(Edda Luzzatto, Giordano Dimarco) Collaborative Le

EDUCATION IN A COMPETITIVE AND GLOBALIZING WORLD SERIES
COLLABORATIVE LEARNING:
METHODOLOGY, TYPES OF
INTERACTIONS AND TECHNIQUES

No part of this digital document may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or
by any means. The publisher has taken reasonable care in the preparation of this digital document, but makes no
expressed or implied warranty of any kind and assumes no responsibility for any errors or omissions. No
liability is assumed for incidental or consequential damages in connection with or arising out of information
contained herein. This digital document is sold with the clear understanding that the publisher is not engaged in
rendering legal, medical or any other professional services.
EDUCATION IN A COMPETITIVE
AND GLOBALIZING WORLD SERIES

Motivation in Education
Desmond H. Elsworth (Editor)
2009. ISBN: 978-1-60692-234-7

The Reading Literacy of U.S. Fourth-Grade Students
in an International Context
Justin Baer, Stphane Baldi, Kaylin Ayotte,Patricia J. Gree and Daniel McGrath
2009. ISBN: 978-1-60741-138-3

Teacher Qualifications and Kindergartners Achievements
Cassandra M. Guarino, Laura S. Hamilton, J.R. Lockwood,
Amy H. Rathbun and Elvira Germino Hausken
2009. ISBN: 978-1-60741-180-2

Effects of Family Literacy Interventions on Children's
Acquisition of Reading
Ana Carolina Pena (Editor)
2009. ISBN: 978-1-60741-236-6

Nutrition Education and Change
Beatra F. Realine (Editor)
2009. ISBN: 978-1-60692-983-4

Reading at Risk: A Survey of Literary
Reading in America
Rainer D. Ivanov
2009. ISBN: 978-1-60692-582-9

Evaluating Online Learning: Challenges
and Strategies for Success
Arthur T. Weston (Editor)
2009. ISBN: 978-1-60741-107-9

Learning in the Network Society
and the Digitized School
Rune Krumsvik (Editor)
2009. ISBN: 978-1-60741-172-7

Rural Education in the 21st Century
Christine M.E. Frisiras (Editor)
2009. ISBN: 978-1-60692-966-7
IT- Based Project Change Management System
Faisal Manzoor Arain
and Low Sui Pheng
2009. ISBN: 978-1-60741-148-2

Reading: Assessment, Comprehension and Teaching
Nancy H. Salas and Donna D. Peyton (Editors)
2009. ISBN: 978-1-60692-615-4

Reading: Assessment, Comprehension and Teaching
Nancy H. Salas and Donna D. Peyton (Editors)
2009. ISBN: 978-1-60876-543-0 (Online Book)

Mentoring: Program Development,
Relationships and Outcomes
Michael I. Keel (Editor)
2009. ISBN: 978-1-60692-287-3

Mentoring: Program Development,
Relationships and Outcomes
Michael I. Keel (Editor)
2009. ISBN: 978-1-60876-727-4 (Online Book)

Enhancing Prospects of Longer-Term Sustainability
of Cross-Cultural INSET Initiatives in China
Chunmei Yan
2009. ISBN: 978-1-60741-615-9

Multimedia in Education and Special Education
Onan Demir and Cari Celik
2009. ISBN: 978-1-60741-073-7

PCK and Teaching Innovations
Syh-Jong Jang
2009. ISBN: 978-1-60741-147-5

Academic Administration: A Quest for Better
Management and Leadership in Higher Education
Sheying Chen (Editor)
2009. ISBN: 978-1-60741-732-3

New Research in Education: Adult, Medical and Vocational
Edmondo Balistrieri
and Giustino DeNino (Editors)
2009. ISBN: 978-1-60741-873-3

Approaches to Early Childhood and Elementary Education
Francis Wardle
2009. ISBN: 978-1-60741-643-2

Recent Trends in Education
Borislav Kuzmanovi and Adelina Cuevas (Editors)
2009. ISBN: 978-1-60741-795-8

Expanding Teaching and Learning Horizons
in Economic Education
Franklin G. Mixon, Jr. and Richard J. Cebula
2009. ISBN: 978-1-60741-971-6

Challenges of Quality Education
in Sub-Saharan African Countries
Daniel Namusonge Sifuna and Nobuhide Sawamura
2010. ISBN: 978-1-60741-509-1

Developments in Higher Education
Mary Lee Albertson (Editor)
2010. ISBN: 978-1-60876-113-5

The Process of Change in Education:
Moving from Descriptive to Prescriptive Research
Baruch Offir
2010. ISBN: 978-1-60741-451-3

Success in Mathematics Education
Caroline B. Baumann
2009. ISBN: 978-1-60692-299-6

Special Education in the 21st Century
MaryAnn T. Burton (Editor)
2010. ISBN: 978-1-60741-556-5

Collaborative Learning: Methodology, Types of Interaction
Edda Luzzatto and Giordano DiMarcos (Editors)
2010. ISBN: 978-1-60876-076-3

Handbook of Lifelong Learning Developments
Margaret P. Caltone (Editor)
2010. ISBN: 978-1-60876-177-7

Voices of Foreign-Born African American Teacher
Educators in the United States
Festus E. Obiakor, Sunday O. Obi and Patrick Grant (Editors)
2010. ISBN: 978-1-60876-322-1

Delving into Diversity: An International Exploration of Issues
of Diversity in Education
Vanessa Green and Sue Cherrington (Editors)
2010. ISBN: 978-1-60876-361-0

Adopting Blended Learning for Collaborative Work
in Higher Education
Alan Hogarth
2010. ISBN: 978-1-60876-260-6

Collaborative Learning: Methodology, Types of Interactions
and Techniques
Edda Luzzatto and Giordano DiMarco (Editors)
2010. ISBN: 978-1-60876-076-3
EDUCATION IN A COMPETITIVE AND GLOBALIZING WORLD SERIES

COLLABORATIVE LEARNING:
METHODOLOGY, TYPES OF
INTERACTIONS AND TECHNIQUES

EDDA LUZZATTO
AND
GIORDANO DIMARCO
EDITORS

Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
New York

Copyright 2010 by Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or
transmitted in any form or by any means: electronic, electrostatic, magnetic, tape, mechanical
photocopying, recording or otherwise without the written permission of the Publisher.

For permission to use material from this book please contact us:
Telephone 631-231-7269; Fax 631-231-8175
Web Site: http://www.novapublishers.com

NOTICE TO THE READER
The Publisher has taken reasonable care in the preparation of this book, but makes no expressed or
implied warranty of any kind and assumes no responsibility for any errors or omissions. No
liability is assumed for incidental or consequential damages in connection with or arising out of
information contained in this book. The Publisher shall not be liable for any special,
consequential, or exemplary damages resulting, in whole or in part, from the readers use of, or
reliance upon, this material.

Independent verification should be sought for any data, advice or recommendations contained in
this book. In addition, no responsibility is assumed by the publisher for any injury and/or damage
to persons or property arising from any methods, products, instructions, ideas or otherwise
contained in this publication.

This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information with regard to the
subject matter covered herein. It is sold with the clear understanding that the Publisher is not
engaged in rendering legal or any other professional services. If legal or any other expert
assistance is required, the services of a competent person should be sought. FROM A
DECLARATION OF PARTICIPANTS JOINTLY ADOPTED BY A COMMITTEE OF THE
AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION AND A COMMITTEE OF PUBLISHERS.

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOGING-IN-PUBLICATION DATA
Collaborative learning : methodology, types of interactions and techniques / [edited by] Edda
Luzzatto and Giordano DiMarco.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-1-61324-251-3 (eBook)
1. Group work in education--Cross-cultural studies. I. Luzzatto, Edda. II. DiMarco, Giordano.
LB1032.C5664 2009
371.3'6--dc22
2009032919

Published by Nova Science Publishers, Inc. New York

CONTENTS

Preface xi
Chapter 1 Collaborative Learning in Teaching:
A Trajectory to Expertise in Pedagogical Reasoning 1
Julien Mercier, Monique Brodeur,
Line Laplante and Caroline Girard
Chapter 2 Generating Collaborative Contexts to
Promote Learning and Development 47
Alejandro Iborra, Dolores Garca,
Leonor Margalef and Vctor Prez
Chapter 3 Examining Child Development Theories through
Collaborative Learning: Techniques for the
Instruction of Early Childhood Preservice Teachers 81
Bridget A. Walsh and Claudia Sanchez
Chapter 4 Facilitating a Blended Learning Approach to Encourage
Collaborative Working on Undergraduate Modules 95
Alan Hogarth
Chapter 5 Collaborative Play in Early Childhood Education 135
W. B. Mawson
Chapter 6 Understanding Computer Supported Collaborative
Medical Problem Solving: Diverse Perspectives
and Multiple Methods 165
Jingyan Lu
Chapter 7 Are You Talking to Me? An Overview of Techniques
to Measure Peer Interactions from Three
Perspectives and a Proposal for an Integrative Model 197
Michiel B. Oortwijn, Astrid C. Homan
and Nadira Saab

Contents x
Chapter 8 The Role of Simulations and Real-Time Applications
in Collaborative Learning 225
Maria Limniou, Nikos Papadopoulos
and Ioannis Kozaris
Chapter 9 Design Research on Establishing a Learning Ecology
for the Use of a Graphic Calculator During
Collaborative Work 257
Dirk J. Hoek
Chapter 10 Types of Interactions in Science Museum Class Visits 281
Yael Bamberger
Chapter 11 Supporting Collaborative Learning by Using Web 2.0 Tools 301
Qiyun Wang and Huay Lit Woo
Chapter 12 Using Collaborative Learning Methods to
Engage and Empower Undergraduate
Students in Science Classrooms 317
Neena Grover
Chapter 13 Meditative Dialogue: A Method for Engaging
with Students in Collaborative Learning Processes 331
Susan A. Lord
Chapter 14 Case Study of Collaborative Learning in Two Contexts:
What Do English Language Learners Gain? 341
Sally Ashton-Hay and Hitendra Pillay
Chapter 15 The Instructional Design of Online Collaborative Learning 363
Laurie Posey and Laurie Lyons
Index 383

PREFACE

Fostering teachers use of theoretical knowledge requires models that take into account
cognitive processes and knowledge used in novices and experts performance, and how these
processes and knowledge evolve over time. The aim of this study is to develop a model of the
cognitive processes involved in collaborative pedagogical reasoning across four expertise
levels. Cognitive research suggests a pedagogical-reasoning model involving three modules
associated with theories of discourse comprehension and production, reasoning, planning and
problem solving.
Twelve student teachers (second and fourth year) and 6 special education teachers (2 had
5 years of experience and 4 had graduate training) were selected to constitute the sample.
Paired participants were asked to plan remedial reading instruction. Process modeling was
conducted under the assumption that categories developed for individual cognition can be
applied to a dyads functioning as a unified system. Frequencies and conditional probabilities
are used to aggregate sample data.
Globally, participants spent the bulk of their time performing collaborative pedagogical-
reasoning actions. There is no notable difference in the prevalence of categories linked to
expertise level. At the level of actions, many differences can be observed. Comprehending the
case is relatively more frequent in experts and less frequent in fourth-year students. There is a
strong tendency towards putting more time on diagnosis and less time on the elaboration of
the intervention as the level of expertise increases. These differences may be explained in part
by the high level of difficulty of the case study.
Globally, sequential dependency among the various steps increases with expertise. At the
level of specific transitions, the sequential results depict collaborative pedagogical reasoning
as an unsystematic process, making comparisons between levels of expertise difficult. Results
show that experts plan goals about diagnostic, while others plan about comprehension.
Experts, in contrast with the other participants, do not go from comprehension to elaborating
the intervention. For all expertise levels, comprehension and the elaboration of the
intervention are more controlled than the diagnostic process. The absence of clearer patterns
may be the result of the added complexity of considering pairs as a unified system instead of
two separate individuals.
This study is part of a program investigating the role and development of expertise in
decision-making, as well as the similarities and differences between individual and
collaborative performance in complex domains. This analysis of collaborative performance
paves the way to upcoming analyses of the individual contributions to teamwork and to
Edda Luzzatto and Giordano DiMarco xii
comparisons of co-regulation (in homogeneous and heterogeneous dyads) and self-regulation
(in individual performance). Finally, the model developed represents a framework to further
investigate knowledge use in problem solving.
Chapter 1 - Fostering teachers use of theoretical knowledge requires models that take
into account cognitive processes and knowledge used in novices and experts performance,
and how these processes and knowledge evolve over time. The aim of this study is to develop
a model of the cognitive processes involved in collaborative pedagogical reasoning across
four expertise levels. Cognitive research suggests a pedagogical-reasoning model involving
three modules associated with theories of discourse comprehension and production,
reasoning, planning and problem solving.
Twelve student teachers (second and fourth year) and 6 special education teachers (2 had
5 years of experience and 4 had graduate training) were selected to constitute the sample.
Paired participants were asked to plan remedial reading instruction. Process modeling was
conducted under the assumption that categories developed for individual cognition can be
applied to a dyads functioning as a unified system. Frequencies and conditional probabilities
are used to aggregate sample data.
Globally, participants spent the bulk of their time performing collaborative pedagogical-
reasoning actions. There is no notable difference in the prevalence of categories linked to
expertise level. At the level of actions, many differences can be observed. Comprehending the
case is relatively more frequent in experts and less frequent in fourth-year students. There is a
strong tendency towards putting more time on diagnosis and less time on the elaboration of
the intervention as the level of expertise increases. These differences may be explained in part
by the high level of difficulty of the case study.
Globally, sequential dependency among the various steps increases with expertise. At the
level of specific transitions, the sequential results depict collaborative pedagogical reasoning
as an unsystematic process, making comparisons between levels of expertise difficult. Results
show that experts plan goals about diagnostic, while others plan about comprehension.
Experts, in contrast with the other participants, do not go from comprehension to elaborating
the intervention. For all expertise levels, comprehension and the elaboration of the
intervention are more controlled than the diagnostic process. The absence of clearer patterns
may be the result of the added complexity of considering pairs as a unified system instead of
two separate individuals.
collaborative performance in complex domains. This analysis of collaborative performance
paves the way to upcoming analyses of the individual contributions to teamwork and to
comparisons of co-regulation (in homogeneous and heterogeneous dyads) and self-regulation
(in individual performance). Finally, the model developed represents a framework to further
investigate knowledge use in problem solving.
Chapter 2 - We proceed to present in this chapter an active and experiential teaching
approach based in the creation of collaborative contexts. This collaborative approach has
been experienced and developed through different educational scenarios from Bachelors to
Doctorates degree studies since 2002. Going beyond the application of cooperative
techniques we propose the convenience of reflecting about the kind of context that is created
all through one course between all the involved participants: teacher and students as a whole.
According to this we reflect and present evidence concerning the following topics:
Preface xiii
developmental demands for teachers and students participating in a collaborative experience;
key social skills (communication, managing conflicts and leadership processes);
interdisciplinary practices with the coordination of several subjects; coherent evaluation
practices promoting learning instead of control processes; competence promotion instead of
just content elaboration; optional instead of compulsory contexts; useful connecting processes
(the McGuffin project ); real practices instead of faked or simulated exercises and finally
integration of new virtual technologies such as wikis, blogs and forums to support the
process. After exploring these topics we conclude proposing a typical sequence useful to
promote this kind of collaborative approach.
Chapter 3 - This chapter presents seven collaborative learning techniques for exploring
10 child development theories with early childhood preservice teachers. The chapter also
reports on a content analysis that investigated the frequency with which these theories
appeared referenced in a popular early childhood journal. The content analysis serves as a
framework for instructors to implement seven collaborative learning strategies in the
instruction of preservice teachers, namely, think-pair-share, open discussion, all-you-know-
about technique, visual conceptualizations, the auction game, traveling teams, and extension
activities for higher-order thinking.
Chapter 4 - The main aim of this chapter is to gain a deeper understanding of the attitudes
of undergraduate university students to group work and group based technology and how this
adds to the concept of blended learning. To advance this aim organisational culture and group
work, group based technology in the work place, students and group work and blended
learning were all considered important issues for this research. To begin with group work and
group technology were considered in an industry setting as this was seen as an important pre-
requisite to the study of student group work. Initially the relevant literature was reviewed.
Following this an industry survey of Human Resource Managers was carried out in order to
enhance the findings in the literature review. Another element of this research comprised of a
case study and involved groups of undergraduate students involved in group work. The
industry survey was in the form of a two-part questionnaire; Traditional Group Work and
Group Based Technology. The main findings are that although industry has facilitated group
working for a number of years it is still not confident with group technology. The case study
involved investigating two classes of students on two modules involved with a group
coursework assessment. Questionnaires and interviews were used for the empirical data. The
main findings were that there were problems with both traditional group work assessment and
group work assessment undertaken with technology. Students were uncomfortable with some
aspects of group work e.g. dynamics, conflict, communication, team building issues. They
were also unsure of the need or purpose of group based technology. A major finding was that
the students did not receive any guidance or training in how to work in groups or use group
based technology. With a view to rectifying this situation a number of models were
commended that could benefit students undertaking group work in the university
environment. The first is the Conceptual Framework for Student Group Work Guidance and
Training shows the main areas to be addressed by universities wishing to aid students with
group work. This should include a policy on group work as part of the teaching and learning
strategy and this should contain issues identified in the research as important i.e. educational,
employment, government and technology. Secondly a Traditional Group Work Skills
Integrative Training Paradigm was proposed that highlights the traditional group work
training needs of students under three main issues; Culture Change, Social and Educational.
Edda Luzzatto and Giordano DiMarco xiv
These sections have further detailed sub-headings. The third model, Group Based Technology
Skills Integrative Training Paradigm, highlights the training needs for students in group
based technology. Three main issues are also included in this model; Culture Change, Social
and Educational Technology. It is also recommended that a further study be carried out where
the above training models may be applied in a real life setting. To this end further research
was undertaken on the possibility of a new and innovative blended learning approach
incorporating the findings of the above research. Due to the wider, more diverse student
population there is an obvious need for greater flexibility in curriculum design and course
delivery, accompanied by innovations in teaching and learning. A more flexible style of
teaching and greater independent learning by students is now required to cope with these
changes. The answer would appear to be to encourage independent learning by facilitating a
blended learning approach. This chapter also discusses a blended learning approach,
developed by the authors, to teaching undergraduate modules that encourage students to
undertake independent learning in a practical and non-threatening manner. This approach is
based on the utilisation of aspects of traditional teaching, VLEs and Web 2.0 technologies.
The model discussed in this section is the culmination of the project funded by the Re-
Engineering Assessment Project (REAP).
The benefits of this research of student group working are reflected in its relevance to an
important area in both business and educational environments. Its findings offer an
understanding of the research area and have helped develop a series of models that others can
use to assist their students understand and use group work and group based technology.
Chapter 5 - Collaborative play in early childhood education is an under-researched area.
This chapter describes and discusses the findings of a two-year research project investigating
the nature of young childrens collaborative play in two New Zealand early childhood
education settings. In order to clearly contextualize the study the research method,
participants and settings are first described. The findings are then discussed in terms of
gender, leadership, themes, and environmental influences. Two aspects, the theme of
pretending to be dead, and the nature of leadership in childrens play are explored in depth in
this discussion. Finally, suggestions are offered for strategies to encourage collaborate play in
early childhood settings
Chapter 6 - Understanding computer supported collaborative problem solving calls for
diverse theoretical perspectives and multiple analytical methods. This chapter is divided
into five parts. Part one deals with how different theories of learning contribute alternative
social, cognitive and technological perspectives on such fundamental features of
collaborative learning as scaffolding, problem solving, argumentation and communicative
interaction. Part two argues that multiple methods provide resources for analyzing data
from social, cognitive and affective perspectives on collaborative problem solving. Part
three discusses computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) environments as
composed of sets of cognitive tools specially designed to support collaborative problem
solving. Part four focuses on an innovative classroom problem solving activity in which a
teacher and his third-year medical students simulate authentic medical emergencies in
which students are required to stabilize a hospitalized patient whose vital signs have
suddenly begun to deteriorate. In mounting, directing and acting in simulations the teacher
not only transforms his role as instructor but those of his students as learners. For instance,
multiple theoretical perspectives make it possible to focus not only on diverse roles of
pedagogical expertise but also on how CSCL based cognitive tools for visualizing and
Preface xv
formulating tasks, and for managing data can be used in scaffolding collaborative problem
solving and decision-making. Multidisciplinary methodologies can support complementary
forms of analysis of differently sourced data. Examples of coding, analyzing, and
interpreting teacher-student and student-student discourse, medical problem solving, and
tool use are provided. Part five discusses potential challenges to and proposals for
integrating multiple methods and sources of data.
Chapter 7 - A unique aspect of working in small groups is that students have the
opportunity to interact with each other about how to solve problems. Research in
educational and social psychology has shown that task-related (TR) peer interactions are
positively related to performance. The positive relation of task-related peer interactions
with performance is influenced by both individual and contextual factors. In this chapter
we will give an overview of the current knowledge on methods to analyze task-related
peer interactions in three major research fields: the face-to-face, computer-supported, and
group decision-making setting. We will outline that there are several methods of
interaction analysis in each research field which differ from each other on multiple
aspects. In the face-to-face setting the two dominant approaches are: (1) discourse
analysis (analysis of interaction patterns), and (2) functional analysis (analysis of aspects
of individual statements). In the computer-supported setting, peers communicate through
means of computer-mediated communication (CMC). Two types of communication tools
can be distinguished: asynchronic communication tools, such as e-mail and discussion
forums, and synchronic tools, such as chat. Compared to the face-to-face setting, methods
used to code CMC make use of the fact that CMC can be directly logged. In group
decision-making settings, group processes are assessed using real-time as well as survey-
based measures of interaction quality (e.g., social climates and conflicts) and task
progress (e.g., shared mental models and group-level information processing). We will
provide a state-of-the art overview of current peer interaction methodologies and
illustrate each methodology with case studies from relevant research.
Additionally, we will discuss what individual and contextual factors have been found
to affect the relation between task-related peer interactions and performance. In doing so,
we will draw parallels between educational psychology and social psychology and
propose an integrative model to better understand what determines the effectiveness of
task-related peer interactions.
Chapter 8 - As Computer-Supported Collaboration Learning (CSCL) is the
combination of collaborative learning and support by computer technology, the
effectiveness of CSCL depends on the kind of collaboration, the technical environment,
the learners characteristics, the teachers role and the task demands. The aim of this
chapter is to demonstrate the integration of synchronous and asynchronous activity based
on real-time application and simulations into chemistry laboratory. In synchronous
collaboration students observed the progress of an experiment from their PC and
collected and interpreted data as the experiment was on the progress by using a real -time
application for control the instrument remotely. Another example for synchronous
collaboration was based on simulation program where the teaching procedure was
conducted in a computer-cluster. The students performed virtual experiments by using a
simulation program on their PC and they shared their measurements, observations and
conclusions by using the LAN. In the cases of synchronous collaborations the teacher and
the students had a face-to-face communication in computer cluster and the computer
Edda Luzzatto and Giordano DiMarco xvi
interaction was through LAN. In asynchronous collaboration, students performed virtual
experiments by using a simulator and by using the discussion boards of Virtual Learning
Environments (VLEs) they shared their experience and discussed the conclusions. In that
case the teacher and students had an on-line collaboration and the computer interaction
was through VLEs. The results in all the cases were interpreted in terms of the learners
characteristics, the teachers role, task demands and learning outcomes.
Chapter 9 - Research that goes beyond the numerous effect studies on the influence of the
graphic calculator on student achievement shows that the use of this tool in an explorative manner
asks for a well-tuned learning ecology. Thus, if the latter is seen as a valuable option, the question
arises how such a learning ecology can be developed. To answer this question, a design research
project was carried out in two classrooms within schools for vocational education. This study
aimed at changing the learning ecology by fostering gradual changes in teacher behavior. As a
result of this intervention, teachers changed their teaching style, which resulted in changes in the
students way of working together. Teachers developed a more process and group oriented
coaching style and students started to work collaboratively, using the graphic calculator in an
exploratory and investigative way. This paper will report on the intervention strategy that has been
developed as part of the study.
Chapter 10 - Exhibitions in science museums stimulate conversations and collaborative
learning in different ways. This chapter describes a research method that aims to analyze
various types of interactions in relation to these exhibits. Since the museum setting is strongly
socio-culturally mediated, the theoretical framework is based on socio-cultural theory, which
emphasizes social interactions and stresses the importance of cultural symbols as essential
elements in meaning-making. Types of interactions can describe the collaborative learning in
class visits to museums, and defined here as: individual, collective and multiple zones of
interaction. The zones are centered on a single exhibit that encourages interpersonal or
intrapersonal interaction. The individual zone occurs when only one student manipulates the
exhibit; the collective zone occurs when two or more students share their experience
regarding the exhibit; and multiple zone describes a situation in which two or more separate
zones occur at the same time and both are centered on the same exhibit. Since learning in
museums is mainly interest-driven, this method further characterizes the collaborative
learning within the three zones of interaction through evaluation of expressions of curiosity.
These expressions of curiosity are manifested in technical, emotional and intellectual ways. In
order to elucidate the implementation of the suggested method to study interactions at
museums, this chapter presents a study utilizing the framework to evaluate class visits to a
science center. Two class visits of eighth graders were observed and videotaped, focusing on
student-student and student-adult interactions. The framework suggested in this chapter
enables an innovative method for investigating exhibits-centered collaborative learning
involving the different types of interactions in science museums.
Chapter 11 - The ability to collaborate is becoming more and more important in todays
world in which tasks are getting more and more interdisciplinary and complicated to
accomplish. It is therefore essential to prepare students on collaborative tasks while they are
in schools so that they can become competent team workers when they enter the workforce.
This chapter presents a theoretical foundation of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning
(CSCL) and uses related examples to illustrate how various web 2.0 tools can be used to
support collaborative learning. There are three parts in the theoretical foundation: first, the
two important pillars of CSCL (individual accountability and positive interdependence);
Preface xvii
second, the three levels of collaboration (coordination, cooperation and reflective
communication) and last, the social constructivist learning theory. The web 2.0 tools
presented in this chapter include Weblog, Wiki, Google Docs, Yahoo group, and Facebook.
The affordances of these tools for collaborative learning together with examples of using the
tools to support teachers and students in collaborative learning processes are also described.
Chapter 12 - Much of the traditional science is taught with the idea that students can only
begin to participate in the intellectual work of science only after years of classroom learning,
primarily through lecture-based methods. Experiential learning is relegated to the laboratory.
Thus, it is not a surprise that students equate learning science with memorizing and
regurgitating factual information. To attract students with diverse talents into our fields we
need to rethink the paradigm of teaching and learning science. Science faculty have access to
various pedagogical tools that can facilitate greater interactions among students and engage
them with the material in a meaningful way. When students get involved in their own learning,
the extent of student and faculty engagement with the material increases significantly.
Collaborative work environment inside and outside the classroom increases the quality of work
produced by the students. When classroom learning is coupled with dissemination of scientific
information to the community, it enhances students commitment and motivation for the work.
Whether these students stay in science or not, they become good ambassadors of science. In
this chapter, I will discuss various aspects of planning and organization necessary for successful
implementation of collaborative learning and provide some examples from my courses with
contain various degrees of collaborative-learning and community engagement.
Chapter 13 - This chapter offers an in-depth description of a teaching approach that uses
meditation and postmodern practices to encourage a sense of joint ownership, collaboration
and mutual responsibility for learning in a final Masters in Social Work (MSW) practice
class at the University of New Hampshire (UNH) in Durham, New Hampshire. It elaborates
on practices that have been described elsewhere (Lord, 2007) and that continue to evolve and
expand. It delineates processes through which students and instructor aim to become equal
partners in developing collective knowledges, participating actively in the collaborative
practices that they are learning about as they move from positions of inexpert learners to
expert colleagues in preparation for graduation and entry into the social work field. Included
is a discussion of current students evaluation of the meditative dialogue method and their
views on how it has impacted their learning experience and professional development.
Chapter 14 - This paper describes the use of collaborative learning as an approach to
enhance English language learning by students from non-English speaking backgrounds.
Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) principles were applied to two case studies, one
comprising of undergraduate English as Foreign Language learners in Turkey and the other
involved English as Second Language learners in Australia. Social constructivism inspired
communicative language teaching using collaborative learning activities such as team work,
interactive peer-based learning; and iterative stages of learning matrix were incorporated to
enhance students learning outcomes. Data collected after the CLT intervention was made up
of field notes, reflective logs and focus group interviews which revealed complementarities,
as well as subtle differences between the two cases. The findings were summarized as
learning dispositions; speaking competence, proficiency and confidence; learning diagnostics
and completion deficiencies; task engagement, flow theory and higher order thinking skills; in
addition to self efficacy and development of student identity. CLT has the potential to provide
Edda Luzzatto and Giordano DiMarco xviii
a more inclusive and dynamic education experience for diverse learners through vital
outcomes and benefits which resonate with the real world.
Chapter 15 - Much has been written about the potential for deep, meaningful learning
through shared problem-solving and joint knowledge construction during online collaborative
learning (OCL). By requiring the integration of diverse perspectives, collaborative
experiences foster critical thinking and can help to move learners beyond what they are able
to achieve independently. With these important educational benefits come significant
challenges related to team building, participation equity, effective facilitation of critical
discourse, student assessment, and the logistical challenges associated with separation of time
and place. Perceived and experienced implementation difficulties often inhibit instructors
adoption of collaborative learning strategies in online courses.
The challenges associated with online collaborative learning can be addressed through
careful instructional design. There is an array of educational research exploring the effects of
instructional variables on the effectiveness and outcomes of OCL. The prevalence of small,
diverse studies focused on specific aspects of collaborative learning makes it difficult for
practitioners to draw conclusions to guide instructional practice. The literature includes many
descriptions of what effective collaboration looks like, but little specific guidance about
how to get there.
To bridge this gap, this chapter translates collaborative learning research into practical
application. It explores key instructional design considerations for the design and
implementation of effective online collaborative learning including technology selection;
activity design; group formation and role assignment; team building; scaffolding and
facilitation; and learner assessment. A synthesis of research findings related to each of these
considerations is presented along with checklists of recommendations to guide the
instructional design of OCL.

In: Collaborative Learning: Methodology, Types ISBN: 978-1-60876-076-3
Editors: E. Luzzatto, G. DiMarco, pp. 1-46 2010 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Chapter 1

COLLABORATIVE LEARNING IN TEACHING:
A TRAJECTORY TO EXPERTISE IN
PEDAGOGICAL REASONING

J ulien Mercier
1
*
, Monique Brodeur
1
,
Line Laplante
2
and Caroline Girard
1
1
Dpartement d'ducation et formation spcialises Universit du Qubec Montral C.P.
8888, Succursale Centre-ville, Montral (Qubec) Canada H3C 3P8
2
Universit du Qubec Montral
3
Dpartementde didactique des langues Universit du Qubec Montral

ABSTRACT

Fostering teachers use of theoretical knowledge requires models that take into
account cognitive processes and knowledge used in novices and experts performance,
and how these processes and knowledge evolve over time. The aim of this study is to
develop a model of the cognitive processes involved in collaborative pedagogical
reasoning across four expertise levels. Cognitive research suggests a pedagogical-
reasoning model involving three modules associated with theories of discourse
comprehension and production, reasoning, planning and problem solving.
Twelve student teachers (second and fourth year) and 6 special education teachers (2
had 5 years of experience and 4 had graduate training) were selected to constitute the
sample. Paired participants were asked to plan remedial reading instruction. Process
modeling was conducted under the assumption that categories developed for individual
cognition can be applied to a dyads functioning as a unified system. Frequencies and
conditional probabilities are used to aggregate sample data.
Globally, participants spent the bulk of their time performing collaborative
pedagogical-reasoning actions. There is no notable difference in the prevalence of
categories linked to expertise level. At the level of actions, many differences can be

*
Corresponding Author: Tlphone: (514) 987-3000, poste 1091, Tlcopie : (514) 987- 3430
Email : mercier.julien@uqam.ca
Julien Mercier, Monique Brodeur, Line Laplante et al. 2
observed. Comprehending the case is relatively more frequent in experts and less
frequent in fourth-year students. There is a strong tendency towards putting more time on
diagnosis and less time on the elaboration of the intervention as the level of expertise
increases. These differences may be explained in part by the high level of difficulty of the
case study.
Globally, sequential dependency among the various steps increases with expertise.
At the level of specific transitions, the sequential results depict collaborative pedagogical
reasoning as an unsystematic process, making comparisons between levels of expertise
difficult. Results show that experts plan goals about diagnostic, while others plan about
comprehension. Experts, in contrast with the other participants, do not go from
comprehension to elaborating the intervention. For all expertise levels, comprehension
and the elaboration of the intervention are more controlled than the diagnostic process.
The absence of clearer patterns may be the result of the added complexity of considering
pairs as a unified system instead of two separate individuals.
collaborative performance in complex domains. This analysis of collaborative
performance paves the way to upcoming analyses of the individual contributions to
teamwork and to comparisons of co-regulation (in homogeneous and heterogeneous
dyads) and self-regulation (in individual performance). Finally, the model developed
represents a framework to further investigate knowledge use in problem solving.

INTRODUCTION

The study reported herein is part of the first phase of the Pedagogical Reasoning Project,
which began in 2006. In hope of improving teacher education and teacher professional
development, the main outcome of the first phase of the project is a theory accounting for
aspects of teachers cognition in terms of problem-solving processes, knowledge and
knowledge use. This chapter is the first of a series of publications discussing, from a
cognitive point of view, aspects of (1) how teachers think, both individually and
cooperatively, (2) the knowledge they possess, (3) how they use this knowledge in teaching,
(4) the assessment of expertise in teaching, and (5) the development of expertise in teaching.
The present chapter is the cornerstone of the other manuscripts, since it presents in great
detail the foundations of the model that is used in the subsequent pieces of work. These
foundations hinge on cognitive research that began in the late 1970s and is still going on
today.
Teacher collaboration is currently an important topic of research on teaching and teacher
education. In recent years, researchers have studied collaboration between teachers through
the use of information and communication technology (ICT) (Akpinar & Bal, 2006 ;
Suntisukwongchote , 2006 ; Winter & McGhie-Richmond, 2005), in context of inclusion
(Wallace, Anderson & Bartholomay, 2002 ; Parmar & DeSimone, 2006), the role of
collaboration between student teachers in learning to teach (Arvaja, Salovaara, Hkkinen &
Jrvel, 2007 ; Seifert & Manzuk, 2006), the role of collaboration between teachers in
learning to teach (Meirink, Meijer & Verloop, 2007), the role of collaboration between
teacher educators and classroom teachers (Erickson, Minnes Brandes, Mitchell & Mitchel,
2005) and between teachers (Butler, Lauscher, Jarvis-Selinger, Beckingham, 2004 ; Johnson,
2003) on professional development, the role of collaboration between student teachers and
Expertise in Pedagogical Reasoning 3
teacher educators on student teachers learning (Tillema & Orland-Barak, 2006),
collaboration between teachers in planning and implementing lessons (Akpinar & Bal, 2006 ;
Chen,

Cone & Cone, 2007 ; Davison, 2006), and collaboration between teachers and
university researchers in curriculum design (Webb, Romberg, Ford & Burrill, 2005).
These studies have shown that collaboration can have beneficial effects on teachers
learning and production. For example, Erickson, Minnes Brandes, Mitchell and Mitchell
(2005) and Chen,

Cone and Cone (2007) suggested that collaboration projects involving in-
service teachers have enhanced pupils learning. In another study, social support was the main
outcome of collaboration between student teachers (Seifert & Manzuk, 2006). However, these
studies have also identified challenges inherent to collaboration. Issues of conflict,
commitment, control and respect (Erickson, Minnes Brandes, Mitchell and Mitchel, 2005),
roles and responsibilities (Winter & McGhie-Richmond, 2005) as well as issues related to
individual differences (Seifert & Manzuk, 2006) were raised. Consequently, collaboration in
group work may not always represent an added value over individual activity. Arvaja,
Salovaara, Hkkinen & Jrvel (2007) call for the study of the reciprocal relationship between
individual and collective processes in order to design better collaborative learning tasks. They
precisely formulated a fundamental issue: what kind of social interaction can be called
collaborative and how are the collaborative opportunities and individual abilities matched?
To help further explore this intricate balance of costs and benefits related to group
performance and learning, collaboration has to be studied in the context of well-specified
teaching tasks that can reveal group processes as well as individual processes of the
individuals forming the group. These processes refer to the executive processes of the group
during the performance of a (learning) task, as well as the processes by which each individual
attunes his own cognitive processes to the group performance (Tschan, 2002). An important
assumption in this study is that the executive processes underlying the individual or group
performance can be characterized, at a certain level, using the same categories.
Such a study requires a complex task that is representative of a significant portion of
daily teaching activity. Instructional or teacher planning was selected as an appropriate task,
for a number of reasons. Teacher planning is an important part of teaching. It encompasses
almost everything excluding the interactive phase of teaching. That is, it includes decision-
making before a teaching episode, as well as post-teaching reflection and adjustments.
Teacher planning is the principal mean for the development of teacher knowledge
(Hasweh, 2005), a function that was formulated intuitively almost 30 years ago by
McCutcheon (1980). The planning or design of learning activities implies that the teacher
provide answers to a series of questions related to educational issues such as content, learning
goals, links with anterior/subsequent content and students prior knowledge, and assessment.
Elements of answer to such questions originate either from knowledge that the teacher
already has, or from external sources. Teacher knowledge develops from the integration of
these elements of answer.
As a process involving the integration of internal and external sources of knowledge,
teacher planning can be seen as the entry point of choice for best practices. In the teaching
process, planning is the main occasion for making decisions regarding alternative practices. In
contrast, decision making in the interactive phase of teaching is restricted to the
implementation of scripts and agendas previously determined.
These reasons, associated with the development of current conceptualizations of teacher
knowledge, have led to renewed interest in teacher planning, teacher knowledge and their
relation and how to foster the development of these skills and knowledge (McCutcheon &
Milner, 2002 ; Milner, 2003; Hasweh, 2005).

1. THE PROBLEM AND ITS CONTEXT

In light of the importance of collaboration in teaching and teacher education, the study of
teacher cognition should be extended to groups of teachers. Teamwork is widespread in
teaching. Most teacher education programs include collaboration as a means to foster student
learning. For example, student teachers work collaboratively in university courses. They are
also supervised by mentors during teaching practicums. Moreover, current reforms formulate
calls for teachers to work collaboratively on educational issues. As a result, teachers work in
teams on shared teaching projects. Specialists of various disciplines work together on a
pupils AEP. However, how teachers collaborate in their work has not been extensively
documented from a cognitive perspective. Indeed, during the last 35 years, the field of teacher
cognition has produced many studies of teachers thought processes and knowledge (Clark &
Peterson, 1986; Munby, Russell and Martin, 2001). The types and functions of teacher
planning, and aspects of the process of teacher planning were studied. Aspects of the
knowledge on which teacher planning is based were characterized (Hasweh, 2005; Shulman,
1986). The cognitive research reviewed focused exclusively on individual teachers cognition.
As Munby, Russell and Martin (2001, p.894) point out, Until learning experiences in
university settings evolve to match our understanding of situated cognition, the development
of teachers knowledge will continue to be problematic. To this end, it is critical that the
study of teacher cognition be extended to collaborative contexts in a way that results can be
articulated synergistically with a substantial and highly relevant tradition of research
regarding individual cognition.

2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

A cognitive model of pedagogical reasoning has to specify the structure of a pedagogical-
reasoning episode (i.e. a sequence of pedagogical-reasoning actions). That is, such a model
has to postulate what actions can occur in the sequence of actions involved in a pedagogical-
reasoning episode. Such actions are conceptualized after pertinent theory of human cognitive
performance in complex domains: comprehension, reasoning, planning and problem solving.
In addition, the model has to specify how such actions unfold within an episode. This
sequence is based on structural constraints inherent to the nature of pedagogical-reasoning
constituent components. Moreover, given its hierarchical nature, the model may imply
predictions about how episodes of components of the same hierarchical level in the model are
linked. Since comprehension, reasoning and pedagogical problem solving are conceived of as
the main components of human cognitive performance in a semantically complex domain,
these processes can be examined with respect to how they interact with each other. Finally,
the model may imply additional predictions about how episodes of different hierarchical
levels in the model are linked. The result is a generic theory of pedagogical-reasoning
processes that can be used to examine aspects of the performance of individuals and groups in
a context of instructional planning. The model is based on the theoretical elements presented
next: the cognitive processes underlying pedagogical reasoning, the relationship between
individual and group performance, and the relationship between pedagogical reasoning and
domain knowledge. The presentation of the research questions ends this section.

2.1. Cognitive Processes Involved in Pedagogical Reasoning

The processes involved in pedagogical reasoning build on the two major manifestations
of human higher-order cognition according to Hatano and Inahaki (2000): discourse
comprehension and production, and problem solving. These processes are complementary:
comprehension is a coherence-seeking process whereas problem solving is a change-seeking
process. An emphasis is also put on reasoning, as an extension to comprehension theories
(Hatano and Inahaki, 2000) that focuses on how relations between mental representations are
used to make inferences (Rips, 2002). Despite their complementary nature, research to date
has not shown how comprehension and problem solving are articulated together. This must be
done to some degree for the present model. To this end, the concepts of schemas and mental
models, as entities that are manipulated both by comprehension (including reasoning) and
problem-solving processes, are discussed in conjunction with each of these processes. Finally,
aspects of planning in problem-solving are also articulated in the model, since the production
of solution to complex problems involves planning. The comprehension, reasoning, planning
and problem-solving processes underlying the model are presented within a knowledge-
centered view of cognition based on research on expertise, in which a large portion of
variation in cognitive performance is accounted for by the use of knowledge rather than by
generic cognitive operations. After a thorough review of relevant literature, each section ends
with a specification of the categories present in the model. Those categories are then defined
operationally in the presentation of the methodology.

2.1.1. Understanding a situation: Building mental models of the case through
discourse comprehension processes
The postulated model has to specify cognitive processes by which an individual
understands a situation (in this case, on the basis of the description of the case). It must also
identify the organisation of the information understood. The model also has to distinguish and
articulate the information presented in the case that the individual reads and the information
(knowledge) that the individual already had in memory and uses in understanding the case.
The construction-integration model of discourse comprehension has been very influential
since its creation and development in the early 1980s and continues to be so in current research
(Foltz, 2003; Zaan & Singer, 2003). In presenting his construction-integration model of
comprehension, Kintsch (1998) defines comprehension as the bottom-up construction of an
interpretation of information through a constraint- satisfaction mechanism based on spreading
activation in memory. Information originates both from the environment and from the memory
of the comprehender. More specifically, comprehension can be fragmented in a sequence of
four steps: perception, understanding of local propositions (microstructure), understanding of
large parts or main ideas of a text (macrostructure) leading to a text-based situation model and
finally to a situation model, when the gist of the text is integrated to the prior knowledge of the
comprehender. Foltz (2003) reframes the process as two main stages: the construction of
representations and their integration with prior knowledge. This cyclical process operates on a
few local propositions at a time, the equivalent of a phrase or short sentence.
There are two mechanisms involved in the construction-integration model: one that
activates the related nodes in the memory network and another one that deactivates the
irrelevant ones based on the context. Hatano and Inahaki (2000) argue that the constraint-
satisfaction mechanism usually involves more than the automatic spreading activation posited
as sufficient by Kintsch (1998). Frederiksen and Breuleux (1990) and Frederiksen, Bracewell,
Breuleux and Renaud (1990) argue for a more top-down view of comprehension, in which
prior knowledge has a significant impact on the process. Their model is discussed in the
upcoming section on mental models and schemas in comprehension.

2.1.1.1. Propositions, microstructure and macrostructure
In many theories of comprehension such as Kintschs (1998) and Frederiksen and
colleagues theory, it is postulated that the information is in the form of propositional
representations. Propositions are the smallest unit of meaning that can be conveyed by
discourse (Foltz, 2003). A proposition is made of various combinations of predicates (or
relational terms), and arguments. It should be noted that propositions are the building blocks
of schemas, in which predicates determine the slots and their organisation. A proposition,
depending on its level of generality, is organized in relationship to the other propositions as
either the microstructure or the macrostructure of the text.
The microstructure represents the local information of a text, at the level of sentences.
Micropropositions are created by parsing the text. Algorithms for parsing texts are provided
by Kintsch (1998) and Frederiksen (1975).
The macrostructure represents the global structure of a text by organizing the
micropropositions of the text hierarchically. It is a set of propositions that can be either
explicit in the text (titles, initial topic sentences, summary statements, etc.) or inferred by the
reader. These propositions are organized hierarchically with respect to the level of generality
of the information they convey. A perfect summary of a text is a text representing only its
macrostructure. Macropropositions are derived from the text using macrorules (Brown &
Day, 1983). Propositions in the macrostructure are called macropropositions whereas
propositions in the microstructure are termed micropropositions.

2.1.1.2. Textbase and aituation model
The distinction between textbase and situation model refers to the origin of the
propositions in the mental representation elaborated through comprehension (Kinstch, 1998).
On the one hand, the textbase represents the propositions directly derived from the text read.
That is, the textbase represents the meaning of the text, independently of its surface structure
(its exact wording) (Oostendorp, Otero & Campanario, 2002). On the other hand, the situation
model represents the propositions retrieved from the readers knowledge in long-term
memory that supplement the information in the text. Since the mental representation of a text
is rarely a pure textbase, this mental representation is called the situation model. The situation
model thus contains the textbase, which can be incomplete and erroneous with respect to the
actual meaning of the text, completed by varying amounts of knowledge from long-term
memory (Kinstch, 1998). A situation model contains tokens, a specification of their
properties, and a specification of the structural relations among the tokens (Copeland,
Magliano & Radvansky, 2006). Tokens can be components or goals. These structural
relations can be, for example, hierarchical or causal (Whitten & Graesser, 2003). A situation
model is created as a function of the task and the comprehenders prior knowledge.
The process of situation models construction can be decomposed into a temporal
sequence involving the creation of current models, integrated models and a complete model
(Zwaan, Radvansky, & Whitten, 2002 ; Oostendorp, Otero & Campanario, 2002). A current
model is the model being constructed at a particular moment during reading a particular
clause or sentence. An integrated model at a particular moment represents the integration of
all models previously created. The complete model is created when the whole text is read.
Updating a situation model may be impossible in some conditions, depending on the match
between a readers capabilities and the amount of restructuring needed. In such cases, a reader
can identify the difficulty as a pending problem or explain the anomaly. Updating mental
models during reading is critical for comprehension: a reader constructs a sequence of
interlocking accounts necessary for understanding subsequent information in the text.
It is interesting to note that a reader can formulate inferences that are later validated or
invalidated during a subsequent update of an integrated model. This process seems to be
related to the view of reasoning that is presented later in this chapter.

2.1.1.3. Mental models and schemas in comprehension
The constructs of mental models and situation models are used interchangeably (Whitten
& Graesser, 2003). For schemas to be useful in the proposed model of pedagogical reasoning,
the postulated model should specify the nature of schemas, how they affect comprehension
and how they are activated.
The schema is an indispensable theoretical concept in cognitive psychology (Kinstch,
1998; Marshall, 2005). Early views defined schemas as a fixed mental structure that was
retrieved when needed and that was used to organize information. The lack of sensitivity to
the context, which has a clear adaptive value, led current reconceptualizations of the concept
of schemas as algorithms to generate organizational structures in a given context. According
to Kintsch (1998), schemas are propositional. They are also part of the comprehenders
knowledge held in long-term memory.
Propositions can be incorporated in schemas (Foltz, 2003). Since schemas are
propositional, it is reasonable to postulate that they are activated by the same mechanisms as
those used for the generation of propositions. Since schemas originate from the knowledge
held in memory, this mechanism should be the one associated with propositions from the
situation model. Finally, since schemas are organizational structures, they should share
activation mechanisms related to macropropositions.
Major theorists agree that schemas have a top-down influence on the comprehension
process. Schemas can facilitate comprehension: they facilitate the formation of the
macrostructure of the text, but do not affect the comprehension of the microstructure
(Kinstch, 1998). For Kintsch, schemas act as a perceptual filter that admits relevant material
and blocks irrelevant information. Schemas also act as an inference mechanism that fills the
information that is inevitably missing from the text. For Frederiksen and colleagues, schemas
serve a different function (Frederiksen & Breuleux (1990) ; Frederiksen, Bracewell, Breuleux
& Renaud (1990). Their multi-layered model of comprehension is organized around three
kinds of symbols: language units, propositions and conceptual structures. The model
represents a bottom-up transformation of the stimuli (graphemes and morphemes, for
discourse) into meaningful utterances and then into knowledge structures such as schemas, as
a definitive form stored in memory. The stimuli can take the form of any array of symbols
(text, graphical representations, real-world situations like actions and states, etc.) In this
model, whereas there is a bottom-up influence of the stimuli on comprehension, top-down
control is achieved by means of frame-level rules. Also, comprehenders may employ control
strategies based on their goals, the situation, or their prior knowledge.

2.1.1.4. Specification of the proposed model
In light of the theory, the model postulates a distinction between information contained in
the text (Comprehend textbase) and information retrieved from the individuals prior
knowledge (Supplement textbase with prior knowledge). In addition, the model postulates
that question asking (Ask question) reflects breakdowns in the process of situation models
construction (Whitten & Graesser, 2003). As discussed earlier, updating a situation model
may be impossible in some conditions. In such cases, a reader can become aware of and
signal the difficulty by formulating requests for more information. Since the situation model
is created during the readers interaction with the text, and the pedagogical-reasoning model
postulates that readers knowledge is activated in response to the text, it is argued that
comprehension typically starts with comprehending the textbase. Since comprehension theory
indicates that knowledge activation occurs both at the microproposition and macroproposition
levels, the model postulates that knowledge will be integrated at any moment during reading.
Therefore, the conditional probabilities associated with the two links between comprehend
textbase and supplement textbase with prior knowledge should be equivalent.
As a result of the comprehension step in the model, the individual has created a mental
model of the information presented in the description of the case. This mental model ideally
contains the gist of this information, supplemented by relevant prior knowledge of the
individual(s). A sub-optimal mental model misses a certain amount of crucial information
contained in the text, and either contains irrelevant information or misses important
information from the individual prior knowledge. Such a model of the case has a critical
impact on the other processes of pedagogical reasoning, since a representation of a text (or a
situation) constrains problem solving (Whitten & Graesser, 2003) and reasoning (Johnson-
Laird, 1983), as discussed in upcoming sections. Without an adequate situation model, the
individual(s) will engage in solving the wrong problem.

2.1.2. Making a diagnostic: elaborating and testing diagnostic hypotheses through
reasoning processes
Since a teaching situation typically provides information without an explicit
characterization of what the problem is, and therefore from which the problem has to be
formulated, the postulated model has to specify cognitive processes that describe how an
individual identifies possible characterizations of a problematic situation and chooses the one
that best corresponds to a given reality.

2.1.2.1. Reasoning processes
The generation and test of diagnostic hypotheses via reasoning mechanisms has been
shown to be spontaneous in both inexperienced and expert diagnosticians (Elstein, Shulman
& Sprafka, 2000). The view presented posits that the diagnostic of a pupils difficulty is based
on abductive reasoning, a combination of deductive and inductive reasoning (Patel, Arocha &
Zhang, 2005). Reasoning is a goal-directed and constrained step-by-step transformation of
mental representation of knowledge (Hatano & Inagaki, 2000, p. 170). Abductive reasoning
is a process of elaboration and test of hypotheses. Before examining how reasoning occurs in
the elaboration of a diagnostic in a domain such as teaching, a fundamental or generic
reasoning mechanism must be posited with respect to how inferences are used to test
diagnostic hypotheses.
Current reasoning theories can be categorized as rule theories, semantic theories,
evolutionary theories and heuristic theories (Leighton & Steinberg, 2003). Rule theories
postulate that reasoning operates by means of rules or commands. According to semantic
theories, reasoning results from the interpretation of assertions. Evolutionary theories specify
domain-specific mechanisms that enable individuals to meet environmental needs. Finally,
heuristic theories postulate rules of thumb that are fallible but well adapted to everyday
reasoning. Because of their close links to comprehension processes presented in the previous
section, semantic theories are preferred as a basis for the present model. Of the two candidate
theories, verbal comprehension theory (Polk & Newell, 1995) and mental model theory
(Johnson-Laird, 2005 ; 1983), mental model theory is preferred because of its applicability to
a wide range of reasoning tasks, as shown by Rips (2002).
Johnson-Laird (1983) viewed deductive reasoning as a semantic process. He proposed the
mental model theory of reasoning. This theory postulates four main stages: the initial
interpretation of premises, the combination of these interpretations into a single model
representing a situation (these two stages can be referred to as comprehension and as such
posit an explicit link to comprehension processes discussed in the previous section), the
formulation of a conclusion (description) and the search for alternative models that might
refute the conclusion (validation). Moreover, any step in thought from current premises to a
new conclusion falls in one of the following categories : (1) the premises and the conclusions
eliminate the same possibilities, (2) the premises eliminate at least one more possibility over
those the conclusion eliminates, (3) the conclusion eliminates at least one more possibility
over those the premises eliminate, (4) the premises and the conclusions eliminate disjoint
possibilities, and (5) the premises and the conclusions eliminate overlapping possibilities
(Johnson-Laird, 2005, p.185). Categories 1 and 2 represent deduction. Category 3 is
induction. Category 4 represents situations in which the conclusion is inconsistent with the
premises. The last category represents creative thinking.
According to the mental model theory (Johnson-Laird, 2005 ; 1983), reasoning is based
on the manipulation of meaningful concrete information. The reasoning process involves
three steps. It begins with the construction of a mental model representing a possible situation
of a premise. Then, the truth value of the mental model is tested, leading to three possible
outcomes : the conclusion is possible if it holds in at least one model, is necessary if it holds
in all the models, and impossible if it never holds. The third and final step is the construction
of an alternative mental model of the situation in order to verify or disprove the conclusion
drawn.
Johnson-Laird (1983) identifies three causes of difficulty in syllogistic reasoning. First,
the number of models required to make a deduction increases the difficulty. Reasoning with
premises leading to a single model of a situation (a quantifier) is easier than reasoning with
many valid models. Second, erroneous conclusions are consistent with the premises, that is,
reasoners fail to construct all the models required to make the right conclusion. Finally, the
general knowledge (beliefs) of the reasoner can affect the process; conclusions in accordance
with his beliefs will inhibit the search for alternative models, and inversely. In other words,
the plausibility of the conclusion, determined by the reasoners knowledge, affects the
validation process. According to the model theory, erroneous conclusions arise from a failure
to construct the appropriate model (a typical situation involves premises containing some
and only).

2.1.2.2. Reasoning in a semantically complex domain
Since no theory of reasoning in teaching is available, the present model borrows from a
well-researched domain that shares its main characteristics, medicine. According to
Calderhead (1995), teachers and physicians have to make sense of diversified information,
and use eclectic theories and evidence, personal beliefs and expectations to modulate their
decision-making with respect to diagnostic and subsequent intervention. We suggest that
these similarities hold for teacher planning activities and not for interactive teaching (when
the teacher is actually in the classroom with the pupil(s)), a context during which very few
diagnostic decisions are made, as demonstrated empirically by Putnam (1987). Leinhardt and
Greeno (1986) have made the similar point by insisting on the assumptions that both domains
involve problem solving in an ill-structured and dynamic environment.
All theories of reasoning in medicine characterize diagnosis as an iterative process in
which possible explanations of the patients state (hypotheses) are generated and then tested
on the basis of their expected consequences (Patel, Arocha & Zhang, 2005). This 2-stage
process hypothesis generation, hypothesis testing is based on a mechanism of inference
generation. Four types of inferences can be generated: abstraction, abduction, deduction and
induction. Hypotheses are generated by abstraction and abduction and tested by deduction
and induction. The process of abstraction filters data with respect to their relevance for
solving the problem. During abduction, plausible hypotheses are related by means of
inferences that identify initial conditions from which the abstract representation of the
problem originates. Deduction builds up the mental model described by the consequences of
each hypothesis in order to test them. The predictions derived from hypotheses are matched to
the description of the case through induction, and predictions that do not match the case lead
to the rejection of the hypothesis to which they are associated. Patel, Arocha and Zhang
(2005) identify one pervasive caveat related to hypothesis testing: the confirmation bias. The
confirmation bias is a desire to confirm a preferred hypothesis. The reasoner engages in a
search for evidence consistent with a generated hypothesis that often leads to a failure to
consider alternative hypotheses. In terms associated with comprehension theory, an inference
is a transformation of a proposition in which the head element remains unchanged (Groen
& Patel, 1988, p.293). For these authors, an inference is a macroproposition in Kinstchs
(1998) terms.
Patel and Groen (1991), in summarizing results of many of their studies on reasoning in
medicine, indicate that the elaboration of a diagnosis through reasoning can proceed from
data to hypothesis (forward or knowledge-based reasoning) or, inversely, from hypothesis to
data (backward or goal-based reasoning). Forward reasoning is heavily dependent on the
reasoners domain knowledge to avoid errors due to a lack of legitimacy of the inferences.

The model postulates that the diagnostic process begins with the elaboration of one or
more hypotheses (Elaborate a hypothesis). When many hypotheses are formulated, they
are organized on the basis of their plausibility (Organize hypotheses). Hypotheses are
then related to the data (Test hypothesis) in two alternative manners. They can follow
from an analysis of the data that leads to a single hypothesis as a series of conditional
paths in the reasoners mental model or be formulated up front, and then confronted with
the data as a set of causal paths. Finally, the cognitive processing associated with each
hypothesis ends when each of them are either accepted or rejected (Accept hypothesis or
Reject hypothesis). It is expected that one hypothesis will be held as valid in order to
proceed with the elaboration of a reputedly appropriate intervention. The elaboration of
the diagnosis ends when one hypothesis is accepted as representing the educational
problem that has to be addressed. This triggers the elaboration of the solution to the
problem identified.

2.1.3. Setting up a pedagogical intervention: elaborating the best intervention possible
through teacher planning processes
Much has been written about categories pertaining to teacher planning. Characteristics of
the process, of the knowledge underlying it, and of the actual product of planning were
studied. Whereas the debate continues regarding the many and often competing categories
describing the knowledge base for teaching (Hasweh, 2005 ; Sherin, Sherin & Madanes,
2000), the consensus regarding those categories that can be applied to the cognitive process of
pedagogical planning, however, has remained relatively unchallenged over the last 20 years
(Lenhardt & Greeno, 1986; Schoenfeld, 2000). The literature indicates that goals and
schemata are central to pedagogical planning.

2.1.3.1. Goals and schemata
Conceived of as a cognitive activity, teaching is goal-driven (Leinhardt & Greeno, 1986;
Schoenfeld, 2000). According to Schoenfeld (2000), goals are things that an individual wants
to accomplish. Specifically in the case of teacher planning, goals may be epistemologically
oriented, content-oriented, or socially oriented. They are organized hierarchically, and
multiple goals can be pursued at the same time. Goals can be pre-determined as a result of
lesson planning or emergent during teacher interactive decision-making, in response to the
exigencies of the situation.
For the purpose of this study, the notions of schema and action plan refer to essentially
the same idea. Leinhardt and Greeno (1986) define a schema as a set of organized or ordered
actions used to reach a goal. Similarly, an action plan is a set of intended actions to achieve a
given goal (Schoenfeld, 2000). Considering the details of both constructs and their
implications, the notion of schema is preferred in the present work for three reasons. Firstly,
the notion of schema is more general than the notion of action plan (Schoenfeld, 2000).
Secondly, Leinhardt and her colleagues (Leinhardt, 1987; 1989) provided profound insights
into teacher cognition (especially teacher knowledge) by studying schemas and scripts to
establish expert-novice differences. Finally, its constituting elements were carefully
documented and empirically demonstrated by Leinhardt and Greeno (1986).
Indeed, in addition to actions, a schema contains other elements associated to these
actions (Leinhardt & Greeno, 1986). Consequences and effects of actions are included (as
expected results of the enactment of an action), as well as conditions for the enactment of
these actions. These conditions are either prerequisites (a condition that must be met before
enacting an action), corequisites (a condition that must be met during the enactment of an
action), or postrequisites (a condition that must be met to end an action). Classic works by
Sacerdoti (1977) and Sowa (1984) were consulted in search for additional primitives that
would further characterize schemas for teaching. No additional elements were found to be
pertinent.
Having set one or more goals, the planner then considers schemata whose anticipated
consequences match its current goal (Leinhardt & Greeno, 1986). More precisely, a global
schema is chosen on the basis of its fit to the higher-order goal, and then less global schemata
are chosen to satisfy more specific goals that are related to the higher-order goal. The result of
planning can be formalized in a planning net linking together goals, actions and their
conditions and consequences of actions (as indicators of goals). Schemas, as outcomes of
planning, are held in memory as a basis for subsequent action. At the time of their enactment
in action sequences, schemas can be contingent on the classroom situation. That is, they are
also part of a teachers interactive decision-making (Schoenfeld, 2000), and, consequently,
manipulated during teaching.

2.1.3.2. The influence of diagnosis on the formulation of goals
The basis of goal formulation in planning has to be specified here because of the
postulated importance of the diagnostic process, thought of in the pedagogical-reasoning
model as a strong determinant of subsequent planning. Most research evidence suggests that
the diagnosis of students characteristics is not an important factor in short-term teacher
planning. Studies have shown that primary concerns during planning are related to learning
content and activities and that student-related factors are relatively unimportant
(McCutcheon, 1980 ; Morine-Dershimer, 1979 ; Peterson, Marx & Clark, 1978 ; Sanchez &
Valcarcel, 1999 ; Zahorik, 1975). Other studies by Clark and colleagues, although in
minority, have shown that students characteristics are among the most important factors in
planning (Clark & Elmore, 1979; Clark & Yinger, 1979). Although characteristics of the
students are relatively unimportant, interest and attitudes have relatively more weight than
aspects related to learning such as academic ability (Taylor, 1970). The importance of the
diagnostic process during teaching was also shown to be negligible for interactive teaching
(Putnam, 1987).
Despite the conclusions of this body of research describing what teachers do, it is argued
here that the diagnosis of students difficulties has very important beneficial properties for
student learning and that its impact on planning remains or should be significant. This seems
particularly important considering recent emphasis on differentiation of instruction (Davies,
2000). The differentiation of instruction is based whether on previous subject-specific
learning outcomes or on students ability to learn. Questions about the practicability of
differentiation were raised in light of the greater demands on teachers practice. By showing
how the contingency of teaching on students needs improves learning outcomes (Wood &
Wood, 1999), substantial research in the field of tutoring suggests some reasons why, not
only on a moment-to-moment basis during instruction, but for the selection and sequencing of
learning activities in the context of teacher planning as well. Students diagnostic in human
tutoring as well as computer tutoring, emulating or not human tutoring, is mainly based on
diagnostic of students antecedents and/or ongoing learning performance. In line with this
body of cognitive research, it can be reasonably hypothesized that the goal structure in
competent planning of instruction is set as a consequence of the diagnostic hypothesis that
was held by the teacher to be true.

The previous theoretical considerations put emphasis on two major elements in planning
an intervention: the identification of goals and the specification of actions that will
presumably help reaching the goals. It can be postulated that planning is initiated by the
formulation of one or more goal (Identify goal). When more than one goal are set, they are
structured hierarchically and causally (sequentially) (Organize goals). Once the goal structure
is created, the construction of schemata begins, with the identification of their main elements:
actions (Identify pedagogical action). Conditions (Identify prerequisite, identify corequisite,
identify postrequisite) and consequences of actions (Identify consequence and effect) are
determined in association with each previously specified action. It is unclear whether
conditions or consequences need to be specified first for a given action.

2.1.4. Applying knowledge to complex problem-solving situations: articulating the
three components of pedagogical reasoning by means of problem solving processes
In a very abstract way, problem solving can be seen as a process of performing the
required (cognitive) actions to eliminate the discrepancy between an initial state and the
desired state (solving an algebraic equation, solving a criptarithmetic problem, etc.). In
classical descriptions of the process (Newell & Simon, 1972), problem solving begins with an
initial state, a goal (fragmented in subgoals when one runs into an impasse) and
implementation of strategies to attain goals toward a desired state. Problem solving is
successful when the desired state is attained. In semantically complex domains, problem
solving involves cognitive, emotional, personal, and social abilities and knowledge (Wenke,
Frensch & Funke, 2005).
Upon presentation of a problem, individuals will use information in the description and
prior knowledge to generate an internal representation of the problem. In this process, the
application of prior knowledge is done through the generation of inferences (Williams &
Noyes, 2007).

2.1.4.1. Problem solving as problem representation and solution
Problem solving can be defined as the analysis and transformation of information
toward a specific goal (Lovett, 2002, p.317). Problem solving can be seen as three main
aspects: problem representation, search in a problem space, and problem decomposition and
planning. In problem solving, it is important to distinguish between the representation of the
problem and the solution of the problem (Novick & Bassok, 2005; Voss & Post, 1988).
The process of problem solving starts with the representation of the problem (Novick &
Bassok, 2005 ; Hatano & Inagaki, 2000). The problem representation is a mental model of the
problem summarizing ones understanding of the problem (Novick & Bassok, 2005).This
representation includes the initial state, the goal state, a set of actions that change the current
problem state, and constraints that restrict the number of solution paths. In knowledge-rich,
semantically complex domains, a problem can be represented differently on the basis of the
individuals knowledge (Hatano & Inagaki, 2000). Research on mental models and schemas
in problem solving has provided profound insights in characterizing problem solving, under
the assumption that mental models are the objects that are manipulated in problem solving
(Johnson-Laird, 2005). Mental models represent a state in the problem space (Newell, 1990).
More specifically, they represent entities, individuals, events, processes, and operations of
complex systems (Johnson-Laird, 2005). Mental models seem to have a critical role in the
representation of the problem, since they can contain and organize the four components of the
problem representation discussed by Novick and Bassok (2005): a represented world, a
representing world, rules that map the two worlds, and a process that uses the information
represented to solve the problem. The representation of the problem affects how the problem
is solved: No adequate solution can be elaborated without a representation of the actual
problem and all its relevant features. (Novick & Bassok, 2005 ; Whitten & Graesser, 2003).
In return, the representation of the problem is affected by two main factors: the context of
the problem and the solvers knowledge of the domain (Novick & Bassok, 2005). The context
of the problem affects the elaboration of the problem representation (Novick & Bassok,
2005). Specifically, the perceptual presentation format of the problem may provide
information about the relevant configuration of the elements of the problem. In addition, the
objects present in the problem affect the inferences that are created during the elaboration of
the problem representation. Finally, the phrasing and narrative of the problem may lead the
solver to focus on certain aspects of the problem. Despite the influence of the context on the
construction of the problem representation, the solvers knowledge of the domain exerts the
greatest influence on this process. The solvers ability to exploit previous solutions for
analogous problems depends heavily on knowledge, in the form of schemas. These schemas
can apply for types of problems, types of solution procedures and types of problem
representations. These schemas are abstract because they contain information common to
multiple problems but exclude information idiosyncratic to particular problems. Finally,
experts representations emphasize structural features relevant for the solution such as causal
relations, whereas novices representations highlight superficial features irrelevant to the
solution.
Many fundamental mechanisms for problem solution were suggested over the years,
articulated as search for a solution. Among search strategies, a first distinction can be made
between algorithmic strategies and heuristic strategies (Novick & Bassok, 2005). Algorithms
such as mathematical equations and exhaustive search are procedures that will assuredly yield
the solution. However, when the number of possible operations is large and algorithms
become impractical, heuristic strategies that are likely to lead to the solution come into play.
Search heuristics include hill climbing and means-end. Hill climbing refers to the application
of the operator that yields a state closest to the goal state. The means-end search in the
problem space is more complex than hill climbing: its aim is to find an action that reduces or
eliminates the distance between the goal state and the current state. If the action cannot be
conducted, a subgoal has to be set to remove the obstacle (following the test of necessary
conditions for the action). Search heuristics are iterative. Complex problems can be
decomposed into subproblems that are easier to solve. Planning a solution in terms of a
sequence of steps before executing actions accelerates problem solving.

2.1.4.2. Problem solving in a semantically-complex domain
Problems differ depending of the domain in which they are anchored. They can be
classified along three dimensions (Lovett, 2002). One dimension is whether a problem
involves a routine or non-routine solution. Another dimension is the amount of domain
knowledge required to solve the problem. Problems in semantically complex domains such as
teaching, medicine or engineering are knowledge-rich problems whereas knowledge-lean
problems come from games and puzzles or everyday tasks. A last dimension concerns how
well- or ill-defined the problem is. This dimension refers to the level of clarity of what is
given and of what constitutes a solution (Novick & Bassok, 2005).
It became apparent in the 1970s that the processes of problem solving in knowledge-rich
or semantically complex domains do not generalize across domains (Wenke, Frensch &
Funke, 2005). During the following decades, theories were created for some domains, such as
politics, management, law, electronics, medicine, etc. There is apparently no such theory for
the case of teaching. Consequently, the present model borrows from the fields of social
science and medicine. Studies of teachers planning can supplement a theory from other fields
by identifying the components of a plan of actions in teaching.
In the contruction of a model in the field of teaching, tt is particularly enlightening to
consider the difference between ill-structured and well-structured problems in terms of
constraint resolution in the manner of Voss and Post (1988). Ill-structured problems can be
characterized as containing a large number of open constraints that have to be structured by
the solver. It should also be noted that the amount of constraints may vary during problem
solving, depending on where the solver is in the solution process. There are two strategies for
problem representation: problem decomposition (identifying the factors causing the
problematic situation, finding a solution for each factor or problem component, integrating
these solutions into a general solution for the complete problem) and problem conversion
(making a statement about the primary cause of the problem, which can be acted upon). The
solution process can include making explicit the history of the problem (previously attempted
solutions and current state). Problem representation is achieved through a schema-guided
search process. This search involves both an external search of the presented information and
an internal search for prior knowledge pertinent to the problem. An expert solution typically
includes its justification.
Pedagogical-reasoning problems share similarities with social science problems.
Generally, there is no right answer, but a set of plausible good answers. Since their solution
involves planning, the subsequent adoption of a solution is then subject to argumentation. The
question of when such a problem is solved is best answered by domain-specific stop rules,
which involves a decision by the problem solver. What constitutes a good solution must be
judged pragmatically by members of the field, with respect to its quality and usefulness. The
quality of a solution is associated with the extent to which it can be rationalized.

The pedagogical-reasoning model has to specify how an individual chooses a particular
course of action to have a desired influence on an unsatisfactory situation, and on which basis
these choices are made. Moreover, the overall coherence of the postulated pedagogical-
reasoning model, beyond its constituent processes, has to be established. In light of the theory
presented so far, it can be postulated that this coherence is obtained by a high-level control
mechanism based on problem-solving processes that controls the elaboration and use of
mental models and schemas to complete the task. Consequently, the operators associated with
this process are hypothesized to operate exclusively on mental models and schemas. It is
expected that this control will necessarily operate at the beginning and end of the
pedagogical-reasoning process, and during shifts between its three components, as well as
accessorily during transitions among constituents of those components.
Because of the complexity of the domain, the problem space for a pedagogical-reasoning
problem has a tremendous amount of possible states. For problem representation, it remains
unclear from theory whether problem decomposition or problem conversion will be the
preferred strategy. Voss and Post (1988) report that problem decomposition was typically
used in solving problems in social sciences. Since the strategy of problem decomposition
must be based on substantial domain knowledge to avoid inadequate solutions, its use puts an
emphasis on the interpretation of the case description and its completion by relevant domain
knowledge. Consequently, experts are expected to use the decomposition strategy with more
success than novices.
For problem solution, it can be hypothesized that pedagogical reasoning is based on the
heuristic strategy of means-end search. Means-end search involves the selection of actions
that match specified goals (Plan goal). The goals can be related with the problem
representation through external and internal search, reasoning and problem solution, that is,
planning a course of action with reasonable probability of being successful.
Planning problem-solving actions involves organizing how the problem will be
formulated, and how an appropriate solution will be constructed. Planning a course of actions
to conduct the pedagogical-reasoning process involves taking into account the sequential
dependencies linked to the use of outcomes of antecedent actions as constraints for
subsequent actions.
When necessary conditions for enacting actions are tested and not met (Test conditions),
subgoaling takes place in the form of lower-level goal(s) and associated actions (plan goal
and plan action). Sequential dependencies among various aspects of the process have to be
identified and prerequisites of the actions have to be identified and verified before executing
actions (Execute problem-solving actions).
During the intermediate steps involved in this type of means-end search solution
procedure, it becomes necessary to monitor the problem-solving process, notably by
constructing and updating a representation of the problem state (Interpret state). It is
hypothesized that the constraints inherent to an ill-structured problem will emerge and get
resolved during pedagogical reasoning. In consequence the planning of goals and actions will
be recurrent and contingent on those constraints, as they are interpreted. Constraints are
numerous, and ultimately refer to educational intentions bearing on policies, resources and
many other aspects of a teaching situation.
The evaluation of the solution of an ill-structured problem involves checking if a given
constraint has been resolved satisfactorily (Evaluate). This evaluation may include the
implementation of stop rules which trigger the end of particular actions. These stop rules are
associated with the state of constraints that have to be resolved. A good solution that will lead
to positive educational outcomes is thought to be adequate if it addresses the students
condition, and if it is workable given the available resources. As an optional consequence of
the evaluation of the solution, the correction procedure (Correct) involves the modification of
a solution component or the addition of a new component.
Having described the main characteristics of a pedagogical-reasoning model and its
theoretical foundations, some comments have to be made about its use in the study of teacher
cognition. Indeed, a number of distinctions can be made in the study of group performance in
problem solving. One distinction pertains to the relationship between the performance of
individuals and the performance of the group. Another distinction is the relationship between
the cognitive processes underlying the performance of a task and the domain knowledge in
which these processes are anchored. These two distinctions are discussed next to show how a
model developed with categories related to individual cognition can be the foundation for
integrated modeling of cognition and social cognition (Sun, 2006).

2.2. Relationship between the Performance of Individuals and the
Performance of the Group

Theories of action regulation are particularly interesting as a unifying framework for the
study of individual and group performance. Within this view, the collaboration between the
individuals in the performance of a problem-solving task can be examined from the
perspective of the functioning of the group and from the perspective of the contribution of
each individual to the problem solution. Both perspectives are important and especially
interesting to study concomitantly, since, as Wijekumar & Jonassen (2007) assert, there is no
distribution of cognition without the individuals cognition and the individuals cognitive
structures are important to study.
To this end, the notion of system levels (Tschan, 2002) is especially useful since it
articulates the idea that processes underlying group performance and individual performance
are to some extent similar, independently of the size of the group. More specifically,
executive processes at a functional level are similar if the group is considered as an acting
system. Tschans (2002) empirical studies suggest that group performance involves two
levels: a first level is the self-regulation of each group member, whereas a second level is the
coordination between each individuals own regulation for group performance. The first level
operates within the information-processing constraints of human cognition. The second level
can be considered an additional, social layer representing collaborative processes operating
within communication constraints. Action regulation at both levels involves the preparation,
execution and evaluation of procedures to achieve a given result. Ideally, the performance of
each subtask or task component should comprise cycles of preparation, execution and
evaluation. Tschan (2002) found that this cycle was associated with the quality of the
performance for individuals, dyads and triads. It should be noted that categories associated
with these procedures are included in the pedagogical-reasoning model, as the problem-
solving level. In complex tasks, these procedures are cycles of action that are hierarchically
nested and sequential (Tschan, 2002, p. 616) in response to the structure of these tasks.
Indeed, complex tasks can be decomposed as a set of subtasks. In the pedagogical reasoning
model, a first level of decomposition corresponds to the components. Another level of
decomposition is the iterations of the components in response to the multiple elements of the
situation. Moreover, the successful completion of given subtasks can represent prerequisites
for other subtasks, prescribing that some subtasks be performed in a certain sequential order.
Our emphasis on cognitive aspects of performance, including knowledge of the domain,
and our consideration of groups as information-processing systems (Arrow, McGrath &
Berdahl, 2000) lead us to consider related aspects of information storage, information
retrieval and information exchange in groups. The degree of overlap of task-related
information held by different members of a group is thought to be a major influence on group
functioning (Arrow, McGrath & Berdahl, 2000). There is a strong tendency to discuss
information that was available to all members before the group meeting rather than
mentioning information available to only one member, resulting in a groups propensity to
confirm and reinforce previously shared information. Groups use of information is often
based on a very incomplete comprehension of the relative importance of various elements of
information and their sources. It also depends on the processes by which group members
construct a shared understanding of the information. This processing involves the reduction of
uncertainty caused by incomplete information and the reduction of equivocality caused by
alternative interpretations of the same information.
Actions related to group goals can be organized hierarchically in three levels. The higher
level is purposeful thought, the intermediate level consists of scripts as discussed before, and
relatively automatic behaviour constitutes the lower level (Arrow, McGrath, & Berdahl,
2000). These levels are knowledge based, rule based, and skill based, respectively.
The performance of actions can be conceived of as determined by mental goal
representations (hierarchical in the sense that some goals are broader in scope than others and
sequential since the attainment of given goals serve as conditions for the attainment of other
goals) complemented by feedback control (based on information regarding the short-term
consequence of action). Feedback control requires some reference values for behaviour
against which the short-term consequences of actions must be judged; goals have this
function. Since feedback loops are associated with goals and goals are organized
hierarchically, feedback loops are organized in levels, resulting in the top-down influence of
higher-level feedback loops. Specifically, superordinate loops reset reference values at the
next lower level of abstraction.
This hierarchical view treats control as simultaneous at all levels of abstraction below the
level thats guiding the activity, that is, the process of carrying out a high-level act consists of
carrying out low-level acts. This model shows how intentions are carried out physically. Low-
level identifications tend to convey a sense of how an activity is done; high-level ones tend
to convey a sense of why. Movement from a lower level to a higher level depends on an
emergent property at the higher level: a given lower-level identification can often be absorbed
into several alternative higher-level identifications. Attaining an abstract goal requires it to be
broken iteratively into subgoals, until the subgoals are sufficiently concrete that they can be
attained by the bodys basic operational mechanisms. How many levels are required is an
open question that should be answered empirically.

2.3. Relationship between Pedagogical-Reasoning Processes and Domain
Knowledge (Expertise)

In a semantically complex domain, problem-solving processes hinge on pertinent
knowledge of the domain. How this knowledge is used to perform the task, both individually
and collectively, is thought to be largely determinant of the outcomes of the activity.
Comprehension, reasoning, planning and problem solving are all hypothesized to be
facilitated by the availability of pertinent domain knowledge.
In comprehension, a situation model constructed using expert knowledge is more
complete, contains only relevant information for the problem solution, and contains general
ideas. Expertise is related to the selective acquisition and use of information. In terms of
comprehension, experts recall more of the information presented in the case that novices do
(Patel & Groen, 1991). In the same vein, expert teachers recall more classroom events and
rely more on procedural knowledge and principles to analyze interactive teaching than
novices (Peterson & Comeaux, 1987).
Reasoning takes radically different forms whether expert knowledge is available or not.
Without knowledge, the individual is forced into backward reasoning, in which hypotheses
are formulated and then verified using available data. In contrast, expert knowledge enables
the individual to derive the appropriate hypothesis directly from the data. Patel and Groen
(1991) argue that experts use forward reasoning (from data to hypothesis) because they have
the necessary domain knowledge to guide the elaboration of the hypothese(s). Novices,
because of a lack of knowledge, reason backwards in a hypothetico-deductive manner,
verifying hypotheses they elaborate on the basis on the data available.
Novices use backward reasoning because their do not have the knowledge required to
support forward reasoning (Patel, Arocha & Zhang, 2005). Indeed, data-driven or forward
reasoning is likely to lead to errors when knowledge is insufficient. In contrast, hypothesis-
driven or backward reasoning increases cognitive load since it requires that the reasoner
keeps track of the current goals and hypotheses.
Studies of teacher expertise have shown differences in how novices and experts plan
instruction (Hogan, Rabinowitz & Craven, 2003). The balance between mentally scripting
lessons and written plans is shifting, and the propensity for developing long- and short-term
educational goals are modulated by teaching expertise. These differences are attributable to
the varying level of complexity of the schemas experts and novices hold. Experts perceive the
classroom as a group of unique individuals whereas novices regard the class as a whole,
leading experts to ask for more specific information about a classroom before planning
instruction. In light of the importance of constraints resolution in solving ill-structured
problems as discussed in the model, we interpret this as a need for experts to look for more
constraints that are used in elaborating a solution. In addition, experts focus on both long-term
and short-term planning, whereas novices focus only on short-term planning. Experts plans
include presentation time and pace, and number and types of examples. Novices plans
include these elements but also integrate scripted portions such as verbatim of introductions
and questions to be asked during the lesson. Finally, novices planning is more influenced by
students interest than by students achievement.
In their review of the research, Borko and Shavelson (1990) found that experts reported
plans are richer than those of novices. Experts plans made greater explicit reference to
actions to be performed by students, included test points on students understanding, and
contained twice as many teacher instructional moves. In terms of the planning process,
experts plan more quickly than novices, are more selective in the information they use and
incorporate more relevant information in their decision-making.
Smith (2005) studied co-planning between an experienced teacher and a student teacher.
This situation can be referred to as a heterogeneous dyad, in opposition as homogeneous
dyads in the present study. She found that during the first few co-planning sessions, the
mentor verbalizes his way of making lesson plans, in order to make explicit the cognitive
process involved in planning instruction while the student teacher assimilates and imitate the
process. Later on, there is a shift in the co-planning process, manifest in discomfort between
the participants, when the student teacher challenges her mentor by suggesting new ways of
planning. In light of the challenges of novice-expert interaction she documents, Smith
concludes that participants in such novice-expert dyads need to be taught to interact in a way
that fosters the novices learning and the experts innovation.
Finally, problem solving is also facilitated by expert knowledge in that this knowledge is
essential for the adequate representation and solution of ill-structured problems by the
identification and resolution of open constraints. It is therefore postulated that differences in
expertise have an impact on the performance of a problem-solving task, at the executive level.
Experts and novices use different heuristics in solving problems (Hatano & Inagaki, 2000).
Experts represent problems by categorizing them. These categories elicit pertinent knowledge
and this knowledge indicates potentially useful solution algorithms.
There is a critical synergy between good knowledge and good reasoning skills in the
development of expertise (Lohman, 2005). According to this author, reasoning is heavily
dependent on good knowledge, and this well-organized knowledge base is acquired through
good reasoning. Indeed, data-driven reasoning, which requires a strong knowledge base, is
more likely to lead to the acquisition of a schema for the problem (Patel, Arocha & Zhang,
2005).
From a developmental point of view, one salient symptom of the role of knowledge in
cognitive performance is the intermediate effect (Patel, Arocha & Zhang, 2005). In contrast
with the reasonable idea that performance improves with training or deliberate practice, the
intermediate effect refers to a drop in performance during the transition between novice and
expert levels of expertise. This effect is accounted for by characteristics of the knowledge
underlying these levels of expertise. Novices have sparse knowledge to apply to a problem.
During an intermediate stage, newly acquired knowledge is not optimally organized and leads
to many inappropriate inferences. Experts knowledge is well-organized and improper
inferences are eliminated.
This discussion of the categories that a cognitive model of collaborative pedagogical
reasoning may include from a theoretical point of view is followed by an empirical
examination of the extent to which the categories postulated from the theory are useful to
account for data and the extent to which the postulated sequences of events are observed in a
corpus of data.

2.4. Research Questions

Questions related to the elaboration of a cognitive model of teacher collaborative
pedagogical reasoning include: (1) what is the prevalence of the cognitive steps involved, (2)
how this prevalence is affected by expertise, (3) how the process is typically sequenced, and
(4) how this sequencing is modulated by expertise. The aim of this study is to develop and
test a model of collaborative pedagogical reasoning by providing elements of answer to these
questions.
Questions 1 and 2 were answered by compiling time-budget information for each step.
Question 3 and 4 were answered by computing transitional probabilities between steps. To
examine the typical sequence of steps within a system level, the unit of analysis was a
transition from one step to another without considering the individuals within the team at the
team level. For both set of questions, results for the whole sample are presented, followed by
results associated with each level of expertise.

3. METHODOLOGY

3.1. Participants

Participants in this study are special education student teachers and teachers. Years of
experience and teaching position were the criteria used in the selection of participants in order
to maximize variations in teaching expertise. In this study, teaching expertise is understood as
the availability of pertinent domain knowledge accompanied by a capacity to apply this
knowledge in solving problems in the domain. The sample comprised 6 second-year student
teachers, 6 fourth-year student teachers, 2 teachers and 4 specialists in remedial reading
instruction. Participants of the same expertise level could volunteer as a dyad, and most did.
The other participants were matched in pairs by an experimenter on the basis of compatibility
of schedule. Each participant received 25$ as a compensation for the three hours she devoted
to this study.

3.2. Task and Setting

Modeling group cognitive performance requires a meaningful and authentic task that that
can be performed under relatively controlled conditions. Lesson planning corresponds to
these criteria. Participants were asked to plan a series of lessons related to remedial reading
instruction. Lessons were planned on the basis of a written description of a case of a student
displaying difficulties in reading. The description contained the students familial and school
history, a phonetic transcription of her reading aloud of a level-appropriate 167-word
expository text, the transcription of her free recall of a 259-word narrative text, followed by a
transcription of her answers to comprehension questions. A transcription of the students
metacognitive reflection concludes the description of the case. The description of the case is
12 pages long. A computer and word processor was provided for the elaboration of the
written plan.
Following their initial planning session, the six similar participants were gathered in pairs
for an additional planning session, in which they were asked to elaborate a common lesson
plan on the basis of their initial plans. Working in pairs and the resulting negotiation requires
that the participants verbalize elements that could otherwise remain implicit (Mercier &
Frederiksen, 2007). Pairs used one computer with both individual lesson plans available in
electronic format to produce one common lesson plan.

3.3. Data Collection

The collaborative planning conversation was recorded on audiotape. Participants
interaction with the word processor was captured by a concomitant video recording of the
computer screen. The lesson plans of the sequence of activities were archived as digital files
for subsequent analysis.

3.4. Data Analysis

Protocol analysis procedures were designed to characterize the processes involved in
collaborative pedagogical reasoning. Since the data collected in this study reflect particular
thoughts about a specific task, protocols from several comparable dyads need to be analysed
to induce more general characteristics of the processes (Olson & Biolsi, 1991). Protocols
were grouped according to the level of expertise of the teams.

3.4.1. Process modeling
In this study, process modeling serves two main objectives: (1) to examine the prevalence
of collaborative pedagogical reasoning activities and how this prevalence is modulated by
different levels of expertise (2) to examine the sequential aspect of collaborative pedagogical
reasoning and how different levels of expertise are associated with different typical sequences
of collaborative pedagogical reasoning activities. Techniques from sequential analysis are
used under the assumption that cognitive processes can be decomposed into series of discrete
and sequential steps of various grain size (Anderson, 2002). This assumption can be extended
to groups, as demonstrated empirically by Tschan (2002).
Frequency data was analysed using the SAS CATMOD procedure which provides
maximum-likelihood estimations of effects of factors in contingency tables. The detailed
significance of tests is reported even for non-significant results, since those results are especially
meaningful given the strong statistical power of loglinear analysis in the present context. One
important assumption underlying the log-linear approach is the independence of observations.
Independence of observations means that chances of an observation being associated with a
category are equal, independently of the observations preceding it. This assumption is likely to
be violated to some extent in the present study because of the nature of the data. In fact, the
objectives of the study consist of assessing the sequential dependence among events, that is,
predicting events from past events. Addressing this issue, Bakeman and Gottman (1997)
conducted simulation studies and showed that violations of independence have no effect on the
use of the log-linear approach in this context. Despite this crucial information, tests with
borderline significance will be interpreted conservatively. Sequential data were analysed using
the GSEQ 4.1.2 (Generalized Sequential Querier) program developed by Bakeman and Quera
(1995). GSEQ is an excellent program designed specifically and exclusively for sequential
analysis. Sequential aspects of any type of data, including issues of individual differences and
group comparisons, can be analysed using GSEQ. The RELF, CONP and PVAL procedures
were used in the present study to obtain relative frequencies, conditional probabilities and
statistical test of significance of conditional probabilities.
Level of expertise is the only factor in the experimental design of this study. With respect
to expert-novice differences, Ericsson (2003) argues that it is possible to identify mediating
cognitive mechanisms associated with expert-novice differences and analyse them by means
of process-tracing methodology. To face the complexity of these mechanisms, a possible
strategy is to identify cognitive subsystems and to identify methods for controlling
performance. This control of the performance is based on a task analysis, a process that seems
especially difficult in the case of knowledge-rich problems like the one used in this study.
A first step in explaining differences attributable to domain expertise is to investigate
whether or not differences in collaborative pedagogical reasoning are present across levels of
expertise. In other words, is there any internal modulation, both in terms of prevalence of
given control processes, components or sub-components and in term of their sequential
structure, of the pedagogical-reasoning process that would reflect different patterns in
pedagogical reasoning that could be attributed to expertise? Both SAS and GSEQ were used
to answer those questions.

3.4.2. Coding scheme
The categories used in modeling the collaborative pedagogical reasoning process are
based on the theoretical framework presented earlier. They are identified and organized
hierarchically in Figure 1 to show the decision process associated with coding. Table 1
presents the categories with their operational definitions.

Plan goal
Plan problem-solving action
Interpret state
Test conditions
Execute pedagogical-reasoning
action
Comprehend situation
Comprehend textbase
Supplement textbase with prior
knowledge
Ask question
Diagnose students difficulty
Elaborate a hypothesis
Organize hypotheses
Accept hypothesis
Reject hypothesis
Plan intervention
Identify goal
Organize goals
Identify pedagogical action
Identify prerequisite
Identify corequisite
Identify postrequisite
Identify consequence and effect
Evaluate
Correct

Figure 1. Structure of the coding scheme.
Data were coded integrally by a graduate research assistant, after extensive training. During
the training, the research assistant coded three transcripts, which were double-coded by the first
author. Upon completion of each transcript, the coding was compared and any differences were
discussed. When necessary, operational definitions of the categories were refined. The
systematic discrepancies in coding were eliminated by the end of the third transcript.

Table 1. Categories associated with collaborative pedagogical reasoning

Code Definition
Plan goal Plan the goal to be achieved by this pedagogical-reasoning procedure
Plan problem-solving action Plan the pedagogical reasoning action to be carried out
Interpret state Interpret the current problem state in pedagogical reasoning
Test conditions Test critical conditions for applying a procedure in pedagogical
reasoning
Evaluate Evaluate the result obtained from applying the pedagogical-reasoning
procedure
Correct Correct an error or provide a missing component of the solution
Comprehend textbase Derive meaning of the texts propositions
Supplement textbase with
prior knowledge
Provide information not included in the text
Ask question Diagnose a need for additional information
Elaborate a hypothesis Make inferences to identify the problem in the case
Organize hypotheses In the presence of multiple hypotheses, organize them in terms of
plausibility
Accept hypothesis Determine that a hypothesis is supported by the data
Reject hypothesis Determine that a hypothesis is not supported by the data
Identify goal Plan the goal to be achieved by implementing the pedagogical
intervention
Organize goals In the presence of multiple goals, organize goals hierarchically
Identify pedagogical action Identify an action contributing to the attainment of the pedagogical goal
Identify prerequisite Identify a condition that must be met before enacting an action
Identify corequisite Identify a condition that must be met during the enactment of an action
Identify postrequisite Identify a condition that must be met to end an action
Identify consequence and
effect
Identify the result of the enactment of an action

Table 2. Does the prevalence of the control processes of collaborative pedagogical
reasoning vary?

Category Frequency Relative frequency
Plan goal 52 0.0280
Plan action 251 0.1349
Interpret state 559 0.3005
Test conditions 184 0.0989
Evaluate results 69 0.0371
Correct 36 0.0194
Perform action 709 0.3812
Total 1860 1.0000

Table 3. Does the prevalence of the collaborative pedagogical reasoning activities vary?

Category Frequency Relative frequency
Comprehend case 475 0.4120
Diagnose 139 0.1206
Elaborate intervention 539 0.4675
Total 1153 1.0000
4. RESULTS

Results are presented in association with the two main goals, which were: (1) to examine
the prevalence of collaborative pedagogical reasoning activities and differences in prevalence
across levels of expertise (2) to examine how collaborative pedagogical reasoning activities
are sequenced and how levels of expertise modulate this sequencing.

4.1. Prevalence of Collaborative Pedagogical Reasoning Activities

Tables 2 and 3 present time-budget information regarding how often pairs of participants
engaged in particular pedagogical-reasoning activities. It should be noted that this analysis does
not consider the duration of the steps, so that these results are complementary to the sequential
results that follow (the frequencies of steps match the frequency of shifts between steps i.e. the
frequencies should be interpreted as the number of shifts to a given category). The duration is
typically much longer in the case of actions, especially since their numerous components were not
considered, so that the bulk of the time was spent on the performance of those actions.
Globally, there is a significant difference with respect to how often the pedagogical-
reasoning activities occur (
2
6
= 1098.45, p < 0.0001). As indicated in Table 2, participants
more frequently (62%) engaged in steps related to the executive control of the pedagogical
reasoning activities. The remainder of their steps (38%) was devoted to performing those
collaborative pedagogical-reasoning actions. Among the activities related to executive
control, interpreting the current state was the most frequent (30%), followed by planning
actions (13%) and testing conditions for action (10%). The planning of goals, the evaluation
of results and correction of errors were relatively infrequent (3%, 4%, and 2% respectively).
Going down a level in the hierarchy of processes to specific actions, the frequency of the
different pedagogical-reasoning activities is significantly different (
2
2
= 209.36, p < 0.0001).
The elaboration of the pedagogical intervention is the most frequent activity (47%), followed
in terms of prevalence by the comprehension of the case (41%). The least frequent activity is
the diagnostic of the students difficulties (12%), as shown in Table 3.

4.2. Differences in Prevalence Across Levels of Expertise

At the level of the control processes, there is no notable difference in the prevalence of
categories attributable to expertise (
2
17
= 23.01, p < 0.15). That is, second-year student teachers,
fourth-year student teachers, teachers and experts all engaged in pedagogical-reasoning activities
in approximately the same proportion of times. The interpretation of results related to question 1
hold across expertise levels. Descriptive statistics are presented in Table 4.
At the level of actions, many differences can be observed (
2
6
= 105.52, p < 0.0001). As
shown in Table 5, comprehending the case is relatively most frequent in experts (48%) and
least frequent in fourth-year students (32%). There is a strong tendency to engage more often
in diagnosis and less frequently in the elaboration of the intervention as the level of expertise
increases, with experts engaging much more often in diagnosis (24%, compared to between
4% and 9% for students and teachers).

Table 4. Does the prevalence of the control processes of collaborative pedagogical
reasoning vary over levels of expertise?

Second year Fourth year Teachers Specialized teachers
Category Freq. Relative
frequency
Freq. Relative
frequency
Freq. Relative
frequency
Freq. Relative
frequency
Plan Goal 20 0.0382 17 0.0236 3 0.0169 12 0.0275
Plan Action 63 0.1202 112 0.1553 26 0.1461 50 0.1144
Interpret state 152 0.2901 213 0.2954 49 0.2753 145 0.3318
Test
Conditions
14 0.0267 10 0.0139 0 0.0000 12 0.0275
Evaluate
results
55 0.1050 73 0.1012 17 0.0955 39 0.0892
Correct 14 0.0267 37 0.0513 4 0.0225 14 0.0320
Perform
action
206 0.3931 259 0.3592 79 0.4438 165 0.3776
Total 524 1.0000 721 1.0000 178 1.0000 437 1.0000

Table 5. Does the prevalence of the constituent components of collaborative pedagogical
reasoning vary over levels of expertise?

Second year Fourth year Teachers Specialized teachers
Category Freq
.
Relative
frequency
Freq. Relative
frequency
Freq Relative
frequency
Freq Relative
frequency
Comp. case 135 0.4341 111 0.3162 52 0.4228 177 0.4810
Diagnose 11 0.0354 32 0.0912 9 0.0732 87 0.2364
Elaborate
interv.
165 0.5305 208 0.5926 62 0.5041 104 0.2826
Total 311 1.0000 351 1.0000 123 1.0000 368 1.0000
Note. Frequency counts do not correspond with those in the perform action category in the previous
table, because adjacent occurrences of one category are lumped together.

Antecedent Antecedent Antecedent Antecedent Consequent
Lag 1 Lag 2 Lag 3 Lag 4
First order, lag 1: preceding code only
Second order, lag 1 : two preceding codes
Third order, lag 1 : three preceding codes
First order, lag 2
Second order, lag 2
Third order, lag 2

Figure 2. An illustration of lag and order in sequential analysis.

4.3. Sequencing of Collaborative Pedagogical Reasoning Activities

Conditional probabilities represent the probability of a particular process of being
followed by another given process. It should be noted that probabilities below 0.15 were not
included in the figures for clarity. In addition, transitions between two states are often
identified in the presentation of the results as a pair of codes separated by a hyphen to
simplify the language. The conditional probabilities in the figures should be regarded as
descriptive statistics concerning aspects of the sequential structure of the process. To establish
the statistical significance of this sequential structure, a procedure similar to the one
widespread in multivariate analysis of variance was followed. First, an omnibus test of the
entire table of conditional probabilities was conducted, with structural zeros specified because
codes cannot repeat. Although the familiar
2
was considered, the G
2
is used for its common
use in the log-linear approach (Gottman & Roy, 1990). If the omnibus test is significant (the
familiar 0.05 threshold for the alpha was retained), meaning that there is some sequential
dependency among the events, statistics related to specific transitional probabilities (between
any two codes) are examined. To this end, z scores computed from a ratio of observed and
expected transition frequencies were used, accompanied by their two-tailed p values (again,
0.05 was set as the threshold). A positive value of a z score significant at the 0.05 level
indicates that the conditional probability between the antecedent and consequent states is
significantly higher than the expected probability based on the base rate of the consequent
state. Conversely, a z score with a negative value accompanied by an alpha below 0.05
indicates that the conditional probability is significantly lower than expected.
The analysis considered pedagogical reasoning as a first-order Markov process. The order
of a Markov process refers to the number of preceding events that are considered in the
prediction of a target event (Gottman & Roy, 1990). A first-order Markov process considers
only one preceding event for predicting a given event. A second-order Markov process would
take into account the two preceding events for the prediction. Higher-order Markov processes
can be more precise as a result of the increase in the amount of information used in the
prediction, at the expense of added complexity: an increase of one order multiplies the
number of combinations of events by the number of categories used in the analysis. As a
consequence, data demands for statistical analysis increase dramatically. A very interesting
and clear illustration of the concept of order in Markov processes can be found in Gottman
and Roy (1990), chapter four.
A complementary notion in sequential analysis is the lag. The lag refers to the distance
between the events used in the prediction and the events being predicted (Gottman & Roy,
1990). In the present study, sequential analyses were conducted at lag 1, that is, predicting a
given event from the event immediately preceding it. Analysis at lag 2 would predict a given
event from the event preceding the event immediately preceding it, not considering the event
between the two. Considerations of lag are orthogonal to considerations of order in sequential
analysis. In other words, the questions of how many past events are necessary to predict a
given state and how far in the past useful events are for the prediction can be examined
independently. Figure 2 may help clarify the ideas of order and lag, by illustrating how a
given consequent in a sequence of states is predicted at lag one and two, either as a first-order
or second-order Markov process. In the presentation of the results, specific transitions
between states are identified as digrams, in the form of antecedent-consequent pairs of states.
Globally for the whole sample, there is first-order sequential dependency between
pedagogical-reasoning activities at lag 1 (G
2
55
= 249.96, p < 0.0001). That is, events are at
least in part determined by the event immediately preceding them. As shown in Figure 3,
most frequent paths are reason-comprehend (.48), correct-interpret state (.41), test conditions-
interpret state (.41), evaluate-comprehend situation (.38), test conditions-comprehend
situation (.36), elaborate pedagogical intervention-interpret state (.36), comprehend situation-
interpret state (.33). The performance of the three pedagogical-reasoning actions is likely to
be followed by interpret state. Those actions are also likely to be followed by evaluation
steps, whereas preparation steps are followed by action steps. To a lesser degree, preparation
steps are followed by evaluation steps directly. There are no transitions going to reasoning.

Control
pedagogical-
reasoning task
Test
conditions
Interpret
state
Plan goal
Plan
problem-
solving
action
Comprehend the
situation
Reason to
elaborate a
diagnostic
Correct
Evaluate
Execute problem-solving action
(components)
Elaborate a
pedagogical
intervention
Execute
problem-
solving
action
0,22+
0,31
0,25 0,18
0,22
0,32
0,23
0,31
0,41-
0,28
0,38
0,28 0,19
0,29
0,41+
0,28
0,36+
0,33
0,29
0,23
0,48+
0,15-
0,36
0,24

Figure 3. Typical sequence of collaborative pedagogical reasoning activities.
Note. + indicates a conditional probability significantly biased positively. Similarly, - indicates a
conditional probability significantly biased negatively.

Specific conditional probabilities were found to be statistically significantly biased
positively or negatively. Precisely, 21 of the 72 conditional probabilities were significantly
biased. Of them, 16 are associated with conditional probabilities below .15 and are not
displayed in Figure 3. Reason-comprehend situation, correct-interpret state, test conditions-
comprehend, plan goal, plan problem-solving action are transitions that occur more frequently
than statistically expected, and the path from test conditions to interpret state occur less
frequently than statistically expected.

4.4. Differences in Sequencing across Levels of Expertise

The following section presents some results regarding the modulations in the sequential
structure of collaborative pedagogical reasoning that are attributable to expertise levels. The
typical chronology of the process is presented for each of the four expertise levels in the
following figures.

4.4.1. Second- year students
For the second-year student teachers, there is sequential dependency among pedagogical-
reasoning activities (G
2
55
= 80.11, p < .02). The most frequent transitions between activities
were interpret state-elaborate intervention, correct-interpret state, correct- elaborate
intervention, test conditions-comprehend, reason-comprehend, comprehend-elaborate
intervention. Of the six conditional probabilities that were significant, four were below .15
and do not appear in Figure 4. The paths from reason to comprehend and from plan goal to
plan action occurred significantly more often than expected statistically.

Control
pedagogical-
reasoning task
Test
conditions
Interpret
state
Plan goal
Plan
problem-
solving
action
Comprehend the
situation
Reason to
elaborate a
diagnostic
Correct
Evaluate
(components)
Elaborate a
pedagogical
intervention
Execute
problem-
solving
action
0,30
0,18
0,25+
0,27
0,27
0,30
0,20
0,21
0,43
0,30
0,24
0,36+
0,18
0,34
0,36
0,18
0,33
0,45
0,30
0,25
0,30
0,36
0,30

Figure 4. Typical sequence of collaborative pedagogical reasoning activities second-year students.
Regarding the sequencing of the pedagogical-reasoning activities, there is a loop between
comprehending the case and elaborating the intervention. In addition, there is no path leading
to reasoning.

4.4.2. Fourth- year students
Sequential dependency in the pedagogical-reasoning process of fourth-year student teacher
was also observed (G
2
55
= 115.79, p < .0001). The most typical transitions include test
conditions-elaborate intervention (.50), interpret state-elaborate intervention (.45), elaborate
intervention-interpret state (.43), evaluate-interpret state (.34). Interestingly, interpret state
seems to be the attractor in the process in the sense that many paths are going to and coming
from this state. More specifically, 12 conditional probabilities were found to be significant ; four
of them appear in Figure 5. Reason-comprehend, evaluate-plan problem-solving action, plan
problem-solving action-comprehend, and reason-correct occurred more often than expected.
Paths involving control processes and pedagogical-reasoning actions predominantly
involved the elaboration of the intervention. The elaboration of the diagnostic was followed
by comprehension and by correction of perceived errors.

Control
pedagogical-
reasoning task
Test
conditions
Interpret
state
Plan goal
Plan
problem-
solving
action
Comprehend the
situation
Reason to
elaborate a
diagnostic
Correct
Evaluate
Execute problem-sol
ving action
(components)
Elaborate a
pedagogical
intervention
Execute
problem-
solving
action
0,24 0,29
0,16
0,16
0,22+ 0,32
0,20
0,32
0,34
0,23+
0,32
0,16
0,20
0,34+
0,16+
0,31
0,16+
0,43
0,15
0,30
0,45
0,34
0,18
0,32
0,50
0,27

Figure 5. Typical sequence of collaborative pedagogical reasoning activities fourth-year student teachers.
4.4.3 Teachers
In the case of teachers, the sequence of pedagogical-reasoning activities did not display
dependency between temporally adjacent events (G
2
41
= 52.44, p < .11). That is, the
conditional probabilities among activities only reflect probabilities related to their
frequencies. Figure 6 presents the sequential statistics. Since the omnibus test is not
significant, the individual conditional probabilities were not examined for significance.

4.4.4 Expert teachers
In the case of experts, there is sequential dependency between pedagogical-reasoning
activities (G
2
55
= 143.35, p < .0001). The most frequent paths were test conditions-conprehend
(.58), reason-comprehend (.56), correct-interpret state (.57), interpret state-comprehend (.46),
plan problem-solving action (.42), comprehend-interpret state (.33). Of all the 72, 15
conditional probabilities were significantly biased. Six of them appear in Figure 7, all
positively biased: correct-interpret state, plan problem-solving action-interpret state,
comprehend-reason, plan goal-plan problem-solving action, test conditions-evaluate, and plan
problem-solving action-comprehend.

Control
pedagogical-
reasoning task
Test
conditions
Interpret
state
Plan goal
Plan
problem-
solving
action
Comprehend the
situation
Reason to
elaborate a
diagnostic
Correct
Evaluate
(components)
Elaborate a
pedagogical
intervention
Execute
problem-
solving
action
0,17
0,33
0,33 0,33
0,50
0,38
0,31
0,25
0,33
0,31
0,21
0,33
0,33
0,45
0,46
0,35
0,33
0,31
0,38
0,50

Figure 6. Typical sequence of collaborative pedagogical reasoning activities - teachers.

Control
pedagogical-
reasoning task
Test
conditions
Interpret
state
Plan goal
Plan
problem-
solving
action
Comprehend the
situation
Reason to
elaborate a
diagnostic
Correct
Evaluate
(components)
Elaborate a
pedagogical
intervention
Execute
problem-
solving
action
0,16
0,30
0,46
0,20+
0,42+
0,27 0,27+
0,25+
0,57+
0,22
0,28+
0,33
0,58
0,24
0,56
0,20
0,24
0,24
0,17
0,20

Figure 7. Typical sequence of collaborative pedagogical reasoning activities - experts.

Frequent and positively biased paths among control activities go from preparation steps
to evaluation steps. Preparation steps are also frequently followed by the execution of
pedagogical-reasoning actions. In turn, this execution, when followed by control actions,
leads to aspects of evaluation of the procedures (interpret state). The typical sequence of
pedagogical-reasoning actions includes a loop between comprehend and reason, with
elaborate an intervention relatively isolated from the two others.

4.4.5. Global difference in sequential dependency across levels of expertise
An important finding regarding expertise differences is that as expertise increases, the
general orderliness of transitions between pedagogical-reasoning activities also increases, as
reflected by the correspondingly increasing G
2
obtained. Pedagogical reasoning in experts
appears more strategically driven than in novices.
Globally, the sequential results depict collaborative pedagogical reasoning as a relatively
unsystematic process for some expertise levels. In contrast, collaborative pedagogical reasoning
appears more systematic in the case of experts. For example, results from fourth-year students
include a great number of transitions with reasonable probability. Because of this difficulty of
characterizing the process, comparisons between levels of expertise are difficult to make at the
level of specific transitions. Experts also plan goals about diagnostic, while others plan about
comprehension. Experts, in contrast with the other participants, dont go from comprehension to
elaborating the intervention. For all expertise levels, comprehension and the elaboration of the
intervention are more controlled than the diagnostic process.

5. DISCUSSION

The main goal was to accurately describe what is going on, cognitively speaking, during
pedagogical reasoning in the hope that this description of the process will make possible
studies of knowledge and other factors that bear on teaching effectiveness and teacher
education.

5.1. Prevalence of Collaborative Pedagogical Reasoning Activities

In the sample studied, a significant difference was found regarding how often the
different pedagogical-reasoning activities were executed. Frequency data, not considering the
length of a specific activity, suggest that episodes of pedagogical-reasoning actions (which
may be relatively long) are frequently interspersed with planning and evaluation procedures.
This finding is consistent with the expectation from theory that this control of the
performance was necessary at the beginning and end of the pedagogical reasoning process,
and during shifts between any of its constituent actions. Participants were (attempting to be)
purposeful or strategic by piloting their performance. The extent to which they succeed is not
explicit from frequency data, and would require an examination of the nature of those
categories because the potential of success and failure is intrinsic to the enactment of any of
the steps in the model.
Of the control procedures, interpret state was by far the most prevalent step. Interpreted as a
frequent need to make sense of the current state in the performance of the task, this may be due to the
considerable complexity of the problem or the complexity of the domain. Those two influences may
be difficult to distinguish, but a difference in the prevalence of interpret state attributable to expertise
would be an indication of the impact of the complexity of the problem and the domain.
The scarcity of occurrence of goal planning, evaluation of results and correction of
mistakes may be related to the ill-structured nature of pedagogical-reasoning problems. If we
agree with the literature that such problems represent difficulties in establishing what the
problem is, which steps are required for a solution and what constitutes an appropriate
solution, such difficulties may be reflected in the data. Again, expertise differences examined
next may corroborate or infirm this supposition by providing evidence of the impact of the
required knowledge which experts presumably have to address such issues and perform those
steps successfully. Indeed, despite the influence of the context on the elaboration of a
representation of the problem, pertinent knowledge of the domain exerts the greatest
influence on this process. If experts know from experience that planning a solution in terms of
a sequence of steps before executing actions accelerates problem solving, as shown in
previous research on problem solving, this is a strong incentive to engage in adequate
planning, since this planning is enabled by their knowledge. Finally, experts representations
emphasize structural features relevant for the solution such as causal relations, whereas
novices representations highlight superficial features irrelevant to the solution.
At the level of the pedagogical-reasoning actions, diagnostic was shown to be less prevalent
than comprehension and the elaboration of the intervention. One possible explanation is the
possibility that diagnostic naturally and relatively effortlessly follows from an adequate
comprehension of the case whether as backward or forward reasoning, which in this study is
designed to present information more or less associated with the primary difficulty. This
scarcity of diagnostic could alternately be attributable to the difficulty of making a diagnostic,
which could be corroborated or not from the examination of expertise differences.

5.2. Differences in Prevalence across Levels of Expertise

The data revealed an absence of difference in prevalence of pedagogical-reasoning
activities across expertise levels. At the higher level, this uniformity in prevalence across
expertise levels could mean that domain knowledge has no impact on the implementation of
the different pedagogical-reasoning actions in terms of frequency, but it could have an impact
on the nature of the actions implemented, as well as on the relative length of episodes of
given activities. These issues have to be further examined using complementary analytical
strategies.
However, a significant difference across expertise levels was found at the level of
actions. In a semantically complex domain, problem-solving processes hinge on pertinent
knowledge of the domain. How this knowledge is used to perform the task, both individually
and collectively, is thought to be largely determinant of the outcomes of the activity.
Comprehension, reasoning, planning and problem solving are all hypothesized to be
facilitated by the availability of pertinent domain knowledge. More specifically for planning,
differences in prevalence of actions seem to corroborate many aspects of literature on teacher
planning: less intervention in experts suggest that they possess in memory more compiled
schemas for intervention that either dont need to be created and/or explicitly detailed. One
needs to be careful though about the nature of the data under scrutiny by not equating
frequency and length of episodes.
Globally, these differences can be explained in part by the level of difficulty of the case
study (a real pupil). Experts seem to be challenged by the case in order to adapt the
intervention, whereas novices seem to abandon taking into account the case, apparently
turning to the elaboration of a relatively generic intervention in reading instruction.
In terms of analysis, the absence of differences in prevalence at the higher level makes
comparison of conditional probabilities involving exclusively those categories between levels
of expertise more directly interpretable. Transitions involving actions should be compared
using standardized indices.

5.3. Sequencing of Collaborative Pedagogical Reasoning Activities

For the sample under study, pedagogical reasoning was shown statistically to be a first-
order Markov process. Although all 72 conditional probabilities can contribute to some extent
to the overall dependency between pairs of steps, 21 of them were statistically significant
individually. This finding is in line with many other models based on problem-solving theory,
which postulate the occurrence of steps on the basis of the steps immediately preceding them.
In his synthesis of available data about the human cognitive architecture, Newell (1990)
interpreted human cognition as state determined, meaning that future cognitive behavior is
determined by its current state. The current state may be constructed from states at the same
level (strong level) or at lower levels (weak level).
The reason-comprehend transition can be interpreted as either an indication of forward
reasoning or a need to go back to the case for retrieving information that was not memorized
adequately during the initial reading of the materials. According to the view presented, the
diagnostic of a pupils difficulty is achieved through abductive reasoning, a combination of
deductive and inductive reasoning, specifically that hypotheses are generated by abstraction
and abduction and tested by deduction and induction. This distinction is orthogonal to the
difference between forward and backward reasoning. Forward reasoning is heavily dependent
on the reasoners domain knowledge to avoid errors due to a lack of legitimacy of the
inferences. Because of the impact of knowledge on the reasoning process, the level of
expertise must be taken into consideration in interpreting this transition.
Correct-interpret state is consistent with theory, since interpret state may involve testing
the conditions for the application of stop rules. Test conditions-comprehend may be
interpreted by the assumption that comprehending the case is a prerequisite to the diagnostic
and subsequent intervention, so that the participants, having determined this, engage in the
first step of the process. The transition between plan goal and plan problem-solving actions is
consistent with the theory stating that goal setting has to be followed by a plan of actions to
attain those goals (Tschan, 2002). The infrequent test conditions-interpret state path is an
instance of all those paths not supported by theory that should occur less often than expected
statistically. Those paths are many (consider those 16 below .15). It appears that statistics
from sequential analysis are misleading in those cases, since low-frequency paths, because of
their low frequency, are likely to be detected statistically as departing from expected values.
The common pattern of preparation, execution and evaluation found among the more
detailed categories of the model is in line with classic problem-solving theories and recent
empirical investigations by Tschan (2002). In particular, the performance of actions followed
by interpret state and the observation that interpret state is also a very likely consequent of
correct and test conditions seem to indicate the complexity of the pedagogical-reasoning
process by the need to make explicit the various steps in the process. Finally, the recursive
loop between evaluate and comprehension may be interpreted as an indication of
comprehension monitoring.

5.4. Differences in Sequencing across Levels of Expertise

The presence of first-order sequential dependency among pedagogical-reasoning
processes was established statistically for three of the four levels of expertise considered in
this study. Indeed, pedagogical-reasoning activities in teachers were found to be unrelated
sequentially. These results are discussed separately for each levels of expertise in the
following sections.

5.4.1. Second-year students
The recursive loop between comprehend and elaborate in addition to the absence of paths
going to reason can be seen as an indication that the focus on elaboration is accompanied by
considerations of the case in terms of presented information or a diagnosis of rather limited
quality, and not in terms of the complete and thorough diagnosis for which a transformation
of this information is required. This could be an indication that the diagnostic is not
satisfactorily achieved, perhaps even skipped, despite the frequent path from reason to
comprehend suggesting that hypotheses are being tested in light of the information in the
case. Second-year student teachers may lack the domain knowledge necessary to avoid a lack
of legitimacy of the inferences, which are responsible for errors in diagnosis. Novices use
backward reasoning because their do not have the knowledge required to support forward
reasoning (Patel, Arocha & Zhang, 2005). The reasoning activity occurs but is not preceded
by any statistically distinguishable step. Is it followed, though, more often than expected by
comprehend. However, hypothesis-driven or backward reasoning increases cognitive load
since it requires that the reasoner keeps track of the current goals and hypotheses. Cognitive
overload may be the cause of this frequent path from reasoning to comprehend. This assertion
is based on the assumption that hypotheses are being formulated, which would have to be
corroborated by a further analysis of the categories in the model constituting the lower level
of the activities. Plan goal-plan action is a transition expected from theory (Tschan, 2002).
The two most common targets of the most frequent transitions were elaborate
intervention and comprehend. These two actions seem to serve as attractors around which the
pedagogical-reasoning process is organized.

5.4.2. Fourth-year students
Interestingly, elaborate intervention and interpret state seem to be the attractors in the
process in the sense that many very frequent paths are going to these two states. Among those
paths that reached significance, evaluate-plan problem-solving action seems to indicate a need
to make explicit upcoming procedures, in the case of a positive or negative evaluation of the
performance. Reason-comprehend can be seen as backward reasoning, in which hypotheses
are elaborated and then tested against information from the case. Plan problem-solving
action-comprehend is probably a by-product of the fact that comprehension of the case is a
prerequisite to the other actions and that an initial task analysis by the participants leads to the
comprehension of the case being performed first. The reason-correct transition is intricate
because the object of the correction is not identifiable from the sequential data: it is not clear
whether it is the diagnostic or the intervention (as the most frequent consequent of a
correction procedure).

5.4.3. Teachers
The present results indicate that sequential structure of teachers pedagogical-reasoning
process could not be established statistically. The possibility that this can be due to low
frequencies of certain transitions can be ruled out: From a probabilistic point of view, it is
more likely for a conditional probability to depart from the expected frequency as the
unconditional frequencies of the antecedent and consequent categories are low. Thus, it is
likely that this statistical sequential independence among steps is real.

5.4.4. Expert teachers
Sequential structure in experts pedagogical reasoning is characterized by many very
frequent paths pointing to comprehend and interpret state, including a loop between the two.
Comprehend-reason can be interpreted tentatively as forward reasoning (Patel & Groen,
1991). Statistically biased paths among the control steps can be thought of as a capacity to be
strategic and efficient in elaborating a solution to the problem by optimally organizing the
constituent actions. Paths among activities seem to reflect the structure of the pedagogical-
reasoning task: activities seem to start with the diagnosis supported by information extracted
from the case, which, when done, leads to the elaboration of the intervention.

5.4.5. Global difference in sequential dependency across levels of expertise
In addition to the results associated with each expertise level, it was also found
statistically that first-order sequential dependency in pedagogical reasoning augmented
as the level of expertise increased. The three G
2
that were comparable (excluding the
teachers) enlarged with expertise. That is, experts appear to be more systematic in their
sequencing of pedagogical-reasoning steps. Pedagogical-reasoning processes in experts
appear to be more strategically driven than in novices. These results represent
additional empirical support to the importance of pertinent knowledge of the domain
for successful problem solving in a semantically complex domain.

5.5. General Discussion

The analyses presented in this chapter put a particular emphasis on the executive
control of the pedagogical-reasoning activities. Future analyses should further examine
each of the three main activities postulated, by considering their constituents. To make
this task minimally tractable conceptually and statistically, the activities pertaining to
the control process should be aggregated into preparation, execution and evaluation
steps, more parsimoniously than the six categories used in this chapter.
The absence of clearer patterns in the data may also be the result of the added
complexity of considering pairs as a unified system instead of two individuals. Future
analyses include the modeling of the contribution of each individual in a pair to
highlight the coordination of the performance, as well as the comparison of the present
results with results from a companion study of individual performance. Future and
ongoing research include the study of pedagogical reasoning by heterogeneous dyads
(an expert and a novice) in tutoring situations and the study of pedagogical reasoning in
authentic settings instead of a laboratory task. Globally, these analyses could contribute
to our understanding of more general issues in considering groups as information-
processing systems such as information storage, information retrieval and information
exchange in groups. Comparisons of the functioning of homogeneous and
heterogeneous dyads could further test the theoretical assumption that the degree of
overlap of task-related information held by different members of a group is thought to
be a major influence on group functioning (Arrow, McGrath & Berdahl, 2000). These
theoretical frameworks coupled with modern analytical strategies could lead to
interesting insights in the application of an information-processing framework within a
social-cognitive science view (Sun, 2006).
By showing differences in pedagogical reasoning related to the level of expertise,
the results suggest that more emphasis should be put on the diagnosis of students
difficulties in initial training, especially if this diagnosis is seen as a foundation for
differentiated instruction. More analyses considering the modeling of the domain
knowledge evoked during pedagogical reasoning and associated to each process are
needed to explain these differences.

6. CONCLUSIONS

The contributions and implications of this study are presented first. The strengths and
limitations of this work and future research conclude this chapter.

6.1. Contributions and Implications

This study is the second of a series of studies investigating teacher decision-making in
the specific context of lesson planning for a specific student, the relations between teacher
knowledge and teacher decision-making, as well as the differences between solitary and
collaborative performance.
A cognitive model of pedagogical reasoning was developed from theory and then used
for the analysis of conversation data. It was developed as a general framework for the
research program. It evolved from general ideas of regulation of the performance and
general theories chosen on the basis of elements of task analysis of the pedagogical-
reasoning process. Since the model includes unavoidable executive aspects of the
performance, it can be used to study individual and group differences in pedagogical-
reasoning performance. It also makes possible uncommon and less straightforward
comparisons between different contexts such as group, dyad, and individual performance.
The study of cycles of pedagogical reasoning over an extended period of time is also
possible.
The strongest claims made to date concern the categories that were included in the
model. Aspects of their sequencing were also discussed among sets of categories that were
discussed in the literature as groups, such as problem solving, reasoning, and planning.
Since the model builds on sets of theoretical categories that were not previously considered
together, these links will have to be established empirically using many different samples.
Most of the transitions could not be specified from theory.
In this study, the model was considered as a closed set of theoretically-driven
categories and therefore was not modified to reflect the data. However, definitions of
categories were refined during the coding process. More studies are needed on the
validation process. Empirical validation is complex given the interest of having a generic
model, applicable to various settings and populations. The expected outcome of the
development of the model is a unified set of stable categories. Through empirical
investigation, these categories will be identified as more or less prevalent for specific
populations and in specific contexts. Transitions among steps will also be specified
empirically, considering and comparing various performance contexts and different
populations.
Aside from these considerations of the development of the model, the strategy used for
the analysis of coded data has strengths and limitations that are complementary to a more
qualitative approach. The focus on sample results underlying the statistical approach used
led to a specification of generalizations to the whole samples and indications of similarities
and differences across categories related to expertise. This strategy provided accurate
descriptions of the process. These descriptions should be confirmatory but are treated
descriptively or as exploratory in the sense that these interpretations have to be treated
mainly as hypotheses that have to be tested by other means. Most of these results can be
explained by the theory underlying the model, but in order to be robust, these explanations
would greatly benefit from a qualitative study of the protocols of specific pairs of
participants. The nature of the processes characterized by the results as well as specific
transitions (the actual sequence of steps performed by a pair as opposed to aggregated
transitions) has to be examined to explain those descriptions. These considerations also
apply to the categories pertaining to the third level in the model that were not fully
examined in this study and for which both the quantitative and qualitative work has to be
undertaken.
As Arrow, McGrath and Berdhal (2000) suggest, characteristics of the products of the
pedagogical-reasoning process can be tracked during their elaboration and be put in relation
with the coordinated actions that resulted in these productions. In so doing, important
information could be gained regarding how certain characteristics of the pedagogical -
reasoning process are related to the efficacy of the production. The development of an
assessment procedure using scoring rubrics is a prerequisite to such analyses. A pervasive
claim in this chapter regarding the impact of knowledge as being largely determinant of the
outcomes of the activity has to be verified by such analyses.
As such, this model can be coupled with other models either representing executive
aspects of complementary tasks such as interactive teaching, or representing other levels in
the performance of pedagogical reasoning such as a social layer or the use of tools .
Knowledge underlying the performance should also be modeled. Appropriate models of
decision-making in interactive teaching include those suggested by Peterson and Clark
(1978) and Shavelson and Stern (1981). Aspects of a social layer applicable to dyad and
group data include Seales (1979) classic conversation acts framework, which emphasizes
the functional aspect of speech. Modeling the use of tools can be either achieved
inductively or within a cognitive tools framework (Lajoie, 2000). Many knowledge
modeling procedures exist (see Olson and Biolsi, 1991). A conceptual graph approach
(Sowa, 1984) could be particularly useful in investigating the links between elements of
knowledge and performance, and is the object of ongoing research. However, these
knowledge models are very powerful in categorizing and organizing knowledge elements
using sets of primitives but are relatively incompatible with the aggregation of data from
multiple units of analysis. Nevertheless, used in conjunction with appropriate data
collection and analysis procedures, these models could be powerfully combined to
investigate a broad range of issues regarding cognition and social cognition.
Finally, the proposed cognitive model, as a way to characterize proactive decision
making, complements models of interactive decision-making. This complementarity
represents potential for future studies examining discrepancies between teacher planning
and classroom processes in terms of how they arise and how they are resolved. This
discrepancy is linked to important findings of earlier studies (Morine-Dershimer, 1978-79)
and has implications for the transfer of theory into practice since teachers interactive
decision-making and information-processing is highly influenced by it (Morine-Dershimer,
1979). Initial investigations are leading to descriptive models of teachers pedagogical
reasoning.

6.2. Strengths and Limitations of This Work and Future Research

Choices that were made in this study concerning the sampling and analysis strategies
each translate into strengths and limitations. Sampling four expertise levels made it possible
to make comparisons but led to a limited number of units of analysis per category (pairs).
Focusing on group prevalence and sequential aspects led to results that generalize very well
across the sample, but neglected individual differences within categories. This quantitative
approach to data analysis, while providing reliable results about likely events and sequences
of events, also neglected critical events in the performance of individual pairs of participants.
These critical events would be likely unveiled by case studies in the form of a (qualitative)
protocol analysis. These two approaches are complementary and should be both undertaken
for the present data set.
Statistical results in this study need to be interpreted as generalizability to the sample
under study. Therefore, generalizing results to the populations requires either additional
studies of comparable samples or a study involving parametric samples of participants (more
than 30 pairs for each expertise levels).
Finally, this chapter highlights some benefits and challenges regarding the methodology
of sequential analysis for the study of cognition and social cognition. Sequential analysis,
with its focus on transitions between steps in a process, seems a sound strategy for extending
the tracing methodologies to larger samples of participants, instead of traditional case studies.
The possibility of pooling data over multiple participants and performance episodes while
taking into account factors in an experimental design, complemented by robust statistical
procedures such as log-linear analysis, can provide reliable information possibly with more
generalizability, about how cognitive processes unfold. However, the analysis presented also
reveals major difficulties related to the level of details included in the model under study.
Cognitive theory reviewed in this chapter led to the elaboration of a model comprising 22
categories organized hierarchically in three levels. Because of the combinatory increase in the
number of possible transitions as a function of the number of categories considered, the
analysis of this model as a whole appears to be an intractable endeavor. The strategy
employed was to collapse the categories of the lower level at the expense of a loss of
information, deferring the examination of constituents of the pedagogical-reasoning actions to
a subsequent paper. Even then, these constituents will have to be examined in relative
isolation: projected analysis consists of detailing one of the action (comprehension or
reasoning or elaborating the intervention) while the other two remain collapsed, so that
aspects of the transitions between actions remain visible. Another complementary strategy is
to collapse the 7 control actions into three more general categories: preparation, execution and
evaluation. The benefits of shifting part of the emphasis from the problem solving to
constituent actions could be relatively high, especially since the details related to these
categories were presented in the present chapter. After the necessary study of component
actions, the results should be then further interpreted in relation, because of their functional
interdependency.
No matter the strategy used, minimizing the number of categories seems unavoidable.
Most examples in classic books on sequential analysis are based on categorical systems of
approximately 2 to 4 categories, and the maximum number of categories found in examples
was 7. Occasionally, categories are organized hierarchically, typically in two levels in such
cases. Sequential analysis of multi-level processes represents another source of possible
challenges. To the best of our knowledge, it is not possible to compute transitions between
categories organized in more than two levels in a single analysis, since this would lead to
flawed unconditional frequencies. Consequently, statistical tests of sequential dependency
associated with more complex models cannot be obtained.
Such parsimony could permit more complete analyses, such as statistical tests of higher-
order Markov processes, and group differences related to specific transitions. More complex
experimental designs could also be exploited. It should be noted that the gain in
generalizability associated with sequential analysis is accompanied by a loss of information
regarding how specific pairs of participants performed. Taking into account individuals
within pairs would also contribute to the number of transitions as they generate transitions are
not part of the experimental design (although the comparison between individuals in pairs and
individuals working alone would be an experimental factor).
Future research should investigate at least two important issues: the nature of knowledge
and knowledge use in pedagogical reasoning, and how to teach pedagogical reasoning
abilities. Regarding the first issue pertaining to knowledge and knowledge use, Novick and
Bassok (2005) insist on the importance of conducting educationally relevant research on
problem solving, especially in the context of knowledge-intensive problems that are socially
critical such as those in science, medicine and technology. We add education to this list of
domains.
A model that describes teacher knowledge and how they use it in teaching is needed to
study teacher collaboration in order to, among other things, assess its quality and its outcomes
in a multiplicity of situations. Many important questions remain to be explored in the
development of such a model: (1) what knowledge is involved during these cognitive steps,
(2) how knowledge from each teammate gets integrated into a common problem space, and
(3) how this knowledge drives the collaborative pedagogical-reasoning process. Elements of
answer to these questions could contribute to explain the differences found in the present
study. Question 1 could be answered by constructing a conceptual graph of the knowledge
evoked in the protocol of each pair of participants. To answer question 2, the conceptual
graphs could be annotated with indications regarding which participant contributed each of
their components. For question 3, the conceptual graphs can be graphically integrated with
the corresponding traces of the pedagogical-reasoning process, for each pair and individual.
Given the predominant role of knowledge in ill-structured problems, conceptual
representation theory may contribute to our understanding of problem solving (Voss & Post,
1988). Schema knowledge for problem solving consists of identification knowledge,
elaboration knowledge, planning knowledge, and execution knowledge (Marshall, 2005).
Identification knowledge is concerned with the recognition of patterns. Elaboration
knowledge intervenes in deciding whether the elements necessary for the solution of the
problem are provided, after the pattern has been recognized. Planning knowledge is used to
set goals and selecting associated operations. Execution knowledge consists of algorithms that
are executed step-by-step, at the service of the plan.
Regarding the second issue of developing pedagogical reasoning skills in novices, as
Hogan, Rabinowitz and Craven (2003) concluded, research is needed to determine whether
novices can be taught the skills of experts in teaching, as it has been shown to be possible in
other domains such as physics and statistics. The activities hypothesized to be of particular
value for the development of teaching expertise are the preparation of instructional materials,
the mental and written planning of instructional activities and strategies, the formative and
summative evaluation of student progress using graded written work, observation of
performance, and teacher-made tests. Since the first two of these activities are directly related
to pedagogical reasoning as conceived of in the present model, it seems likely that this study
could lead to specific indications regarding a pedagogy of teaching skills.
Future studies will examine teacher knowledge as used in pedagogical reasoning and
teaching strategies for developing pedagogical-reasoning skills. Ultimately, these models may
develop into more prescriptive models that could be integrated in teacher education programs.
More specifically, empirically validated models of pedagogical-reasoning skills determine, on
the one hand, the nature of teacher pedagogical reasoning skills that should be taught. On the
other hand, they serve as a basis for studies investigating the design of methods for teaching
and assessing these skills. Since traditional models of teacher planning focused on processes
and neglected content (Hashweh, 2005), analysis of the outcomes of planning should be
undertaken. Hashwehs (2005) review of recent handbooks with respect to topics of teacher
knowledge and teacher thinking reveals a certain impermeability of the two lines of research.
This is even more critical since thinking in complex domains is heavily determined by
knowledge. The interest of examining novice-expert differences in terms of curriculum scripts
was established a long time ago by Putnam (1987). Cognitive models such as the one
developed in this study can be used to study change in teacher cognition across time (Sherin,
Sherin & Madanes, 2000). These models can be used either transversally (as was done in this
study) or longitudinally, and this is a matter of research strategy.
More generally, this study will add to the growing literature in cognitive science about
the study of collaboration in authentic and complex situations (Elstein, Shulman & Spafka,
2000). How to design learning activities in order to optimize cooperative learning and how to
organize work in order to optimize performance remain empirical questions that need to be
addressed domain by domain.

REFERENCES

Anderson, J. R. (2002). Spanning seven orders of magnitude: a challenge for cognitive
modeling. Cognitive Science, 26, 85-112.
Arvaja, M., Salovaara, H., Hkkinen, P. & Jrvel, S. (2007). Combining individual and
group-level perspectives for studying collaborative knowledge construction in context.
Learning and Instruction, 17, 448-459.
Akpinar, Y. & Bal, V. (2006). Student Tools Supported by Collaboratively Authored Tasks:
The Case of Work Learning Unit. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 17 (2),
101-119.
Arrow, H., McGrath, J. E. & Berdahl, J. L. (2000). Small groups as complex systems:
Formation, coordination, development, and adaptation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bakeman, R. et Gottman, J. M. (1997). Observing interaction : An introduction to sequential
analysis. New-York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Bakeman, R. & Quera, V. (1995). Analysing interaction: Sequential Analysis with SDIS and
GSEQ. New-York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Borko, H. & Shavelson, R. (1990). Teacher decision making. In B. F. Jones, & L. Idol (Eds).
Dimensions of thinking and cognitive instruction. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Brown, A. L. & Day, J. D. (1983). Macrorules for summarizing texts : The development of
expertise. Journal of Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 1-14.
Butler, D. L., Lauscher, H. N., Jarvis-Selinger, S. & Beckingham, B. (2004). Collaboration
and self-regulation in teachers' professional development. Teaching and Teacher
Education. 20 (5), 435-455.
Calderhead, J. (1995). Teachers as clinicians. In L. W. Anderson (Ed). International
Encyclopedia of teaching and teacher education (2
nd
ed.), 9-11, Oxford, UK: Elsevier
Science.
Chen, W. L.,

Cone, T. P. & Cone, S. L. (2007). A collaborative approach to developing an
interdisciplinary unit. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 26 (2), 103-124.
Clark, C. M. & Elmore, J. L. (1979). Teacher planning in the first weeks of school (Research
series no. 99). East Lansing: Michigan State University, Institute for research on
teaching.
Clark, C. M. & Yinger, R. J. (1979). Three studies of teacher planning. East Lansing:
Michigan State University.
Copeland, D. E., Magliano, J. P. & Radvansky, G. A. (2006). Situation models in
comprehension, memory, and augmented cognition. In C. Forsythe, M. L. Bernard & T.
E. Goldsmith (Eds). Cognitive systems: Human cognitive models in systems design.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Davies, P. (2000). Differentiation: processing and understanding in teachers thinking and
practice. Educational studies, 26(2), 191-203.
Davison, C. (2006). Collaboration Between ESL and Content Teachers: How Do We Know
When We Are Doing It Right? International Journal of Bilingual Education and
Bilingualism, 9 (4), 454-475.
Elstein, A. S., Shulman, L. S. & et Sprafka, S. A. (2000). Medical problem solving : a ten-
year perspective. Evaluation and the Health Professions, 13, 1, 5-36.
Ericsson, K. A. (2003). The acquisition of expert performance as problem solving. In J. E.
Davidson & R. J. Sternberg (Eds). The psychology of problem solving. New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
Erickson, G., Minnes Brandes, G., Mitchell, I. & Mitchel, J. (2005). Collaborative teacher
learning: Findings from two professional development projects. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 21 (7), 787-798
Foltz, P.W. (2003). Quantitative cognitive models of text and discourse processing. In A.C.
Graesser, M. A. Gernsbacher, & S. R. Goldman. (Eds). Handbook of discourse processes.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Frederiksen, C. H. (1975). Representing logical and semantic structure of knowledge
acquired from discourse. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 317458.
Frederiksen, C. H. & Breuleux, A. (1990). Monitoring cognitive processing in semantically
complex domains. In N., Frederiksen, R, Glaser, A. Lesgold & M. Shafto (Eds.),
Diagnostic monitoring of skill and knowledge acquisition (pp. 351-392). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Frederiksen, C. H., Bracewell, R. J., Breuleux, A. & Renaud, A. (1990). The cognitive
representation and processing of discourse: Function and dysfunction. In Y. Joanette &
H. H. Brownell (Eds.), Discourse ability and brain damage: Theoretical and empirical
perspectives. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Gottman, J. M. et Roy, A. K. (1990). Sequential analysis : a guide for behavioral
researchers. New-York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Groen, G. J. & Patel, V. L. (1988). The relationship between comprehension and reasoning in
medical expertise. In Chi, M. T. H, Glaser, R. & Farr, M. (Eds). The nature of expertise.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hashweh, M. Z. (2005). Teacher pedagogical constructions: a reconfiguration of pedagogical
content knowledge. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 11, (3), 273-292.
Hatano, G. & Inagaki, K. (2000). Knowledge acquisition and use in higher-order cognition. In
K. Pawlik & M. R. Rosenzweig (Eds). International handbook of psychology. pp. 167-
190. London, England: Sage Publications Ltd.
Hogan, T., Rabinowitz, M. & Craven, J.A. (2003). Representation in teaching: inferences
from research on expert and novice teachers. Educational Psychologist, 38(4), 235-247.
Johnson, B. (2003). Teacher collaboration: Good for some, not so good for others.
Educational Studies. 29 (4), 337-350.
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (2005). Mental models and thought. In K. J. Holyoak & R.G. Morrison
(Eds). The Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning. New York, N Y: Cambridge
University Press.
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models: Towards a cognitive science of language,
inference, and consciousness. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension : A paradigm for cognition. New-York: Cambridge
University Press.
Lajoie, S. (2000). Computers as cognitive tools: no more walls. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Leighton, J. P. & Steinberg, R. J. (2003). Reasoning and problem solving. In A. F. Healy &
R. W. Proctor (Eds). Handbook of psychology: Experimental psychology, Vol. 4.
(623-648). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Leinhardt, G. (1987). Development of an expert explanation: An analysis of a sequence of
subtraction lessons. Cognition and Instruction, 4(4), 225-282.
Leinhardt, G. (1989). Math lessons: A contrast of novice and expert competence. Journal for
Research in Mathematics Instruction, 20, 52-75.
Leinhardt, G. & Greeno, J. (1986).The cognitive skill of teaching. Journal of educational
psychology, 78, 2, 75-95.
Lohman, D. F. (2005). Reasoning abilities. In R. J. Sternberg& J. E. Pretz (Eds). Cognition
and intelligence: Identifying the mechanisms of the mind. New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press.
Lovett, M. C. (2002). Problem Solving. In H. Pashler, & D. Medin (Eds). (2002). Steven's
handbook of experimental psychology (3rd ed.), Vol. 2: Memory and cognitive processes.
(pp. 317-362). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Marshall, S. P. (2005). Schemas in problem solving. New-York, NY: Cambridge University
Press.
McCutcheon, G. (1980). How do elementary school teachers plan? The nature of planning
and influences on it. Elementary school journal, 81, 4-23.
McCutcheon, G. & Milner, H. R. (2002). A contemporary study of teacher planning in a high
school English class. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 8, (1), 81-94.
Milner, H. R. (2003). A case study of an African American English teachers cultural
comprehensive knowledge and self-reflective planning. Journal of Curriculum and
Supervision, 18 (2), 175-196.
Mercier, J. & Frederiksen, C. H. (2007). Individual Differences in Graduate Students Help-
Seeking Process in Using a Computer Coach in Problem-Based Learning. Learning and
Instruction. 17, 184-203
Meirink, J. A., Meijer, P. C. & Verloop, N. (2007). A closer look at teachers' individual
learning in collaborative settings. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 13 (2),
145-164.
Morine-Dershimer, G. (1979). Teacher plan and classroom reality: the south bay study: part
4 (Research series no. 60). East Lansing: Michigan State University, Institute for
research on teaching.
Morine-Dershimer, G. (1978-79). Planning in classroom reality: and in-depth look.
Educational Research Quarterly.
Munby, H., Russell, T. & Martin, A. K. (2001). Teachers Knowledge and How It Develops.
In V. Richardson (Ed.) Handbook of research on teaching (4
th
ed.). American
Educational Research Association. Washington, DC.
Newell, A. (1990). Unified theories of cognition. Cambridge, Mass : Harvard University
Press.
Newell, A. & Simon, H. T. (1972). Human problem solving. Prentice Hall.
Novick, L. R. & Bassok, M. (2005). Problem solving. In Holyoak, & Morrison, R. G. (Eds).
The Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning. New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press.
Olson, J. R. & Biolsi, K. J. (1991). Techniques for representing expert knowledge. In K.A.
Anderson & J. Smith (Eds). Toward a general theory of expertise: prospects and limits.
Cambridge, N Y: Cambridge University Press.
Oostendorp, H. Otero, J. & Campanario, J.M. (2002). Conditions of updating during reading.
In M Louwerse & W. van Peer, (Eds). Thematics: Interdisciplinary studies. Converging
evidence in language and communication research, vol. 3. Amsterdam, Netherlands:
John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Parmar, R. S. & DeSimone, J. R. (2006). Facilitating Teacher Collaboration in Middle School
Mathematics Classrooms with Special-Needs Students. In M. Montague & A.K. Jitendra
(Eds). Teaching mathematics to middle school students with learning difficulties. What
works for special-needs learners. (pp. 154-174). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Patel, V. L., Arocha, J. F. & Zhang, J. (2005).
Thinking and reasoning in medicine. In K.J. Holyoak and R.
G. Morrison (Eds). The Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning. New-York, NY:
Patel, V. L. & Groen, G. J. (1991). The general and specific nature of medical expertise: a
critical look. In K.A. Anderson & J. Smith (Eds). Toward a general theory of expertise:
prospects and limits. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Peterson, P. & Comeaux, M. (1987). Teachers schemata for classroom events: The mental
scaffolding of teachers thinking during classroom instruction. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 3, 319-331.
Peterson, P. L., Marx, R. W. & Clark, C. M. (1978). Teacher Planning, Teacher Behavior, and
Student Achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 15, 417-432.
Polk, T. A. & Newell, A. (1995). Deduction as verbal reasoning. Psychological Review,
102(3): 533-566.
Putnam, R. (1987). Structuring and adjusting content for students: A study of live and
simulated tutoring of additions. American Educational Research Journal, 24(1), 13-28.
Rips, L. J. (2002). Reasoning. In D. Medin & H. Pashler (Eds). Stevens handbook of
experimental psychology (third edition). New York, NY: Wiley & Sons.
Sacerdoti, E. (1977), A Structure for Plans and Behavior, Elsevier North-Holland,
Amsterdam and New York.
Sanchez, G. & Valcarcel, V. M. (1999).
Science teachers: Views and practices in planning for teaching.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, (4), 493-513.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (2000). Models of the teaching process. Journal of mathematical
behaviour, 18, 3, 243-261.
Shavelson, R. J. & Stern, P. (1981). Research on teachers pedagogical thoughts, judgments,
decisions, and behavior. Review of Educational Research, 51, 455-498.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational
Researcher, 4-14.
Seifert & Manzuk, (2006). Student cohorts in teacher education: support groups of intellectual
communities? Teachers College Record, 108
(7),
1296-1320.
Sherin, M. G., Sherin, B. L. & et Madanes, R. (2000). Exploring diverse accounts of teacher
knowledge. Journal of mathematical behaviour, 18,
(3)
, 243-261.
Smith, E. R. (2005). Learning to Talk Like a Teacher: Participation and Negotiation in Co-
planning Discourse. Communication Education, 54(1), 52-71.
Sowa, J. F. (1984). Conceptual structures: information processing in mind and machine.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Sun, R. (2006). Prolegomena to integrating cognitive modeling and social simulation. In R.
Sun (Ed.). Cognition and multi-agent interaction. New-York, NY: Cambridge University
Press.
Suntisukwongchote, P. (2006). Testing Models of Collaboration among High School Science
Teachers in an Electronic Environment. The High School Journal, 89 (3), 22-33.
Taylor, P. H. (1970). How teachers plan their courses. Slough, Berkshire, England: National
Foundation for Educational Research.
Tillema & Orland-Barak, (2006). Constructing knowledge in professional conversations: The
role of beliefs on knowledge and knowing. Learning and Instruction, 16 (6), 592-608.
Tschan, F. (2002). Ideal cycles of communication (or cognitions) in triads, dyads, and
individuals. Small Group Research, 33 (6), 615-643.
Voss, J. F. & Post, T. A. (1988). On the solving of ill-structured problems. In M. T. H. Chi,
R. Glaser & M. Farr (Eds). The nature of expertise. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Wallace, T., Anderson, A. R. & Bartholomay, T. (2002). Collaboration: An element
associated with the success of four inclusive high schools. Journal of Educational &
Psychological Consultation, 13 (4), 349-381.
Webb, D. C., Romberg, T. A., Ford, M. J. & Burrill, J. (2005). Teacher Collaboration:
Focusing on Problems of Practice. In: T. A. Romberg, T. P. Carpenter, & F. Dremock
(Eds). Understanding mathematics and science matters. Studies in mathematical thinking
and learning. (pp. 231-251). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Wenke, D., Frensch, P. A. & Funke, J. (2005). Complex problem solving and intelligence. In
R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Pretz (Eds). Cognition and intelligence: Identifying the
mechanisms of the mind. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Whitten, S. & Graesser, A. (2003). Comprehension of text in problem solving. In J.E.
Davidson & R. J. Sternberg (Eds). The psychology of problem solving. New York, NY:
Wijekumar, K. K. & Jonassen, D. H. (2007). The role of computer tools in experts solving
ill-structured problems. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 664-704.
Williams, D. J. & Noyes, J. M. (2007). Effect of experience and mode of presentation on
problem solving. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 258-274.
Winter & McGhie-Richmond, 2005). Using computer conferencing and case studies to enable
collaboration between expert and novice teachers. Journal of computer assister learning
21, 118-129.
Wood, H. & Wood, D. (1999). Help seeking, learning and contingent tutoring. Computers &
Education, 33, 153-169.
Zwaan, R. A. & Singer, M. (2003). Text comprehension. In A.C. Graesser, M.A.
Gernsbacher, & S. R. Goldman. (Eds). Handbook of discourse processes. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Zahorik, J. A. (1975). Teachers planning models. Educational Leadership, 33, 134-139.
Zwaan, R. A., Radvansky, G. A. & Whitten, S. N. (2002). Situation models and themes. In:
Louwerse, M & van Peer, W. (Eds). Thematics: Interdisciplinary studies. Converging
evidence in language and communication research, vol. 3. Amsterdam, Netherlands:
John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Chapter 2

GENERATING COLLABORATIVE CONTEXTS
TO PROMOTE LEARNING AND DEVELOPMENT

Alejandro I borra
1
*
, Dolores Garca
2
,
Leonor Margalef
3
and Vctor Prez
4
.
1
Departamento de Psicopedagoga y Educacin Fsica. Universidad de Alcal.
2
Departamento de Didctica. Universidad de Alcal.
3
Departamento de Didctica. Universidad de Alcal.
4
Departament d'Educaci Fsica i Esportiva. Universidad de Valencia.

ABSTRACT

We proceed to present in this chapter an active and experiential teaching approach
based in the creation of collaborative contexts. This collaborative approach has been
experienced and developed through different educational scenarios from Bachelors to
Doctorates degree studies since 2002. Going beyond the application of cooperative
techniques we propose the convenience of reflecting about the kind of context that is
created all through one course between all the involved participants: teacher and students
as a whole. According to this we reflect and present evidence concerning the following
topics: developmental demands for teachers and students participating in a collaborative
experience; key social skills (communication, managing conflicts and leadership
processes); interdisciplinary practices with the coordination of several subjects; coherent
evaluation practices promoting learning instead of control processes; competence
promotion instead of just content elaboration; optional instead of compulsory contexts;
useful connecting processes (the McGuffin project ); real practices instead of faked or
simulated exercises and finally integration of new virtual technologies such as wikis,
blogs and forums to support the process. After exploring these topics we conclude
proposing a typical sequence useful to promote this kind of collaborative approach.

*
Corresponding Author: E-mail: alejandro.iborra@uah.es
Alejandro Iborra, Dolores Garca, Leonor Margalef et al. 48
1. INTRODUCTION

We have been deeply committed in the exploration of cooperative and collaborative
methodologies during the last six years. Along this time-span, we had the opportunity of
performing and developing four innovative research projects in the general frame of Psycho-
Pedagogical Studies in Alcal University (Spain). These innovative projects were performed
and even tested in different educational levels: Bachelor studies (Fourth and Firth Course of
Psycho-pedagogy) and Doctorate studies. The performing of the different methodologies was
also supervised by several teachers belonging to this Faculty which finally created a research
group named as FIT
1
.
In short this is a story about how we made a transition from cooperative techniques
towards a more open collaborative and experiential based methodology. Through this
transitional experience we had the opportunity of progressively introduce and share
interdisciplinary projects. We also could discuss and reflect about our own dilemmas about
how to manage and evaluate the group dynamics we intended to facilitate. This was a key
element for us since as teachers we were an included part of this process instead of an
objective and detached element.
Furthermore this is the story of how we introduced step by step technological tools in
order to manage the collaborative processes we were developing. So as part of this general
methodological transition we can include a technological element, which supported the class
dynamics extending them in different virtual settings. According to this we introduced
progressively the use of different tools including virtual platforms (Web-Ct, Blackboard,
Zoho Project) forums, web-blogs and wikis.
Although the technological tools have been an important part of the general collaborative
dynamic, we want formally emphasize how meaningful it was for us to develop a special
sensibility to the different contexts we were creating. In relation to this we were very cautious
about three different motivational ingredients: (1) the kind of social relationships and other
affective elements which appeared during the classes, (2) the learning outcomes in terms of
conceptual and competence achievements and finally (3) the possible impact or
meaningfulness of the experience and its relationship with the promotion of the participants
development. Attending to this kind of emergent and pattern-like processes was a very
important aspect for all of us.
In the following sections we will develop these ideas in order to discuss our approach to
collaborative learning. We will provide theoretical support and empirical examples in order to
illustrate our arguments.

2. EVOLUTION OF OUR THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

When we began our project of innovating our teaching through the introduction of new
collaborative methodologies, we really didnt differentiate between cooperation from
collaboration. We had a general understanding of cooperative learning as a teaching-

1
Formar (Educating), Innovar (Innovating), Transformar (Transforming). http://www2.uah.es/fit/inicio.htm
Generating Collaborative Contexts to Promote Learning and Development 49
learning strategy where students had to collaborate between themselves in order to complete a
shared learning outcome previously established (Marchesi y Martin, 1998; Johnson &
Johnson, 1999). Cooperative learning was just differentiated from competitive and
individualist methodologies. In the competitive setting only a group achieves the objective or
the specific external recognition. In the individualist one it is not required to interact with
other students in order to get the learning tasks done.
The inclusion of more distinctions such as grade of mutuality and equality helped us to
discriminate both approaches from other possibilities such as peer tutorials (Damon y Phelps,
1989;Marchesi y Martn, 1998; Duran, Torr y Vila, 2003). Equality describes the range of
symmetry of the roles performed by the participants during the process. Mutuality is related
with the sense of connection or bonding maintained between those participants. Participants
in peer tutorials have asymmetrical roles or knowledge or skills while the mutuality values
can fluctuate. Cooperative learning would imply in contrast a high level of symmetry and a
medium value in mutuality, depending on those responsibilities, roles and tasks distributed
among the members of a team. Finally Collaborative learning would present the highest
levels of both variables. According to McCarthey and McMahon (1992) peer tutorials stress a
knowledge conception based on a transmission metaphor which goes in just one direction. In
Cooperative and Collaborative learning knowledge is constructed in a multidirectional sense.
All relationships flow dynamically while everybody shares the same kind of information. An
operative definition we began to handle at this moment was the following: cooperative
learning involves the mutual implication of the members belonging to a group which
coordinates the tasks of its members with the purpose of constructing some knowledge. In
this constructing process every individual learns more compared with what he would learn
alone as a consequence of the collaborative learning. Every member is directly responsible of
his own learning but also indirectly responsible of the learning of the others members of the
group (Iborra, Izquierdo, Cruz, 2005).
During this period we had the opportunity of exploring the introduction of cooperative
techniques such as Jigsaw (Aronson, 1978) in several subjects belonging to different studies
(Psycho-pedagogy, Knowledge Management Studies, Economy). The experience was very
useful in order to understand how differently the same technique could be performed by a
group of teachers. In general all teachers who participated in this first project organized their
subject lectures taking into account the Jigsaw structure. The process began with the
formation of groups in the class. Once these first groups were formed they distributed their
members between new groups which were going to specialized themselves focusing on a part
of the subject. Once this was completed these members of the specialized groups came back
again to their previous groups in order to share their learning. After this it was the moment to
include a case, problem or project in order to apply and verify the constructed knowledge, all
groups working with the same issue.
Although this was the methodology used by all the teachers, there were differences in the
way every teacher performed and interpreted the sequence of the Jigsaw procedure. These
differences in performance showed more subtleties between cooperative and collaborative
learning. For example we could verify following Ruiz and Shailor (2004) that using a Jigsaw
procedure stressed the teacher point of view (for example his preferences) instead of those
naturally developed or preferably chosen by the students. In addition it paid more attention to
the products elaborated for the students during the process instead of the process itself. The
differences found between the teachers were related to how close they followed the structure
of the Jigsaw procedure. In this sense we could introduce a collaborative bias if the attention
was focused on the group interactions and the process of a shared construction of conceptual
and attitudinal knowledge instead of just following the Jigsaw procedure and the resulted
products. This collaborative inclination emphasized the students as active members of the
learning community created in the class of one particular subject. Although all teachers
employed the same cooperative structure in their classes, they did not share the same
collaborative principles, what contributed to make a difference in the quality of the
experience.
From this we found more distinctions between cooperative and collaborative approaches.
Some scholars (Panitz, 1996) understand collaborative learning as a general approach to
teaching instead of a group of possible techniques oriented towards the achievement of
learning results. In collaborative learning the authorship and responsibility of the process is
shared between the teacher and students. In cooperative learning it is the teacher who directly
leads all the process from outside, even though the teacher suggests what to do he does not
take a direct part in the process. Collaborative learning maintains an idea of Education as a
transformative potential for all the participants (teacher and student as a whole). Cooperative
learning stress an idea of Education directed towards the transmission of information in order
to promote learning. Wiersema (2001) summarizes these ideas in the following quote:

Collaboration is more than co-operation. I would say that co-operation is a
technique to finish a certain product together: the faster, the better; the less work for
each, the better. Collaboration refers to the whole process of learning, to students
teaching each other, students teaching the teacher (why not?) and of course the
teacher teaching the students too.

Some revisions analyzing different methods of cooperative and collaborative learning
(Davidson, 2002; Johnson, Johnson and Stanne, 2000) support this difference between more
cooperative and collaborative methods. For example Johnson et al (2000) analyzed 10
methods ordered in a continuum from the most direct and technical to the most conceptual
methods
2
. First methods situated at the beginning of the continuum consisted of detailed
techniques, easy to learn and make into practice. On the other hand more conceptual methods
situated at the end of the continuum were general indications instead of concrete step by
step techniques. They were more difficult and complex to learn and practice. However they
were internalized easier and could be adapted to changing situations. After reviewing 158
studies the mentioned authors concluded that conceptual methods produced better results
compared with the more direct ones. This idea agrees with other formulations stated in our
context such as Durn et al. (2003, p.37):

the training of teachers in the use of collaborative learning has to move away from
direct and prescriptive approaches so typical of technicians who simply apply

2
The order from more directivity towards less are the following: Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition
(CIRC) (Stevens, Madden, Slavin & Farnish, 1987); Team Assisted Individualization (TAI)(Slavin, Leavey &
Madden, 1982); Cooperative Structures (CS) (Kagan, 1985); Students Teams Achievement Divisions (STAD)
(Slavin, 1978); Teams-Games Tournaments (TGT) (DeVries & Edwards, 1974); Jigsaw (Aronson, 1978);
Group Investigation (Sharan & Sharan, 1992); Complex Instruction (Cohen, 1994); Academic Controversy
(Johnson & Johnson, 1979); Learning Together (Johnson & Johnson, 1999).
techniques ordered in steps. The training of teachers has to be closer to strategic
approaches which allow adjust their methods to the conditions, students and general
needs.

From this more general collaborative perspective the conditions which make possible an
effective collaboration are well known (Johnson, Johnson and Holubec, 1999): promoting
positive interdependence, interactions, individual responsibility, social skills and group self-
reflection. The conceptual and philosophical approach which underlies the collaborative
methodologies mentioned above implies the necessity of promoting and following the
creation and maintenance of these five conditions. According to the authors positive
interdependence can be achieved by establishing shared group objectives, complementary
roles, defining a group identity and recognizing all member contributions. Without
interactions collaboration would be impossible. However some interactions could help the
process more than others. Some of these interactions deal with motivating, supporting,
assisting and interchanging information and experience with other members of the group.
Promoting the individual responsibility tries to prevent the diffusion of responsibility that
typically appears in the context of group dynamics. Some of the recommendations mentioned
by the authors imply using individual evaluations, randomly choosing a spokesman,
correcting personal reports or portfolios and combining all this with group evaluations. If
interacting is needed to generate the context to collaborate, social skills are required despite
of being formally trained or not, in order to interact efficiently. Some of the most typical
social skills mentioned concern with fluent communication, resolving conflicts, negotiation
and shared leadership. Finally last condition suggest the importance of promoting the
reflection of the group members about their processing in order to achieve the objectives, the
distribution of roles and tasks, the managing of time with the purpose of learning how to
adapt to changing situations.
Taking into account all these collaborative remarks, in the second phase of our attempt of
innovating our teaching processes we left behind the cooperative procedures to explore the
direct application of collaborative processes. We continued working in groups every class but
in a more natural way. Instead of following any of the techniques mentioned by Davidson,
(2002) and Johnson, et al (2000) we worked more with the own group dynamics at same time
paying attention to the specific content of each subject. We did not divide the class into fixed
and defined groups as we had done previously. Some problems we had had such as that not
all people came to all the class sessions (what affected to the work of the specialized groups)
and the own heterogeneity of responsibilities held by the students, took us to explore more
open ways of organizing the class. For example the themes belonging to the course were
introduced sequentially what meant that we all worked the same topics in the same moment,
while exploring them working in groups, trying to change these groups whenever it was
useful in terms of promoting that everybody worked, shared information and knew all others
member of the class.
We realized that even the most conceptual types of collaborative learning such as Group
Investigation (Sharan & Sharan, 1992), Complex Instruction (Cohen, 1994), Academic
Controversy (Johnson & Johnson, 1979) and Learning Together (Johnson & Johnson, 1999)
had a cooperative bias in terms of the general context that was created in the class. Despite
of its place in the continuum suggested by Johnson et al. (2000) all these modalities of
learning finally were very structured, technical, separated the teacher from the students
maintaining a clear hierarchical structure and were oriented towards the completion of
learning tasks and objectives, what finally led to the promotion of a sense of learning based in
the more elaborated transmission of information.
All this was clearer after reviewing the constructionist and postmodern work of Anderson
(1997). According to her collaborative learning goes clearly beyond following predefined
steps or the mere establishment of five conditions (positive interdependence, interactions,
individual responsibility, social skills, self-reflection of the group dynamic) which could be
present but not giving place necessarily to a collaborative context. According to this author
there are more elements that need to be introduced in order to set the conditions for the
emergence of a collaborative context. Some of them are suggested in the following quote
which refers to her teaching to promote complex competences necessaries to be a therapist:

the objective of the teacher is not exporting what he knows (a predetermined
content), neither providing a recipe to do therapy ( a manual of techniques) or telling
the student what to do, or correcting mistakes. His objective is giving to the student
the opportunity of participating in a shared research of the topics treated at hand
and the shared search of a conclusion (). This requires that the teacher trusts in
the initiative of the other persons, in the process and their relationship (p.322-323).

In contrast with the previously ideas about collaborative learning, we find in this quote
some key differences. First of all it emphasizes the creation of an open process of research
and exploration whose results will depend on the interaction of all the participants. The point
is this creation of a research context. What is at stake is the process of exploring in itself and
not so much the final result of this search (although it is important it is not the most important
thing). Besides, in order to create the research process, the teacher has to trust in the students.
For us this was quite important due to this idea reversed the subtle hierarchy maintained in the
previous examples of both cooperative and collaborative learning. When you trust in other
participants and most important in the relationship between all the participants the teacher
cannot maintain a separated place in the process. He is part of the process although with a
different role, but not stressing a difference in authority. This authority remains in all the
participants who are responsible of the success or failure of the process. As a final idea the
process is clearly differentiated of the contents and privileged over them. In support of this,
the teacher maintains a position of not knowing instead of one position of expert. As the
author states:

a teacher does not know beforehand what it is important for a student, he does not
know his goals (standardized learning). An anticipated knowing could bother the
development of an ambient of learning and joining in a team. (p.324).

This general attitude of not knowing (and wanting to know) stimulates the process of
shared research. A conception of collaborative learning like this really emphasizes the
potential of transformation inherent in learning. One is transformed (teacher included) thanks
to be involved in the research process and not so much for learning any concrete content or
even skill. As Anderson suggests

all participants (teacher and student, supervisor and supervised) learn and change
because every one constructs something new and different from sharing, exploring,
connecting and entwining own voice with others (p.325).

As part of this transformation students get a higher sense of autonomy and authorship. As
a consequence of sharing their learning students begin to recognize and value their own
knowing, competence and talent. We will extend this idea in another section of this chapter
but we can anticipate that from a development psychology point of view this mentioned
transformation is quite related with what some authors refer to as relativity stages (Perry,
1970; Perry, 1981) or self-authored students in at least a fourth order of consciousness
(Kegan, 1994). The key point is that collaborative learning can promote the developmental
transformation of the students participating in the process in terms of promoting higher
autonomy and self-reflective capabilities. For Anderson this transformation takes place thanks
to the involvement of all participants in a dialogical practice. The transfer of any learning
resulted from this interchange of ideas or conversations cannot be forced by a formal
assignation of tasks to do beyond the classes. Although the most important learning will take
place out of the formal class this is a consequence of what happened in the class which acted
as an invitation to go on reflecting, thinking, considering, wondering and researching ideas.
This emphasis in the exploring nature of learning has also been maintained by others
authors from constructivist traditions such as von Foerster (2003, p.71) who states following
this line of thought:

Turn the teacher who is supposed to know into a researcher who is eager to know!
And if you continue along these lines, the so-called pupils and teachers become
collaborators who create knowledge together starting from a question that is
fascinating to both of them.

The acquisition of these ideas meant a turn in our approach which also was supported and
enhanced by the introduction of new electronic and virtual technologies, the web-blogs which
acted as shared portfolios. However despite the use of any new technology this change
towards generating true collaborative learning scenarios moving away from cooperative
learning was the key point at this stage. Although there were more additions like preparing
interdisciplinary experiences, shared with others teachers and subjects, the main change had
already been introduced. This had consequences not just in how we prepared the sessions and
programmes of our subjects but also in our form of evaluating them in order to be coherent.
Furthermore this added a new sensibility towards noticing what kind of contexts we were
creating or failing to create. In the following sections we will develop some of the distinctive
features of our collaborative approach.

3. WHAT KIND OF CONTEXT ARE WE GENERATING?

As mentioned in the previous section one of the particularities of our approach highlights
the fact of noticing what kind of contexts we are generating. The idea of context is a concept
very abstract. It also has been used in the literature with many varied meanings (Magnuson
and Stattin, 1998). Our conception of context involves taking into account a situation, the
tools, people who participate in that situation and their relationships and finally the
interpretations and meanings constructed between all of them (Baars, 1989; Otani, 1994).
According to McWhirter (2002) and taking into account the previous ideas, we could
manage the idea of context attending to three different contextual perceptive positions:
objective, subjective and contextual perspective. Thus from an objective point of view there
will be common elements recognized and shared by all the participants such as the physical or
virtual scenario where the classes are happening. Even the educational nature of the activities
which take place in a class or virtual platform as part of a building called faculty, which also
belongs to a bigger institution called University, would be more objective and easily shared
and recognized by all the participants. Other objective contexts are given by the name of the
subject and the teacher and department responsible of it. Although unconscious in nature all
this objective elements conform internal scripts and rules which all the participants will
follow naturally. So it is expected that in a building called Faculty X there will be classes with
teachers specialized in that matter. It is also expected that all participants will go there in
order to learn, whatever it means. In the class of the teacher Y it is expected to be sat down
listening and taking notes while in class of the teacher Z it is expected to be discussing
actively with other students. In both scenarios there exist different objective contexts which
shape the behaviour and expectancies of all the participants. As a general educational context
one behaves differently in a Faculty that in a Restaurant, a Market, a Discotheque or a
Hospital.
However despite of these objective contexts we can take notice of more subjective
contexts which will have a great responsibility in the meaning of the actions performed in the
class by all participants. As examples of these subjective contexts we can find the specific
expectations held by any student in one subject as a consequence of the reasons they have to
be there and the purposes they want to achieve. So a student could attend a class because he
needs to conclude the career in order to be independent from his family. Another student
attends the same class because he wants to make a difference in his training and find a better
job. Another student attends that class because his best friends are there as well and just want
to have fun. Another student is there with the purpose of filling some conceptual and
competence gaps he finds in his formation. Another one maybe is just there following the
inertia of just attending one more boring class and so on. Any of these students maintains
subjective reasons and purposes which will contextualize their actions, motivation,
relationships and attention because of the different meaning of the situation. Of course the
teacher will have his reasons and purposes acting as his own subjective context: hes there
teaching just because he is paid for it, or because hes committed with the idea of inspiring
their students, or because it is part of a research or because he is forced to be there in order to
go on doing more interesting research practice. All these reasons and purposes will contribute
to the emergence of particular subjective contexts for all of them. An interesting subjective
context emerges from the special relationship created between the participants. So there could
be competitive relationships for getting the highest grades or collaborative relationships in
order to help everybody to learn the most. There will be friendly and unfriendly relationships,
confident and distrust relationships, boring and amazing relationships, pragmatic and
relationships for the rest of the life, etc and all of them will also influence what does it
mean for the participants to be there in that class in spite of its objective characteristics (in
Faculty X, virtual or not, etc).
A different kind of context is that one which is more directly and subtlety involved with
the creation of meaning, we could call it contextual contexts because of this. They are very
subtle but will frame all the objective and subjective contexts mentioned so far. Of special
interest for us is the creation of a research context, a curiosity context, a developmental
context, a learning context, a search context. These contexts are an intrinsic part of
collaborative learning but could be taken for granted instead of being promoted explicitly.
Different contexts which could also be created (consciously or not) are passive contexts, just
get the answers contexts, stagnation contexts, security contexts, control contexts, etc
Evaluation is probably one of the best ways of communicating unconsciously what kind
of contextual context is generated in one class. For example an evaluation based in a final
exam that has to be passed, frames the activities performed in a class very differently
compared with an evaluation which privileges what students think they have learnt and
developed during the semester. Evaluation frames and contextualizes all the actions held in
the class. Those meanings of one subject will come from these subtle frames: a subject full of
tasks which are all punctuated quantitatively shapes a very different context compared with a
subject where all tasks are voluntary and receive qualitative feedback but never are
punctuated. In the first example the context created is one which values the achievement of
tasks and completion of products. In the second example the context created is one which
highlights the process of learning and the responsibility of students in that learning. In both
cases there are products and processes but the meaning and potential meaning of the activities
are not the same, for example the meaning of mistakes. In this sense we consider two contexts
as very important: optional towards compulsory contexts.
One of the main differences we found between collaborative and cooperative classes had
to view with whether the tasks and actions were free based or in contrast were forced.
Because of this we use to enhance the optional nature of most of the activities suggested in
our subjects for many reasons. First, if it is optional you have to choose it and if you choose it
the responsibility comes from you instead of from the teacher. Second, if it is optional you
can choose what you do according to your own interests and motivations. Third, if it is
optional you can also notice a sense of trustfulness in your own way of deciding by part of the
teachers and the other students. Even though one could decide wrongly and not to do anything
at all, finally everyone is confronted with a self-evaluation taking the class achievement as
whole standard. The interesting part of all this, according to our experience, is that students
do their best compared with the students who belong to subjects which force to attend to
classes, or participate in forum discussions, or read X articles, or write X reports per week,
etc The context generated when the activities are freely chosen is definitively different in
contrast when there is a sense of doing something just because there were external norms for
that. This does not mean that we never order compulsory tasks, readings or activities. What is
at stake is what general context has been created which frames every task or activity. As a
relationship frames the meaning of a joke about you (you will not interpret it the same if the
person who says the joke is a close friend or an unknown), the context created frames and
makes possible all activities taking place during a class.
Noticing what kind of contexts emerge during a class or subject and whether they are
consistent and coherent with the contexts we are interested to promote is one of the most
important elements of our approach. Objective, subjective and contextual contexts are thus
very important distinctions to notice.

4. THE MCGUFFIN PROJECT

One specific way of playing with the generation of contexts with the purpose of
promoting exploration, connection and research processes and its effects on creating
challenge and curiosity for knowing, is what we called the McGuffin project.
The McGuffin project was born by chance. It emerged during the subject of Learning
Disabilities belonging to the Psycho-Pedagogical Studies, and it is still open to new
applications. It became a joke for labelling some topics discussed during the classes that
shared some particularities:

1. They were neither a central issue of the subject nor were explicitly stated in the
program.
2. Although topics were not a central issue, and maybe because of this, they called
attention on themselves.
3. As an example of their peripheral nature, they were never completely and
exhaustedly covered.
4. Actually they seemed more an excuse to work something else, a mean to get an end,
but a mean that seemed intriguing enough to evoke interest and attention.
5. They could appear just once or from time to time as if they wanted to recall their
presence. In this sense there were two different types: occasional McGuffins which
appeared just once or transversal ones which were developed in parallel with the
subject.
6. McGuffins helped to start processes of exploration which led to different places
which coincided with explicit goals of the subject.
7. Many students began to think outside the class about the nature of the McGuffins and
their connection with other McGuffins or the goals of the subject. It served then to
initiate hypothetical reasoning so typical in abductive thought.

In general McGuffin helped to gain attention, to evoke questions in the student minds and
to prepare the possibility of connecting classes, concepts and practices. In essence finally it
implied going beyond the content of the subject to promote something more important, the
processes that we were trying to practice as students of that subject. Generally these processes
involved the discussion or participation of small groups or the whole class as a group. As we
realized it was one way of promoting the work of competences due to it paid attention to the
processes performed by the students instead of contents they had to learn.
Furthermore McGuffins usually were presented erratically during the classes. For
example after a short or long explanation or the question of one student, the teacher could add
like diminishing its importance:

well but this is just a McGuffin.

This short sentence could call the attention of students towards the previous explanation
in a different way, reframing it as a special explanation, not an ordinary one:

Is it what?
Of course the name of the McGuffin is in itself a strange word for the major part of the
students unless they are interested in the cinema and know the movies of Alfred Hitchcock.
Interviewed in 1966 by Franois Truffaut, Alfred Hitchcock illustrated the term "McGuffin"
with this story
3
:

"It might be a Scottish name, taken from a story about two men in a train. One man
says, 'What's that package up there in the baggage rack?' And the other answers, 'Oh
that's a McGuffin.' The first one asks 'What's a McGuffin?' 'Well' the other man says,
'It's an apparatus for trapping lions in the Scottish Highlands.' The first man says,
'But there are no lions in the Scottish Highlands,' and the other one answers 'Well,
then that's no McGuffin!' So you see, a McGuffin is nothing at all."

More succinctly, Hitchcock defined the McGuffin as the object around which the plot
revolves, it is a plot device that motivates the characters and advances the story, but has little
other relevance to the story.
For us the strange name works as an invitation to define it, to explore its meaning, it
suggests a mystery to be resolved (Cialdini, 2005). Instead of the content of the McGuffin, the
idea of McGuffin could be in itself a McGuffin as well. Some examples of McGuffins
worked during our classes are the following:

- The idea of digital immigrant and digital native (Prensky, 2001), could be connected
to our students? Or better said, are our students digital natives while we as teachers
are digital immigrants? How is this separating us? What could be taken into account
of these two cultures in order to communicate people belonging to them?
- What is the difference of dynamic VS static ways of evaluating aptitudes? How can
be done something dynamically or statically?
- What is a process? How is a process related with the dynamic evaluation? How can
we track processes though time when working with an individual or a group?
- What is an inference? How do we construct meaning of the world? What does it
mean to mean something? How is this related to deductive, inductive and abductive
reasoning? What is abductive reasoning? What processes are involved?
- What is a context? How many contexts could we differentiate? How is the context
connected to motivation, social skills or even learning disabilities? What is the
connection between context and meaning?
- What is a pattern? Why it was so famous the sentence of Bateson the pattern that
connects? What is the relationship between pattern and process? And with
meaning?

After reading these few examples of McGuffin you could understand the typical
headache of many students but also the awakening of a new class of wondering process. As
you can also notice the McGuffin are better expressed with questions which could orient our
attention towards a new scenario, a new possibility. Besides it enhances the need of creating
connections. McGuffins are not isolated structures, neither isolated processes. They can

3
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McGuffin"
connect with different McGuffins and above all with the themes, topics and activities worked
and presented during one or more subjects, which are not neither isolated nor independent.
With the purpose of objectifying this dynamic we have discussed about McGuffin in blogs,
forum and wikis
4
.

5. INTERDISCIPLINARY EXPERIENCES

Another example of connecting concepts, topics, competences, collaborative work,
motivations and contexts is the creation of interdisciplinary experiences. First
interdisciplinary experiences involved the act of coordinating several subjects in order to
work one topic from different points of view but simultaneously. The main purpose of this,
once more, is to promote the connection between different subjects, and even the connection
of different students, between students and teachers, and even students belonging to different
studies.

Three examples will clarify this point.

In 2006 we analyzed a new educational law from the perspective of its pedagogical
Curriculum features; the learning strategies it promoted or not and the developmental
principles that were underlined. Students had to make only one work valid for three subjects,
collaborating with students who belonged to their class and also different classes. One of the
specific dynamics was related to the performance of a Trial to the law, with lawyers, one
judge, public prosecutors, witnesses, jury and so on.
The second example was quite similar. In 2007 we coordinated four subjects
(Curriculum, Learning Strategies, Developmental Psychology and Family Studies) in order to
reflect about the suitability of a new subject for the Spanish Public Secondary Education:
Citizenship Education. This new subject was presented as an alternative to traditional subjects
such as Religion (from a catholic perspective) and its development had been preceded by
many debates in mass media. Once again all students belonging to every subject worked
collaboratively the same topic trying to generate just one integrated perspective.
The third example coordinated two subjects belonging to different studies: Psycho-
pedagogy and Sport Sciences. First subject was directed towards developing Social Skills
Programs. Second subject was directed towards the creation of physical activities in natural
scenarios. Examples of these activities were to cross a river with a bridge made ad hoc with
strings, orientation in a mountain using maps and compasses, taking and interpreting animal
footprints, etc Students of Psycho-pedagogy acted as students for the students of Sport
Sciences in the performance of their practice. One month later Sport Science students
participated in a social skills program created for them by the students of Psycho-Pedagogy.
This promoted the real practice of knowledge and competences worked during the classes.
Once again it stressed the connection of class dynamics learnt in a familiar context of

4
The following links illustrate attempts to define what a McGuffin is (http://dapsicouah.wikispaces.com/ and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=ES&hl=es&v=s2IcOtspGSw ).
practice, with the performance of those dynamics, competences and knowledge in a context
of unfamiliar context of real application.
The search of interdisciplinary experiences has demonstrated its efficacy in order to
situate learning in more real contexts which go beyond formal classes. Besides they highlight
the need of collaborating with others in order to create a shared meaning of the experience
and also using it. As an example of collaborating learning the knowledge which results goes
beyond the one that could emerge from isolated subjects.

6. EXPERIENTIAL LEARNING

A key element of our approach privileges an important characteristic of learning: experience.
As a matter of fact what is implicit in the McGuffin Project, the interdisciplinary examples we
gave in the previous section and the idea of taking into account the concept of context, is the
importance of sharing and living meaningful experiences and being able to learn from them.
In part our conception of experiential learning is related to the idea of creating conditions
of situated learning focused on the students and their active participation during the learning
process (Miller, 2000; Jonasen, 2000). From this perspective the task of the teacher would
imply designing problem situations which could facilitate the construction and elaboration
of meaning. One characteristic of problems in a collaborative context is that all the
examples of problems such as projects and analysis of cases, are formulated in order to lead
learning instead of merely serve as illustration or application of previously taught theory. The
key idea is that students will learn any content needed as a consequence of the task of
resolving their problem. As Schank states (2000, p.183)

the most effective way of teaching is creating situations for students where to
achieve the learning goals, they need the knowledge and techniques we want to
impart.

The key one more is the idea of needing the theoretical content or technical procedures
because it is related to our purpose of dealing with a general meaningful problem. For
example as we read in the previous section the students who had to prepare a social skill
program for a group of students coming from another faculty, or the students who participated
in the experience of judging an Educational Law, all of them needed theoretical contents,
procedures and practice competences in order to achieve their complex and challenging task.
Even more they had to collaborate with others. In this sense learning implied fundamentally
to learn to situate and create meanings for one specific field. To understand meanings
involves thinking carefully about the concrete situation and field we are. We agree with
Schank (2000, p. 177) when he states that

unless students know what to do with their knowledge they will forget easily what
they learnt.

On the other hand our approach to experiential learning is specifically oriented towards
the exploration of processes (Ingarfield, 2007). In contrast to the classical approach of Kolb
(1984) we are not so focused on the content of the experience but in the processes which lead
to that experience. According to Ingarfield (2007) and following the systemic approach of the
psychologist John McWhirter DBM, (Developmental Behavioural Modelling) this is the
general outline of many of our experiential sessions:

1. The teacher or trainer introduces one topic, an open set up to have a general idea
about that topic. For example: what does it mean to communicate?
2. Participants explore without an aprioristic idea. For example different ways of
communication, how does it differ in different situations, possible elements, how do
they communicate while exploring it, etc Or
3. Participants check what they are getting from their exploration.
4. Participants share in groups and with the whole group their variety of experiences.
5. From the feedback of the participants the teacher / trainer can then introduce a formal
model. For example Watzlawick, Bavelas and Jackson (1967) axioms on
communication.
6. Participants check that formal model with their previous and ongoing experience.
7. Both participants and teachers or trainers identify the results, limits and possibilities
of the model.
8. Repetition of the process.

This experiential learning which takes place enhancing the exploration of different topics
is designed with some purposes in mind such as promoting the active participation of
students, developing competences, creating gaps in the understanding of the topic, stimulating
curiosity, promoting reflection and critical learning, etc
This approach of experiential learning has also been very useful for exploring and
training one meaningful element of collaborative learning, this is social skills.

7. THE IMPORTANCE OF SOCIAL SKILLS

As we mentioned in previous sections, social skills have been considered a fundamental
element of collaborative learning. We take into account social skills directly only in one of
the subjects we lecture which deals with developing social skills programs. However we
attend indirectly to social skills in all our subjects. In general people have to work in groups
all along the classes. These groups can be formed by known and familiar people but we also
stimulate the creation of groups formed by unknown or less familiar members. In both
contextual groups (familiar-unfamiliar) three social skills are very important: communication
flowing between the members of the group; the emergence of conflicts and finally processes
of leadership.
Communication, conflicts and leadership are the three social skills more direct or
indirectly trained in the work groups. However the same skills appear in the process with the
whole group including the teacher who has to communicate, deal or even create conflicts and
follow / lead his students.
Very early in our classes, students understand their active role because they have to
communicate between each other and with the teacher in order to learn and share their
learning. This is made possible in the class through different conversations held with the
classmates in different groups or the whole group (the teacher included).
The communication concept we are basing ourselves on was stated in Watzlawick, et al.
(1967) theory on communication, which derived from the work of Gregory Bateson (1972).
The five axioms of communication are the following:

Table 1. Axioms of Communication (Watzlawick et al. 1967)

1. One Cannot Not Communicate
2. Every communication has a content and relationship aspect such that the latter classifies
the former and is therefore a metacommunication.
3. The nature of a relationship is dependent on the punctuation of the partners
communication procedures.
4. Human communication involves both digital and analog modalities.
5. Inter-human communication procedures are either symmetric or complementary.

As traditionally has been stated (Watzlawick et. al 1967) One Cannot Not
Communicate. This means that in any social interaction there will appear communication
processes, even the supposedly absence of communication, for example generating silence or
just listening what the teacher dictates, are examples of communication.
Traditionally social skills programs stress the element of transmission involved in any
communication process: how to transmit in the clearest way our ideas, arguments, feelings
and so on. This metaphor of transmission focuses above all on the content of the
communication. In this sense information should be clear, structured, organized, convincing,
not confusing, not ambiguous, etc However we take in account very seriously some
constructivist premises such as all information and communicative act have to be interpreted
by the participants. One very important aspect of communication involves thus distinguishing
between information and meaning. Even though all members in a group can share the same
information this does not mean that they will have the same understanding of that
information. There will be an influence of the previous knowledge of all members and how
do they connect the new information with the old one; it will be important who gave the
information and his status in the group (depending of this it can be listened carefully or just
quickly forgotten); it will be important the interest and motivation of the members to attend to
the information, etc Of special interest for us is the quality of the relationships which
emerge as part of the communication. As we know from Watzlawick et al (1967) and its
second axiom on communication

Every communication has a content and relationship aspect such that the latter
classifies the former and is therefore a metacommunication.

In this sense any communication has two main components: content and relationship,
working the latter as a context for the former. The same sentence will communicate different
meanings depending on the relationship perceived by whom is that said, for example in terms
of power, trust, admiration, friendship, fear, boredom, rivalry, etc All these examples create
different relationships, being one of the most important who is up or down in the relationship.
Or how is the pattern of the relationship, symmetrical or complementary. To be sensible to
these relationship differences is one of the most important aspects for us in order to generate
communication processes which make easier to collaborate. For example the content
elaboration will be very important but creating a relationship between the members that
promote trust, respect, flexibility instead of rigidity, familiarity, interest, etc is even more
important for us.
Managing conflicts is the second of the social skills we pay more attention to. Going
beyond a negative connotation of the term conflict, for us it is a key element for learning.
Conflict is generally understood as something that has to be coped with and solved. From a
developmental point of view, however, we expect that conflict helps us to solve ourselves
instead. This means that conflict is considered a chance for personal development.
The conflict can be internal (new knowledge that confronts previous one) or interpersonal
(for example getting along with someone who tries to impose his ideas or way of doing things
all the time). There are many authors who have elaborated different kinds of conflicts in terms
of his structure or form (identity conflicts; knowledge conflicts, power conflicts, etc) but in
our approach once again we prefer to privilege a process orientation. According to Selman
(1980) perspective taking is the ability to assume the perspective of another person in order
to understand their thoughts and feelings. This ability evolves from the age of three till 15
through four different stages. Children of 10 and 11 are situated between stages 2 and 3. Stage
2 is called Reflexive Perspective Taking. It implies for example that a child understands
that any individual knows the perspective of others and this influences the point of view that
one has about the others. To take anothers perspective is one way of evaluating others
intentions, purposes and behaviour. A child can create a sequence of perspectives but at this
stage he cannot coordinate and integrate all sequences as a whole. It is at stage 3 Reciprocal
Perspective Taking when teenagers understand that individuals can perceive themselves as a
whole. This implies going beyond oneself and the other in order to perceive the relationship
from the point of view of a third person. The fourth and last stage means going beyond the
relationship to include social conventions or rules and the general context where the
interaction is taking place. Teenagers at this stage understand that a reciprocal perspective
taking does not provide a complete understanding of a situation if there is a lack of this social
context where social interaction gets its full meaning. In order to understand oneself one must
first understand the others. Then the individual must determine how he or she is both similar
and different from others. As Markstrom (1992, p. 183) states

social perspective taking establishes such a process by allowing the individual to
reflect upon the self from the perspectives of other individuals, other groups and
society as a whole.

An overemphasis on the perspective of others is said to lead to rigidity, while too much
emphasis on the selfs perspective may lead to egocentrism. Thus dealing effectively with
challenging relationships and interactions requires the ability to perceive and integrate a
number of different perspectives.
Natural conflicts that emerge during our classes help to integrate many of the topics
mentioned so far: the communication processes maintained by all participants in the
collaborative experience, the quality of their relationship and also the different contexts that
give meaning to the learning situation.
Finally the last social skill we include formally is leadership. It could be widely accepted
that leadership is one of the most researched and trained social skills. Many different theories
of leadership have evolved the last thirty years focusing on different variables of leadership
such as personal traits, situational interaction, function, behaviour, power, vision and values,
charisma, and intelligence among others. A common trend on current literature on leadership
concerns with the idea of balancing the figure of the leader with the follower. According to
this, and in relation to the third axiom of communication mentioned above
5
, a leader would
not exist without followers, and followers would not be needed unless there is someone
leading them (Reicher, Haslam and Hopkins, 2005; van Knippenberga, van Knippenbergb,
De Cremer and Hoggd, 2004). Thus in order to complete the theories of leadership it could be
appropriated to include a theory of followership.
According to this, our approach pays more attention to the processes involved in the act
of leading and following as whole. It has been very useful for us to differentiate between
active and passive ways of leading and following. Furthermore we take into account whether
the leaders and followers attend to themselves (this is their reasons, needs, purposes and
motives), others (reasons, needs, purposes, motives) and the context(s) in order to perform
their leadership and followership.
For example when we as teachers and assumed leaders in a collaborative class ask
students for their expectations, reasons and purposes, we are enhancing processes of actively
following as a form of leading the group. In the same way students who express their
concerns, worries, expectations, reasons and purposes for participating in the subject are
leading the process actively. Those students who just keep silent are passively following their
classmates and their teacher. That teacher who waits until their students present the results of
their inquiry process is leading them passively and making then possible their active instead
of passive followership.
Beyond the variables traditionally studied in connection to leadership (power, charisma,
vision, personal and situational traits, etc) these distinctions have helped us to track the
collaborative processes that take place between all the participants in a class from an
subjective experiential point of view. These distinctions make easier to understand how is
something happening and as a consequence it is even easier to notice why some experiences
designed to create a collaborative context fail while others succeed. In connection to the idea
of contexts we mentioned above, when a teacher forces their students to do a task or even to
attend his classes, he is actively leading them to do that task and even to attend his classes but
he is also probably promoting a passive followership due to it is externally maintained. This
obligation context will prevent in our opinion the fulfilment of real collaboration practices.
Communication, managing conflicts and leadership-followership are three key social
skills that should not be taken for granted in the process of generating collaborative learning.
As we will see in brief this will demand in return more developmental challenges for the
teachers who are willing to collaborate with their students with the purpose of learning
together. We want to highlight once again that these social skills could be worked direct or
indirectly. In relation to this topic we support the idea of developing social kills as a
consequence of participating in a collaborative experience through the elaboration of
meaningful and real tasks. It is quite common in literature about cooperative learning the idea
of training social skills beforehand the beginning of the authentic cooperation practice
(Slavin, 1983, Leon, 2006). In contrast to this we support the idea of developing these skills

5
The nature of a relationship is dependent on the punctuation of the partners communication procedures.
in parallel to the progress of the collaborative experience. Social skills would be then
contextualized in a concrete and meaningful task what would ease its transfer to new learning
and personal contexts. As a consequence of this we also defend the idea of working with the
ongoing and real experience of the participants in the course instead of with simulated or
faked dynamics so typical in the role playing and simulations that integrate so many social
skills programs following cognitive-behavioural methodologies (Iborra, 2004). So we dont
simulate conflicts in our classes to work the need of taking different perspectives in order to
understand their complexity. Otherwise we make use of the real conflicts that emerge
naturally or that we even create consciously as an opportunity to understand this phenomenon
and ourselves in a deeper way. For example it is quite common that students have conflicts
and discussions in the process of developing a social skills programs for other students, or in
the process of analyzing a case and planning an intervention. The teacher just needs to notice
these situations and use them during the situation providing time and distinctions to reflect
about them. Acting like this situates social skills in real practices.

8. THE DEVELOPMENTAL DEMANDS AND
CONSEQUENCES OF COLLABORATION

All along the chapter we have alluded several times to the connection between
collaborative learning and development. In section two we contrasted cooperative with
collaborative learning. One of the differences we mentioned explicitly concerned with the
idea of transformation. In cooperative learning underlies a principle of transmitting
knowledge working in groups which follow a structured script that a teacher created
intentionally. By the other hand in collaborative learning underlies a principle of transforming
all the participants in the learning process. Interestingly there are no many concrete references
in collaborative literature to what is going to be transformed. According to our approach we
defend the idea that collaborative learning will promote the development of all their
participants, students and teachers included. The transformation, if it takes place, has to deal
with epistemic changes which emerge as a consequence of achieving higher levels of
autonomy, responsibility, capacity of managing relationships and adopting multiple
perspectives or points of view, of constructing a sense of identity, of identifying contexts and
adapting to them without loosing oneself in the process, of thinking in a more relativistic way
which understands that there are many answers and possibilities to the problems inherent in
the process of learning and living, etc
Collaborative learning is not free, neither for the students nor for the teachers. It demands
specific developmental challenges for all the participants. According to some authors we
could add that it implies for students to achieve a fourth order of consciousness (Kegan, 1994)
and for teachers to operate at least from a fourth order of consciousness but still better if they
have achieved a fifth order of consciousness or (Kegan, 1994, Perry, 1970). Taking this into
account we can understand why is collaborative learning so challenging and demanding. But
one point we want to remark before describing in more detail these epistemic changes is the
idea of challenge. It is the challenging context involved in the process of collaborating what
can promote the development in all their participants. According to Kegan (1994), however,
the challenge is not enough unless it appears in a context which provides emotional support
and trust for committing with a process of exploration.
The developmental demands for those students who participate in a collaborative learning
can form a hidden curriculum of the classroom where students are expected to

take initiative; set our own goals and standards; use experts, institutions and other
resources to pursue these goals; take responsibility for our direction and
productivity in learning (Kegan, 1994, p.303).

These learning tasks implied in collaborative learning require the developmental capacity
of a self authoring mind (Kegan, 1994). The problem with this hidden curriculum which
involves the developmental demand of a self authoring mind is that research indicates that
only 20% to 30% of adults reach that stage (Bar-Yam, 1991). Teachers are likely to encounter
many students operating primarily out of the previous Interpersonal stage also termed as
Socialized Self (Erickson, 2007). Those operating from this Interpersonal stage are embedded
in or subject to relationships, roles and rules. They understand anothers point of view, even
when it might be different from their own. They can subordinate their own point of view to
the relationship and to anothers point of view. In this sense there is an interpersonal way of
knowing valuing the social bonds above individual needs. Great stress may be experienced
when interpersonal people are required to think outside of their traditions or when they must
deal intimately with those whose values and beliefs differ from their own. They do not yet
have the capacity to carefully weigh the differences and develop their own value system
(Eriksen, 2006). It is easy to note that those operating out of this interpersonal stage still need
an authority-base experience. The demands of many students asking for clear and quick
answers for their questions, clear resolutions for the cases analysis, to know exactly what they
have to do, what should they write in their diaries or blogs, what do you think as teacher
about what they are doing in order to get a self-evaluation, etc.. All these examples are
probably examples of this interpersonal epistemic way of meaning making. These students
will be more comfortable following the clear and straight forward scripts of cooperative
techniques but in order to move towards a self-authoring stage, teacher should challenge their
way of knowing urging them to think about why they are doing what they are doing, asking
them to have creative initiatives based on their own standards and criteria and establishing a
separateness from others definitions. Put in other words, to be self reflective. As Eriksen
(2006) states people operating primarily from an interpersonal balance may be motivated to
do such internal work when confronted with naturally occurring ambiguous situations but
teachers might also create ambiguous training situations (eg. ethical dilemma discussions;
ambiguous situations they have to interpret) so as to challenge the interpersonal person
toward the new self-authored balance.
In order to challenge students who are likely situated in this interpersonal stage to move
towards the following self-authored stage, it is important to note a previous stated idea. The
teacher himself should be established at least in that following stage. Although a collaborative
context could lead all the participants (teacher included) towards a more complex and
independent way of functioning, because of the demands hidden in its curriculum, it would be
very difficult to tolerate. In words of Kegan that experience could go in over the heads of all
participants.
Those who are in a self-authored or institutional stage can manage their relationships,
roles and values. They are embedded in or subject to the institutions of which their roles are a
part, to their jobs, and to the values or theories about how to regulate their roles and
relationships. The institutional self does not ignore being influenced by the relationships but
is bigger than that influence and not identical with it. Institutional knowers act on the belief
that there is a higher value than the relationship even if acting on the higher value hurts and
upsets another person. This bigger vision includes

values about values or systems by which we can choose among our values when
they conflict (Kegan, 1994, p.90).

Teachers or students operating from this stage invent their own work. They are self-
initiating, self-correcting and self-evaluating. They take responsibility for what happens to
them. Thus they demonstrate increased autonomy, self-authored and owned behaviour; self-
dependence and a clear identity which can remain constant across contexts (Eriksen, 2006).
However, there is also an important limitation connected to this stage which is very important
to note for collaborative teachers: they will feel vulnerable to whatever challenges their
constructed self-system. There is a growing understanding that their theory or system about
life, relationship, work does not reflect all of who they are and does not work in all situations.
Thus to move beyond this stage they should question their previously held ways of making
decisions. As Eriksen (2006, p.295) states:

they find themselves yearning for challenges from other systems, for negative
feedback that allows them to think about, re-evaluate, or make object their own
system.

Paradoxically they can commit themselves to transformation but fail to see that the
product of these transformations is just as replaceable as the previous self-system. Obviously
to go beyond this fourth stage it is important to transcend ones previous identity. It is not so
important who you are but who you can become.
The fifth order of consciousness, the Inter-individual stage which deals with multi-system
complexity, is quite related with the idea of collaborative learning expressed by Anderson
(1999). The following characteristics summarized by Eriksen (2006, p. 296) from the work of
Kegan (1982) express the theoretically ideal description of a teacher capable of managing
successfully a collaborative context: they (a) orient toward relationships, dynamisms, and
tensions among systems of deciding (eg. relationships between quantitative and qualitative
ways of knowing) rather than forcing decisions between one or the other, (b) believe such
relationships are prior to the systems themselves; (c) envision motion, process and change
as the irreducible and primary feature of reality; (d) are nourished by contradiction; (e)
become responsible for systems rather than to systems; (f) become more tentative and less
certain about their theory, seeing that any system of operating is temporary, preliminary, and
self-constructed and (g) transcend allegiance to the product

in favour of an orientation to the process that creates the product (Kegan, 1982,
p.248).
Interindividual people can maintain an open, incomplete stance, admitting that they might
be wrong, take a one-down, not knowing position that says to other people

lets co-construct our experience together (Eriksen, 2006, p. 296).

As if it was adopted a collaborative motto, the interindividual person shift away from the
new products of transformation onto the process of transformation itself, onto the
conversations between systems, onto the whole or community or other-as-part-of-self.
All along these seven years we have promoted different changes in our students and in
ourselves as teachers. The following excerpts illustrate some opinions and evaluations of the
training process. They express not only their opinions about the classes and the learning
process. For us they are interesting because provide different meaning-making examples as it
would be proposed by Kegan. The students who wrote them were situated in different
epistemic positions. Our purpose is to illustrate a variety of different ways of attending to our
classes from interpersonal towards more self-authoring perspectives. It also serves to reflect
about how a collaborative-experientially based approach can promote a transition from
dependent ways of knowing towards more autonomous ones.
Narratives have been selected from three different courses. During course (04-05) we
introduced cooperative learning (an elaborated Jigsaw structure) for the first time. Next
course (05-06) we added the use of web-blogs and a virtual platform (Web-Ct) in order to
promote the reflection and sharing of learning in progress, we also introduced
interdisciplinary experiences through the coordination of several subjects belonging to
Psycho-pedagogy studies. Finally in course 08-09 we added a more explicit work to promote
key competences in our subjects. We have selected three different narratives for every course.
They come from the students self-evaluations with the exception of the last three narratives
of course 08-09 who were written after one month of beginning the classes. The narratives
belonging to every course have been ordered on purpose. They represent three people
expressing themselves from different developmental positions: from a more interdependent
towards a more self-authored perspective.

Course 2004-2005

Excerpt 1. I knew already this methodology but I had never taken it into practice. I
think that the idea of this proposal is very good but in my opinion, it is a system that
finally does not work. It is quite pleasant and participative but if students do not
respond it isnt worthwhile because finally as in any typical group work, only work
the same people. You have the risk that someone in your group will not understand
his part and as a consequence the rest will not understand that part either.
Excerpt 2. I think that this subject didnt focus on getting knowledge but also some
skills such as watching, teamwork, being autonomous and not depending always on
someone who tells you how to do everything.
Excerpt 3. All Ive learnt is not something that completes my training from a
theoretical point of view, it also helped me to rethink my ideas, I mean, it has
provoked an intrapersonal conflict that has influenced not only my academic and
professional development, but also my personal development. This is due to learning
came from any individual, his feelings and relationships and interactions with the
rest of classmates.

Course 2005-2006

Excerpt 4. The web-blog was the worst issue for me- as you can notice I have not
written, because I dont like the idea that my classmates can read my notes, when I
do not know if they are correct. Besides it was a problem not having a script about
what to write even though I think that the idea is good because you can go on
reflecting with your classmates out of the class.
Excerpt 5. If you had asked me that question
6
two weeks before finishing the course,
my answer would have been quite different that this one I am going to give you
today. Now I can tell you yes, Ive learnt, and a lot. Ive understood that we have to
pose a meaningful goal, that the real achievement is not to do what teachers tell you
to do, but understanding what do you want to do. I think I began to learn when I
realized that there was something in the subject related to me. When I discovered
something that is helping me to analyze the world we live in, and when I realized that
the most part of times I get bored in a class or that I am discouraged with my studies,
it is because of Im just attending passively to information, without working with it.
Even it could seem as if Im liar, the time I dedicated to read the texts grew since
then. I have gone deeply into them and I have reflected a lot about everything, but my
satisfaction with what I got from the texts is much bigger.
Excerpt 6. We should not look for the answers in your comments but in ourselves,
trusting in our own competence as knowledge creators, without waiting that your
comments will give us the certainty we demand. We must attend to our creation
process, trust in our own voice and competence. Achieved this, the need of your
certainty, of your comments will vanish.

Course 2008-2009

Excerpt 7. The classes are very new for me from a methodological point of view, it
distress me to feel myself lost and not knowing how to answer questions such as
what do you think we are going to do today/tomorrow? In your terms, why have
we done this activity? So in conclusion, right know Im a bit pessimistic, not about
the subject but about my learning possibilities. I hope it will change tomorrow.
Excerpt 8. I consider that Ive learnt many things up to now: the ideas we express in the
class, the meetings with different groups make me understand different perspectives
which help me to reorder and increase the information I have () The truth is that at
the end of any class I remain still thinking about what we did for a while because it
seems to me a very different way of lecturing, we reflect and it is ok with me, though
some times there are some aspects which are not very clear but in the following
classes we inquiry more on that.

6
Have you learned during the course? How and why?
Excerpt 9. The methodology followed during the classes, leaving many questions in the
air, is helping me to reflect and having the sensation of remaining thinking
Finally, I would like to add that all we have talked in the class, be it good or not,
provokes the creation of an unavoidable relation with my personal life, what could
help me to know myself better.

Excerpts 1, 4 and 7 express a higher interest on content (what is learnt) instead of
attending to the process of learning collaboratively. The emotions expressed are related with
nervousness with the open process they are participating in. They are not used to create their
own learning. They would prefer instead to follow clear specifications of what to do and what
to know. They pay more attention to the idea of correct answers and not of correct processes
and feel their work evaluated by the others.
Excerpts 2, 5 and 8 reflect for us transitional students. In general they understand that
they are learning more than just a theoretical content. They can attend to the followed process
and how they self-managed through it. They understand they have an active role in creating
their own learning collaborating with the teacher and their class-mates. They understand they
can self-author their learning, their motivation, and trust in the general process of inquiry.
Excerpts 3, 6 and 9 are example for us of a higher self-authored perspective. They are not
only more autonomous in their learning, they also collaborate more actively with their
classmates and the teacher. Beyond the subject content and even processes, they are
conscious of their own personal changes. They are connecting the content and processes
worked during the subject with themselves and the knowledge they have about themselves.
They are more aware of the personal changes they are achieving.
In general all narratives show us the heterogeneity of our students participating in the
collaborative contexts we have tried to create during our subjects. This developmental point
of view has helped us to follow and understand better the process of our students. And of
course it has been fundamental in order to understand our own experience as collaborative
teachers. Knowing the complex demands involved in the creation of a collaborative class has
helped us to facilitate the process for all the participants, we included as part of the process.
As Smith and Sparkes (2005) suggest in the context of qualitative inquiry analysis
possibilities

life stories need to be subjected to multiple forms of analysis. If lives, stories,
bodies, identities and selves (...) are multidimensional, constructed, complex and
changing in time and with context, then researchers might seek forms of analysis that
are sensitive to, and respectful of, this complexity and multiplicity (p.214).

We could exchange the word teachers where it appears researchers. This idea of
being sensible and respectful with the complexity, multiplicity and rhythm of our students is
very important for us. Referring to academic objectivist research and their scientific reports,
Bochner (1997) observed that

the sad truth is that the academic self frequently is cut off from the ordinary
experiential self. A life of theory can remove one from experience, make oneself feel
unconnected (p.421 in Sparkes, 2003, p.61).
Once again we want to connect this idea with the teacher profession. Collaborative
learning could prevent teachers of being unconnected from themselves and others since
connection and relationships are one of the intrinsic aspects of collaboration.
Finally we want to highlight that knowing the theoretical epistemic stages of our
students and ourselves is very important to include a developmental and transformational bias
in our approach to collaborative learning. But it would not be enough unless we had more
accurate distinctions to track the process we are generating. According to this some
distinctions we have borrowed from the systemic approach of John McWhirter have been
crucial for us in order to generate a collaborative experience and make a better use of that
experience. We have referred to them in previous sections but we want to remark some of
them once more: the perceptual positions we attend from (subjective perspective) to different
objects (objective perspective) in a multiple variety of contexts (contextual perspective), the
processes of leading and following active and passively, the emphasis of taking into account
the process and even the patterns that emerge from that process, etc In the following
section we will introduce the idea of pattern as one of the key competences we tried to work
with.

9. PATTERNS TO PLAY WITH

The recent introduction of the concept of competence has promoted the revision of many
teaching practices in the university education. The project Tuning Educational Structures in
Europe is one of the best examples of the competence turn in Education. In connection to the
typical role of collaborative teachers, an Education whose goal is the development of
competences focuses on students rather than on the teachers who becomes a mediator figure
with an attitude of openness, flexibility, tolerance and a high level domain in meta-cognitive
and reflexive skills (Margalef, Iborra and Canabal, 2006). There have been a vast number of
articles interested in proposing descriptive taxonomies of competences (Bajo, Maldonado,
Moreno, Moya and Tudela, 2007) like basic competences (such as specific knowledges, to
analyze and synthesize, planning and organizing, decision making, learning to learn,
achievement motivation, etc), intervention competences (applying knowledge into practice,
adapting to new situations, creativity, working autonomously, teamwork, social skills,
leadership, diversity appreciation, etc) and specific competences (oral and written
communication, second languages, use of technologies, managing information).
Beyond these descriptive taxonomies, from a pedagogical point of view, competences are
understood as the capacity of engaging cognitive resources in order to cope with a specific
situation (Perrenoud, 2004). A person is competent when is capable of reordering his learning
to transfer it to new situations and contexts. The competence only demonstrates itself in
practice. This practice far of being isolated and meaningless is completely adapted to a
concrete situation.
This notion of competence is quite close of previous ideas mentioned in the chapter when
referring to experiential learning and the need of creating real and specific learning contexts.
But even though we agree with this general approach aimed to the promotion of competences
we think it is too descriptive to be useful. To go beyond general descriptive taxonomies of
competences or even endless lists of concrete competences, we need to study those processes
and principles which are really needed to learn and practice a concrete competence instead of
taking it for granted.
So for example one key competence included in our approach in many of the subjects we
have participated involves perceiving and constructing patterns. A vast array of learning
activities such as interpreting a case from tests, narratives or movies, creating and applying a
social skill program adapted to a specific group of people, connecting different texts and
activities in order to construct a macrostructure (Kintsch and Rawson, 2005), following and
comparing different lines of thought so typical in the McGuffin project, integrating the
different contribution of participants in an interdisciplinary group, etc demand the creation
of complex patterns.
A pattern is a type of theme of recurring events or objects, sometimes referred to as
elements of a set. These elements repeat in a predictable manner. The most basic patterns are
thus based on repetition and periodicity. A formal feature of patterns is its integrity
independent of the medium by virtue of which you have received the information that it exists
(Fuller, 1975). Typical examples of patterns are the chemical elements, fractals, recurring
decimals, chemical composition in minerals such as crystals, fashion, music styles and from a
psychological point of view, each individual style of learning, habits, beliefs, identity and so
on is in itself a pattern integrity evolutionary and not static.
We are interested in patterning as an example of competence because of its relationship
with the construction of meaning and as an extension with contexts. According to Bateson
(1979) we create meaning through patterns of connections with our world. Such patterns of
connections comprise the context or contexts that provide the possibility of generating
meaning. Bateson (1979) summarized succinctly the relationship between contexts and
meaning as follows:

Context is linked to another undefined notion called meaning. Without context,
words and actions have no meaning at all it is the context that fixes the meaning
(p.15).

In order to create a meaning for something or even to identify a context, we need to
create or differentiate a special pattern, a type of recurring events or objects.
For example when a group of students are collaborating to make an inquiry project
focused on analyzing a special case of a dyslexic child, they need to construct patterns. The
underlying basic process to patterning is to connect. They need to connect all the elements or
information available about that case: different tests, information obtained through interviews
with the child, with their parents, with their teachers with their classmates. Any of this
elements isolated provide information, but only taken as a whole can be connected to
understand the big picture. Besides they have to connect all this information with more
information they have obtained from theoretical and specialized books, articles, lectures in
class, blogs, forums and even the discussions maintained with their companions in the group
and other groups. Besides this could be even more complex if this case is part of a bigger
project which involves students from other subjects and classes who are analyzing the same
case from different approaches (Curriculum, Developmental Psychology, Family interactions
and Learning Strategies). They will have to make more connections to understand the
meaning provided by their companions coming from all those different classes. Interestingly
the possible meanings of that project will be different depending on what contexts are being
created. Every subject and discipline would create a different context. More contexts could
also influence the meaning of the participation. Participating in that project could be optional
for those students who just are willing to learn more about theoretical concepts worked in
their formal classes. But they could be forced to participate because they will be formally
evaluated with a final exam about the experience. Even though these two contexts are not
directly related with the task (a specific case) will influence the general meaning of the task.
What does it mean for every student to participate in that task and how is that influencing in
the quality of his involvement?
It is clear that this example highlights a spiral structure or pattern (Pareja, 2008) which
includes multiple perspectives and loop processes giving as a result increasingly complex and
cyclical patterns of connections. Bateson (1994) suggests that learning occurs when various
experiences and ideas interconnect as they spiral together over time. Such an approach can be
established by providing students with opportunities to engage in learning experiences and
lines of inquiry arising from common over-arching topics or questions
According to Bloom (1999) this view of learning is based on non-linearity of thought
processes and on variation, with the purpose of creating (1) more cohesive and elaborate
understandings, (2) an emphasis on meaning rather than de-contextualized contents, (3) an
emphasis on creativity, (4) a greater sense of connection to the learner's world and (5) the
development of a sense of ownership over what is learned.
To create a pattern it is necessary to connect elements to go beyond. There are different ways
of connecting but the key processes involved require comparing elements. Different elements or
events (being chapters, ideas, exercises, cases, subjects, opinions, etc) can be contrasted in order
to focus on their differences or compared in order to add their similarities as well. Noticing
differences and similarities, and differences and similarities with these differences is the
background process needed to create a pattern. Because of this we present different information
grouped in sets of at least three events, experiences or other kind of element. The Mcguffin project
is just one example of this process. It can be just an excuse for comparing classes, ideas or
readings in search of a common hidden theme, but also with its transversal structure, it implies an
invitation to connect those peripheral issues with the most central ones in order to lead beyond
our understanding of one topic. In both cases we encourage our students to practice this idea of
connecting elements because then there will likely emerge new patterns of meaning.

10. CONCLUSION

It is not easy to define an experiential, non-linear way approach of collaborative learning.
Because of this we hope that the reader will have now a better idea of our way of dealing with
collaborative learning in the frame of graduate and postgraduate studies.
As it has been stated all along the chapter the key for creating such a special kind of
learning is based on the idea of context and its relationship with meaning. We are very
interested in leading the creation of contexts which promote the development of our students
inviting them to be more self-authored and autonomous while having to collaborate with
other students and the teacher in order to carry out a learning task usually related with inquiry
processes. Managing social skills and promoting complex competences like the creation of
patterns are special elements needed to make easier the whole collaborative process.
Although we make use of many available technological options such as virtual platforms,
web-blogs, forums and wikis, we dont consider them a central aspect of our approach.
Undoubtedly new technologies make easier the supervision of many individual and group
activities, transcending the usual limits of a class in terms of both space and time. And the
generation of networks of blogs is also one of the most interesting features of our approach.
However new technologies represent just one more alternative of action of what we do. They
dont add so much to other interesting levels of how to do something and why doing it.
Specifying methodologies and their processes involved and the epistemologies and their
principles implied is more challenging than merely relying on technological alternatives.
Although of course they are an interesting part of our general approach they dont represent
its essence. Attending to the nature of our relationships with our students and the special
context that emerge from that based on principles of open collaboration are more salient
features of our approach.
The following table summarizes a list of possible suggestions which have the purpose of
serving as general indications to reflect on how to perform a collaborative experience.
These general suggestions are an example of an open calibration process. As in any
calibration process the key is the information obtained from the multiple feedbacks and what
is done from there. A key assumption for us, as it was stated when referring to leadership, is
that it is needed to follow our students in order to lead them. Making use of their feedback
provides an opportunity of following them instead of just imposing content, explanations,
exercises and practices that are disconnected of the possible emergent process. Besides
students have the opportunity of leading the process through their active participation in the
process and explicitly in the feedback moments. It is then when they can make questions, ask
for clarifications, provide summary and examples of their own understanding, etc Taken as
a whole both teachers and students become involved in a systemic collaborative process that
develops through time.
We would like to conclude the chapter with a final excerpt with summarizes many of the
ideas expressed in the previous sections. It is a text written by a student of doctorate studies,
published in her web-blog at the end of a collaborative process this current course. She is
reflecting about her learning process in connection to a final evaluation task consisting in a
short movie filmed and acted by her work group. The idea of how did the group decide to be
evaluated was the beginning of this final project. They decided to film a short movie where
they could reflect and show many processes and knowledge worked during the subject.
7

7
The students prepared also a trailer which was uploaded in you tube: http://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=zviTrkeECCU
Table 2. Suggestions to promote a collaborative learning experience based on
calibrating processes.

1. Consider what is the content you have to work with and ask yourself
a. Why is it interesting according to your discipline?.
b. What are the main competences related to that content or subject?
c. What can you do differently in comparison with your students when applying the topics
of that subject? What are the main processes involved?
d. Once identified the main process or processes, how could you work or practice them?
What could be considered a good example of practice?
2. Consider and ask your students about
a. The reasons for attending to your class?
b. Their purposes and goals beyond passing the subject?
c. Their tacit knowledge about the general topic and even their previous competences and
skills in relation to that topic.
3. Initiate the class presenting a big question or challenging problem which underlies the subject
(in the context of your discipline from a theoretical or professional point of view). This big
question could be an example of McGuffin (it will never be answered completely) but a good
starting point.
4. Connect when possible that big question with some goals or purposes expressed by your
students.
5. Begin the exploration of some topics related with that big problem. Before presenting any
formal information or model how could it be possible to explore that topic?
6. Listen carefully the feedback of your students from their exploration attending to their
understanding in that moment. From there consider what would be more interesting in that
moment in order to advance through the exploration process
a. Reading some theoretical texts?
b. Providing a formal explanation to some point?
c. Suggesting a practice, new exercise or experiment?
7. Put into practice your previous decision and wait until you have a new feedback from the
exploration work of your students and repeat step 6. A first loop possibility or research cycle
begins here.
8. Compare the inquiry process followed by your students and you in terms of your previous
considerations exposed in step 1. Are you separating too much from there? Is it good or not?
Are you following it too strictly? Is it good or not? Is the main content being covered? Are the
main skills being practiced?
9. Attend to the performance of your students.
a. Are they coming to your class?
b. How do they look like? Interested? Lost? Careless? Committed? Intrigued? Bored?
c. How do they look like working in groups? Would it be interesting changing the natural
groups they make? Would it be interesting mixing them?
d. Is it needed to explore directly with your students about their own learning process?
e. According to this feedback can you change something in step 6? Is it worth adding new
content, exercise, question?
10. From feedback coming from steps 9, 8 and 7 go on calibrating the whole process revising the
direction framed at the beginning and even considering the appropriateness of that direction.
11. Consider when it would be useful to begin to finish the exploration process in order to present
a more objective product as a result of that process. Initiate convergent processes to finish
instead of opening new divergent lines of thought.

It seems incredible that a process like this can change someone, it seems
exaggerated to say that maybe Im not completely the Mary I used to be. I dont
pretend to say that Ive changed radically, that Ive seen the light ha ha haBut
yes, in that moment I had my opportunity of expressing what had changed in me
during the process ()From my point of view when we began to work I was quite
square minded. Look, after telling to myself that it is important to respect every
person rhythm, that it is important to discover being helped by others, that we have
to change our minds to evaluate that situation that will take us to another one where
everything would be clearer after saying all that to myself I realized I wasnt
respecting neither my time nor others time and of course I was collaborating with
my classmates, only if they had the same idea about the work than me. Ive realized
that the theory we worked with in the classes, the ideas I got from texts or
discussions, even the reflections that suggested me the opinions of my classmates,
from blogs, all what I had learnt was conditioning was I wanted to do, the way I was
doing it and why I was doing like this. I realized that I needed to make explicit what I
had learnt for not letting aside none of the distinctions we had been talking about
and that influenced so much how we learnt, how we developed, how we made
meaning of things.
Because of that I began step by step. I began trying to collaborate, interchanging
impressions, ideas but very early I had doubts. Were all of us sharing the same
goals? Were we listening to each other? What were we attending to? How were we
doing all this and why? All these questions disappointed me at first. I did not
understand how we were going to collaborate if we were not collaborating at all or
better said to collaborate as I understood we had to collaborate.
To be sincere I dont know how it happened but one day I simply let myself go and
decided not worrying so much about whether what we were doing coincided with our
original purposes or my own purposes. I decided to come back again to learn and
just experiment the sensation of working, listening to others and lowering the
pressure of big theories and ideas we had worked so much during the classes. I
decided to trust in the group. I decided that for achieving good results things have
not to be necessarily as I think they should be. It was not easy but I also trusted that
our final result would be even better that my original idea. () I dared! Yes()
Now looking back I realize of a couple of things. I think that I would have never
understood collaborative learning unless I had decided to let myself go. Now I
realize that all those ideas, knowledge and theories we had been working, discussing,
constructing were included in the process. It was not needed to make them explicit.
What I needed was living them ()Of course when I relaxed I found that there were
many situations I could understand, now having more tools than before, I mean,
through different situations I was conscious of different ways of interpreting them,
giving sense to them, for achieving information and using them to influence
positively the group development. In some moments I made them explicit. Some
others I didnt. However all that gave me the opportunity of going beyond, to think
about it and noticing those limitations that worked as a blindfold of my eyes.
I believe that before objectifying something one has to understand it, to feel it, to live
it. But not living it during one class, not out of context without using them on
purpose. Of course without those formal sessions I would not have been able to
reflect about that experience. ()
Im not proud only of the work but of how we did it. Im proud of people, of their
involvement, of my own involvement. I can say I feel more responsible and owner of
a work as I never had been. I thought that as a consequence of sharing it and,
constructing it we could notice every particular contribution. But that was not the
case. This work is not mine, neither of Lara, Val, Angelica, Itziar, Maite, Dori or
Dani. This work is a synergy of all of us. ()
I think Im somebody more open to listen new proposals, to look beyond, to work
with others.. Im all of this but Im also defending this approach in the class, through
critical reflection, in one blog. Yes it could be said I am collaborative.

In this last excerpt it is possible to notice many issues mentioned along the chapter
that will serve to conclude it. This student expresses what meant to her to participate in a
collaborative process. We would like to highlight three final ideas. First one concerns the
developmental changes she perceives in herself. In terms of Kegans theory we could say
that she is expressing the typical initiative, responsibility, commitment and critical ideas
belonging to self-authoring ways of functioning, and even in the process of going beyond
towards the Inter-individual stage. Second idea deals with how she is giving sense of
these changes as a consequence of participating in a collaborative learning experience.
Only when she dares to go beyond her autonomous and independent way of learning
which implied imposing to the others her way of understanding the task, she can truly
collaborate. The collaborative context promote this kind of transcending ones own way
of doing, understanding things in order to integrate others point of view. It is a good
example of transcending fourth order institutional self. The expression of letting myself
go is a good metaphor for expressing the underlying process. Only when she trusts in the
group and the processes they were creating, the true collaboration takes place. Third idea
is related to the importance of creating a real experiential context in order to put into
practice and make real all the theoretical and process distinctions that we had been
working with previously. It is another good example of situated learning and how
meaningful learning can emerge from freely chosen tasks. Finally it is not the experience
by itself what can promote so many changes. It is also needed to provide useful process
distinctions to reflect on that experience such us the nature of the contexts involved in the
situation or what kind of patterns can emerge
9
. The following table summarizes some of
the distinctions we have been using along the chapter:
We read once a quote, supposedly said by Brian Eno, the famous music producer,
concerning with his relationship with David Bowie. He mentioned the following idea: Every
collaboration helps you grow. With Bowie, it's different every time. I know how to create
settings, unusual aural environments. That inspires him. He's very quick. We would like to
finish with this idea. As music producers we would like to create familiar or unusual settings
which could inspire our students and ourselves, in order to grow. Maybe our students, as
Bowie, will demonstrate how quick they are when challenged by this kind of special learning
context we would like to encourage.

9
For example she realizes about her own changes because she can compare how she used to behave before in
contrast with how she had behaved during the experience. From the comparison of at least these two different
examples of ways of working in groups, she can have a different conception about herself and her learning
options.
Table 3. Main distinctions mentioned during the chapter (from McWhirter, 1999).

Why Context Attending in Pattern Principle Open collaboration, learning
together, development, social
constructionist, etc
How Subjective Attending from Process Policy Perceptual processing,
communication processes, leading
and following active and
passively, comparing attending to
sameness and difference, etc
Curiosity, commitment, self-
authoring..
What Objective Attending to Protocol Procedure Cooperative techniques, formal
scripts or instructions

REFERENCES

Anderson, H. (1997) Conversation, Language and Possibilities: A Postmodern Approach to
Therapy. New York: Basic Books. [Trad. Cast. Conversacin, lenguaje y posibilidades.
Buenos Aires: Amorrortu. 1999]
Aronson, E., Blaney, N., Sikes, J., Stephan, C. & Snapp, M. (1978). The jigsaw classroom.
Beverly Hills, CA:Sage.
Baars, B. J. (1989). A cognitive theory of consciousness. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Bajo, M. T., Maldonado, A., Moreno, S., Moya, M. & Tudela, P. (2007). Las competencias
en el nuevo paradigma educativo para Europa. Vicerrectorado de Planificacin, Calidad y
Evaluacin. Universidad de Granada.
Bar-Yam, M. (1991). Do women and men speak in different voices? A comparative study of
self-evolvement. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 32, 247-259.
Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an Ecology of Mind: Collected Essays in Anthropology,
Psychiatry, Evolution, and Epistemology. University Of Chicago Press.
Bateson, G. (1979). Mind and nature: A necessary unity. New York: Bantam Books.
Bateson, M. C. (1994). Peripheral visions: Learning along the way. New York: Harper
Collins.
Bloom, J. W. (1999). Patterns that connect: rethinking our approach to learning and thinking.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, Montreal, April.
Bochner, A. (1997). Its about time. Qualitative Inquiry, 3(4), 418-438.
Carlozzi, B., Carlozzi, A. & Harrist, S. (2004). Developmental considerations in university-
school collaborative research. The Qualitative Report, 9(3), 375-391. [Retrieved on 2
nd
of
March 2009, from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR9-3/carlozzi.pdf ]
Cialdini, R. (2005). Whats the best secret device for engaging student interest? The answer is
in the title. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 22-29.
Cohen, E. (1994). Designing groupwork: Strategies for the heterogeneous classroom. New
York: Teachers College Press.
Damon, W. & Phelps, E. (1989). Critical distinctions among three approaches to peer
education. International Journal of Educational Research, 58 (2), 9-19.
Davidson, N. (1994). Cooperative and collaborative learning: an integrative perspective. En
Thousand, J., Villa, R. & Kevin, A. (Eds). Creativity and Collaborative Learning (pp.
181-195). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing.
DeVries, D. & Edwards, K. (1974). Student teams and learning games: their effects on cross-
race and cross-sex interaction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 66, 741-749.
Durn, D., Torr, J. & y Vila, J. (2003). Tutora entre iguals: un mtode daprenentatge
cooperatiu per a la diversitat. Barcelona: Servei de Publicacions de la UAB.
Davidson, N. (1994). Cooperative and collaborative learning: an integrative perspective. En
Thousand, J., Villa, R. & Kevin, A. (Eds). Creativity and Collaborative Learning
(pp. 181-195). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing
Eriksen, K. (2006). The Constructive Developmental Theory of Robert Kegan. The Family
Journal, 14 (3), 290-298.
Erickson, D. (2007). A Developmental Re-Forming of the Phases of Meaning in
Transformational Learning. Adult Education Quarterly, 58 (1), 61-80.
Foerster, H. & Poerksen, B. (2002). Understanding systems. Conversations on Epistemology
and Ethics. New York: Kluwer Academic.
Fuller, R. B. (1975) Synergetics explorations in the geometry of thinking. Collier Macmillan
Publishers, London.
Iborra, A. (2004). Diferentes perspectivas en la gestin de conflictos. En: M. J. Criado &
J. Gonzlez (Coords). Educar en la no violencia. Ed. CCS, Madrid, pp. 105-139.
Iborra, A. Izquierdo, M. & y de la Cruz, O. Es posible evaluar el Aprendizaje Colaborativo?
Propuesta de tres fuentes de evaluacin: El proceso, el contenido y el producto grupal.
Oral paper presented at the XII Congreso de Psicologa de la Infancia y la Adolescencia:
Nuevos contextos psicolgicos en educacin: dando respuestas. Santander, April, 2005.
Ingarfield, T. (2007). Manual del Curso de Habilidades de Gestin y Aprendizaje
Experiencial en las Organizaciones. Curso de Especializacin del Programa de Estudios
Propios de la Universidad de Alcal. Convocatoria, 06-07.
Johnson, D. W. & y. Johnson, R. (1999). Learning together and alone: cooperative,
competitive and individualistic learning. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. & y. Stanne, M. B. (2000). Cooperative learning methods: a
Meta-analysis. [Retrieved on 13th september, 2008, http://www.co-operation.org/pages/
cl-methods.html ]
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. & Holubec, E. (1999). El aprendizaje cooperativo en el aula.
Barcelona: Paids Educador.
Johnson, D. W. & y Johnson, R. (1979). Conflict in the classroom: controversy and learning.
Review of Educational Research, 49, 51-70.
Jonasen, D. (2000). El diseo de entornos constructivistas de aprendizaje. En Ch. M.
Reigeluth (Ed.). Diseo de la Instruccin: Teoras y Modelos. Parte I (pp. 225-250).
Madrid: Aula XXI Santillana.
Kagan, S. (1985). Cooperative learning resources for teachers. Riverside, CA: University of
California.
Kegan, R. (1994). In over our heads: the mental demands of modern life. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press.
Kintsch, W. & Rawson, K. 2005. Comprehension. En Snowling, M. & Hume, CH. (Eds.),
The Science of Reading. A Handbook (pp. 209-226). Victoria: Blackwell.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential Learning: Experience as the source of learning and
development. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Leon, B. (2006). Elementos mediadores en la eficacia del aprendizaje cooperativo.
Entrenamiento previo en habilidades sociales y dinmica de grupos. Anales de
Psicologa. 22 (1), 105-112.
Magnuson, D. & y Stattin, H. (1998). Person-Context interaction theories. En W. Damon &
R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Volume 1: Theoretical models of human
development (pp. 685-759). Jon Wiley & Sons Inc.
Marchesi, A. & y Martn, E. (1998). Calidad de la enseanza en tiempos de cambio. Madrid:
Alianza.
Margalef, L., Iborra, A. & Canabal, C. (2006). Transformar la docencia universitaria: una
propuesta de desarrollo profesional basada en estrategias reflexivas. Perspectiva
Educacional, N 48, 2006, pp. 73-89.
Markstrom-Adams, C. (1992). Factors in Identity Formation. In Adams, G., Gullotta, T. &
Montemayor, R. (eds). Adolescent Identity Formation (pp.173-192). NewBury Park:
Sage.
McCarthey, S. J. & y McMahon, S. (1992). From convention to invention: three approaches
to peer interactions during writing. En Hertz Lazarowitz, R., & y Miller, N. Interaction
in cooperative groups. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McWhirter, J. (1999). Re-Modelling NLP. Part 4. Basic structures and processes. Rapport
(46) [retrieved on 10
th
March of 2009 from http://www.sensorysystems.co.uk/
RemodellingNLPPart4new.pdf ]
McWhirter, J. (2000). Re-Modelling NLP. Part 5. Planning, problem-solving, outcomes and
achieving. Rapport (47) [retrieved on 10
th
March of 2009 from http://www.sensorysyst-
ems.co.uk/RemodellingNLPPart5%20.pdf]
McWhirter, J. (2002). Re-Modelling NLP. Part 13. Re-Modelling Perceptual Positioning and
Processing. Rapport (58) [retrieved on 10
th
March of 2009 from http://www.sensorysyst-
ems.co.uk/RemodellingNLPPart13PartC.pdf ]
Miller, L. (2000). La resolucin de problemas en colaboracin. En Reigeluth (Ed.). Diseo de
la Instruccin: Teoras y Modelos. Parte I (pp. 251-278). Madrid: Aula XXI Santillana.
Otani, A. (1994). A Cognitive Contextual Theory and Classification of Milton H. Erickson's
Hypnotherapeutic Techniques. En Stephen R. Lankton & Kristina K. Ericsson (Eds.). The
Ericksonian Monograph Number 9.The Essence of a Single Session Success (pp. 36-53).
Phoenix: Milton H. Erickson Foundation, Inc.
Panitz, T. (1996). A definition of Collaborative VS Cooperative Learning. Deliberations.
[retrieved on 15
th
December of 2008 from http://www.lgu.ac.uk/deliberations/
collab.learning/panitz2.html ]
Pareja, N. (2008). Reconstruir el currculo, transformar la prctica. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation. Universidad de Alcal.
Perrenoud, P. (2004). Diez nuevas competencias para ensear. Barcelona: Garo.
Perry, William G. Jr. (1970), Forms of Intellectual and Ethical Development in the College
Years: A Scheme New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Perry, William G. Jr. (1981) Cognitive and Ethical Growth: The Making of Meaning. En
Arthur W. Chickering and Associates, The Modern American College. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass (pp. 76-116).
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon Vol. 9 No. 5,
October 2001.
Reicher, S., Haslam, S. A. & Hopkins, N. (2005). Social identity and the dynamics of
leadership: leaders and followers as collaborative agents in the transformation of social
reality. The Leadership Quaterly, 16, 547-568.
Ruiz, C. & y Shailor, J. (2004). Aprendizaje Colaborativo y e-Learning. Anlisis de un
Proyecto de Innovacin en la Universidad. Comunicacin presentada en el IV Congreso
Internacional de Psicologa y Educacin Calidad Educativa. Universidad de Almera.
pp. 2027-2034.
Schank, D. L., Berman, T. R. & y Macpherson, K. A. (2000). Aprender a travs de la
prctica. En Ch. M. Reigeluth (Ed.). Diseo de la Instruccin: Teoras y Modelos. Parte I
(pp. 173-192). Madrid: Aula XXI Santillana.
Selman, R. L. (1980). The growth of interpersonal understanding. New York: Academic
Press.
Sharan, S. & Sharan, Y. (1992). Group Investigation: Expanding cooperative learning. New
York: Teachers College Press.
Slavin, R. E. (1978). Student teams and comparison among equals: effects on academic
performance and student attitudes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 70 (4), 532-538.
Slavin, R. E. (1983). When does cooperative learning increased student achievement?
Psychological Bulletin, 94, 429-445.
Slavin, R. E., Leavey, M. B. & Madden, N. A. (1984). Combining cooperative learning and
individualized instruction: effects on student mathematics achievement, attitudes, and
behaviours. Elementary School Journal, 84 (4), 409-422.
Smith, B. & Sparkes, A. (2005). Analyzing talk in qualitative inquiry: Exploring possibilities,
problems, and tensions. Quest, 57 (2), 213-242.
Sparkes, A. C. (2003) Bodies, identities, selves: Autoethnographic fragments and reflections.
In J. Denison & P. Markula (Eds) Moving writing : Crafting Movement and Sport
Research (pp. 51-76). New York: Peter Lang.
Stevens, R., Madden, N., Slavin, R. & Farnish, A. (1987). Cooperative integrated reading and
composition: Two field experiments. Reading Research Quaterly, 22, 433-454.
Van Knippenberg, D., van Knippenberg, B., De Cremer, D. & How, M. A. (2004).
Leadership, self and identity: A review and research agenda. The Leadership Quaterly,
15, 825-856.
Watzlawick, P., Bavelas, B. & y Jackson, D. D. (1995). Teora de la Comunicacin Humana:
interacciones, patologas y paradojas. Barcelona: Herder.
Wiersema, N. (2000). Deliberations. How does Collaborative Learning actually work in a
classroom and how do students react to it? A Brief Reflection [retrieved on 15
th
December
of 2008 from http://www.londonmet.ac.uk/deliberations/collaborative-learning/wiersema.
cfm].

Chapter 3

EXAMINING CHILD DEVELOPMENT THEORIES
THROUGH COLLABORATIVE LEARNING:
TECHNIQUES FOR THE INSTRUCTION OF EARLY
CHILDHOOD PRESERVICE TEACHERS

Bridget A. Walsh and Claudia Sanchez
Texas Womans University

ABSTRACT

This chapter presents seven collaborative learning techniques for exploring 10 child
development theories with early childhood preservice teachers. The chapter also reports
on a content analysis that investigated the frequency with which these theories appeared
referenced in a popular early childhood journal. The content analysis serves as a
framework for instructors to implement seven collaborative learning strategies in the
instruction of preservice teachers, namely, think-pair-share, open discussion, all-you-
know-about technique, visual conceptualizations, the auction game, traveling teams, and
extension activities for higher-order thinking.

INTRODUCTION

The early childhood education perspectives and traditions are value driven and are
continually evolving with new knowledge and practices (Spodek & Saracho, 2003). Without
explicit theoretical frameworks, professionals may encounter challenges in identifying and
articulating the traditions that serve as the basis for their educational practice. In the search
for quality practices, the different theoretical ideologies in the field of early childhood
education should be considered.
The terms theory and practice are intimately related, and as such, demand interaction.
Carlgren (1999) stated the following:

Bridget A. Walsh and Claudia Sanchez 82
Theory as well as practice are involved in research work as well as in teachers work, two
kinds of practices involving different kinds of theories. In both practices there is thinking
as well acting. Etymologically, theory and practice can be connected by seeing and
doing. Seeing and doing represent two different ways of knowing and result in
different kinds of knowing. The practice of research aims at developing ways of seeing
while other practices aim at other things (for example, developing good schooling and
learning environments). (p. 51)

It is essential that prospective early childhood educators have a solid understanding of
child development theories. For early childhood educators, it is professionally responsible to
have an understanding of child development theories that direct their practice. In addition, it
is the obligation of early childhood teacher training programs to fuel pre-serve teachers
knowledge of child development theories.
Theory is broadly defined as an explanation of how the facts fit together (Thomas,
2005, p. 3). Theory or theories of child development provide a framework about particular
views of children and their developmental process and growth. In Comparing Theories of
Child Development, Thomas (2005) spotlighted 10 developmental theories: Freuds
Psychoanalysis, Eriksons Psychosocial theory, Skinners Operant Conditioning, Banduras
Social-Cognition theory, Piagets Cognitive Development theory, Vygotskys theory,
Information Processing theories, Bronfenbrenners Bioecological theory, Kohlbergs Moral
Development theory, and Gilligans Compassionate Caring.
The present chapter outlines seven collaborative learning techniques to explore child
development theories with preservice teachers. Before presenting the techniques, we report on
a content analysis we conducted that provides a framework for discussion on child
development theories. The content analysis highlighted 10 popular theories germane to early
childhood education. In the next section, we describe the method used to conduct our content
analysis and the results of the analysis. An overview for each of the 10 target theories
considered in the current content analysis appears in Appendix A. After the content analysis,
we detail seven techniques to explore child development theory through collaborative
learning activities in child development and teacher training courses.

CONTENT ANALYSIS

A content analysis examines the occurrence of words and language (Lewins & Silver,
2006). Because journal articles tend to mirror the value and interests of authors, journal
editors, and the field at large, content analyses offer insight into the values that drive
scholarly activities during a certain period (Nilsson, Love, Taylor, & Slusher, 2007, p. 357).
Specifically, the current analysis aims to investigate the frequency and percentage of
occurrence of explicit employment of 10 child development theories, if any, in articles
published in the Early Childhood Education Journal (ECEJ), a popular journal in the field of
early childhood. At present, one other content analysis has been published scrutinizing
articles in this journal. Specifically, the frequency of early childhood education approaches
(e.g., Reggio Emilia) in the ECEJ was investigated (Walsh & Petty, 2007).

Examining Child Development Theories through Collaborative Learning 83
THEORY AND CONTENT ANALYSIS

A dearth of interplay between theory and research can have indelible effects on the
purpose and outcomes of research (Taylor & Bagd, 2005). As a result of this threat, Taylor
and Bagd (2005) investigated the explicit employment of theoretical perspectives in the
published literature by analyzing a prominent journal in the family field. Similar to content
analyses of other journals (e.g., Arredondo, Rosen, Rice, Perez, & Tovar-Gamero, 2005;
Walsh & Petty, 2007), Taylor and Bagd reviewed articles published in a 10-year period,
specifically 1990-1999.
In their analysis, Taylor and Bagd (2005) examined the explicit mention of 29
macrotheories representative of family or human development theories. Prior to their analysis,
they generated a list of 29 theories based on the extant literature. The 29 selected theories all
explicitly appeared in the searched articles. In addition, Taylor and Bagd coded theories
named after individuals and coded when no explicit mention of a theory was made in the
article. More than one third of empirical articles published in the focus family journal did not
include explicit mention of a theory anywhere in the article (Taylor & Bagd, 2005).

THE PRESENT CONTENT ANALYSIS

As previously mentioned, we investigated the frequency and percentage of occurrence of
explicit employment of 10 child development theories in the text of ECEJ articles. To
conduct this, articles published from 1999-2008 were analyzed. The current analysis is the
first of its kind analyzing articles published by the Early Childhood Education Journal.
Child development spans the first two decades of life, which includes the period of early
childhood. Thus, it seems reasonable to state that the fields of child development and early
childhood education are inextricably linked. As already established, Thomas (2005)
emphasized 10 child development theories in his text Comparing Theories of Child
Development. All of Taylor and Bagds (2005) selected theories explicitly appeared in their
analyzed articles. In light of the aforementioned information, we predicted that a journal that
underscores early childhood would include the explicit appearance of the 10 target child
development theories at least once and beyond that to varying degrees. We also expected with
the present analysis, similar to Taylor and Bagds (2005) analysis, that overall there would be
a lack of explicit theorizing.

METHOD

Data Source

The primary readership of ECEJ, the target journal for this analysis includes university
faculty and students, early childhood teachers, and related services professionals (Gargiulo,
Jalongo, & Motari, 2001). The content of ECEJ includes empirical research articles, including
qualitative articles, literature reviews, and practical articles (Gargiulo et al., 2001).
For the present analysis, several electronic resources were utilized. One university library
electronic database system was used to derive access to the full text of articles. Early
Childhood Education Journal (ECEJ) was accessed via SpringerLink. Articles published in
the ECEJ were opened through Adobes Portable Document Format (PDF) version 8.0.
Microsoft Excel was used to enter all data.
The researchers created a data sheet for the current review. The data sheet housed
information about explicit theoretical employment of child development theories.
Specifically, data tables were created to list and record the occurrences of the 10 target
theories. We constructed three additional categories, these were: no explicit target theory,
single explicit target theory, or multiple explicit target theories. In addition, the year, volume,
issues, and page numbers of each article were recorded.

Procedure

The ten child development theories searched for in the text and title of each article
included: Freuds Psychoanalysis, Eriksons Psychosocial theory, Skinners Operant
Conditioning, Banduras Social-Cognition theory, Piagets Cognitive Development theory,
Vygotskys theory, Information Processing theories, Bronfenbrenners Bioecological theory,
Kohlbergs Moral Development theory, and Gilligans Compassionate Caring. The sample
consisted of 537 ECEJ articles published from 1999 to 2008. The articles analyzed over this
10 year time span were published in Volumes 26- 36. Titles and the entirety of texts were
searched for explicit mention of the 10 target child development theories. The references of
each target text were not searched and guidelines for prospective contributors were excluded
in the analysis.
The search words: Freud, Erikson, Skinner, Bandura, Piaget, Vygotsky, Information
Processing, Bronfenbrenner, Kohlberg, and Gilligan all served to provide starting information
about the explicit acknowledgement of the 10 target child development theories. When an
article contained explicit mention of a target child development theory or theories a check
mark was given on the electronic data coding sheet for that article. Alternatively, if the search
revealed no appearance of a theory in an article, the first researcher entered a mark on the data
sheet for the category no explicit target theory mentioned.

RESULTS

In the searched articles (N = 537), 101 theories appeared in total. Vygotskys theory
appeared the most and Gilligans theory appeared the least. Piaget, Bronfenbrenner, and
Bandura also frequently occurred. See Figure 1.


Figure 1. Bar graph of the number of times each child development theory appeared in the ECEJ across
the target decade.
In total, 12.48% or 67 articles included the target child development theories. Forty-seven
articles utilized a single theory, while 20 articles utilized multiple theories. Regarding the
multiple theory usage, the range of articles included two to five theories. Alternatively, 470
articles did not include a theory or theories. See Table 1.

Table 1.Quantity of articles with the number of occurrences of theories

Number of Theories Number of Articles
Five theories 3
Four theories 1
Three theories 3
Two theories 13
One theory 47
No theory 470
Note. N = 573.

The year 2007 had the highest total frequency with 19 occurrences of theory. In light of
the combination of a recent three year span of 2008, 2007, and 2006 the total frequency
occurrence was 48, which is more than double that of the total frequency combination in
2001, 2000, and 1999. See Figure 2 for yearly comparisons.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
1
9
9
9
2
0
0
0
2
0
0
1
2
0
0
2
2
0
0
3
2
0
0
4
2
0
0
5
2
0
0
6
2
0
0
7
2
0
0
8
Year of Publication
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

o
f

T
o
t
a
l

N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

T
h
e
o
r
i
e
s

Figure 2. Bar graph of the frequency of total occurrences of targeted child development theories per
year.

EXPLORING EARLY CHILDHOOD DEVELOPMENT THEORIES
THROUGH COLLABORATIVE LEARNING

The recommendations for collaborative learning made in the remainder of this chapter are
intended to be implemented after early childhood preservice teachers have read the
introduction and featured content analysis. Specifically, prior to the collaborative learning
activities described below, instructors should assign students to read the introduction and the
current content analysis, providing them with a copy that excludes the results.
Reading an assignment passively produces poorer learning than reading with an activity
in mind (McKeachie & Svinicki, 2006). To promote students reading with an activity in
mind, use one or all of the following tasks: 1) provide students with a practical scenario with
children and ask students to apply two theories to the scenario; 2) to find one article, either
practical or research, that employs one (or multiple) child development theoretical approach
(or approaches); and 3) ask students to predict the results of the content analysis (what theory
or theories do they think appeared the most and the least in the content analysis?).

Collaborative Learning Techniques

To prepare for collaborative learning techniques, instructors should know about
collaborators skills and abilities, and determine if collaborators will be grouped in
heterogeneous groups representing different strengths or homogeneous groups. Also, prior to
reading the content analysis and participating in the collaborative learning activities, students
will need to have the skill of distinguishing between research versus practical articles and
primary versus secondary sources. In addition, they will need to have a basic understanding of
what theory means and some prior knowledge, introduction, or experience with the target
child development theories.

Think-Pair-Share
In class ask students to predict the results of the content analysis. After students have
formulated their predictions in small groups, share the results of the content analysis and ask
students how their predictions match up to the results. Encourage students to further process
the meaning of the results by facilitating think-pair-share. First, ask the students
(collaborators) to think about the actual results of the content analysis in comparison to their
predictions, why their predictions may have been accurate or inaccurate, and why the actual
results may have appeared this way. Then ask the students to write their thoughts for about 2
minutes, and then share their thoughts with a neighbor. After think-pair-share, students often
feel more at ease to participate in a general discussion (McKeachie & Svinicki, 2006).

Open Discussion
Questioning is the most common discussion opener method (McKeachie & Svinicki,
2006). The instructor may opt to organize the discussion around collaborators questions,
pose his or her own questions, or employ a combination of collaborators questions and
instructor questions. The following questions are examples of different types of questions that
may be posed by the instructor to the class:

What do the results of the content analysis mean?
Why is explicit employment of a theoretical lens or lenses important to research
articles? Why is this important to practical articles?
Why would researchers or practitioners employ multiple theories in their articles?
Why do you think Vygotskys theory and Piagets theory appeared the most in the
content analysis? Do these theories account for a better understanding of children
than other theories?

All-You-Know-About Technique
Another technique to promote collaborative learning may be initiated by displaying (e.g.,
on a Microsoft PowerPoint slide) a list of groups of about five collaborators formed by the
instructor. In the first authors child development courses, she displays a slide with names of
team members and then the collaborators find their group members, a location, and select a
team name that symbolizes a key person or unique concept in child development. An
alternative method to forming teams for collaborative learning groups is to have the students
create candidacy statements (Rotenberg, 2005). These are short, one paragraph statements in
which students respond to the prompt: If selected for your team, I would bring the following
strengths and qualities to our efforts (Rotenberg, 2005). We encourage the students to include
their experiences with research, practical experiences with children, team and leadership
skills, and technology skills. Team captains could be assigned by the instructor and meet as a
group and take turns selecting group members based on the candidacy statements (Rotenberg,
2005).
Once the groups are established, the instructor should assign each group a theory from
the content analysis and ask the groups to list as many words associated with a theory as
possible. For example, when assigned Banduras theory a group may generate the terms of
social learning, social cognitive, modeling, intrinsic reinforcement, Bobo doll, and self-
regulating. In more advanced classes, groups may then switch the list and add terms to lists
created by the group that started the list for that theory. For less experienced groups, students
may turn their list into a K-W-L Chart, a method developed by Ogle (1986). That is, groups
record what they Know about the theory (i.e., the list they created), what they Want to
know about the theory, and what they have Learned after perusing secondary or primary
sources available in the classroom during the activity.

Visual Conceptualizations
With the information they have garnered and the article (research or practical) from their
homework that demonstrates the application of theory or theories, collaborators will be
assigned to create something new with the acquired ideas and information. Collaborators will
have the problem of creating a visual conceptualization that demonstrates knowledge of a
theory and the application of it. The first author gave basic parameters of the assignment to
students in her child development course. First, when the group is ready to make the
conceptualization, the collaborators should use technology to assist them. For instance, the
first author found that groups in her child development course utilized Microsoft Word,
Microsoft PowerPoint, or Adobe InDesign to visually display their work. In addition, the
conceptualization must include less than 15 words (excluding their group name in small print
on the bottom of the conceptualization) and the visual should be able to stand alone for others
to make meaning of it. It is beneficial to request a progress report from each group prior to the
assignment due date (Rotenberg, 2005). When the presentation was due, each group was
allowed 10 minutes during class to present their finished product using the overhead projector
or computer set-up in the classroom. Each group provided the instructor with a hard copy of
their one-page conceptualization.
After collecting the hard copy of the conceptualization you can assess it with a rubric.
Often giving students a rubric prior to the collaborative learning project limits their
experimentation (Rotenberg, 2005). The instructor may also have each group evaluate another
groups work in hard copy (McKeachie & Svinicki, 2006). Explain to the evaluating groups
to write helpful comments as well as an evaluation (McKeachie & Svinicki, 2006). Each
group may also evaluate their own work. The instructor may then collect and evaluate all of
the conceptualizations and evaluations before returning them to the collaborators evaluated.
At the end of a collaborative activity, students should assess what remaining questions
they have about theory, the successes, and shortcomings of their group work. One
consideration is to decide ahead of time whether you want to attempt to evaluate individual
effort or assign the same grade to the group (Rotenberg, 2005). The instructor will want to be
clear about whether the product or the process is being assessed (McKeachie & Svinicki,
2006).

The Auction Game
The second author uses this technique to promote engaging competition among groups.
Before the game, the instructor needs to prepare a list of statements related to the 10 theories
the students explored in the content analysis. A number of the statements need to be false, and
the rest of the statements need to be true. For instance, a true statement could be: Eriksons
psychological crisis of the preschool years is initiative versus guilt. An example of a false
statement could be: According to Piagets theory of cognitive development, the 3-year-old
who explains that the sun is angry at the clouds and has chased them away has demonstrated
conservation. The statements are to be shown one at a time on a PowerPoint file or on poster
paper. To play this game, tell the class each group will have $2000 to spend at an auction of
statements. Warn the students that statements can be fake or genuine, as is the case with
many items in typical auctions. What the groups should aim to do is get the higher number of
genuine items or statements they can and keep the largest amount of money by the time all
statements are auctioned. Direct the auction. One by one, present the statements, give groups
a few seconds to determine the quality of the items and decide on their bids. Auction all
your statements and have a volunteer help you keep track of the money groups are spending
and the fake or genuine nature of their goods on the blackboard. If a group gets a fake item,
have another group explain why the item in question is fake and then move to the next item.
For instance, in the above false statement example, the group could explain that the child
demonstrated animism not conservation. The winning group or groups are those who have the
highest number of genuine items and the largest amount of money left. Reward the winning
groups.

Traveling Teams
Traveling teams is another strategy the second author uses often in her classes. To
implement this technique, form small groups of three or four members. Then figure out the
number of groups you will have and add 4. For example, for a class of 21 students, we would
have seven groups of three students. We add 7 + 4 = 11. Eleven is the number of brief tasks
(10-15 minute tasks) the instructor describes in separate sheets of paper (one per student).
Some examples of tasks associated with the 10 theories explored in the content analysis may
include: (a) match the theorist with theory (e.g., Bronfenbrenner to Bioecological Systems
Theory) and complete brief quiz-type questions, (b) examine real-world pictures (e.g., child
crying as parent leaves to go to work) and ask students to apply a theory to help explain what
is unfolding in the pictures, and (c) ask students to recall playing the hot and cold game as
children to find an object and ask them to explain instances of shaping in this game, such as
positive reinforcement, extinction, and punishment. The instructor prepares 11 envelopes
(with needed materials for the tasks) with 21 copies outlining the steps for each of the 11
tasks, identifies 11 stations across the room for groups to work together, assigns each of the 7
groups to a station, asks students to start traveling across the room as a group once they are
finished with their first task, and asks the group to finish all 11 tasks. Seven stations will be
used at any given time, and the four extra stations allow teams to not overlap in a given
station. As groups travel, upbeat background music can be played to stimulate movement.

Extension Activities for Higher Order Thinking
Some extension activities from the content analysis and collaborative activities that
promote the use of higher order thinking skills may include (a) assigning groups to write a
Discussion section to the featured content analysis, (b) encouraging the evaluation of the
theory selection for the current content analysis and decide what theories should be added or
removed in a future content analysis, (c) asking groups to determine what they would do
differently or keep the same regarding the current content analysis in order to get a useful
view of theoretical approaches employed in the literature.

Suggested General Materials for Recommended Collaborative Activities

Copy of the content analysis without the results for each student to read prior to class
Power point slide or other visual of teacher assigned groups with 3 to 5 students in
each group
Space for students to work in groups
A classroom that has technological accessibility for presentation purposes
Poster board or large paper
Primary and secondary sources that include pertinent theory information
Rubrics for the assessment of group projects

CONCLUSION

Knowledge is socially constructed (Berger & Luckmann, 1966), and as a result, learning
becomes a social phenomenon that does not take place in isolation, but through human
interaction. This chapter presented seven ideas for examining early childhood development
theories through collaborative learning. By sharing the content analysis featured in this
chapter, instructors provide pre-service teachers with a framework for the implementation of
think-pair-share, open discussion, all-you-know-about technique, visual conceptualizations,
the auction game, traveling teams, and extension activities for higher-order thinking. These
techniques have a two-fold purpose: to encourage learning through teamwork and to engage
students in meaningful tasks that combine diverse intelligences and learning styles.
Cooperative learning is a critical strategy that increases concept understanding and
promotes thinking skills. The experiences future teachers will share with their students will
undoubtedly mirror those in which they participated as learners in their teacher preparation
classrooms. Therefore, teacher educators should bear in mind that pre-service teachers will
implement cooperative learning in their future teaching situations to the extent that they
engage in effective collaborative strategies.

REFERENCES

Arredondo, P., Rosen, D. C., Rice, T., Perez, P., & Tovar-Gamero, Z. G. (2005).
Multicultural counseling: A 10-Year Content Analysis of the Journal of Counseling &
Development. Journal of Counseling & Development, 83, 155-161.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 2, 75-78
Berger, P. L. & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the
sociology of knowledge. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and
design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Carlgren, I. (1999). Professionalism and teachers as designers. Journal of Curriculum Studies,
31, 43-56.
Erikson, E. H. (1963). Childhood and society. New York: Norton & Company.
Freud, S. (1950). The ego and the id. London: Hogarth Press.
Freud, S. (1964). An outline of psycho-analysis. In J. Strachey (Ed. & Trans.), The standard
edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud (Vol. 23). London:
Hogarth Press.
Gargiulo, R., Jalongo, M. R., & Motari, J. (2001). Writing for publication in Early Childhood
Education: Survey data from editors and advice to authors. Early Childhood Education
Journal, 29, 17-23.
Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Kohlberg, L. (1969). Stage and sequence: The cognitive-developmental approach to
socialization. In D. A. Goslin (Ed.), The handbook of socialization theory and research
(pp. 374-480). Chicago: Rand McNally.
Lewins, A., & Silver, C. (2006). Choosing a CAQDAS package (5
th
ed.). Retrieved
November 15, 2008 from http://caqdas.soc.surrey.ac.uk/ChoosingLewins&SilverV
5July06.pdf
McKeachie, W.J., & Svinicki, M. (2006). McKeachies Teaching Tips: Strategies, research,
and theory for college and university teachers (12
th
ed.). New York: Houghton Mifflin.
Nilsson, J. E., Love, K. M., Taylor, K. J., & Slusher, A. L. (2007). A content and sample
analysis of quantitative articles published in the Journal of Counseling & Development
between 1991 and 2000. Journal of Counseling & Development, 85, 357-363.
Ogle, D. (1986). K-W-L: A teaching model that develops active reading of expository text.
The Reading Teacher, 39, 564-570.
Piaget, J. (1969). The childs conception of physical causality. Totowa, NJ: Littlefield,
Adams.
Piaget, J. (1972). The psychology of intelligence. Totowa, NJ: Littlefield, Adams.
Rotenberg, R. (2005). The art & craft of college teaching: A guide for new professors &
graduate students. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
Skinner, B. F. (1974). About behaviorism. New York: Knopf.
Spodek, B., & Saracho, O. N. (2003). On the shoulders of giants: Exploring the traditions
of early childhood education. Early Childhood Education Journal, 31(1), 3-10.
Taylor, A. C., & Bagd, A. (2005). The lack of explicit theory in family research: The case
analysis of the Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1990-1999. In V. L. Bengston, A. C.
Acock, K. R. Allen, P. Dilworth-Anderson, & D. M. Klein (Eds.), Sourcebook of family
theory & research (pp. 22-25). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Thomas, R. M. (2005). Comparing theories of child development (6
th
ed.). Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. In M. Cole, V. John-
Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman (Eds.), Mind in society: The development of higher
psychological processes (pp.79-91). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Walsh, B. A., & Petty, K. (2007). Frequency of six early childhood education approaches: A
10-year content analysis of Early Childhood Education Journal. Early Childhood
Education Journal, 34, 301-305.
Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal
of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89-100.

APPENDIX A

Theories in Early Childhood Education

Sigmund Freud and Psychoanalysis
Sigmund Freud (1856-1939), an Austrian physician, neurologist, and psychiatrist, was the
founder of psychoanalysis. Freud believed that there are two divisions of mental life, either
conscious or unconscious (Freud, 1950, 1964). Freud also suggested that preconscious
thought may exist. Freud posited that the mind includes three basic structures: the id, the ego,
and the superego (Freud, 1950). The id is largely unconscious and operates in terms of the
pleasure principle. On the other hand, the ego is mostly conscious and is governed by the
reality principle. The final structure, the superego, is mostly unconscious and is overseen by
the idealistic principle. Freuds stages of psychosexual development include: (a) oral
(approximately birth to 2), (b) anal (approximately ages 2-4), (c) phallic (approximately 4 to
middle childhood), (d) latency (approximately middle childhood to puberty), and (e) genital
stages (approximately adolescence through adulthood).

Erik Erikson and Psychosocial Theory
Erik Homburger Erikson (1902-1994) was a Danish-German-American of the neo-
Freudian ilk. Ego qualities emerge from periods of development, known as the eight stages of
man (Erikson, 1963). His eight stages include: (a) trust versus mistrust (approximately ages 0-
1), (b) autonomy versus shame and doubt (approximately ages 2-3), (c) initiative versus guilt
(approximately ages 3-6), (d) industry versus inferiority (approximately ages 7-12), (e)
identity versus role confusion (approximately ages 12-18), (f) intimacy versus isolation
(approximately 20s), (g) generativity versus stagnation (approximately late 20s-50s), and (h)
ego integrity versus despair (approximately 50 and beyond).

B. F. Skinner and Operant Conditioning
Burrhus Frederic Skinner (1904-1990), an American psychologist, was most interested in
environmental contingencies and behavior. In the Skinnerian view, inner states existed, but
could not be empirically studied. As a result, Skinner believed that the experimental analysis
of behavior should be studied in terms of emitted behavior as a function of environmental
contingencies (Skinner, 1974). Skinner primarily studied animals that underwent conditioning
experiments often known as Skinner boxes. Nevertheless, he argued that principles, such as
reinforcement and punishment, utilized with rats and pigeons could be applied to shape
human behavior.

Albert Bandura and Social Cognitive Theory
Albert Bandura (b. 1925) a Canadian psychologist asserted that children learn many
pleasing and unpleasing responses from the world around them (Bandura, 1977). In this
learning process, Bandura emphasized the importance of the mother-child relationship, the
imitation of models, and cognitive processes. Social Cognitive Theory distinguishes among
three different forms of human agency (Bandura, 2000). These are: personal, proxy, and
collective (Bandura, 2000). For the most part, theorizing and research has focused on personal
agency (Bandura, 2000). That is, people believe that they can spawn desired effects and
forestall undesired ones via their actions, otherwise there is no incentive to act (Bandura,
2000). Also, central to Banduras work is the concept of modeling which is often used
synonymously with imitation or observational learning.

J ean Piaget and Cognitive Development Theory
Jean Piaget (1896-1980) was a Swiss psychologist as well as a natural scientist and
genetic epistemologist. Piaget (1969, 1972) posited that children actively construct
knowledge from the world around them and that cognitive development involves four discrete
stages. These stages are: the sensorimotor (approximately birth to age 2), the preoperational
(roughly 2 to 7 years), the concrete-operational (approximately ages 7 to 12 years), and the
formal-operational (approximately 11 or 12 years onward). Some never reach the formal-
operational stage (Piaget, 1972). Each of the aforementioned stages includes unique
hallmarks. For instance, in the preoperational stage the child begins symbolic thought in that
she can think about an object that is not physically present.

Lev Vygotsky and Sociocultural Theory
Lev Semenovich Vygotsky, a Russian psychologist, posited the sociocultural perspective
and made major contributions to developmental and educational psychology. This theory
maintains that learning is the product of socially meaningful activity of the child within the
environment (Vygotsky, 1978). Social interaction is important in the learning of complex
skills (Vygotsky, 1978). Along this line, Wood, Bruner, and Ross (1976) employed the term
scaffolding to describe how adults support childrens learning. Scaffolding occurs in the zone
of proximal development, a tenet of Vygotskys sociocultural theory. The zone of proximal
development is where an embryonic state of a childs competence may reach maturation with
guidance and social mediation of a more advanced other (Vygotsky, 1962).

Information-Processing Theories

Information-processing theorists evaluate how people perform mental operations. Several
theorists include George Miller, Friedrich Hayek, Abraham Moles, Frieder Nake, Robert Kail,
Mark Ashcraft, Robert Siegler, Richard Atkinson, Richard Shiffrin, Fergus Craik, Robert
Lockhart, Thomas Bidell, and Kurt Fischer. The main analogy behind information processing
is that the mind and brain are likened to a computer. Information-processing theorists
consider the variety of mental processes that persons use to manipulate information.

Urie Bronfenbrenner and Bioecological Systems Theory
Urie Bronfenbrenner (1917-2005) was a Russian-born American developmental
psychologist. Bronfenbrenners (1979) bioecological systems theory describes complex
interacting influences that affect development of the individual. The individual is the center
and is shaped and is a shaper of five contextual systems. These include: (a) the microsystem
(e.g., home, school, and neighborhood), (b) the mesosystem is the interaction of two or more
microsystems (e.g., parent-teacher conferences), (c) the exosystem (e.g., parents workplace,
transportation system, school board), (d) the macrosystem (e.g., cultural patterns), and (e) the
timing of events within the individual and those that affect the individual or the chronosystem
(e.g., puberty, recession).

Lawrence Kohlberg and Moral Development Theory
Lawrence Kohlberg (1927-1987) was an American psychologist. Moral development in
Kohlbergs theory is somewhat reminiscent of Piagets theory of moral judgment. Kohlberg
(1969) asserted three levels, comprised of two stages each, of moral reasoning throughout the
lifespan. Level 1 is preconventional morality (approximately ages 4 to 10), where people act
out of external controls. Level 2 is conventional morality (approximately obtained after age
10), in which notions of good boy/good girl and other concerns about pleasing others are
worked out to maintain social order. Level 3 is postconventional morality (approximately
adolescence and adulthood), in which people use the ideas of right and justice to make their
own judgments, while being cognizant of moral standards.

Carol Gilligan and Compassionate Caring Theory
Carol Gilligan (b. 1936) is an American feminist, ethicist, and psychologist. Gilligans
(1982) Compassionate-Caring theory is based on the idea that males and females use
essentially different approaches to morality. Female morality encompasses a responsibility
orientation (Gilligan, 1982). The three stages of female moral development are: (a) Selfish
with doing what is right for individual survival (approximately in early childhood), (b) Social
with doing what is right for others (approximately in middle childhood/adolescence), and (c)
Principled with doing what is right for self and others and based on truth (approximately in
adulthood).


Chapter 4

FACILITATING A BLENDED LEARNING APPROACH
TO ENCOURAGE COLLABORATIVE WORKING
ON UNDERGRADUATE MODULES

Alan Hogarth
*

Strategy, Innovation and Enterprise, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, Scotland, UK

INTRODUCTION

The main aim of this chapter is to gain a deeper understanding of the attitudes of
undergraduate university students to group work and group based technology and how this
adds to the concept of blended learning. To advance this aim organisational culture and group
work, group based technology in the work place, students and group work and blended
learning were all considered important issues for this research. To begin with group work and
group technology were considered in an industry setting as this was seen as an important pre-
requisite to the study of student group work. Initially the relevant literature was reviewed.
Following this an industry survey of Human Resource Managers was carried out in order to
enhance the findings in the literature review. Another element of this research comprised of a
case study and involved groups of undergraduate students involved in group work. The
industry survey was in the form of a two-part questionnaire; Traditional Group Work and
Group Based Technology. The main findings are that although industry has facilitated group
working for a number of years it is still not confident with group technology. The case study
involved investigating two classes of students on two modules involved with a group
coursework assessment. Questionnaires and interviews were used for the empirical data. The
main findings were that there were problems with both traditional group work assessment and
group work assessment undertaken with technology. Students were uncomfortable with some
aspects of group work e.g. dynamics, conflict, communication, team building issues. They
were also unsure of the need or purpose of group based technology. A major finding was that

*
Corresponding Author: Tel: +44 141 331 3968, Fax: 44 141 331 3193, Email: A.Hogarth@gcal.ac.uk
Alan Hogarth 96
the students did not receive any guidance or training in how to work in groups or use group
based technology. With a view to rectifying this situation a number of models were
commended that could benefit students undertaking group work in the university
environment. The first is the Conceptual Framework for Student Group Work Guidance and
Training shows the main areas to be addressed by universities wishing to aid students with
group work. This should include a policy on group work as part of the teaching and learning
strategy and this should contain issues identified in the research as important i.e. educational,
employment, government and technology. Secondly a Traditional Group Work Skills
Integrative Training Paradigm was proposed that highlights the traditional group work
training needs of students under three main issues; Culture Change, Social and Educational.
These sections have further detailed sub-headings. The third model, Group Based Technology
Skills Integrative Training Paradigm, highlights the training needs for students in group
based technology. Three main issues are also included in this model; Culture Change, Social
and Educational Technology. It is also recommended that a further study be carried out where
the above training models may be applied in a real life setting. To this end further research
was undertaken on the possibility of a new and innovative blended learning approach
incorporating the findings of the above research. Due to the wider, more diverse student
population there is an obvious need for greater flexibility in curriculum design and course
delivery, accompanied by innovations in teaching and learning. A more flexible style of
teaching and greater independent learning by students is now required to cope with these
changes. The answer would appear to be to encourage independent learning by facilitating a
blended learning approach. This chapter also discusses a blended learning approach,
developed by the authors, to teaching undergraduate modules that encourage students to
undertake independent learning in a practical and non-threatening manner. This approach is
based on the utilisation of aspects of traditional teaching, VLEs and Web 2.0 technologies.
The model discussed in this section is the culmination of the project funded by the Re-
Engineering Assessment Project (REAP).
The benefits of this research of student group working are reflected in its relevance to an
important area in both business and educational environments. Its findings offer an
understanding of the research area and have helped develop a series of models that others can
use to assist their students understand and use group work and group based technology.

DRIVERS FOR GROUP WORKING
AND COLLABORATIVE TECHNOLOGY

The working environment of many business organisations has changed significantly over
the last ten years. To be successful in a rapidly changing environment companies have to
undergo continual transformation by creating cultural and technological structures that both
facilitate this transformation and support corporate collaboration [10]. Currently one of the
most popular organisation innovations is the transformation of traditional hierarchical
organization to a flat structure of self-managing, participative teams or work groups [7].
However, without due care in managing such organisational change this can lead to social and
cultural upheaval in organisations. In addition new collaborative technologies such as
groupware have been introduced into organisations. This is proving problematical as
Facilitating a Blended Learning Approach to Encourage Collaborative Working 97
organisations are often still trying to adapt to group working practices. Furthermore, many
organisations soon discover that attempts to solve a problem with a technology-based solution
alone, is rarely successful. The real problem often lies in the culture of the organisation and
the way people work, rather than in the technology itself. As such, an organisations culture
may be a major barrier to the changes caused by introducing group working and collaborative
technology. However, although the introduction of groupware technology can trigger
organisational change, it can also, once implemented, be used as an agent of organisational
change. This section will argue that consideration of an organisations culture is a critical
driver for effective implementation of both group working practices and collaborative
technology. Further, if implemented sympathetically not only can these new ways of working
be of benefit for collaboration and the distribution of knowledge in organisations, it can also
be used to enhance organisational learning. To this end a review of the literature has been
undertaken and a survey of Human Resource managers from various organisations in
Scotland has been conducted.

Group Work and Groupware

The drive for group work is rooted in how companies organise their work force. The shift
towards group work is fuelled by the increasing demands placed on organisations to change in
order to meet global challenges. Globalisation, social diversity, information and knowledge
explosion and technology are major forces revolutionising organisations around the world.
Barker [7] states that, A significant shift is taking place in organisations throughout the
world This shift involves increasing the emphasis on the group or team.
Even without these forces, others have found simply harnessing the potential power of
the group can have a dramatic effect on productivity and job satisfaction. Yet research by
some author [30] finds that few organisations and few individuals in them are particularly
ready for group working let alone express satisfaction with the way groups are being
implemented. The study of organisational culture is also important for research into group
work. This is because when group work is introduced it is generally as a new mode of
working and as such it will affect the organisational culture. As such changing the
organisational culture to one of group working has to be done with a degree of caution.
Christiansen [19], when considering culture change, states, What is important for long-term
organisational success may not be a particular type of organisational culture per se, but the
ability to effectively manage and change the culture over time to adjust to changes in the
situation and needs of the organisation. Kets De Vries [53] offers another view in that,
research has identified effective group work as one of the fundamental elements of high-
performing business. Businesses that continue to perform successfully rely on group work as
an essential basis for everyday operations. However, these authors tend to view the people
element in the drive for group work, in a lesser light than the strategic view. For others the
rationale for group work is simpler than that. Aspects such as better communication and
employee morale are seen as important. For example, Hayes [33] states that, Productivity,
quality improvements, client focus, flat management structure, efficient and effective
communication, and increased employee morale are the selling points of team-oriented
Alan Hogarth 98
businesses. Vaughan [70] takes a similar stance when he says, Successful teamwork tends to
create loyalty, close friendships, and cohesiveness.
Another important driver is the requirement from industry for employees with group or
team work skills. As group working increases in popularity firms have begun to concentrate
on finding people with or who are developing team skills. Tarricone and Luca [68] say that,
Employers consistently mention collaboration and teamwork as being a critical skill,
essential in all working environments. These authors views are borne out by a number of
industry surveys. For example an employer survey by Skillset [67] identified particular gaps
in generic competencies, General ICT literacy; personal and communication skills and
teamwork and people skills. Furthermore, one of the results of the Future Skills Scotland
[28] identified team working skills in short supply. It states, A number of softer core skills
were mentioned by around half of work places with skill shortages. These were team working
skills -48%. Also the introduction of technology has brought significant repercussions for the
way group work in organisations is perceived and for the way that group work is carried out
in organisations. Tung et al [69] argue that, Like the business environment they are in, work
groups are changing constantly, to. Groupware being the supporting technology for groups
at work needs to be able to assist groups in meeting the challenges posed by the dynamic
business environment. However, Alexander [3] recognises social issues when he states that,
While the proliferation of teamware and virtual conferencing tools has drawn attention to
the technological aspects of collaboration the social factors cannot be ignored. So there are
significant drivers for groupware. However, introducing collaborative technology without the
proper rationale and cultural shift is also dangerous. Rifkin [61] offers a note of caution when
he says, Companies that drop collaborative technology into cultures unaccustomed to
sharing are in for serious disappointment if they fail to address organisational demands up
frontUltimately, the success of groupware projects depends on people not technologyIts
incredible how few companies seem to understand this. Despite this cautionary note it
appears, from both literature point of view and from the industry sector, the drive for group
work and groupware appears to be strong.

Groupware and Organisational Change

Essentially groupware technology has been designed to provide the shared space
employees require to exercise such values as collaboration, knowledge sharing and teamwork.
As such the assumption is that investment in such technology will successfully change
organisational communication processes. However many organisations soon discover that
attempts to solve a problem with a technology-based solution alone, is rarely successful. The
real problem often lies in the culture of the organisation and the way people work, rather than
in the technology itself. When an organisation decides to introduce technology such as
groupware then organisational change is an inevitable result [2]. Therefore an organisations
culture may be a major barrier to organisational changes such as the introduction of group
working practices and groupware technology [45], [46]. However, it is how an organisation
deals with such change that is important. If it has never been part of an organisations culture
to encourage group working then it may be difficult to introduce groupware at least until the
working practices have been adapted accordingly. Implementing groupware can be so
difficult that some organisations have simply opted to postpone implementing it until they've
reengineered their processes, reorganised into teams, and solved their organisational issues,
[54]. Without considering these changes to the organisational culture, people find little use for
groupware technology that reflects new and different cultural assumptions. Therefore, as
organisations start to implement groupware, they start seeing people resist, and even
sabotage, the groupware project. Another reason why people resist groupware projects is
when companies try to use them after downsizing to replace people and to improve
productivity. Employees will believe that groupware is just another ploy by the organisation
to not only get more out of them, but to even siphon off their knowledge before the next wave
of downsizings. It's crucial for employees to know that the organization is implementing
groupware to help and support them. Despite this the emphasis on technological aspects when
introducing groupware has remained paramount, with cultural aspects still being a secondary
consideration. Therefore it is important to change work practices and systems designs
together, rather than adapt work practices to Information and Communication Technologies
(ICTs) that were imposed in organisations [27],[41]. Many organisations still develop systems
in ways that lead to a large percentage of implementation failure and few organisations design
systems that effectively facilitate peoples work. Nonetheless research is showing that those
organisations which introduce ICT systems while considering the cultural impact are more
productive than those who do not. It is therefore essential to address all these people issues,
and more, before the technological aspects are even considered. One way of resolving these
issues is through learning and education. One such study undertaken by this author [41] on
educational groupware usage has indicated similar findings. Several groups of undergraduate
students, using Blackboard Groups for a group coursework assessment, were asked to
complete a questionnaire on their attitude to using such educational groupware. The findings
in general indicated that, although they were not averse to such technology, they felt that it
was unnecessary for on-campus students, it should not be used by students unfamiliar with
traditional group working and that training or guidance was essential.

Encouraging Organisational Learning with Groupware

The previous section touched on the issues that lead to resistance to groupware. This
section will consider how groupware can not only improve collaboration but also organisational
learning in the business environment. For years, an autocratic style of management has been
predominant. Today, managers must empower their employees and let them make their own
decisions. Companies have finally started to realise that knowledgeable employees are good for
business. Managers are letting employees make decisions, expecting them to work together and
to accomplish more than individuals. If introduced with due care groupware technology
promises to foster new collaborative links and eliminate many of the barriers that have hindered
productive communication in the past. Indeed, technology experts are beginning to discern
groupware's enormous potential to encourage organisational learning. Until recently
institutional education has been the main area where computers have been used for supporting
learning while less attention has been paid to learning support in the working environment.
However, an early researcher, Zuboff, [73] states, Learning is no longer a separate activity that
occurs either before one enters the work place or in remote classroom settingsLearning is not
something that requires time out from being engaged in productive activity; learning is the
heart of productive activity. Guthrie [31] takes this further when he identifies that, Individual
Alan Hogarth 100
behaviour is recursively related to organisational culture, organisational culture shapes
behaviour and behaviour influences and reinforces the culture itself. In building a leaning
organisation, staff behaviours and the organisational culture must be embedded with the
principle of the learning organisation. He summarises this in his Organisational Learning
Model, shown in Figure 1. He further argues that groupware would be a suitable tool for
constructing a learning organisation. Since learning has become an inseparable part of working,
it should be supported in the workplace. The growing use of groupware is a potential resource to
support learning at work. Group working practices have increased dramatically and more and
more work is now being carried out co-operatively. As such learning in the work place should
also be a co-operative task. While groupware obviously offers companies a great many
technical capabilities, it is the possibility of transforming organisational behaviour through
learning, something groupware can facilitate, that deserves the most attention. Coleman [9]
argues that, A lot of people focus on the software side or, at least, initially they did. What they
are finding is that it's the group issues--the people issues--that are more critical and more
difficult. The focus is turning toward how to deal with these organisational and social issues.
What is most striking about the technology is not its ability to disseminate existing information,
but rather, its potential to facilitate the creation of new knowledge in a collaborative context and
help companies better manage their intellectual assets. Such capabilities, say close observers,
are the keys to highly effective organisational learning. Scharge, [65] argued that, One of the
most important things that these kinds of technologies and infrastructures are doing is that they
are making people aware of the difference between the transmission of information--the sharing
of expertise--and behavioural change. Scharge then believes companies still tend to treat
learning primarily as a static transfer of information from experts to non-experts rather than a
dynamic, collaborative effort to add new value and create new knowledge. The previous
sections have discussed the effect of groupware on organisations and how, if used innovatively,
groupware can act as an agent of change and be used to instigate organisational learning in the
business environment, and comment has been made on authors views in these areas.

