Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Using a semantic diagram to structure a collaborative problem solving process in the classroom

  • Development Article
  • Published:
Educational Technology Research and Development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study provides an in-depth look into the implementation process of visualization-based tools for structuring collaborative problem solving (CPS) in the classroom. A visualization-based learning platform—the semantic diagram for structuring CPS in a real classroom was designed and implemented. Metafora, the preliminary vehicle of the semantic diagram, was integrated into the Food and Nutrition CPS curriculum in a fifth-grade science classroom in east China. Data of a teacher’s and her students’ activities from the CPS classroom were analyzed to understand how Metafora could be integrated into the CPS instructional process, what roles Metafora and the teacher played in the CPS project, and to what extent Metafora might have affected the teacher’s instruction and the students’ learning activities in the CPS classroom. Results showed that the semantic diagram could be integrated into the CPS classroom adaptively and flexibly, and that it was important to keep a balance between the role of the semantic diagram and the role of the teacher. Implications for semantic diagram design and implementation for structuring CPS in the classroom, as well as future work about the semantic diagram will be discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aronson, E., Blaney, N., Sikes, J., Stephan, G., & Snapp, M. (Eds.). (1978). The jigsaw classroom. Beverly Hills: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker, M., & Lund, K. (1997). Promoting reflective interactions in a CSCL environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 13(3), 175–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barab, S., & Squire, K. (2004). Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Care, E., & Griffin, P. (2014). An approach to assessment of collaborative problem solving. Research & Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 9(3), 367–388.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, M. H., Zhang, J., & Lee, J. (2013). Making collective progress visible for sustained knowledge building. In N. Rummel, M. Kapur, M. Nathan, & S. Puntambekar (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning: To See the World and a Grain of Sand: Learning Across Levels of Space, Time, and Scale (pp. 81–88). Madison: International Society of the Learning Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cho, K. L., & Jonassen, D. H. (2002). The effects of argumentation scaffolds on argumentation and problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 5–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, D. B., & Linn, M. C. (2013). The knowledge integration perspective: Connections across research and education. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Conceptual Change (2nd ed., pp. 520–538). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawes, L. (2004). Talk and learning in classroom science. International Journal of Science Education, 26(6), 677–695.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dawes, L., Mercer, N., & Wegerif, R. (Eds.). (2000). Thinking together: A programme of activities for developing speaking, listening and thinking skills for children aged 8–11. Birmingham: Imaginative Minds Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Dillenbourg, P. (2013). Design for classroom orchestration. Computers & Education, 69, 485–492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dillenbourg, P., & Hong, F. (2008). The mechanics of CSCL macro scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3(1), 5–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dillenbourg, P., & Jermann, P. (2007). Designing integrative scripts. In F. Fischer, I. Kollar, H. Mandl, & J. M. Haake (Eds.), Scripting computer-supported collaborative learning (pp. 275–301). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Dillenbourg, P., & Jermann, P. (2010). Technology for classroom orchestration. In M. S. Khine & I. M. Saleh (Eds.), New science of learning (pp. 525–552). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Dimitriadis, Y. A. (2012). Supporting teachers in orchestrating CSCL classrooms. In A. Jimoyiannis (Ed.), Research on e-Learning and ICT in education (pp. 71–82). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Dragon, T., Mavrikis, M., McLaren, B., Harrer, A., Kynigos, C., Wegerif, R., & Yang, Y. (2013). Metafora: A web-based platform for learning to learn together in science and mathematics. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 6(3), 197–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engelmann, T., & Hesse, F. W. (2010). How digital concept maps about the collaborators’ knowledge and information influence computer-supported collaborative problem solving. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5(3), 299–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, F., Kollar, I., Mandl, H., & Haake, H. M. (Eds.). (2007). Scripting computer-supported collaborative learning: Cognitive, computational and educational perspectives. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ge, X., & Land, S. M. (2004). A conceptual framework for scaffolding ill-structured problem-solving processes using question prompts and peer interactions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52, 5–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gu, X., Chen, S., Zhu, W., & Lin, L. (2015a). An intervention framework designed to develop the collaborative problem-solving skills of primary school students. Educational Technology Research & Development, 63(1), 143–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gu, X., & Quan, G. (2014). The literature review of visual knowledge representation and model by semantic diagram. e-Education Research, 5, 45–52. (In Chinese).

