Advertisement

Nonlinear Dynamical Interaction Patterns in Collaborative Groups: Discourse Analysis with Orbital Decomposition

  • Dimitrios Stamovlasis
Chapter

Abstract

Social learning theories, contrary to traditional teacher-centered approaches, emphasize social interaction in educational settings, which is the hypothesized driving force in promoting learning. Methodologically, studies of the interaction processes in question often include recording qualities from students’ discourses (e.g., utterances) or other variables measured at the nominal level and examining the distributional features of them, which are potentially associated with learning outcomes. This chapter discusses and illustrates the use of nonlinear framework (NDS) by implementing the orbital decomposition analysis (ODA) when investigating the interaction processes in learning-in-groups approach. Data analysis from unstructured setting, where students freely interact with each other, demonstrates the nonlinear dynamical nature of the underlying processes and reveals how some initial conditions, the unfolding patterns of social interaction, along with individual characteristics might affect the outcomes. OD is a time series analysis of categorical data, which estimates the optimal length of recurrent patterns and calculates nonlinear measures of the time series, such as Shannon entropy, topological entropy, fractal dimension, and Lyapunov exponents. The NDS analysis suggests that the process under investigation could be a complex pattern possessing thresholds and bifurcations, behavior unseen by traditional methods and the black-box approach. Finally, in this chapter an epistemological discussion is provided, which addresses the connection of the social interaction patterns at a microlevel and the fulfillment of the fundamental aims of educational settings anticipated at the macro-level.

Keywords

Discourse analysis Nonlinear dynamics Learning-in-groups Collaborative learning Situation learning theory Verbal interaction Symbolic dynamics Orbital decomposition analysis Entropy Self-organization Inverse power law Shannon entropy Topological entropy Dimensionality Lyapunov exponent Emergence Edge of chaos Learning sciences education 

