of the doubly artificial. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 25(4), 503–530.Google Scholar
  21. Collins, A. (2006). Cognitive apprenticeship). In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 47–60). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Collins, A., & Bielaczyc, K. (1999). The enculturation of educational thinking. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8(1), 129–138.Google Scholar
  23. Damşa, C. I. (2014). The multi-layered nature of small-group learning: Productive interactions in object-oriented collaboration. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 9(3), 247–281.Google Scholar
  24. De Bruijn, E., & Leeman, Y. (2011). Authentic and self-directed learning in vocational education: Challenges to vocational educators. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(4), 694–702.Google Scholar
  25. De Bruyckere, P., & Kirschner, P. A. (2016). Authentic teachers: Student criteria perceiving authenticity of teachers. Cogent Education, 3(1), 1–15.Google Scholar
  26. DiSalvo, B., Guzdial, M., Bruckman, A., & McKlin, T. (2014). Saving face while geeking out: Video game testing as a justification for learning computer science. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 23(3), 272–315.Google Scholar
  27. Dwyer, N., & Suthers, D. D. (2006). Consistent practices in artifact-mediated collaboration. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(4), 481–511.Google Scholar
  28. Edelson, D., & Reiser, B. (2006). Making authentic practices accessible to learning: Design challenges and strategies. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 335–354). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Engeström, Y. (2009). From learning environments and implementation to activity systems and expansive learning. An International Journal of Human Activity Theory, 2, 17–33.Google Scholar
  30. Etkina, E., Karelina, A., Ruibal-Villasenor, M., Rosengrant, D., Jordan, R., & Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2010). Design and reflection help students develop scientific abilities: Learning in introductory physics laboratories. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(1), 54–98.Google Scholar
  31. Fischer, G., Rohde, M., & Wulf, V. (2007). Community-based learning: The core competency of residential, research-based universities. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(1), 9–40.Google Scholar
  32. Forte, A. (2015). The new information literate: Open collaboration and information production in schools. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 10(1), 35–51.Google Scholar
  33. Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
  34. Gordin, D. N., & Pea, R. D. (1995). Prospects for scientific visualization as an educational technology. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(3), 249–279.Google Scholar
  35. Hakkarainen, K., Paavola, S., Kangas, K., & Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P. (2013). Sociocultural perspectives on collaborative learning: Toward collaborative knowledge creation. In C. E. Hmelo-Silver, C. Chinn, C. Chan, & A. M. O'Donnell (Eds.), The international handbook of collaborative learning. UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  36. Hay, K. E., & Barab, S. A. (2001). Constructivism in practice: A comparison and contrast of apprenticeship and constructionist learning environments. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10(3), 281–322.Google Scholar
  37. Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life, and work in communities and classrooms. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Herrenkohl, L. R., & Cornelius, L. (2013). Investigating elementary students’ scientific and historical argumentation. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 22(3), 413–461.Google Scholar
  39. Hod, Y. (2017). Future learning spaces in schools: Concepts and designs from the learning sciences. Journal of Formative Design in Learning, 1(2), 99–109.Google Scholar
  40. Hod, Y., Sagy, O., Kali, Y., & Taking Citizen Science to School. (2018). The opportunities of networks of research-practice partnerships and why CSCL should not give up on large-scale educational change. International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 13(4), 457–466.Google Scholar
  41. Holland, D., Lachicotte, W., Jr., Skinner, D., & Cain, C. (1998). Identity and agency in cultural worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Hung, D., Lim, K. Y., Chen, D. T. V., & Koh, T. S. (2008). Leveraging online communities in fostering adaptive schools. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3(4), 373–386.Google Scholar
  43. Izsák, A., Çağlayan, G., & Olive, J. (2009). Meta-representation in an algebra I classroom. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18(4), 549–587.Google Scholar
  44. Jacobson, M., & Reimann, P. (2010). Designs for learning environments of the future. Springer.Google Scholar
  45. Kali, Y., Baram-Tsabari, A., & Schejter, A. (in press). Learning in a networked society. Springer’s Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) Series. Google Scholar
  46. Kolikant, Y. B. D., & Ben-Ari, M. (2008). Fertile zones of cultural encounter in computer science education. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17(1), 1–32.Google Scholar
  47. Kolodner, J. L. (2005). A note from the editor. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(1), 1–3.Google Scholar
  48. Kolodner, J. L., Camp, P. J., Crismond, D., Fasse, B., Gray, J., Holbrook, J., & Ryan, M. (2003). Problem-based learning meets case-based reasoning in the middle-school science classroom: Putting learning by design into practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(4), 495–547.Google Scholar
  49. Kreber, C., Klampfleitner, M., McCune, V., Bayne, S., & Knottenbelt, M. (2007). What do you mean by “authentic”? A comparative review of the literature on conceptions of authenticity in teaching. Adult Education Quarterly, 58, 22–43.Google Scholar
  50. Kulikowich, J. M., & Young, M. F. (2001). Locating an ecological psychology methodology for situated action. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10(1–2), 165–202.Google Scholar
  51. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Lee, V. R., Yuan, M., Ye, L., & Recker, M. (2016). Reconstructing the influences on and focus of the learning sciences from the field's published conference proceedings in. In M. A. Evans, M. J. Packer, & R. K. Sawyer (Eds.), Reflections on the learning sciences (pp. 105–125). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Lim, C. P., & Barnes, S. (2005). A collective case study of the use of ICT in economics courses: A sociocultural approach. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(4), 489–526.Google Scholar