    Google Scholar 

  • Gu, X., Shao, Y., Guo, X., & Lim, C. (2015b). Designing a role structure to engage students in computer-supported collaborative learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 24, 13–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hämäläinen, R., Oksanen, K., & Häkkinen, P. (2008). Designing and analyzing collaboration in a scripted game for vocational education. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(6), 2496–2506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrer, A., Pfahler, K., De Groot, R., & Abdu, R. (2013). Research on collaborative planning and reflection-methods and tools in the Metafora project. In D. Hernández-Leo, T. Ley, R. Klamma, & A. Harrer (Eds.), Scaling up learning for sustained impact (pp. 139–150). Berlin Heidelberg: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hernández-Leo, D., Villasclaras-Fernández, E. D., Asensio-Pérez, J. I., Dimitriadis, Y., Jorrín-Abellán, I. M., Ruiz-Requies, I., & Rubia-Avi, B. (2006). Collage: A collaborative learning design editor based on patterns. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 9(1), 58–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hmelo-Silver, C., & Barrows, H. (2008). Facilitating collaborative knowledge building. Cognition and Instruction, 26(1), 48–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hyerle, D., & Alper, L. (Eds.). (2011). Student successes with thinking maps. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jermann, P., & Dillenbourg, P. (2003). Elaborating new arguments through a CSCL script. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn (pp. 205–226). Netherlands: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, L., Adams, B. S., Estrada, V., & Freeman, A. (2014). NMC horizon report: 2014K-12 Edition. Austin, TX: The New Media Consortium.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, M. C., & Hannafin, M. J. (2011). Scaffolding problem solving in technology-enhanced learning environments (TELEs): Bridging research and theory with practice. Computers & Education, 56(2), 403–417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirschner, P., Strijbos, J. W., Kreijns, K., & Beers, P. J. (2004). Designing electronic collaborative learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(3), 47–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kollar, I., Fischer, F., & Hesse, F. W. (2006). Collaboration scripts: A conceptual analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 18(2), 159–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kollar, I., Hämäläinen, R., Evans, M., DeWever, B., & Perrotta, C. (2011). Orchestrating CSCL-more than a metaphor. In H. Spada, G. Stahl, N. Miyake, & N. Law (Eds.), Proceedings of the Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning: Connecting Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning to Policy and Practice (pp. 946–947). Madison: International Society of the Learning Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lui, M., & Slotta, J. D. (2014). Immersive simulations for smart classrooms: Exploring evolutionary concepts in secondary science. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 23(1), 57–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mercer, N., Wegerif, R., & Dawes, L. (1999). Children’s talk and the development of reasoning in the classroom. British Educational Research Journal, 25(1), 95–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Novak, J. D., & Cañas, A. J. (2008). The theory underlying concept maps and how to construct and use them. Technical report. Pensacola: Institute for Human and Machine Cognition.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Donnell, A. M., & Dansereau, D. F. (1992). Scripted cooperation in student dyads: A method for analyzing and enhancing academic learning and performance. In R. Hertz-Lazarowitz & N. Miller (Eds.), Interaction in cooperative groups: The theoretical anatomy of group learning (pp. 120–141). London: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2013). PISA 2015 collaborative problem solving framework. OECD Publishing. http://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/Draft%20PISA%202015%20Collaborative%20Problem%20Solving%20Framework%20.pdf.

  • Penuel, W. R., Roschelle, J., & Shechtman, N. (2007). Designing formative assessment software with teachers: An analysis of the co-design process. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 2(1), 51–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prieto, L. P., Villagrá-Sobrino, S., Jorrín-Abellán, I. M., Martínez-Monés, A., & Dimitriadis, Y. (2011). Recurrent routines: Analyzing and supporting orchestration in technology-enhanced primary classrooms. Computers & Education, 57(1), 1214–1227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quintana, C., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Krajcik, J., Fretz, E., Duncan, R. G., & Soloway, E. (2004). A scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 337–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raven, J. C. (1936). Mental tests used in genetic studies: The performances of related individuals in tests mainly educative and mainly reproductive. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, University of London.

