Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Making rounds: The routine work of the teacher during collaborative learning with computers

  • Published:
International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper provides a detailed analysis of the work of the teacher during collaborative-learning activities. Whilst the importance of the teacher for the success of collaborative learning has frequently been recognized in the CSCL literature, there is nevertheless a curious absence of detailed studies that describe how the teacher intervenes in pupils’ collaborative-learning activities, which may be a reflection of the ambivalent status of teachers within a field that has tried to transfer authority from teachers to pupils. Through a close analysis of different types of teacher interventions into pupils working in pairs with a storyboarding tool, this paper argues, firstly, that concerns of classroom management and pedagogy are typically intertwined and, secondly, that although there may be tensions between the perspectives of teachers and pupils these do not take the form of antagonistic struggles. The paper concludes that it may be time to renew our interest in the work of teachers in the analysis of collaborative-learning activities.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. There is a long-standing debate on the differences and similarities between ‘collaborative’, ‘cooperative’, or ‘collective’ learning (see, e.g., Pea 1996; Dillenbourg 1999; Koschmann 1999). I am using the term ‘collaborative learning with computers’ not to designate a particular pedagogical approach, but as a way to characterize situations in which the learning is organized through computer-mediated collaborative activities involving pairs or small groups of learners.

  2. In this situation the pupils are working on their own rather than in pairs.

  3. http://www.kar2ouche.com/

  4. In a post-lesson interview the teacher remarked to me that the pupils are “so taken with the pictures which is great (.) but they’re not getting their reasons in”.

References

  • Barnes, D., & Todd, F. (1977). Communication and learning in small groups. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birmingham, P., Davies, C., & Greiffenhagen, C. (2002). Turn to face the Bard: Making sense of three-way interactions between teacher, pupils and technology in the classroom. Education, Communication & Information, 2(2–3), 139–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Button, G. (Ed.). (1993). Technology in working order: Studies of work, interaction, and technology. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Button, G., & Sharrock, W. W. (1996). Project work: The organisation of collaborative design and development in software engineering. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 5(4), 369–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Çakir, M. P., Zemel, A., & Stahl, G. (2009). The joint organization of interaction within a multimodal CSCL medium. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4(2), 115–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cazden, C., John, V., & Hymes, D. (Eds.). (1972). Functions of language in the classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chiu, M. M. (2004). Adapting teacher interventions to student needs during cooperative learning: How to improve student problem solving and time on-task. American Educational Research Journal, 41(2), 365–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, E. C. (1994 [1986]). Designing groupwork: Strategies for the heterogeneous classroom (2nd Ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.

  • Colella, V. (2002). Participatory simulations: Building collaborative understanding through immersive dynamic modelling. In T. Koschmann, R. Hall, & N. Miyake (Eds.), CSCL2: Carrying forward the conversation (pp. 357–391). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coulter, J. (2001). Human practices and the observability of the ‘macro-social’. In T. R. Schatzki, K. Knorr-Cetina, & E. von Savigny (Eds.), The practice turn in contemporary theory (pp. 29–41). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dekker, R., & Elshout-Mohr, M. (2004). Teacher interventions aimed at mathematical level raising during collaborative learning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 56(1), 39–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dillenbourg, P. (1999). Introduction: What do you mean by ‘collaborative learning’? In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Collaborative learning: Cognitive and computational approaches (pp. 1–19). Amsterdam: Pergamon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dillenbourg, P. (2008). Integrating technologies into educational ecosystems. Distance Education, 29(2), 127–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Ding, M., Li, X., Piccolo, D., & Kulm, G. (2007). Teacher interventions in cooperative-learning mathematics classes. Journal of Educational Research, 100(3), 162–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Emerson, R. M., & Pollner, M. (1976). Dirty work designations: Their features and consequences in a psychiatric setting. Social Problems, 23(3), 243–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ford, C. E. (1999). Collaborative construction of task activity: Coordinating multiple resources in a high school physics lab. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 32(4), 369–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garcia, A. C., & Jacobs, J. B. (1999). The eyes of the beholder: Understanding the turn-taking system in quasi-synchronous computer-mediated communication. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 32(4), 337–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garfinkel, H. (2002). Ethnomethodology’s program: Working out Durkheim’s aphorism. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garfinkel, H., & Sacks, H. (1970). On formal structures of practical action. In J. C. McKinney & E. A. Tiryakian (Eds.), Theoretical sociology: Perspectives and developments (pp. 338–366). New York: Appleton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, R. (1998). Teaching Shakespeare. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gillies, R. M. (2004). The effects of communication training on teachers’ and students’ verbal behaviours during cooperative learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 41(3), 257–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gillies, R. M., Ashman, A. F., & Terwel, J. (Eds.). (2008). The teacher’s role in implementing cooperative learning in the classroom. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glenn, P. J., Koschmann, T., & Conlee, M. (1999). Theory presentation and assessment in a problem-based learning group. Discourse Processes, 27(2), 119–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greiffenhagen, C. (2008). Unpacking tasks: The fusion of new technology with instructional work. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 17(1), 35–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greiffenhagen, C. (forthcoming). Visual grammar in practice: Negotiating the arrangement of speech bubbles in storyboards. Forthcoming in Semiotica.

  • Greiffenhagen, C., & Sharrock, W. (2008). Where do the limits of experience lie? Abandoning the dualism of objectivity and subjectivity. History of the Human Sciences, 21(3), 70–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greiffenhagen, C., & Sharrock, W. (forthcoming). Does mathematics look certain in the front, but fallible in the back? Forthcoming in Social Studies of Science doi:10.1177/0306312711424789.

  • Greiffenhagen, C., & Watson, R. (2009). Visual repairables: Analysing the work of repair in human-computer interaction. Visual Communication, 8(1), 65–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gumperz, J., & Hymes, D. (Eds.). (1972). Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of communication. New York: Hold, Rinehart & Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammer, D. (2002). Powerful technology and powerful instruction. In T. Koschmann, R. Hall, & N. Miyake (Eds.), CSCL2: Carrying forward the conversation (pp. 399–403). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heap, J. L. (1989a). Collaborative practices during word processing in a first grade classroom. In C. Emihovich (Ed.), Locating learning: Ethnographic perspectives on classroom research (pp. 263–288). Norwood: Ablex.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heap, J. L. (1989b). Sociality and cognition in collaborative computer writing. In D. Bloome (Ed.), Classroom and literacy (pp. 135–157). Norwood: Ablex.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heath, C., & Luff, P. (1992). Collaboration and control: Crisis management and multimedia technology in London underground line control rooms. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 1(1–2), 69–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heath, C., Jirotka, M., Luff, P., & Hindmarsh, J. (1995). Unpacking collaboration: The interactional organisation of trading in a city dealing room. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 3(2), 147–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heath, C., Hindmarsh, J., & Luff, P. (2010). Video in qualitative research: Analysing social interaction in everyday life. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hertz-Lazarowitz, R., & Shachar, H. (1990). Teachers’ verbal behaviour in cooperative and whole-class instruction. In S. Sharan (Ed.), Cooperative learning: Theory and research (pp. 77–94). New York: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, E. C. (1971). The sociological eye: Selected papers. Chicago: Aldine.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ivarsson, J. (2010). Developing the construction sight: Architectural education and technological change. Visual Communication, 9(2), 171–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. W., & R. T. Johnson (1994 [1975]). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning (4th Ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

  • Karlsson, G. (2010). Animation and grammar in science education: Learners’ construal of animated educational software. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5(2), 167–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, G., Crawford, T., & Green, J. L. (2001). Common task and uncommon knowledge: Dissenting voices in the discursive construction of physics across small laboratory groups. Linguistics and Education, 12(2), 135–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koschmann, T. (Ed.). (1996). CSCL: Theory and practice of an emerging paradigm. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koschmann, T. (1999). Computer support for collaboration and learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8(3&4), 495–497.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koschmann, T., Glenn, P. J., & Conlee, M. (2000). When is a problem-based tutorial not a 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 interaction (pp. 53–74). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koschmann, T., Hall, R., & Miyake, N. (Eds.). (2002). CSCL 2: Carrying forward the conversation. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koschmann, T., Stahl, G., & Zemel, A. (2007). The video analyst’s manifesto (or the implications of Garfinkel’s policies for studying instructional practice in design-based research). In R. Goldman, R. Pea, B. Barron, & S. J. Derry (Eds.), Video research in the learning sciences (pp. 133–143). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindwall, O., & Lymer, G. (2005). Vulgar competence, ethnomethodological indifference and curricular design. Proceedings of CSCL 2005 (Taipei, Taiwan, May 30–June 4, 2005), pp. 388–397.

  • Lindwall, O., & Lymer, G. (2008). The dark matter of lab work: Illuminating the negation of disciplined perception in mechanics. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17(2), 180–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luff, P., Hindmarsh, J., & Heath, C. (Eds.). (2000). Workplace studies: Recovering work practice and informing system design. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lymer, G., Ivarsson, J., & Lindwall, O. (2009). Contrasting the use of tools for presentation and critique: Some cases from architectural education. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4(4), 423–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lynch, M. (1997 [1979]). Preliminary notes on judges’ work: The judge as a constituent of courtroom ‘hearings’. In M. Travers & J. F. Manzo (Eds.), Law in action: Ethnomethodological and conversation analytic approaches to Law (pp. 99–130). Aldershot: Dartmouth.

