Advertisement

How Do People Learn?

Members’ Methods and Communicative Mediation
  • Timothy Koschmann
  • Alan Zemel
  • Melinda Conlee-Stevens
  • Nata P. Young
  • Julie E. Robbs
  • Amber Barnhart
Part of the Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Series book series (CULS, volume 5)

Abstract

We are concerned with how learning and instruction are accomplished as interactional achievements, that is the practical details of how participants actually go about doing learning and instruction on a moment-to-moment basis. We focus in this chapter on what we term a problematizing move, that is a form of social action that has the effect of calling something previously held to be so into doubt. Drawing conceptually and methodologically on Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis, we examine problematizing moves in two settings—a problem-based learning (PBL) tutorial meeting conducted face-to-face (F2F) and a distributed PBL (dPBL) meeting mediated through a chat interface. We note that even with the constraints on communication imposed by the mediating technology, the methods employed by members to problematize a problem resemble those seen in F2F meetings. We argue that contrasting members’ methods across settings employing different forms of communicative mediation can be instructive with regard to understanding both the effects of the mediation and the nature of the methods themselves.

Keywords

Pelvic Inflammatory Disease Conversation Analysis Tutorial Group Communicative Mediation Learning Issue 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Albanese, M. (2000). Problem-based learning: Why curricula are likely to show little effect on knowledge and clinical skills. Medical Education, 34, 729–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arnseth, H., Ludvigsen, S., Wasson, B., & Mørch, A. (2001). Collaboration and problem solving in distributed collaborative learning. In P. Dillenbourg, A. Eurelings, & K. Hakkarainen (Eds.), Proceedings of the First European Conference on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (pp. 75–82). Maastricht: Maastricht McLuhan Institute.Google Scholar
  3. Barrows, H.S. (1994). Practice-Based Learning: Problem-Based Learning applied to medical education. Springfield, IL: Southern Illinois University School of Medicine.Google Scholar
  4. Bransford, J., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  5. Cazden, C. (1988). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  6. Colliver, J. A. (2000). Effectiveness of problem-based learning curricula: Research and theory. Academic Medicine, 75, 259–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dewey, J. (1991/1938). Logic: The theory of inquiry. In J. A. Boydston (Ed.), John Dewey: The Later Works, 1925–1953, Vol. 12. Carbondale, IL: SIU Press.Google Scholar
  8. Distlehorst, L.H., & Barrows, H.S. (1982). A new tool for problem-based self-directed learning. Journal of Medical Education, 57, 466–488.Google Scholar
  9. Fox, B. (1993). The human tutorial dialogue project. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  10. Garcia, A., & Jacobs, J. (1999). The eyes of the beholder: Understanding the turn-taking system in quasi-synchronous computer-mediated communication. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 32, 337–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Cambridge, U.K.: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  12. Garfinkel, H. (2002). Ethnomethodology's program: Working out Durkheim's aphorism. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.Google Scholar
  13. Garfinkel, H. & Sacks, H. (1970). On formal structures of practical action. In J.C. McKinney & E. Tiryakian (Eds.), Theoretical sociology: Perspectives and developments (pp. 337–366). NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
  14. Glenn, P. & Koschmann, T. (in press). Learning to diagnose: Production of diagnostic hypotheses in problem-based learning tutorials. To appear in M. Maxwell, D. Kovarsky, & J. Duchan (Eds.), Diagnosis as cultural practice: An account of the power of language in diagnosis. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
  15. Glenn, P., Koschmann, T., & Conlee, M. (1999). Theory presentation and assessment in a problem-based learning group. Discourse Processes, 27, 119–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Goodwin, C. & Goodwin, M. (1987). Concurrent operations on talk: Notes on the interactive organization of assessments. Papers in Pragmatics, 1, 1–52.Google Scholar
  17. Hak T., & Maguire, P. (2000). Group process: The black box of studies on problem-based learning. Academic Medicine, 75, 769–72. Retrieved October 27, 2000 as: http://www.academicmedicine.org/cgi/content/full/75/7/769CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Halliday, M.A.K. & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longmans.Google Scholar
  19. Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  20. Herring, S. (1999). Interactional coherence in CMC. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 4(4). Retrieved April 15, 2003 as: http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol4/issue4/herring.htmlGoogle Scholar
  21. Koschmann, T. (2001, March). Dewey's contribution to a standard of problem-based learning practice. First European Conference on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (EuroCSCL), Maastricht, Netherlands. Retrieved April 5, 2001 as: http://www.mmi.unimaas.nl/euro-cscl/Papers/90.pdfGoogle Scholar
  22. Koschmann, T. (Ed.) (2002). Studying collaboration in distributed PBL environments. Distance Education, 23(1).Google Scholar
  23. Koschmann, T., Glenn, P., & Conlee, M. (1997). Analyzing the emergence of a learning issue in a problem-based learning meeting. Medical Education Online, 2(2). Retrieved on October 15, 2002 as: http://www.med-ed-online.org/res00003.htm Google Scholar
  24. Koschmann, T., Glenn, P., & Conlee, M. (2000). When is a problem-based tutorial not tutorial? Analyzing the tutor's role in the emergence of a learning issue. In D. Evensen & C. Hmelo (Eds.), Problem-based learning: A research perspective on learning interactions (pp. 53–74). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.Google Scholar
  25. Koschmann, T., Kelson, A.C., Feltovich, P.J., & Barrows, H.S. (1996). Computer-supported problem-based learning: A principled approach to the use of computers in collaborative learning. In T.D. Koschmann (Ed.), CSCL: Theory and practice of an emerging paradigm (pp. 83–124). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  26. Koschmann, T., Kuutti, K., & Hickman, L. (1998). The concept of breakdown in Heidegger, Leont'ev, and Dewey and its implications for education. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 5, 25–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Koschmann, T. & LeBaron, C. (2002). Learner articulation as interactional achievement: Studying the conversation of gesture. Cognition & Instruction, 20, 249–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Koschmann, T., Zemel, A., Conlee-Stevens, M., Young, N., Robbs, J., & Barnhart, A. (2003). Problematizing the problem: A single case analysis in a dPBL meeting. To appear in B. Wasson, S. Ludvigsen, & U. Hoppe (Eds.), Designing for change. Amsterdam: Kluwer Academic Publishing.Google Scholar
  29. Koschmann, T., Zemel, A., & Stahl, G. (2004, June). The video analyst's manifesto (or The implications of Garfinkel's policies for the development of a program of video analytic research within the learning sciences). In Y. Kafai, W. Sandoval, N. Enyedy, A. Nixon, & F. Herrera, Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference of the Learning Sciences (pp. 278–285). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  30. Lemke, J. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
  31. McDermott, R., Gospodinoff, K., & Aron, J. (1978). Criteria for an ethnographically adequate description of concerted activities and their contexts. Semiotica, 24, 245–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mehan, H. (1978). Learning lessons. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Pomerantz A. (1984a). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In J.M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in Conversation Analysis (pp. 57–101). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Pomerantz, A. (1984b). Giving a source or basis: The practice in conversation of telling ‘how I know'. Journal of Pragmatics, 8, 607–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Psathas, G. (1995). Conversation analysis: The study of talk-in-interaction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  36. Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on conversation. Oxford, U.K.: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  37. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schegloff, E., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53, 361–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sinclair, J.M. & Coulthard, M.C. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse; The English used by teachers and pupils. NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry: Towards a sociocultural practice and theory of education. NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Timothy Koschmann
  • Alan Zemel
  • Melinda Conlee-Stevens
  • Nata P. Young
  • Julie E. Robbs
  • Amber Barnhart

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations