Skip to main content
Book cover

Productive Multivocality in the Analysis of Group Interactions pp 265–289Cite as

Identifying Pivotal Contributions for Group Progressive Inquiry in a Multimodal Interaction Environment

  • 946 Accesses

Part of the Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Series book series (CULS,volume 15)

Abstract

This chapter adopts an interaction analysis method using the notion of uptake to investigate the development of progressive inquiry learning in a classroom setting using Group Scribbles (GS). In progressive inquiry learning, students work together on elaborating a shared object such as a research problem, products in a shared digital space like GS, or experimental practices to be reflected on and transformed. An uptake analytical framework is applied to code different facets of interactions in a small group, comprising verbal interactions (utterances and gestures), artifacts created in GS, and hands-on experimental practices, into events as coordination acts and to identify uptakes and pivotal contributions (a contribution that plays the role of shifting the direction of the subsequent events seamlessly or abruptly) from such interactions. The analysis illuminates how the pivotal contributions influenced the direction of the group progressive inquiry and led the group to develop progressive understanding of the science concepts.

Keywords

  • Transitional Stage
  • Experimental Practice
  • Progressive Inquiry
  • Verbal Utterance
  • Uptake Analysis

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4614-8960-3_15
  • Chapter length: 25 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
eBook
USD   169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-1-4614-8960-3
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Softcover Book
USD   219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Hardcover Book
USD   219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Learn about institutional subscriptions
Fig. 15.1
Fig. 15.2
Fig. 15.3

References

  • Arvaja, M., Salovaara, H., Häkkinen, P., & Järvelä, S. (2007). Combining individual and group-level perspectives for studying collaborative knowledge construction in context. Learning and Instruction, 17(4), 448–459.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, W., & Looi, C.-K. (this volume). Group Scribbles-supported collaborative learning in a primary grade 5 science class. In D. D. Suthers, K. Lund, C. P. Rose, C. Teplovs, & N. Law (Eds.), Productive multivocality in the analysis of group interactions, Chapter 14. New York, NY: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, W., Looi, C. K., & Tan, S. (2010). What do students do in a F2F CSCL classroom? The optimization of multiple communications modes. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1159–1170.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Hakkarainen, K. (2003). Progressive Inquiry in a computer-supported biology class. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(10), 1072–1088.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Hakkarainen, K. (2009). A knowledge-practice perspective on technology-mediated learning. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4(2), 213–231.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Hakkarainen, K., & Paavola, S. (2009). Toward a trialogical approach to learning. In B. Schwarz, T. Dreyfus, & R. Hershkowitz (Eds.), Transformation of knowledge through classroom interaction (pp. 65–80). New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jeong, H. (this volume). Development of group understanding via the construction of physical and technological artifacts. In D. D. Suthers, K. Lund, C. P. Rose, C. Teplovs, & N. Law (Eds.), Productive multivocality in the analysis of group interactions, Chapter 18. New York, NY: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jordan, B., & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(1), 39–103.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Koschmann, T., Stahl, G., & Zemel, A. (2005). 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 R. Goldman, R. Pea, B. Barron, & S. Derry (Eds.), Video research in the learning science. New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lund, K., & Bécu-Robinault, K. (this volume). Conceptual change and sustainable coherency of concepts across modes of interaction. In D. D. Suthers, K. Lund, C. P. Rose, C. Teplovs, & N. Law (Eds.), Productive multivocality in the analysis of group interactions, Chapter 17. New York, NY: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Medina, R. (this volume). Cascading inscriptions and practices: Diagramming and experimentation in the Group Scribbles classroom. In D. D. Suthers, K. Lund, C. P. Rose, C. Teplovs, & N. Law (Eds.), Productive multivocality in the analysis of group interactions, Chapter 16. New York, NY: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paavola, S., & Hakkarainen, K. (2009). From meaning making to joint construction of knowledge practices and artefacts - A trialogical approach to CSCL. In C. Malley, D. Suthers, P. Reimann, & A. Dimitracopoulou (Eds.), Computer supported collaborative learning practices: CSCL2009 conference proceedings (pp. 83–92). International Society of the Learning Sciences (ISLS): Rhodes, Creek.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on conversation. 2 vols. Edited by Gail Jefferson with introductions by Emanuel A. Schegloff. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanderson, P., & Fisher, C. (1994). Exploratory sequential data analysis: Foundations. Human-Computer Interaction, 9, 251–317.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Stahl, G. (Ed.). (2002). Computer support for collaborative learning: Foundations for a CSCL community. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Mahwah, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stahl, G. (2006). Sustaining group cognition in a math chat environment. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning (RPTEL), 1(2), 85–113.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stahl, G., Koschmann, T., & Suthers, D. D. (2006). Computer-supported collaborative learning: A historical perspective. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 406–427). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suthers, D. D. (2006). A qualitative analysis of collaborative knowledge construction through shared representations. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 1(2), 1–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suthers, D. D., Dwyer, N., Medina, R., & Vatrapu, R. (2010). A framework for conceptualizing, representing, and analyzing distributed interaction. International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 5(1), 5–42.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Suthers, D. D., Lund, K., Rosé, C., Dyke, G., Law, N., Teplovs, C., et al. (2011). Towards productive multivocality in the analysis of collaborative learning. In H. Spada, G. Stahl, N. Miyake & N. Law (Eds.), Connecting computer-supported collaborative learning to policy and practice: Proceedings of the 9th international conference on computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL 2011) (Vol. III, pp. 1015–1022). Hong Kong: University of Hong Kong.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wee, J. D., & Looi, C. K. (2009). A model for analyzing math knowledge building in VMT. In G. Stahl (Ed.), Studying virtual math teams. New York, NY: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weinberger, A., Stegmann, K., & Fischer, F. (2007). Knowledge convergence in collaborative learning: Concepts and assessment. Learning & Instruction, 17(4), 416–426.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This material is based on the work supported by the National Research Foundation (Singapore) under Grant NRF2007-IDM003-MOE-001. We are grateful to Mayflower Primary School for collaborating with us on this research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. National Institute of Education, Singapore, Singapore

    Chee-Kit Looi, Yun Wen & Wenli Chen

  2. Hong Kong Institute of Education, New Territories, Hong Kong

    Yanjie Song

Authors
  1. Chee-Kit Looi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yanjie Song
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yun Wen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Wenli Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chee-Kit Looi .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Dept. of Information & Computer Sciences, University of Hawai'i at Manoa, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA

    Daniel D. Suthers

  2. ICAR Research Lab, CNRS — University of Lyon, LYON, France

    Kristine Lund

  3. Language Technologies Inst. & HCI Inst., Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA

    Carolyn Penstein Rosé

  4. Problemshift, Inc., Windsor, Ontario, Canada

    Chris Teplovs

  5. University of Hong Kong Centre for Info. Technology in Education, Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR

    Nancy Law

Appendix

Appendix

Transcripts of data on electricity for the uptake analysis (from 00:12:15 to 00:16:16)

Time Label Name Observable action, discourse (including graphs), or content
Face-to-face conversations and gestures GS artifacts Screenshots of student trial–error experiments
12:15 O1 Others (To S) You can try to use two batteries (using a gesture with his fingers).   
12:18 J2 Joel (J overheard what O said and understood his gestures.) Bright idea.   
12:19 B3 Bruno (To the group members) Yeah.   
12:21 S4 Serena (To the group members) Let’s try two batteries. We connect all of them? (Using her fingers to make a gesture of two. All of them got excited.)   
12:38 Je5 Joel starting the experiment (To B) Wait! Wait! I know! Quickly, connect the wire! B, hold here! Hold it hold it. Hold it properly. Ok, hold it.  
12:47 Ge6 Group experiment (B connected the wires with the two batteries to light the bulb, but the bulb was not lighted.)  
12:49 S7 Serena (To B) Hey! Wrong side (The bulb was not lighted.)   
12:52 Ge8 Group experiment (The group tried again, and this time the bulb was lighted by B’s final touch.)  
12:53 J9 Joel Hey, very bright.   
12:54 S10 Serena (To the group members) How about we try two batteries, two bulbs? Two bulbs?   
13:05 Gg11 Group in GS (The group board is empty. T looked at the group board.)   
13:06 T12 Teacher (To the group) No draft, no draft [on the group board]. Then people will look at a blank board.   
13:07 B13 Bruno (To T) I’ll draw, I’ll draw.   
13:10 T14 Teacher (To the group) Where are the two batteries?   
13:13 J15 Joel (To T) We can do with two batteries.   
13:15 T16 Teacher (To the group) One draws, one member draws … (Stopped for a few seconds) One member draws. The other three do the fix and circuit.   
13:25 Bg17 Bruno in GS (To T) I’m drawing, I’m drawing.  
13:27 Je18 Joel starting the experiment (To S) Hey, S. Hold this. Hold this. You hold here. Hold here. Hold here. (S and J begin to connect the wires with the two batteries to light the bulb again to make B understand how to draw the circuit.)  
13:38 Bg19 Bruno in GS (B is drawing and did not look up) Hey, don’t knock my hand.  
13:47 T20 Teacher (To the class) Try various ways. Use two wires. (Stopped for a few seconds.) Now children, 5E (this class number) gave me more varieties you know? 5E, I want team work.   
14:16 Bg21 Bruno in GS (B finished the drawing of the graph of circuit with two wires and two batteries to light the bulb they experimented just now on his private board.)  
14:28 Ge22 Group experiment (Before posting the drawing to the group board, S and A lighted the bulb again for B’s further check.)  
14:29 Bg23 Bruno in GS (B dragged the drawing of the circuit with two wires and two batteries on the left together with his previous drawing of the circuit with two wires and one battery to light the bulb on the right from the private board to the group board.)
B posted his drawing (on the left) together with his previous drawing (on the right) onto the group board. 		 
14:30 B24 Bruno (To group members) Let’s try three batteries. There must be methods to do it.   
15:03 Ag25 Agnes in GS (After observing the hands-on activity about using two batteries to light one bulb, A began to draw on B’s private board according to her understanding.)  
15:10 Ag + Bg26 Bruno in GS (While A is drawing, B is looking at and pointing to the drawing. He realized that his previous circuit graph was wrong. Ag had no time to finish the drawing; she asked Bruno to finish the rest.)  
15:11 T27 Teacher (To class) Now. Maximum two batteries.   
15:13 J28 Joel (To B) Maximum two batteries la.   
15:19 T29 Teacher (To class) All right, children, I think it’s enough now. Stop what you’re doing. Now, I want you to visit other people’s board and see whether there are new ideas. If you got different ideas, you can clone your friends’ board and paste it into your own group board. And circle it to show me that you borrow the ideas. Now you can visit your neighbor’s board.   
15:50 S30 Serena (To group members) Teacher said we cannot do la.   
15:52 Be31 Bruno’s experiment (Although the teacher asked the students to stop doing the experiment, B did the experiment again to light the bulb, trying to find out why his previous drawing of the circuit graph was not correct.)  
15:53 Ag32 Agnes in GS (To B, pointing to the drawing of the circuit with two batteries to light the bulb on the group board that B drew previously.) It’s not like that. Not like that. Cancel this one la.
A deleted the drawing from the group board 		 
16:03 A33 Agnes (To B, pointing to the drawing) B, you draw and finish. Draw and finish (A is observing B’s drawing).   
16:10 Bg34 Bruno in GS (B is drawing.)
B continued A’s drawing (16:03) 		 
16:16 Gg35 Bruno in GS (B removed his previously published drawing and posted the revised drawing of the circuit with two batteries to light the bulb as the group work to the group board.)  
  1. O = Others, A = Agnes, B = Bruno, J = Joel, S = Serena, T = Teacher, G = Group
  2. Gg = Group working in GS (creating, editing, or moving a GS post)
  3. Ag = Agnes working in GS, Bg = Bruno working in GS, Ag + Bg = Agnes and Bruno both working in GS
  4. Ge = Group experimental practice, Be = Bruno’s experimental practice, Je = Joel’s experimental practice

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Looi, CK., Song, Y., Wen, Y., Chen, W. (2013). Identifying Pivotal Contributions for Group Progressive Inquiry in a Multimodal Interaction Environment. In: Suthers, D., Lund, K., Rosé, C., Teplovs, C., Law, N. (eds) Productive Multivocality in the Analysis of Group Interactions. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Series, vol 15. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-8960-3_15

Download citation