References

  1. Appleton, K. (1997). Analysis and description of students’ learning during science classes using a constructivistic-based model. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 303–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arrow, H., McGrath, J. E., & Berdahl, J. L. (2000). Small groups as complex systems. Formation, coordination, development, and adaptation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  3. Attneave, R. (1959). Applications of information theory to psychology: A summary of basic concepts, methods, and results. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.Google Scholar
  4. Bak, P. (1996). How nature works: The science of self-organized criticality. New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bales, R. R. (1999). Social interaction systems: Theory and measurement. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishing.Google Scholar
  6. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficiency: Towards a unified theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barnes, D., & Todd, R. (1995). Communication and learning revisited, making meaning through talk. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.Google Scholar
  8. Bowen, C. W. (2000). A quantitative literature review of cooperative learning effects on high school and college chemistry achievements. Journal of Chemical Education, 77, 118–121.Google Scholar
  9. Broder, A., Kumar, R., Maghoul, F., Raghavan, P., Rajagopalan, S., Stata, R., et al. (2000). Graph structure in the Web. Computer Networks, 33, 309–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (2005). Qualitative research. New Delhi: Sage.Google Scholar
  11. Guastello, S. J. (1998). Self-organization in leadership emergence. Nonlinear Dynamics in Psychology and Life Sciences, 2, 303–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Guastello, S. J. (2000). Symbolic dynamic patterns of written exchanges: Hierarchical structures in an electronic problem-solving group. Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology, and Life Sciences, 4, 169–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Guastello, S. J. (2005). Statistical distributions and self-organizing phenomena: What conclusions should be drawn? Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology, and Life Sciences, 9, 463–478.Google Scholar
  14. Guastello, S. J. (2009). Group dynamics: Adaptation, coordination, and leadership emergence. In S. J. Guastello, M. Koopmans, & D. Pincus (Eds.), Chaos and complexity in psychology: Theory of nonlinear dynamics (pp. 402–433). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Guastello, S. J. (2011). Orbital decomposition: Identification of dynamical patterns in categorical data. In S. Guastello & R. Gregson (Eds.), Nonlinear dynamics systems analysis for the behavioral sciences using real data (pp. 499–516). New York: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  16. Guastello, S. J., & Bond, R. W., Jr. (2007). The emergence of leadership in coordination-intensive groups. Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology, and Life Sciences, 11, 91–117.Google Scholar
  17. Guastello, S. J., Hyde, T., & Odak, M. (1998). Symbolic dynamic patterns of verbal exchange in a creative problem solving group. Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology, and Life Sciences, 2, 35–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Guastello, S. J., Koopmans, M., & Pincus, D. (Eds.). (2009). Chaos and complexity in psychology: Theory of nonlinear dynamics. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Hall, R. H., Rocklin, T. R., Dansereau, D. R., Skaggs, L. P., O’Donnell, A. M., Lambiotte, J. G., et al. (1988). The role of individual differences in the cooperative learning of technical material. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 172–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hodges, A. (2012). Alan Turing: The Enigma. London: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Horn, E. M., Collier, W. C., Oxford, J. A., Bond, C. R., Jr., & Dansereau, D. R. (1998). Individual differences in dyadic cooperative learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 153–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1991). Joining together: Group theory and group skills (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  23. Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R., & Maruyama, C. (1983). Interdependence and interpersonal attraction among heterogeneous and homogeneous individuals: A theoretical formulation and a meta-analysis of the research. Review of Educational Research, 53, 5–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R., Ortiz, A., & Stanne, M. (1991). Impact of positive goal and resource interdependence on achievement, interaction, and attitudes. Journal of General Psychology, 118, 341–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R., Stanne, M., & Garibaldi, A. (1990). Impact of group processing on achievement in cooperative groups. Journal of Social Psychology, 130, 507–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kauffman, S. A. (1995). At home in the universe. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Kelso, J. A. S. (1995). Dynamic patterns: The self-organization of brain and behavior. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  28. Kelso, J. A. S., & Engstrøm, D. A. (2006). The complementary nature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  29. Kempa, R. R., & Ayob, A. (1991). Learning interactions in group work in science. International Journal of Science Education, 13, 341–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kempa, R. R., & Ayob, A. (1995). Learning from group work in science. International Journal of Science Education, 17, 743–754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Koopmans, M. (2014a). Nonlinear change and the black box problem in educational research. Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology and Life Sciences, 18, 5–22.Google Scholar
  32. Koopmans, M. (2014b). Change, self-organization, and the search for causality in educational research and practice. Complicity: An International Journal of Complexity in Education, 11, 20–39.Google Scholar
  33. Kumpulainen, K., & Mutanen, M. (1999). The situated dynamics of peer group interaction: An introduction to an analytic framework. Learning and Instruction, 9, 449–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lathrop, D. P., & Kostelich, E. J. (1989). Characterization of an experimental strange attractor by periodic orbits. Physics Review, 40, 4028–4031.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lawson, A. E. (1978). Development and validation of the classroom test of formal reasoning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 15, 11–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lazarowitz, R., & Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. (1998). Cooperative learning in science curriculum. In B. J. Rraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 449–469). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lazarowitz, R., Hertz-Lazarowitz, R., & Baird, J. (1994). Learning science in cooperative settings: Academic achievement and affective outcomes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 1121–1131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lemke, J. L. (1998). Multiplying meaning: Visual and verbal semiotics in scientific text. In J. R. Martin & R. Veel (Eds.), Reading science (pp. 87–113). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  39. Lemke, J. L. (1999). Multimedia literacy demands of the scientific curriculum. Linguistics and Education, 10, 1–25.Google Scholar
