Salo, P. (2001). An individual’s contribution to the networked collaboration. A paper presented in
TECFA Workshop, 12.-14.9.2001, Sonloup, Switzerland.
An individual’s contribution to the networked collaboration
Piritta Salo
psalo@ktk.oulu.fi
University of Oulu, Finland
Tel: +358 8 5533657
Introduction
The theoretical framework of this study bases on the social cognitive and situative
perspectives on learning stressing both individual and social activity (eg. Greeno,
1997; Anderson, Greeno, Reder & Simon, 2000). Recent research indicates that social
interaction and collaborative learning supported by technology can enhance the
development of new ideas, knowledge construction and deeper understanding among
the students (Koschmann, 1996; Järvelä, Hakkarainen, Lipponen & Lehtinen, 2000).
There is an indication that computer supported collaborative learning (CSCL) can
support students’ learning cognitively by helping them to structure their activity and
to reflect their actions in metalevel (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1993). CSCL has also
potentials in providing tools for organising, representing and visualising knowledge
(e.g. Pea, Tinker, Linn, Means, Bransford, Roschelle, Hsi, Brophy, & Songer, 1999;
Rochelle & Pea, 1999). Furthermore, by means of technology CSCL applications can
offer embedded process supports and multiple resources for student learning (e.g
Barron, Swartz, Vye, Moore, Petrosino, Zech, Bransford, & CTGV, 1998; Lin,
Hmelo, Kinzer & Secules, 1999). Usually CSCL tools are accompanied with inquiry
based pedagogical approaches to fulfil the ideas of individual and collaborative
settings of learning (Roschelle & Pea, 1999). By participating in inquiries students
can reach models from expert working cultures and learn in apprenticeship like
manner (Roschelle, 1996), and through inquiries students can improve their
understanding of both the content and the scientific practices, which are essential
skills for lifelong learning (Hakkarainen, 1998).
It can be stated that there is a lot of empirical research results available on
collaborative learning and social knowledge construction in CSCL context. Anyhow,
many of these researches are limited to focus on either individuals or groups, and the
collaborating individuals’ own interpretations of the learning situations are often
override. There is a lack of research focusing on an individual student’s
interpretations of social knowledge construction and especially networked
collaboration. The aim of the study was to examine how does an individual interpret
and contribute to the networked collaboration.
Method
The subjects (N=20) of the study were 9th grade students (15- or 16 year old) and
they studied literacy analysis by following the pedagogical principles of progressive
inquiry (Hakkarainen, 1998). The inquiry-based literary learning was supported by the
networked learning environment Knowledge Forum (for more see Scardamalia &
Bereiter, 1994), where the students posted their written computer notes of the
problem-solving process. Many studies of the CSCL focus on networked discussions,
but it is assumed that the process of learning is much more than the communication
processes in the environment (Crook, 1999). By notifying individuals’ interpretations
of the learning situation it may be possible to understand the collaborative processes
more accurately than just following the discussion. A special method following the
principles of the Experience Sampling Method (ESM) (Csikszentmihalyi & Larson,
1987) was developed to clarify an individual student’s interpretations on the
collaborative knowledge construction process. The data consisted of the students’
notes posted to the database of the Knowledge Forum, and the students’
interpretations posted to the questionnaires. The content of the database was analysed
according to principles of content analysis (Chi, 1997) and the classification
categories based on earlier studies conducted in CSCL settings (e.g. Lipponen, 2000;
Järvelä, Rahikainen & Salo, 2001).
Results & Discussion
During the seven-week course on inquiry-based literature the students produced 277
computer notes with an average 13.85 notes per student (SD=6.43) to their inquiry
discussions in which the students’ aim was to investigate their sub-problems of the
main topic entitled “Drugs”. From the database of the Knowledge Forum environment
it was possible to separate 26 discussions paths which included approximately 9,9
notes per discussion. The other notes were isolated which were not discussed further.
The students had built on discussions mainly by trying to answer their own research
questions and so continued themselves threads of the discussions. This was also
visible in the results of the content analysis which revealed that 61,7% of the students’
written postings to the networked learning environment concerned their own
inquiries, which were derived from the general topic of the class. 18,4% of the notes
contained information about individual students’ own research questions of sub-topics
they were interested to study. Accordingly, even 80,1 % of all written computer notes
were individual students’ own inquiry processing. Contributing to the networked
discussions seemed to focus to an individual’s own processing of the sub-problem she
had decided to study
The data analysis showed that the students’ own interpretations and aims of the
contribution to the networked collaboration were parallel with the findings of the note
analysis. In general, the most common purpose to participate to the networked
collaboration was to support an individual’s inquiry processing. Typically the students
interpreted that they used Knowledge Forum as a personal cognitive tool (34,6%) or
they contributed to networked collaboration for another reasons (33,1%). This other
reason was usually following teachers’ instructions to contribute to network activities,
or the students assumed that it will impact to their marks of the literary course. Only
in 6,9% of the answers the students reported they use KF as a tool to ask questions
about the inquiries. These results may explain the discussion threads, which
concentrated mostly on an individual student’s own inquiry processing, and the results
of the content analysis of the notes.