  • Roschelle, J., Dimitriadis, Y., & Hoppe, U. (2013). Classroom orchestration: Synthesis. Computers & Education, 69, 523–526.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slof, B., Erkens, G., Kirschner, P. A., & Helms-Lorenz, M. (2013). The effects of inspecting and constructing part-task-specific visualizations on team and individual learning. Computers & Education, 60(1), 221–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slotta, J. D. (2004). The web-based inquiry science environment (WISE): Scaffolding knowledge integration in the science classroom. In M. C. Linn, E. A. Davis, & P. Bell (Eds.), Internet environments for science education (pp. 203–231). NJ: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stahl, G., Koschmann, T., & Suthers, D. (2006). Computer-supported collaborative learning: An historical perspective. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 409–426). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stahl, G., Law, N., & Hesse, F. (2013). Collaborative learning at CSCL 2013. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3(8), 267–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suthers, D. D. (2001). Towards a systematic study of representational guidance for collaborative learning discourse. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 7(3), 254–277.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suthers, D. D. (2005). Technology affordances for intersubjective learning: A thematic agenda for CSCL. In T. Koschmann, T. Chan, & D. D. Suthers (Eds.), Proceedings of the Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning: Learning 2005—The Next 10 years! (pp. 662–671). UK: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Amelsvoort, M., Andriessen, J., & Kanselaar, G. (2007). Representational tools in computer-supported collaborative argumentation-based learning: How dyads work with constructed and inspected argumentative diagrams. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16(4), 485–521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Veerman, A. L. (2001). Computer-supported collaborative learning through argumentation. Doctoral Dissertation. Utrecht University, Utrecht. http://dspace.library.uu.nl/bitstream/handle/1874/798/full.pdf?sequence=1.

  • Villasclaras-Fernndez, E. D., Isotani, S., Hayashi, Y., & Mizoguchi, R. (2009). Looking into collaborative learning: Design from macro-and micro-script perspectives. In V. Dimitrova, R. Mizoguchi, B. du Boulay, & A. Graesser (Eds.), Artificial intelligence in education: building learning systems that care: from knowledge representation to affective modelling (pp. 231–238). Amsterdam: IOS Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Voogt, J. (2008). IT and curriculum processes: Dilemmas and challenges. In J. Voogt & G. Knezek (Eds.), International handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education (pp. 117–132). New York, NY: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Voss, J. F., Wolfe, C. R., Lawrence, J. A., & Engle, R. A. (1991). From representation to decision: An analysis of problem solving in international relations. In R. J. Sternberg & P. A. Frensch (Eds.), Complex problem solving: Principles and mechanisms (pp. 119–158). England: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wegerif, R., & Mansour, N. (2010). A dialogic approach to technology-enhanced education for the global knowledge society. In M. S. Khine & I. M. Saleh (Eds.), New science of learning: Cognition, computers and collaboration in education (pp. 325–340). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Wen, Y., Looi, C. K., & Chen, W. (2015). Appropriation of a representational tool in a second-language classroom. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 10(1), 77–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. (Ed.). (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Educational Information Technology, East China Normal University, 3663 Zhangshan Road North, Shanghai, 200062, China

    Huiying Cai & Xiaoqing Gu

  2. Department of Learning Technologies, College of Information, University of North Texas, UNT Discovery Park, G150 (G189), 3940 North Elm Street, Denton, TX, 76207-7102, USA

    Lin Lin

Authors
  1. Huiying Cai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lin Lin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Xiaoqing Gu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xiaoqing Gu.

Ethics declarations

Funding

This study is supported by Chinese National Social Science Foundation (Grant Number: BCA 120024), and partly supported by Program for New Century Excellent Talents in University (Grant Number: NCET-11-0140).

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cai, H., Lin, L. & Gu, X. Using a semantic diagram to structure a collaborative problem solving process in the classroom. Education Tech Research Dev 64, 1207–1225 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9445-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9445-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation