1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Title: Creativity, Collaboration and Competence: Agency in Online
Synchronous Chat Environment
Overall Rating
5 (Definitely accept, outstanding proposal)
Relevance
Strongly Agree
Impact
Strongly Agree
Evidence
Agree
Presentation
Agree
Formatting
Yes
The Review
This paper has a strong theoretical underpinning and an interesting topic that I think
would be valuable to the community (strengthening agency and collaboration in online
math-learning communities).
I very much enjoyed reading the description of the structure vs. agency debate toward the
beginning of the paper and think the analysis fits with this theoretical debate. I do
recommend though that the additional room allowed in the paper be used toward
strengthening the reader's understanding of the design and structure of the VMT chat
system that allows better agency to happen. With 2 more pages of room, a much more in
depth description of the design (since it was very purposeful) would benefit the
community. It seems like a promising avenue of learning. In addition, paragraph 4 on p.
3 ('According to Holland...') is confusing the way it is currently written. A little revision
would be helpful for the reader to understand the argument more quickly.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Also, in the analysis, I recommend more descriptions of other groups. We are not told
whether the cases of the two groups studied are exemplary of all of the group studied or
exceptions. This is more a desire
to see more than a criticism of what is there. Also, on pg. 5 (under
"Case Studies") in the second paragraph an explanation of why anonymity, linearity of
conversation, etc. add to the promotion of agency would be helpful (in the discussion is
fine).
Small things: Figure 3 looks very interesting and I think would help readers see how
conversations took place in conjunction with the whiteboard - please enlarge so that the
writing on the page is readable (enlarge by 1-2 inches in height?). Finally, if the paper is
accepted, please scan for typos - there are numerous minor typos throughout the paper
Expertise
2 (Passing Knowledge)
------------------------ Paper 394, Review 2 -----------------------Title: Creativity, Collaboration and Competence: Agency in Online
Synchronous Chat Environment
Overall Rating
4 (Accept)
Relevance
Strongly Agree
Impact
Undecided
Evidence
Disagree
Presentation
Agree
Formatting
Yes
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
The Review
Having considered the extensive literature on agency in various fields, including works
from Giddens, Bourdieu, Scardamalia & Bereiter, Bandura, Emirbayer and Mische, the
authors use the concept of agency vs structure to analyze how a VMT Chat environment
encourages agentic learning behavior, which differs from that of a traditional classroom.
Their results suggest that students engaged in collective mathematics problem solving in
VMT show a sense of collective agency.
For the theoretical framework, it would be worthwhile to have theorists from different
paradigms engage more in dialogue on the notions and nature of agency, and in
particular, in dialogue relating to collective activities. For example, Bandura, from a
social cognitive perspective, focuses on cognitive, affective, and psycho-social
characteristics, while Scardamalia & Bereiter from a knowledge- building perspective,
put more emphasis on knowledge advancement and ideas improvement. They also
propose the concept of "collective cognitive responsibility" (Scardamalia, 2002). How
was it related to Bandura's "co-efficacy"? Illuminating these in more detail will provide
more insight than introducing each work piece by piece and taking the position: "our goal
however is to keep both views of agency in mind" (p.3).
It is also beneficial for the authors to anchor their discussion upon creativity or efficacy,
if the argument and interpretation was empirically based. The two excerpts uncovered the
self-efficacy of individuals in online collective activities. In the first example, Aznx
showed a high degree of self-efficacy in taking responsibility for summarizing the
project; while in the second example, "Estrickmcnizzle" and "gdog" presented their
agency in the learning process by causing their teammates to stop working on questions
which were already too difficult to them. It seems to me that data from both cases do
account for the adaptive aspects of individuals in collaboration, including competence
and self efficacy. However, I wasn't convinced that the students had the necessary tools
to play off of each other and enjoy the "creativity" of that play; nor that VMT Chat
inspires students to act like mathematicians, asking questions of the worlds they have
"created" (p.8), as argued by the authors and purportedly demonstrated by the two
transcribed excerpts. Therefore, I was quite confused by the title with the word
"creativity," and its implication of a knowledge production activity. It is more difficult to
capture creative behavior than agentic behavior from merely these two excerpts, not to
mention the interplay of the two. It is obvious that the original intent of the paper is
original and novel. Unfortunately the authors try to present too much with too little
support data.
One of the contentions of the authors is that VMT Chat has the advantage of crating a
chance for students to be liberated from the norms and social constraints of classroom
mathematics through equalizing positional identities. However, over time, in any social
interaction, hierarchies and power relations will eventually be generated and will develop
into a certain kind of social network regardless of whether the environment is physical or
virtual. In the second example, "meet the fangs" and "dragon" are identified as the more
knowledgeable students and direct the group's activity; while "Estrickmcnizzle" and
"gdog" remained relatively quiet. The latter had to beg the former to shift the discussion
to an easier question. Obviously, the group dynamics in this excerpt can have alternative
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
interpretations as well. It is suggested that in a VMT environment, the authors had a
greater opportunity to observe how power relations formed and transformed in the
absence of a teacher, instead of claiming that a collaborative space removed from the
traditional school setting does not reproduce hierarchies nor power relations at all.
Expertise
4 (Expert)
------------------------ Paper 394, Review 3 -----------------------Title: Creativity, Collaboration and Competence: Agency in Online
Synchronous Chat Environment
Overall Rating
4 (Accept)
Relevance
Agree
Impact
Agree
Evidence
Agree
Presentation
Strongly Agree
Formatting
Yes
The Review
This is a well-conceived paper that adds to the literature about synchronous chat
environments and introduces the idea of student "agency." The authors give the reader a
good introduction to what agency may look like in the context of a mathematics chat
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
environment and how this concept may be analytically useful for understanding chatbased problem solving interactions.
Some things to think about regarding the paper proposal:
1. The section about structure and agency was somewhat confusing. It might be
worthwhile for the CSCL and ICLS audience to orient the reader to the Giddens notion of
agency using Scardamalia and Bereiter's work referenced in the introduction. Then
explain how you are specifically using or operationalizing the term for the purposes of
this study.
2. I would have liked to see more of the data for study context explained in the Data
section, beyond the general overview of VMT provided in the Research Setting section.
How old are these particular students? Do they have any history together? How often do
they enter the online environment?
3. Are there affordances in the VMT chat environment that allow students' agency to be
better harnessed? For example, would chat rooms without white boards still allow
students' agency to be utilized? Why or why not?
4. There are some claims in the Discussion that are not necessarily backed up by the
data. For example, the authors assert that students engage in behavior in the online
environment that violates classroom norms. At least the insertion of the word "typical"
would help, unless the authors have evidence that these students do not act this way in
THEIR classrooms. It could be that kids self-select to participate in VMT because the
norms there are familiar and comfortable to them.
Given the growing use of chat and IM by younger and younger students, it may not be so
surprising that the norms of the media easily override the typical social norms of specific
face-to-face interactions.
Overall, I think this is an interesting addition to the literature and may provoke some new
conversations about the effective use of synchronous chat in online learning
environments.
Expertise
3 (Knowledgeable)
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
6