In this case study networked collaboration included individual centred inquiry
discussions, but reasons to contribute to these activities varied a lot between the
students. As expected, the students contributed differently to the social interaction
processes in CSCL. The results of ESM data analysis indicated that there were clear
divergences between the students’ aims of the networked discussions, and based on
these findings four case-students were highlighted to represent individuals who were
active and non-active note writers and who were central comment receiver and who
did not get any responses to one’s own inquiries. These findings may be related to the
results of the ESM-questionnaire analysis where two tendencies were found in the
students’ self-reported aims to contribute to the networked collaboration. The most
frequently students expressed that they used Knowledge Forum environment as a tool
for personal knowledge construction, or based on the other reason like under outer
compulsion, when an individual student was asked to contribute the networked
collaboration.
Even though the students were able to use technical tools to share their knowledge,
the students seemed to stress their own learning processes more than social
knowledge construction. This was observable both in networked activity and students’
self-reports. The research summed up here shows that it is not obvious that all
participating individuals begin to collaborate equally when they are provided with
tasks and tools to operate like that. Despite that the students contributed differently to
the networked collaboration, the individual students’ interpretations of their activity
showed that they tried to benefit of the collaborative learning situations. If
collaborative learning is seen as a potential approach in education, like it is
documented in many empirical research, there is a need to ask a question what is the
needed level of intersubjectivity that learning situation could be described as
collaborative, and how do we ensure that all students contribute to the social
knowledge construction. It seems evident that people acquire knowledge and patterns
of reasoning from one another by sharing their knowledge, but is it obvious that
networked interaction guarantees deeper-level understanding for all participants?
References:
Anderson, J., Greeno, J., Reder, L. & Simon, H. (2000). Perspectives on learning, thinking, and activity. Educational Researcher,
Vol. 29, No.4, pp. 11-13.
Barron, B. J. S., Swartz, D.L., Vye, N.J., Moore, A., Petrosino, A., Zech, L., Bransford, J.D., & Cognition and Technology
Group at Vanderbilt. (1998). Doing with understanding: Lessons from research on problem and project-based learning. The
Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3&4), 271-311.
Chi, M. (1997). Quantifying qualitative analyses of verbal data: A practical guide. The Journal of The Learning Sciences, 6(3),
271-315.
Crook, C. (1999). Computers in the community of classrooms. In K. Litteleton, & P. Light (Eds.) Learning with computers.
Analysing productive interaction. London and New York: Routledge, 102-117.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. & Larson, R. (1987). Validity and reliability of the Experience-Sampling Method. The journal of nervous
and mental disease, Vol. 175, No. 9, 526-536.
Greeno, J. (1997). On Claims That Answer the Wrong Questions. Educational Researcher, Vol. 26, 1, 5-17.
Hakkarainen, K. (1998). Epistemology of scientific inquiry and computer supported collaborative learning. Doctoral dissertation,
University of Toronto.
Järvelä, S., Hakkarainen, K., Lipponen, L., & Lehtinen, E. (2000). Creating computer supported collaborative learning in Finnish
schools: research perspectives on sociocognitive effects. International Journa of Education and Life-Long Learning,
10(2), 1-10.
Järvelä, S., Rahikainen, M. & Salo, P. (2001). Meaningful participation in a process of computer supported inquiry – Analyses of
students’ motivational involvement in different sequences of activity. Submitted.
Koschmann, T. (1996). CSCL: Theory and practice of an emerging paradigm. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrwnce Erlbaum
Associates, Publishers.
Lin, X., Hmelo, C., Kinzer, C.K., & Secules, T.J. (1999). Designing technology to support reflection. Educational Technology
Research and Development, 47(3), 43-62.
Lipponen, L. (2000). Towards knowledge building: From facts to explanations in primary students’ computer mediated
discourse. Learning environments research, 3, 179-199.
Pea, R., Tinker, R., Linn, M., Means, B., Bransford, J., Roschelle, J., Hsi, S., Brophy, S., & Songer, N. (1999). Toward a learning
technologies knowledge network. Educational Technology Research and Development. 47(2), 19-38.
Roschelle, J. (1996). Learning by collaborating: Convergent conceptual change. In K. Koschmann (Ed.), CSCL: Theory and
practice of an emerging paradigm (pp. 209-248). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Roschelle, J., & Pea, R. (1999). Trajectories from today´s WWW to a powerful educational infrastructure. Educational
researcher, 22-25.
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1993). Technologies for knowledge-building discourse. Communications of the ACM, 36(5),
37-41.
Scardamalia, M. & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge building communities. The Journal of the Learning
Sciences, 1, 37-68.