  54. Looi, C. K., So, H. J., Toh, Y., & Chen, W. (2011). The Singapore experience: Synergy of national policy, classroom practice and design research. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6(1), 9–37.Google Scholar
  55. Lund, A., & Rasmussen, I. (2008). The right tool for the wrong task? Match and mismatch between first and second stimulus in double stimulation. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3(4), 387–412.Google Scholar
  56. Magnusson, S. J., Templin, M., & Boyle, R. A. (1997). Dynamic science assessment: A new approach for investigating conceptual change. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6(1), 91–142.Google Scholar
  57. McClain, K. (2002a). The object and the context: What our data are and where they come from. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(2–3), 163–185.Google Scholar
  58. McClain, K. (2002b). Teacher's and students’ understanding: The role of tools and inscriptions in supporting effective communication. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(2–3), 217–249.Google Scholar
  59. Nasir, R., & Lee, W. (2014). Knowledge building and knowledge creation: Theory, pedagogy, and technology. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (Second ed., pp. 687–706). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  60. O'Neill, D. K. (2001). Knowing when you've brought them in: Scientific genre knowledge and communities of practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10(3), 223–264.Google Scholar
  61. Öner, D. (2008). Supporting students’ participation in authentic proof activities in computer supported collaborative learning (CSCL) environments. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3(3), 343–359.Google Scholar
  62. Palincsar, A. S. (1989). Commentary: Less charted waters. Educational Researcher, 18(4), 5–7.Google Scholar
  63. Polman, J. L. (2006). Mastery and appropriation as means to understand the interplay of history learning and identity trajectories. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(2), 221–259.Google Scholar
  64. Radinsky, J., Bouillion, L., Lento, E. M., & Gomez, L. M. (2001). Mutual benefit partnership: A curricular design for authenticity. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 33(4), 405–430.Google Scholar
  65. Rogers, C. R. (1969). Freedom to learn. Columbus, OH: Charles Merrill Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  66. Rogoff, B. (1995). Observing sociocultural activity on three planes: Participatory appropriation, guided participation, and apprenticeship. In J. V. Wertsch, P. D. Rio, & A. Alvarez (Eds.), Sociocultural studies of mind (pp. 139–164). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  67. Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  68. Rogoff, B., & Chavajay, P. (1995). What’s become of research on the cultural basis of cognitive development? American Psychologist, 50(10), 859–877.Google Scholar
  69. Roschelle, J., Bakia, M., Toyama, Y., & Patton, C. (2011). Eight issues for learning scientists about education and the economy. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20(1), 3–49.Google Scholar
  70. Rosebery, A. S., Warren, B., & Conant, F. R. (1992). Appropriating scientific discourse: Findings from language minority classrooms. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(1), 61–94.Google Scholar
  71. Roth, W. M., McGinn, M. K., Woszczyna, C., & Boutonne, S. (1999). Differential participation during science conversations: The interaction of focal artifacts, social configurations, and physical arrangements. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8(3–4), 293–347.Google Scholar
  72. Sawyer, R. K. (2014). Foundations of the learning sciences. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (2nd ed., pp. 1–20). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  73. Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational Researcher, 27(2), 4–13.Google Scholar
  74. Sfard, A. (2007). When the rules of discourse change, but nobody tells you: Making sense of mathematics learning from a commognitive standpoint. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16(4), 565–613.Google Scholar
  75. Shaffer, D. W., & Resnick, M. (1999). “Thick” authenticity: New media and authentic learning. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 10, 195–215.Google Scholar
  76. Sharples, M., & Pea, R. (2014). Mobile learning. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (2nd ed., pp. 501–521). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  77. Song, Y., & Looi, C. K. (2012). Linking teacher beliefs, practices and student inquiry-based learning in a CSCL environment: A tale of two teachers. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 7(1), 129–159.Google Scholar
  78. Stahl, G. (2012). Traversing planes of learning. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 7(4), 1–7.Google Scholar
  79. Stahl, G., Law, N., Cress, U., & Ludvigsen, S. (2014). Analyzing roles of individuals in small-group collaboration processes. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 9(4), 365–370.Google Scholar
  80. Sutherland, R., & Fischer, F. (2014). Future learning spaces: Design, collaboration, knowledge, assessment, teachers, technology and the radical past. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 23(1), 1–5.Google Scholar
  81. Suthers, D. D., & Hundhausen, C. D. (2003). An experimental study of the effects of representational guidance on collaborative learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(2), 183–218.Google Scholar
  82. Timmis, S. (2014). The dialectical potential of cultural historical activity theory for researching sustainable CSCL practices. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 9(1), 7–32.Google Scholar
  83. Wells, G., & Arauz, R. M. (2006). Dialogue in the classroom. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(3), 379–428.Google Scholar
  84. Wise, A., & Schwarz, B. (2017). Visions of CSCL: Eight provocations for the future of the field. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 12, 423–467.Google Scholar
  85. Zhang, J., Scardamalia, M., Reeve, R., & Messina, R. (2009). Designs for collective cognitive responsibility in knowledge-building communities. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18(1), 7–44.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society of the Learning Sciences, Inc. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of HaifaHaifaIsrael

Personalised recommendations