  40. Lynch, M., & Woolgar, S. (Eds.). (1990). Representation in scientific practice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  41. Mercer, N. (1996). The quality of talk in children’s collaborative activity in the classroom. Learning and Instruction, 6, 359–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Newhouse, R., Ruell, D., & Takens, F. (1978). Occurrence of strange attractors: An axiom near quasi-periodic flows on TM, M ≥ 3. Communication in Mathematical Physics, 64, 35–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Nicolis, S. J. (1991). Chaos and information processing. Singapore: World Scientific.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Nicolis, G., & Nicolis, C. (2007). Foundations of complex systems. Singapore: World Scientific.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Nicolis, G., & Prigogine, I. (1989). Exploring complexity. New York: Freeman.Google Scholar
  46. Noddings, N. (1989). Theoretical and practical concerns about small groups in mathematics. Elementary School Journal, 89, 607–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Nowak, A., Szamrej, J., & Latané, B. (1990). From private attitude to public opinion: A dynamic theory of social impact. Psychological Review, 97, 362–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. O’Donnell, A. M., Dansereau, D. R., & Rocklin, T. R. (1991). Individual differences in cooperative learning of concrete procedures. Learning and Individual Differences, 3, 149–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Peressini, A. F., & Guastello, S. J. (2010). Orbital decomposition: A short user’s guide to ORBDE v2.4. Retrieved May 2014, from http://www.societyforchaostheory.org/resources/#4gGoogle Scholar
  50. Piaget, J. (1973). To understand is to invent: The future of education. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  51. Pincus, D. (2001). A framework and methodology for the study of non-linear, self-organizing family dynamics. Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology, and Life Sciences, 5(2), 139–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Pincus, D., Fox, K. M., Perez, K. A., Turner, J. S., & McGee, A. R. (2008). Nonlinear dynamics of individual and interpersonal conflict in an experimental group. Small Group Research, 39(2), 150–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Pincus, D., & Guastello, S. J. (2005). Nonlinear dynamics and interpersonal correlates of verbal turn-taking patterns in group therapy. Small Group Research, 36, 635–677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Prigogine, I., & Stengers, I. (1984). Order out of chaos: Man’s new dialog with nature. New York: Bantam.Google Scholar
  55. Schroeder, M. (1991). Fractals, chaos, power laws. New York: Freeman.Google Scholar
  56. Shachar, H., & Fischer, S. (2004). Cooperative learning and the achievement of motivation and perceptions of students in 11th grade chemistry classes. Learning and Instruction, 14, 69–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Shannon, C. E. (1948). The mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Technical Journal, 27, 379–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Shannon, C. E., & Weaver, W. (1949). The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  59. Stamovlasis, D. (2006). The nonlinear dynamical hypothesis in science education problem solving: A catastrophe theory approach. Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology and Life Sciences, 10(1), 37–70.Google Scholar
  60. Stamovlasis, D. (2010). Methodological and epistemological issues on linear regression applied to psychometric variables in problem solving: Rethinking variance. Chemistry Education, Research and Practice, 11, 59–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Stamovlasis, D. (2011). Nonlinear dynamics and Neo-Piagetian theories in problem solving: Perspectives on a new epistemology and theory development. Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology and Life Sciences, 15, 145–173.Google Scholar
  62. Stamovlasis, D., Dimos, A., & Tsaparlis, G. (2006). A study of group-interaction processes in learning lower-secondary physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(6), 556–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Taggar, S. (2001). Group composition, synergy, and group performance. Journal of Creative Behavior, 35, 261–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Teasley, S. (1995). The role of talk in children’s peer collaborations. Developmental Psychology, 31, 207–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Vallacher, R. R., & Nowak, A. (2006). Coherence in human experience and psychological science. In P. Van Lange (Ed.), Bridging social psychology: The benefits of transdisciplinary approaches (pp. 77–82). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  66. Vallacher, R. R., & Nowak, A. (2007). Dynamical social psychology: On complexity and coordination in interpersonal relations. In M. Uhl-Bien & R. Marion (Eds.), Complexity and leadership, Volume 1: Conceptual foundations (pp. 49–81). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishers.Google Scholar
  67. Vallacher, R. R., & Nowak, A. (2009). The dynamics of human experience: Fundamentals of dynamical social psychology. In S. Guastello, M. Koopmans, & D. Pincus (Eds.), Chaos and complexity in psychology: Theory of nonlinear dynamical systems (pp. 370–401). Boston, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  68. Vallacher, R. R., Van Geert, P., & Nowak, A. (2015). The intrinsic dynamics of psychological process. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24(1), 58–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  70. Waldrop, M. M. (1992). Complexity: The emerging science at the edge of chaos. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  71. Webb, N. M. (1989). Peer interaction and learning in small groups. International Journal of Educational Research, 13, 21–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Webb, N. M. (1991). Task related verbal interaction and mathematics learning in small groups. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 22, 366–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Webb, N. M., Troper, J. D., & Fall, R. (1995). Constructive activity and learning in collaborative small groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(3), 406–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. West, B. J., & Deering, B. (1995). The lure of modern science: Fractal thinking. Studies of nonlinear phenomena in life sciences (Vol. 3). New Jersey: World Scientific.Google Scholar
  75. Wheelan, S. A. (2005). The handbook of group research and practice. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  76. Zady, M., Portes, O., & Ochs, D. (2002). Examining classroom interactions related to differences in students’ science achievements. Science Education, 87, 40–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Aristotle University of ThessalonikiDepartment of Philosophy and EducationThessalonikiGreece

Personalised recommendations