  • Macbeth, D. H. (1990). Classroom order as practical action: The making and un-making of a quiet reproach. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 11(2), 189–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macbeth, D. H. (1991). Teacher authority as practical action. Linguistics and Education, 3(4), 281–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macbeth, D. H. (1992). Classroom ‘floors’: Material organizations as a course of affairs. Qualitative Sociology, 15(2), 123–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macbeth, D. H. (2003). Hugh Mehan’s Learning Lessons reconsidered: On the differences between the naturalistic and critical analysis of classroom discourse. American Educational Research Journal, 40(1), 239–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDermott, R. P., Gospodinoff, K., & Aron, J. (1978). Criteria for an ethnographically adequate description of concerted activities and their contexts. Semiotica, 24(3/4), 245–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McHoul, A. W. (1978). The organization of turns at formal talk in the classroom. Language in Society, 7(1), 183–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mehan, H. (1989). Microcomputers in classrooms: Educational technology or social practice? Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 20(1), 4–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mercer, N., & Fisher, E. (1992). How do teachers help children to learn? an analysis of teachers’ interventions in computer-based activities. Learning and Instruction, 2(4), 339–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Connor, M. C., & Michaels, S. (1993). Aligning academic task and participation status through revoicing: Analysis of a classroom discourse strategy. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 24(4), 318–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Payne, G. C. F. (1976). Making a lesson happen: An ethnomethodological analysis. In M. Hammersley & P. Woods (Eds.), The process of schooling: A sociological reader (pp. 33–40). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Payne, G. C. F., & Cuff, E. C. (Eds.). (1982). Doing teaching: The practical management of classrooms. London: Batsford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pea, R. D. (1996). Seeing what we build together: Distributed multimedia learning environments for transformative communications. In T. Koschmann (Ed.), CSCL: Theory and practice of an emerging paradigm (pp. 171–186). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pea, R. D. (2004). The social and technological dimensions of scaffolding and related theoretical concepts for learning, education, and human activity. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 423–451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roschelle, J. (1992). Learning by collaborating: Convergent conceptual change. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(3), 235–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roschelle, J., & Teasley, S. D. (1995). The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving. In C. O’Malley (Ed.), Computer supported collaborative learning (pp. 69–97). Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Roth, W.-M. (1995). Affordances of computers in teacher-student interaction: The case of Interactive Physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(4), 329–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sacks, H. (1992). In G. Jefferson (Ed.), Lectures on conversation. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schegloff, E. A. (1996). Confirming allusions: Toward an empirical account of action. American Journal of Sociology, 102(1), 161–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Schenkein, J. (1978). Sketch of an analytic mentality for the study of conversational interaction. In J. Schenkein (Ed.), Studies in the organization of conversational interaction (pp. 1–6). New York: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharrock, W. W., & Anderson, R. J. (1994). The user as a scenic feature of the design space. Design Studies, 15(1), 5–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharrock, W. W., & Watson, D. R. (1988). Autonomy among social theories: The incarnation of social structures. In N. G. Fielding (Ed.), Actions and structure: Research methods and social theory (pp. 56–77). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sørensen, E. (2009). The materiality of learning: Technology and knowledge in educational practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stahl, G. (2006). Group cognition: Computer support for collaborative knowledge building. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stahl, G. (Ed.). (2009). Studying virtual math teams. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suchman, L. A. (1987). Plans and situated actions: The problem of human-machine communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Urhahne, D., Schanze, S., Bell, T., Mansfield, A., & Holmes, J. (2010). Role of the teacher in computer-supported collaborative inquiry learning. International Journal of Science Education, 32(2), 221–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watson, R. (2009). Analysing practical and professional texts: A naturalistic approach. Farnham: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Webb, N. M., Nemer, K. M., & Ing, M. (2006). Small-group reflections: Parallels between teacher discourse and student behaviour in peer-directed groups. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(1), 63–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webb, N. M., Franke, M. L., De, T., Chan, A. G., Freund, D., Shein, P., et al. (2009). ‘Explain to your partner’: Teachers’ instructional practices and students’ dialogue in small groups. Cambridge Journal of Education, 39(1), 49–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zemel, A., Koschmann, T., LeBaron, C., & Feltovich, P. (2008). ‘What are we missing?’ Usability’s indexical ground. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 17(1), 63–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I am most indebted to the two teachers and their pupils who helped me with this project by allowing me to spend an extensive period of time in their classrooms. Without their generosity this study could not have been conducted. I would also like to thank Jacqueline Eke, Tim Koschmann, Oskar Lindwall, Douglas Macbeth and Wes Sharrock for very helpful comments and criticisms on earlier versions of this paper. Part of this research was supported through a British Academy Postdoctoral Fellowship and a Simon Research Fellowship (funded through an endowment made to the University of Manchester).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Social Sciences, University of Manchester, Arthur Lewis Building, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK

    Christian Greiffenhagen

Authors
  1. Christian Greiffenhagen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christian Greiffenhagen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Greiffenhagen, C. Making rounds: The routine work of the teacher during collaborative learning with computers. Computer Supported Learning 7, 11–42 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-011-9134-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-011-9134-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation