Contribution to a theory of CSCL scripts: taking into account the appropriation of scripts by learners

Article

Abstract

This paper presents a contribution to the development of a theory of CSCL scripts, i.e., an understanding of what happens when learners engage in such scripts. It builds on the Script Theory of Guidance (SToG) recently proposed by (Fischer et al. in Educational Psychologist, 48(1), 56–66, 2013). We argue that, when engaged in a collaborative situation structured by a CSCL script, what learners consider is not “the script”, but their appropriation of the script. Appropriation is a complex cognitive process which plays a role in both the recognition/conceptualization of the task to be achieved and its enactment, and is not dependent on the script only: it may be influenced by different external aspects. Therefore SToG and, actually, any theoretical framework attempting to provide an explanation of what happens when learners engage in CSCL scripts, should take into account appropriation issues. We develop our argumentation by focusing on technology-related aspects of appropriation and the role of institutional, domain and motivational aspects.

Keywords

CSCL scripts Appropriation Script Theory of Guidance (SToG) 

References

  1. Artigue, M., & Winsløw, C. (2010). International comparative studies on mathematics education: A viewpoint from the anthropological theory of didactics. Recherches en Didactique des Mathématiques, 30(1), 47–82.Google Scholar
  2. Baker, M. J., & Lund, K. (1997). Promoting reflective interactions in a computer-supported collaborative learning environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 13, 175–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Betbeder, M.L., & Tchounikine, P. (2003). Symba: A Framework to Support Collective Activities in an Educational Context. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Computers in Education, pp. 188–196, Hong-Kong.Google Scholar
  4. Bosch, M. (2015). Doing research within the anthropological theory of the didactic: The case of school algebra. In Selected regular lectures from the 12th international congress on mathematical education (pp. 51–69). Cham: Springer International Publishing Switzerland.Google Scholar
  5. Brousseau, G. (1984). The crucial role of the didactical contract in the analysis and construction of situations in teaching and learning mathematics. In H.-G. Steiner (Ed.), Theory of mathematics education (pp. 110–119). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  6. Brousseau, G. (1997). Theory of didactical situations in mathematics. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publisher.Google Scholar
  7. Cabassut, R. (2005). Argumentation and proof in examples taken from French and German textbooks. In: Proceedings of the 4th Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education, pp. 391–400.Google Scholar
  8. Chevallard, Y. (2007). Readjusting didactics to a changing epistemology. European Educational Research Journal, 6, 9–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dillenbourg, P. (2002). Over-scripting CSCL: The risks of blending collaborative learning with instructional design. In P. A. Kirschner (Ed.), Three worlds of CSCL. Can we support CSCL (pp. 61–91). Heerlen: Open Universiteit Nederland.Google Scholar
  10. Dillenbourg, P., & Tchounikine, P. (2007). Flexibility in macro-scripts for CSCL. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(1), 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Engeström, Y., Miettinen, R., & Punamäki, R. L. (1999). Perspectives on activity theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fischer, F., Mandl, H., Haake, J., & Kollar, I. (2007). Scripting computer-supported collaborative learning – cognitive, computational, and educational perspectives, Computer-supported collaborative learning series. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  13. Fischer, F., Kollar, I., Stegmann, K., & Wecker, C. (2013). Toward a script theory of guidance in computer-supported collaborative learning. Educational Psychologist, 48(1), 56–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hernández-Leo, D., Asensio-Pérez, J. I., Dimitriadis, Y., & Villasclaras-Fernández, E. D. (2010). Generating CSCL scripts: From a conceptual model of pattern languages to the design a real situation (Appendix). In P. Goodyear & S. Retalis (Eds.), Technology enhanced learning, design patterns and pattern languages. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  15. Hersant, M., & Perrin-Glorian, M. J. (2005). Characterization of an ordinary teaching practice with the help of the theory of didactic situations. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 59(1–3), 113–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kobbe, L., Weinberger, A., Dillenbourg, P., Harrer, A., Hämäläinen, R., Häkkinen, P., & Fischer, F. (2007). Specifying computer-supported collaboration scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(2–3), 211–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kollar, I., Fischer, F., & Hesse, F. W. (2006). Collaboration scripts—A conceptual analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 18, 159–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kollar, I., Fischer, F., & Slotta, J. D. (2007). Internal and external scripts in computer-supported collaborative inquiry learning. Learning and Instruction, 17, 708–721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Miao, Y., Hoeksema, K., Hoppe, U., & Harrer, A. (2005). CSCL scripts: Modelling features and potential use. In International Computer Supported Collaborative Learning Conference (CD-Rom), Taipei (Taiwan).Google Scholar
  20. Norman, D. A. (1993). Things that make us smart. Reading: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  21. Rabardel, P. (2001). Instrument mediated activity in situations. In A. Blandford, J. Vanderdonckt, & P. Gray (Eds.), People and computers XV - interactions without frontiers (pp. 17–30). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  22. Rabardel, P. (2003). From artefact to instrument. Interacting with Computers, 15(5), 641–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rummel, N., & Spada, H. (2005). Learning to collaborate: An instructional approach to promoting collaborative problem solving in computer-mediated settings. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14, 201–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sarrazy, B. (2002). Effects of variability on responsiveness to the didactic contract in problem-solving among pupils of 9-10 years. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 17(4), 321–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Schank, R. C., & Abelson, R. P. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals and understanding. An inquiry into human knowledge structures. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  26. Schellens, T., Van Keer, H., De Wever, B., & Valcke, M. (2007). Scripting by assigning roles: Does it improve knowledge construction in asynchronous discussion groups? International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2, 225–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Schoonenboom, J. (2008). The effect of a script and a structured interface in grounding discussions. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3, 327–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Slof, B., Erkens, G., Kirschner, P. A., Jaspers, J., & Janssen, J. (2010). Guiding students’ online complex learning-task behavior through representational scripting. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 927–939.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Stahl, G. (2016). 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). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Stegmann, K., Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2007). Facilitating argumentative knowledge construction with computer-supported collaboration scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(4), 421–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Tchounikine, P. (2008). Operationalizing macro-scripts in CSCL technological settings. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3(2), 193–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Tchounikine, P. (2011). Computer science and educational software design – A resource for multidisciplinary work in technology enhanced learning. Berlin: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-20003-8_6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Tchounikine, P. (2013). Clarifying design for orchestration: Orchestration and orchestrable technology, scripting and conducting. Computers & Education, 69, 500–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Tchounikine, P. (2016). Designing for appropriation: A theoretical account. Human Computer Interaction. doi: 10.1080/07370024.2016.1203263 (in press, downloadable from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07370024.2016.1203263).Google Scholar
  35. Vergnaud, G. (1998). Towards a cognitive theory of practice. In J. Kilpatrick & A. Sierpinska (Eds.), Mathematics education as a research domain: A search for identity (pp. 227–240). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  36. Weinberger, A., Ertl, B., Fischer, F., & Mandl, H. (2005). Epistemic and social scripts in computer-supported collaborative learning. Instructional Science, 33(1), 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Weinberger, A., Stegmann, K., & Fischer, F. (2010). Learning to argue online: Scripted groups surpass individuals (unscripted groups do not). Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 506–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society of the Learning Sciences, Inc. 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University Grenoble Alpes, LIGGrenobleFrance

Personalised recommendations