Organisational Goals and Objectives
CEOs Vision

Departmental Goals Tools and Programs for
Organisational
Learning
Managers Vision for
Obtaining Objectives

Staff Organisational
Behaviour Culture
On-the-ground results

Figure 1. Organisational Learning Model (Source: Guthrie, 1996)
Human Resource Managers Case Study

The argument posed by this paper is that organisational structure and culture and learning
are critical to effective implementation of groupware. Group or team working practices must
also be present prior to groupware implementation. Although the introduction of groupware
technology may trigger organisational change, once implemented it could be used as an agent
of change by utilising it as an organisational learning tool. To this end an industry survey has
been carried out with Human Resource Managers from various organisations in Scotland
from both the private and public sector. 50 questionnaires were sent to these organisations via
the postal service. 20 Human Resource managers responded. 20 completed the first part of the
questionnaire and 18 completed the second part. The survey questionnaire was designed to
elicit information on firstly; traditional group working practices. The second part of the
questionnaire is designed to discover to what extent ICT/ Groupware has been introduced to
these organisations and what effect it has had on their working cultures. The Traditional
Team Working questionnaire included ten questions. Eight of these questions are of a Yes,
No or Unsure nature and the other two offered a series of five options. The respondent is
asked to circle their preferred answer. The second part of the questionnaire included nine
questions. Eight of these questions are of a Yes, No or Unsure nature and the other one
offered a series of 7 (ICT/groupware) options. The respondent is asked to circle their
preferred answer. This survey is part of an on-going PhD thesis undertaken by the author.
The main argument is that cultural developments are just as important when
implementing groupware. Furthermore, group or team working practices and experience must
also be present prior to groupware implementation. In addition, employees should be
educated in both group working practices and groupware technology. Although the
introduction of groupware technology may trigger changes in the learning process
technologically due attention must be paid to the social and cultural aspects also. This Human
Resource Managers survey investigates these aspects in a real world setting. A summary
analysis of the results in Tables 1 and 2 indicates the response rate to the questions from the
20 organisations who returned the questionnaires.

Traditional Team Working Practices

There appears to be widespread use of group/team working practices (all organisations
surveyed), however there is some debate as to how effective these practices are. The majority
does find it essential and successful, but only six adhere to some form of group work
framework. Less than 65% of organisations felt there was no resistance when team working
was introduced and few organisations used any specific team working guidelines. It was
interesting to note that the majority of organisations had introduced team working over the
last 10-15 years as indicated and this is borne out by the trends indicated in the literature.
However, only seven of the respondents think their employees see it as essential while the
majority thinks their employees see it as worthwhile or only useful. Another important
finding was that the vast majority of organisations, 18, indicated that they expected graduates
to have been trained in team working prior to working for them although eight respondents
did indicate that they offered some form of in-house training. Yet surprisingly for HR
managers two were unsure about this.
Alan Hogarth 102
Table 1. Summary Findings of Traditional Team Working Practices.

Traditional Team Working Practices Responses

Question 1-5 Yes No Unsure
Use team working? 20 - -
Team work essential? 17 3 -
Team work successful? 19 - 1
Team framework? 6 10 4
Meet resistance? 3 13 4
Questions 7 15y 10y 5y < 5 Unsure
Implemented? 4 4 4 1 7
Question 8
Impressions?
Essential Worthwhile Useful Unnecessary Unsure
7 7 5 - 1
Questions 9 & 10 Yes No Unsure
Graduates trained? 18 2 -
In-house training ? 8 10 2

Table 2. Summary Findings of Team Working Technology Practices.

Team Working Technology Responses

Question 1
ICT for team work?
e-mail chat rooms video-conf.
17 1 5
Internet Intranet none Unsure
8 14 1 1
Question 3 9 Yes No Unsure
Use ICT/Groupware? 6 5 7
Any restructuring ? - 10 8
Integral ? 6 8 4
Successful? 7 2 9
Resistance? 3 4 11
Graduates experience?12 2 4
In-house training? 7 4 7

Team Working Technology (ICT/Groupware) Practices

In general the respondents seem confused as to what ICT/Groupware is. Seven
organisations were unsure as to whether it was used, contradicting some Question 1
responses. Question 1 asked specifically what technology was used, a few respondents used
more than one on the list, but mainly e-mail was used with intranets being next most popular.
Surprisingly only 8 used the Internet for team working activities. 50% of organisations that
use some form of this technology seem confused as to whether its introduction did cause
some form of change to organisational routines and activities. More than 50% felt that
ICT/Groupware was not integral to team working (then why use it?). Further only seven
respondents felt that it had been successful. Only 25% felt there had been no resistance to
introducing ICT/Groupware. Almost 75% of the respondents felt that graduates should be
trained in ICT/Groupware prior to working for them. Four respondents were unsure about this
policy which again is surprising in that HR managers may be expected to be involved in such
practices. Only six respondents offered any in-house training. Seven respondents were unsure
and again training courses would have been expected to be within the remit of HR managers.
This does not augur well for using groupware technology for organisational learning.
These results should be of interest to businesses who are considering either introducing
group working, or if they already have a group work culture, introducing groupware
technology. Both the discussion in the literature review and the survey results have shown
that group working and consequently group based technology are on the increase. However,
when implementing these new ways of working not only technological issues but also cultural
ones must be considered prior to following such a course of action. To ignore these cultural
aspects can lead to the failure of employees or stakeholders to embrace group work and
groupware technology as part of their working practices. This in turn may affect the
organisations overall performance. Furthermore the issue of adapting groupware to enhance
organisational learning was highlighted. Implementing group work and groupware technology
may cause a culture change in an organisation. As such, managing change is an important part
of any groupware project. Before implementation, the concerns of those who will take part in
the project must be addressed. Failure to do so may cause the implementation to fail.
Employees must be allowed to participate in the implementation of this technology and
hopefully will then see its worth. Once groupware is in place this can help industry educate
their employees when change to the workplace culture is necessary or inevitable. Given that
organisations appear to want students who have been previously trained in group technology
the next section consider group working and technology in the higher education environment
with a view to establishing student interest in such technology.

The Social and Cultural Effects of Using Groupware for Collaborative
eLearning

Currently one of the most popular organization innovations is the transformation of
traditional hierarchical organization to a flat structure of self-managing, participative teams or
work groups [7]. While the number of businesses that have adopted group working techniques
reflects the depth of this penetration into the business world, even more important is the need
for teamwork to be encouraged at university level in an attempt to prepare students for a
Alan Hogarth 104
business environment that emphasises teamwork skills. However, despite this, research
suggests that there is little formal recognition and value attached to the acquisition and
development of collaborative skills in higher education institutions [44], [42]. Employers
want graduates who can communicate and collaborate, and they expect universities and
colleges to provide training in these skills. Kuiper [55] suggests that teaching total quality
management (of which teamwork is an essential component) exposes students to practices
they are likely to experience when they enter the work force and that the praxis of teamwork
concepts in the classroom can empower students to take a more active role in the
teaching/learning process. Other authors recommend the use of electronic mail to facilitate
teamwork in classrooms: Email can help make group projects more practical and effective
by allowing individuals to interact continuously independently with one another [4].
Whereas, Ciborra [20] suggests that the use of groupware, of which electronic mail is one
component, enables teachers to help their students adapt to a workgroup environment. He
further suggests that, in order to prepare students for participation in the business world,
tutors should facilitate frequent collaboration among persons in a work group, and should
promote techniques and procedures requisite to being effective team members and leaders.
Teamwork must be taken seriously as it can alter the culture and social structure of some
university classrooms affecting the very ways in which knowledge is conveyed. Furthermore,
new technology is becoming central rather than peripheral to higher education, as new e-
learning materials are developed and further change is inevitable. Indeed, the Dearing Report
[24] into higher education in the UK emphasises the need for 'communication and
information technology' to be the new framework upon which the 'learning society will be
built. This section will consider not only the technological, but also the social and cultural
changes that collaborative technologies may bring about in the university environment. To
progress this investigation a case study was carried out with a group of 3
rd
year undergraduate
campus based students at Glasgow Caledonian University to elicit their views on group
technology for learning. To this end the Blackboard VLE Groups facility was used.

Engendering Collaborative Working Skills in the Educational Environment

The terms collaborative learning and cooperative learning are important for this research.
However, defining the differences could prove difficult, but an attempt should be made in
order to clarify aspects of this paper in regard to group working in the educational
environment. Panitz [60] states that, Collaboration is a philosophy of interaction and
personal lifestyle whereas cooperation is a structure of interaction designed to facilitate the
accomplishment of an end product or goal. Whereas, Myers [59] asserts that, Supporters of
cooperative learning tend to be more teacher centred...collaborative learning advocates
distrust structure and allow students more say in forming friendship and interest groups.
Rockwood [62] states that, Most importantly, in cooperative, the authority remains with the
instructor in collaborative, the instructor, once and the task is set, transfers all authority to
the group. Many authors have debated this issue; however for the purposes of this paper this
author proposes the following working definition of collaboration: Collaborative learning
respects and highlights group members abilities and contributions. The underlying premise
of collaborative learning is based upon consensus building through co-operation by group
members. The interpersonal and interactive nature of small groups make them a challenging
vehicle for engaging students in their own learning. Furthermore there is strong historical
evidence from some students themselves that they benefit from and enjoy the experience in a
range of different ways [58], [48]. These issues are emphasised in the Dearing Report into
higher education and by Cubie when he states that across all sectors employers do highlight
weak communication skills, lack of commercial awareness, poor team work, lack of
motivation. as the major weaknesses of graduates [24]. As Cubie [23] shows, group skills
such as collaboration, reliability and creative problem-solving are seen as important and
relevant by students and employers, yet research by Rust (ed.) [64] and Hogarth [42], [43]
indicates that students and lecturers have still to be persuaded and assisted in giving academic
credit for such skills. As such it is surprising then that few universities train students in how
to work in groups or even train academic staff in how to manage student project groups. The
next section considers the issues associated with group working and technology.

Group Working with Collaborative Technology

How is group working automated? Is it merely the adding of technology to the
application of those traditional group theories and approaches to group work advocated by
such author as Belbin [9], [10] and Katzenbach [51]? There are many perceived views of
what exactly is collaborative technology. For example is it e-mail, the Internet, video-
conferencing or groupware? It can be seen that defining how collaborative technology
functions can be difficult. However, a common definition of Groupware is computer software
designed to facilitate the work of groups. Brinck, [15] highlights the most common reasons
people use Groupware technology and Coleman [21] simplifies this when he defines
groupware as computer-mediated collaboration that increases the productivity or
functionality of person-to-person processes. The emphasis on technological aspects when
introducing groupware has remained paramount, with social and cultural aspects still being a
secondary consideration. Research is showing that those organisations which introduce
groupware systems while considering not only technical aspects but also the social and
cultural impact are more productive than those who do not [42], [43]. This emphasis on
technical aspects is also reflected in educational establishments where Virtual Learning
Environment (VLE) packages such as Blackboard and WebCT are being introduced in an ad
hoc basis with little regard as to how these may affect the learning environment. However as
the next section will demonstrate the pressure is on universities to implement these VLEs as
speedily as possible.

Collaborative Learning with Virtual Learning Environments (VLEs)

VLEs are essentially tools, which are being encouraged for teaching and learning in a
technological environment. The groupware element of VLEs allows students to work on
projects in small, collaborative groups; engage in classroom discussion; access their own
discussion board and virtual or real-time chat facilities e.g. Blackboard Groups facility;
access reference materials and meet their instructor for individual conferences. This opens up
the potential for collaborative projects and communications between different groups of
learners. Despite the emphasis on the technological aspects of VLEs they are now recognised
Alan Hogarth 106
as a key component within any learning and teaching strategy in Higher Education. However
they are not without their problems.

The Problem of Virtual Learning Environments (VLEs)

Classroom teaching is structured both spatially and temporally the lecturers presence and
voice are powerful devices for focusing attention and directing activity. However, on-line
tutors do not have the automatic structure that regular classroom meetings have and the unity
that comes from meeting in the same physical cannot be recuperated in a distance setting.
There are a number of reasons as to why VLEs have been utilised in many institutions. Ever
increasing student numbers is one aspect of Higher Education where it is claimed VLEs can
help. In terms of widening participation VLEs can provide support and resources to say, part
time students who cant always travel to the campus. However there are also political
motivations in using these products. The British government wishes an increase in ICT for
learning and funding is given to institutions for VLE technology and these products are
purchased. Unfortunately in many cases they are purchased without much consideration given
to how they will be actually implemented. Thus many institutions at present use these
products such as Blackboard or WebCT as mere repositories for lecture handouts. What
appears to be lacking in institutions are proper requirements studies, resources for staff and
follow up training for staff and students on how to use these products [53], [33]. In order to
choose a VLE you must therefore draw up a list of requirements and reasons for using the
technology. Unfortunately in most cases this requirements process seems to be being ignored.

Possible Benefits of Using Groupware (in VLEs) for Student Project Groups

Student groups may experience some perceived benefits when they use Groupware. For
example, the software may facilitate communication, thereby increasing group efficiency.
Group members may share problems they encounter during a project at any time, not just
when they meet physically. In addition keeping group members aware of the projects
progress in real time may lessen the consequences of problems. Group members may be more
likely to succeed at group tasks if difficulties are easily shared and requests for help are
considered by all group members eg. group members who might not be willing to ask a
question in a meeting might be more willing to ask via Groupware; group members who
might not be willing to share their knowledge in a meeting might be more willing to help out
via Groupware. All of these potential benefits make the concept of Groupware for students
very appealing. However, while exposure to new technologies such as Groupware is expected
to be helpful to students, the extent to which it decreases group problems in a classroom
setting depends on whether or not students embrace the technology. The results of the
following case study indicate that not all students are convinced by this technology. The next
sections will introduce Blackboard and then discuss and analyse the results of the groupware
technology survey based on students views of the technology.

Blackboard Groups Facility Case Study

Coupled with the above literature search in order to progress this research a case study
survey has been carried out with a group of campus based 3
rd
Year Business Information
Management Students from Glasgow Caledonian University. This survey considered the
effect of groupware technology in an educational setting (Blackboard Groups), specifically
for managing and developing a coursework task. The survey questionnaire is designed to
elicit information on technology (hardware/software) access, availability and usage; group
working experience; experiences in using groupware technology. The main argument here is
that not only technological but also social and cultural developments are important to the
collaborative learning environment. And are critical to effective implementation of
educational groupware. Group or team working practices and experience must also be present
prior to groupware implementation. In addition, personnel (students and staff) must be
educated in both group working practices and groupware technology. Although the
introduction of groupware technology may trigger changes in the learning process
technologically due attention must be paid to the social and cultural aspects also.
The Blackboard VLE has been gradually introduced to Glasgow Caledonian University
over the past two years. Currently it is still mainly being used by students as a repository for
lecture notes, seminar material and assessment material. Staff has the option of attending a
number of training courses. To date the Groups facility has not been used extensively nor
have any student views been elicited on this group technology until now. A case study survey
has been carried out with 27 campus based 3
rd
Year Business Information Management
Students from Glasgow Caledonian University. The sample comprises 3 males aged 18-25;
21 females aged 18-25; 1 female aged 26-34 and 2 females aged 35 and above. Previous
research by the author has included case studies on traditional group working with students
[38] and group working and group working technology with business [41]. This survey now
considers the effect of groupware technology in an educational setting (Blackboard
Groups), specifically for managing and developing a coursework task. The survey
questionnaire is designed to elicit information on technology (hardware) access, availability
and usage; group working experience; experiences in using groupware technology (Groups).
The following is a discussion of the results of the aforementioned case study and are
depicted in Table 1, Table 2 and Table 3. Initially 25% of the students state that they did not
find working in groups a beneficial experience at all. When asked how the group contacted
each other during the project there was a mixed response. However the majority, 22, said they
met in person, with 16 saying the contacted members by text message. It was interesting to
note that only 8 used e-mail. When they did meet in person their preferred times were mid-
morning, 16, and early afternoon, 20. These responses appear to indicate that the groups met
when they had free time between formal classes. When asked if they had difficulty arranging
meetings only 4 students said they had, 5 students stated they had difficulty finding time to
meet with their group and 7 felt they had difficulty finding a place to meet. The majority of
students obviously felt happy about the above situations, however if even one student has
problems with these issues then that could lead to problems within the group. It is for these
students that the use of Groups could be beneficial. In Section 2 of the questionnaire the
students were asked about the technology and the procedures pertinent to their use of
Blackboard Groups.

Alan Hogarth 108
Table 1. Summary Findings of Section 1of Questionnaire

Section 1a: General questions Response
Yes No
1: Have you worked on Group projects before 24 3
2: Was it beneficial? 20 7
Section 1b: Questions Related to MBIS
Coursework

3: How did you normally contact group
members?

In person Phone Calls Texting e-mail
22 6 16 8
(Some groups used more than one means of
contact)

4: When was the best time for the group to
meet?

Mid morning Early afternoon Evenings
Weekends

16 20 0 0
(Some groups met on both morning and
afternoon)

Yes No
5: Did you have difficulty arranging meetings
with other members?
4 3
6: Did you have difficulty finding a common
meeting time?
5 22
7: Did you have difficulty finding a common
meeting place?
7 20
8: Did you find it difficult to exchange files? 2 25

Table 2. Summary Findings of Section Use of Blackboard Groups

Section 2: Access to/time spent on Blackboard
Groups
9: How do you gain access to a computer?
Home PC Computer Lab Laptop Other
21 23 4 0
(Some groups used a combination)
Yes No
10: Did you use e-mail to contact group 10 17
members?
11: Until this coursework project had you ever
used any groupware products such as Blackboard
Groups for group project work?
20 7
12: Did you have difficulty getting access to a
computer in order to use Blackboard Groups?
20 7
13: How often did you use Groups
Regularly Daily Weekly Monthly
11 4 9 3

A variety of responses were given to question on how they accessed a computer for their
group coursework. The majority, 23 students, either used the Computer lab or a Home PC, 21
students, or both. The computer lab usage tends to bear out that the groups met or worked on their
coursework between formal classes. However the fact that 21 had access to a Home PC might
have indicated they may have found Groups useful. However only 10 students in total indicated
that they used e-mail to contact group members while the majority, 17 students, did not. When
asked if they had used a groupware product before for project work, surprisingly, 20 said yes, but
20 also responded that they had difficulty getting access to a computer in order to use Groups.
This seems to contradict the earlier responses where the majority of students claimed to have
either access to a computer lab or a Home PC. (All students are attached to Blackboard for their
modules and are allocated lab time so access should not have been a problem.). When specifically
asked the frequency of use of Groups 11 students used it as required, 4 on a daily basis, 9 on a
weekly basis and 3 on a monthly basis. The next part of the questionnaire concentrates on
Groups facilities. Only 33% of students said they used Discussion Board. However, most of
them, 8 out of 9, did think it useful. Only 8% of respondents, 2 students, said they used Virtual
Classroom, but again they found it useful.
It is surprising that as many as 25 students did not use this facility as it is core to Groups.
One reason could be that, as the majority of respondents stated earlier, they mostly contact each
other by physically meeting or by texting. In response to the use of File Exchange only 16% of
students said they used it. Again this could be because they meet physically to exchange material.
Oddly enough when asked if they used 'Send e-mail over 50% said that they did. Despite the lack
of usage of some of the facilities 66% of students felt comfortable meeting other group members
electronically. However, that does leave a sizeable minority, 33%, who were uncomfortable with
this medium. Furthermore less students, 56%, felt comfortable. Whereas a slight increase, 44%,
felt uncomfortable using Groups. Despite these responses it appears that a majority, 59%, of
students felt Groups helped them communicate better. In regard to eliminating the problems of
physical location and times for meetings the majority 59% felt that Groups did not particularly
help. The next question asked students whether Groups should be used more for student project
work in the university. Given some of the earlier responses it was surprising to note that 81% of
the students replied that it should. When asked why not 19% commented that it should not. This
set of responses to Q22, as shown in Figure 2, appears to correspond to the earlier responses in
relation to time and place of meetings. Essentially if students see each other regularly on campus
then they do not see a use for facilities such as Groups. The next question asked the students to
summarise what they saw to be the benefits and pitfalls of using Groups. Some comments are
shown in Figure 3. The set of responses to Q23 in Figure 3 sheds some light on the earlier yes/no
answers. In general the students appear to think that Groups is a good thing particularly for
communication when members may be ill or unable to attend face to face meetings. However, as
most of these students are on campus they do not see the need to use Groups extensively as
they are in contact with other group members on a daily basis. Difficulty in getting access to
computer equipment is also seen as a pitfall.
The next question asks if they felt that groupware in general enhances student group working.
78% of respondents felt that it did, but when asked if they would want groupware technology to
replace face-to-face student group meetings only 11% viewed this favourably. The majority, 89%,
was against this idea. Nonetheless, when the students were asked if training in Groups would be
beneficial, the majority, 89%, replied that it would be beneficial.

Alan Hogarth 110
Table 3. Summary Findings of Section 3 of Questionnaire:Use of Groups

Section 3: Use of Blackboard Groups Facilities
Yes No
14: Did you use Group Discussion Board for coursework
project?
9 18
Useful? 8 1
15: Did you use Group Virtual Classroom for coursework
project?
2 25
Useful? 2 25
16: Did you use File Exchange for coursework project? 4 23
Useful? 4 23
17: Did you use Send e-mail for coursework project? 14 13
18: Overall did you feel comfortable meeting with Members
of your group electronically?
18 9
19: Did you feel comfortable using Blackboard Groupsfor
your coursework project?
15 12
20:Do you feel that Groups helped the group communicate
better when carrying out the
16 11
Coursework?
21: Did using Groups specifically alleviate the problems
associated with arranging meetings at specific times in
specific physical locations?
11 16
22: Do you think Groups should be used more for Project
work in the university?
22 5
If No why not? (See comments later).
23: Briefly Summarise what you perceive to be thebenefits or
pitfalls of using Groups for group project work?

(See comments later)
24: Do you think Groupware enhances student group working 21 6
25: Would you want Groupware technology to replace face-to-
face student group meetings?
3 24
26: Do you think training in Groups would be beneficial? 24 3

The problem in conceptualising group learning is to identify and maximise the
pedagogical possibilities that distinguish it from traditional group work in the classroom. This
is also the challenge in using VLEs such as Blackboard for group working: to avoid the
temptation to replicate the traditional group environment and instead to focus on realising the
teaching and learning experiences that VLEs make possible. Encouraging students to use
VLEs, particularly the groupware elements, cannot be taken lightly. Firstly the students must
see a need for this type of technology. If they do not they will not see its worth and refuse to
use it. As such this technology cannot be introduced without first thinking of the social and
cultural consequences of group working. Introducing technology into an unstable group
working environment may make things worse. The results of the above case study have
demonstrated that students are not averse to technology such as Groups being introduced,
but again they must see a need for it. However, it is also evident that this might not be the best
technology for on campus students. Action that academic institutions must take prior to
introducing such technology is carrying out a requirements study with those students that they
wish to use the technology. The majority of organisations expect graduates to have been
trained in both group working and in groupware prior to them being employed. This indicates
that these organisations do not appear to appreciate the benefits of groupware for facilitating
organisational learning. Essentially groupware should not be introduced into an organisation
that is not used to a group work culture. Training should not only be about how to use the
technology, but also how such technology can alter the working culture of the organisation.

Comments:
1Our group preferred meeting face-to-face
2If you are in the same classes as your group members then
you have the same time off to meet up. The only reason it could
be useful is if one member was off for a long period of time.
3The main (Blackboard) discussion board is more helpful, as
you have feedback and discussion from the entire course of
student than just the limited group who meet regularly anyway.
Blackboard is useful as a means of gaining coursework and
discussion boards, Groups not as useful.
4Find meeting face-to-face more productive.
We (the group) didnt use the groupware as we saw each other
on a daily basis.
5 I found the use of Groups very good. I was
unable to meet up with the group due to illness
however, I was still able to be part of the meeting,
by using my PC at home.

Figure 2: Sample Responses to Q22

Figure 2. Sample Responses to Q22

Comments:
1Not seeing people face to face, met up everyday
didnt need virtual classroom, couldnt always
find a computer to do the work.
2Used to meeting personally in same
classes so we might not need iCan be difficult to use
Groups when your not used to itCould be good
when people cant meet
3Positive if not able to meet in person, groups a
good way to exchange info. Negative - when group
members do not know how to access and operate
groups!
4Easy to communicate; Not many people know how
to use it so you are better arranging face-to-face
meetings
5I think it could be beneficial for groups who do not
see each other on a daily basis. However as we
were saw each other every day we did not feel the
need to use Groups very often.

Figure 3: Sample Responses to Q23

Figure 3. Sample Responses to Q23
Alan Hogarth 112
The next step is to fully integrate these results with the other theoretical and practical
research findings. The original outcome of this research will, after the analysis and synthesis
of the results of these findings, be a conceptual framework that will allow for the inclusion of
stakeholders in the implementation (including training guidelines) of groupware technology
into business organisations and educational institutions.
New Conceptual Paradigms for Introducing Group Work and Group Based Technology
in the Higher Education Environment
As can be seen from the previous sections the area of group work and group based
technology research is of value in that group and team work skills are seen as important to
both industry and education. However, the research also shows that there are major issues that
have to be considered when introducing group work to organisations. These issues which
include cultural, social, technological and educational are considered within this research. The
purpose of this research was to gain a deeper understanding of the attitudes of university
students to group work and group based technology. Group work and group technology was
also considered in an industry setting as this was seen as an important pre-requisite to the
study of student group work. The outcome of this section is, based on the findings and
recommendations, to propose a series of conceptual models for the introduction of group
work and group based technology into the Higher Education environment. The resulting
paradigms include a Conceptual Framework for Student Group Work Guidance and Training,
a Traditional Group Work Skills Integrative Training Paradigm and a Group Based
Technology Skills Integrative Training Paradigm. The conceptual frameworks proposed in
this paper are the results of the authors original research into group working and group based
technology

RESEARCH CONCLUSIONS

Although the original objectives of this research were; Investigate the theory and practice
of group work and group based technology in industry; Critically assess the rationale and
barriers to student group work and group based technology; Investigate the attitudes of
students to the implementation of group work and group based technology in the university
environment; Make recommendations on the cultural and technological impact of group work
on students in the university environment, this section will not only refer to, as stated above,
the authors literature survey [47], [44] and the empirical work [41], [40] but also the bulk of
the discussion in this paper will comprise the findings, conclusions and recommendations of
the authors research into this area and offer a way forward in the form of conceptual
paradigms. The next section will discuss the empirical findings and offer conclusions based
on those findings.
Firstly, from the literature review, [38] it was established that the use of group working
and group based technology are increasing in both the business and educational sectors. This
research highlighted a number of issues. These included the definition of group work and
group based technology (this was difficult to achieve, but based on his research the author
proposed his own definitions) rationale for group work (strategic issues, work place issues,
employers requirements and technology developments), group work culture, team building,
group roles and member interaction and group based technology (groupware, social and
cultural issues and virtual teams). It was also highlighted that both employees and students
attitudes to group working are major factors in the success or failure of group working. To
this end it was emphasised that a study of group working in the business environment be
undertaken as a necessary prelude to researching student attitudes.

Conclusion 1

The first conclusion that can be made relates to group work in industry. The literature
[38] recognises that a number of issues are important when considering implementing a group
work culture. However, they are not universally adopted by business organisations. This was
demonstrated in the responses from the Human Resource managers survey in that although
many of the organisations did facilitate some form of group work practice and also applied
some form of group technology there was evidence of a lack of confidence. For example,
some organisations experienced resistance to change and the majority expected students to be
trained in group work (and its technology) prior to working for them. It can be concluded that
some of the important aspects of group work identified and emphasised in the literature do
not always hold out in practice. Therefore the main conclusion that can be drawn on these
issues is not that group work is flawed as an approach to working, but that, Confusion and
misunderstanding exists as to how group working practices and group based technology
should be introduced into organisations from a social, cultural and a technological point of
view. This research has shown that, in both theory and practice, group working and group
based technology, have been introduced into certain organisations without due care and
attention.

Conclusion 2

The drivers that support the introduction of group working in HE include educational
(learning, teaching, and assessment), government policy, industry requirements and
technological advancements. Yet in practice, when investigating the attitudes of students to
the implementation of group work and group based technology they were largely unaware of
the importance of these issues. Many students, although unhappy with certain aspects of
group working, felt they had no choice and accepted that group working was part of their
course. They were involved in group working for assessment, group work was compulsory
and only certain students had used group technology (this was not compulsory). They were
also unclear as to the exact purpose of this technology in relation to their coursework. They
were also unaware of the drive to introduce such technologies even though there is much
literature on the drive for the introduction of this type of technology [49], [35]. In terms of the
rationale for student group working there is a contradiction between the literature, industry
and what students actually think of group work and group based technology. Therefore, the
conclusion that can be drawn from the findings on the issue of a rationale for student group
work is that, A lack of understanding of the need for group work and group based
technology, from a cultural, educational and employment point of view, is the reason why
students do not fully embrace group working

Alan Hogarth 114
Conclusion 3

There are many possible barriers to student group work in Higher Education (HE). These
barriers include organisational culture, communication, team roles, conflict, groupthink and
technology. Added to these are barriers specific to the educational environment such as
pedagogy, collaborative or cooperative learning, tutor involvement (or lack of), student team
building and socialisation. However one of the most important barriers to the acceptance of
student group work and its technology was the lack of training or guidance offered to students
in collaborative learning. They were basically left to build the team themselves without any
guidance. When conducting the first section of the case study (Group Development
Questionnaire, Generic Groupware Questionnaire) and Group Interviews with the student
groups many of the responses confirmed that the aforementioned barriers did hinder group
success. Even one disaffected student in a group can upset the group dynamics and this was
inherent in a number of groups. Complaints about the non-participation of other members,
dominant personalities, lack of planning and focus on the assessment goal, inability to meet in
time or place, lack of effective group decision making and the problems of technology access
were typical responses that led to disagreement and conflict. The results of this section of the
case study with respect to barriers to student group working, is that it cannot be taken for
granted that students will automatically work in groups without any prior knowledge of group
work practices. Therefore, the conclusion that can be drawn from this research into barriers to
student group working is that, The main barrier preventing successful student participation
in group work is a lack of a detailed training and guidance model. Such a model requires
training and guidance in cultural, social and educational aspects of how to work in
groups. In this section of the case study student responses indicated that they were unsure as
to how to conduct themselves when in a group work culture. The responses also indicated
students felt that training was necessary and desirable.

Conclusion 4

Barriers to the introduction of group based technology for assessment were also identified
in the literature review. These included traditional group issues such as team building, team
roles, socialisation and communication, but with the added dimension of having to be
implemented online. The move from traditional face-to-face meeting to online conferencing
was seen as a major culture change. Issues of communication and socialisation online were
identified as major barriers in this environment and that they must be addressed prior to
implementing this technology. The responses of the students to the Blackboard Groups
Questionnaire highlighted that barriers to the use of such technology still exists [41]. Virtual
Learning Environments (VLEs) were advocated as one of the main drivers in encouraging
online collaborative learning. Yet research in the literature shows that many of these products
such as First Class and WEBCT are not being utilised effectively and often viewed as
unnecessary by students. The majority of students felt that they would prefer a blended
approach of traditional group activities e.g. meeting face-to-face as well as the technology.
However, the majority also indicated that they needed training in the use of this technology.
There is no training offered at GCU in VLEs. Therefore, the conclusion that can be drawn
from this research into barriers to student group working is that, The main barrier preventing
successful student appreciation of group based technology is a lack of a detailed training and
guidance model that should include cultural, social, educational and technological
perspectives, for preparing students how to, not only use group based technology, but also to
understand the educational benefits of utilising this technology. Furthermore, trying to
introduce group based technology into an HE institution where the students are not familiar
with a culture of traditional group working practice could be seen as remiss. In the next
section a series of conceptual paradigms developed by author are proposed.

RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE FINDINGS

In this section recommendations based on the findings of this research are offered. It was
particularly important that consideration should be given to social, cultural, educational and
technological issues. Therefore from conclusions 1 and 2 the first recommendation is that
management and university tutors should make employees in business organisations and
students in educational institutions aware of why group working and consequently group
based technology are being introduced. In other words justify the rationale for these modes
of working in a clear and unambiguous manner. This recommendation would accrue a
number of benefits. It would remove any misunderstanding about organisational intentions (in
the business world) and teaching, learning and assessment issues (in the education
environment). They would also feel part of the process and offer less resistance to the
implementation of these working practices. From conclusions 3 and 4 it is recommended that
the main barrier, causing a negative attitude to and preventing successful student
participation in group work and group based technology, be removed by the introduction of a
training and guidance model. This would be aimed at helping students prepare for these
modes of teaching and learning from the earliest stages of their degree course. Topics to be
covered would include educational rationale, group culture, socialisation in groups, and
technology issues.

Proposed Conceptual Frameworks

These recommendations are shown in Figure 4 Conceptual Framework for Student
Group Work Guidance and Training and impart the core of the conclusions and
recommendations. The diagram highlights that each of the recommendations flows to offer a
model that HE institutions can implement to help their students prepare for group working
and group based technology. The model would be integrated into the universitys teaching
and learning strategy. As a starting point the university should produce a detailed policy on
student group working including group based technology. This policy should include the
rationale for group working (educational, employment, government requirements and
technological). Coupled with this a document should also be produced highlighting the
training and guidance in group working skills that will be offered to students. Containing
guidance for students on working in a group culture, socialisation in groups, educational
advantages of group work and group based technology (teaching and learning issues and
practical use (Blackboard)). A section of this document should then contain specific training
Alan Hogarth 116
activities under the sub-sections Traditional Group Work Skills and Group Based Technology
Skills. These are illustrated in Figure 5 and Figure 6 to include the important issues
highlighted in the literature review and the empirical research.

Possible Business Benefits

As established, group work and group based technology are important for both business
and academia. As such the findings in this paper coupled with the proposed frameworks
should be of interest to both business organizations and educational institutions. The main
findings of the research are that although industry has facilitated group working for a number
of years it is still not confident with group technology. This was demonstrated in the
responses from the industry survey. It can be concluded that some of the important aspects of
group work identified in the literature do not always hold out in practice. It was found that
students were also uncomfortable with some aspects of group work e.g. dynamics, conflict,
communication, team building issues [41]. They were also unsure of the need or purpose of
group based technology. These drivers for group work were highlighted as important in the
literature review [38]. Yet in practice, when investigating the attitudes of students they were
largely unaware of their importance. Many students felt they had no choice and accepted that
group work was part of their course. They were also unaware of the drive to introduce VLEs.
The many possible barriers to student group work in an HE institution were also identified
and discussed. Therefore the frameworks proposed by the author should help students,
employers and employees appreciate the benefits of group work and group based technology
leading in turn to more efficient and cost effective use of teams and prepare graduates for the
teamwork ethos. It is acknowledged that the size of the samples may considered small, but the
concept of relatability can be applied whereby the findings of these samples may be used by
others conducting similar studies. The Conceptual Frameworks produced provides new
knowledge on the issues considered to be essential to encourage the involvement of students
in the group learning process in an HE institution.

Technology Enhanced Learning in Higher Education

As established previously the area of learning, teaching and assessment in education and
industry has historically been facilitated by traditional classroom teaching by a teacher in a
face-to-face setting. However, the introduction of learning technology is altering the way in
which students learn (and tutors teach). With the increasing use of Virtual Learning
Environments (VLEs) a more student-centred approach is being encouraged. However, this in
turn leads to a change in the learning and teaching culture from the classroom student to one
of, on the one hand, the independent elearner and on the other, the group worker. Either
way the student has to adapt to a new way of learning and teaching. However not all
institutions, organisations and students are prepared for this change. Some have taken active
steps to train staff and students in this technology whereas others have not. One institution
that has encouraged the use of VLEs is Glasgow Caledonian University (GCU). However,
VLEs are not the only tools available. This section considers an idea by the author and
considers how this may be realised. To this end an innovative proposal is posited. It discusses
how a traditionally taught module may be converted to an eLearning format using some form
of blended learning by adopting facilities such as groupware, vidcasts, podcasts, eSeminars
and Blogs as well as VLEs in tandem with traditional face-to-face teaching. This project was
funded by the Re-Engineering Assessment Project (REAP) and initially involves a pilot
questionnaire survey of a group students who are undertaking the traditional module.

GCU
Teaching
and
Learning
Strategy

..

..

Rationale

Educational

Employment

Government

Technology

Traditional
Group Work
Skills

Group Based
Technology
Skills

Student Group
Work Guidance
and Training

Publicise
Student
Group
Work
Policy

Figure 4. Conceptual Framework for Student Group Work Guidance and Training
Alan Hogarth 118
Traditional
Group Work
Skills Training
Culture
Change
Social Educational
Manage
Change
Team
Building
Group
Dynamics &
Roles
Assessment &
evaluation
Collaborative
& Cooperative
Learning
Product &
Process
Group formation Communication Trust v
Conflict
Individual
v Group

Figure 5. Traditional Group Working Skills Integrative Training Paradigm
Group Based
Technology
Skills Training
Culture
Change
Social
Educational
technology
Manage
Technology
change
Virtual
Team
Building
Student
Involvement
eLearning
Using
VLEs
Online
Assessment
Face-to-face v online
communication
Socialisation Hiding and
Lurking
Collaboration
online

Figure 6. Group Based Technology Skills Integrative Training Paradigm

Issues in Utilising Learning Technologies

The objectives of this section are to consider the issues of concern in producing and using
an innovative technology based blended learning mode of teaching compared to traditional
teaching practices. Based on this the author proposes an approach for developing and
implementing a framework for a teaching module. The purpose of the proposed project then
is to attempt to enhance the student learning experience by encouraging independent
learning either individually or in groups and to introduce staff to an alternative mode of
teaching. To this end it is necessary to consider not only the findings of the research, but also
review the literature in the area of online learning systems and their impact on HE provision.
The findings for this research should hopefully benefit a number of stakeholders including
students, staff and also business organisations that employ training schemes as the methods
and techniques applied should have a universal benefit.
There are many technologies being researched that can be used to facilitate and stimulate
online education. These include Blogging, WiKi, podcasting, Compendium software and Web
2.0 in general. The effect of these approaches was recently discussed at The Shock of Social
workshop at Oxford University in March 2007. However, despite these the most common
tools applied for eLearning in universities are Virtual Learning Environments (VLEs).
Barajas and Owen, [6] define VLEs as, any combination of distance and face-to-face
interaction, where some kind of time and space virtuality is present. Coupled with this
technology, particularly with collaborative work, they must also involve communication and
socialisation. Laister and Kober [56] state that, Successful virtual collaborative learning and
working generally depends on the combination of formal, social and technical skills.
However, there are issues, just like in a face-to-face environment, in a given conference, some
students may lack the confidence to assert themselves in public, some may not have studied
the assignments and some may be afraid they will embarrass themselves. Therefore a social
environment online is necessary. This is emphasised by Abell [1] when he notes that, A rich
online social environment minimises feelings of isolation and supports effective
collaboration. Trust and comfort are pre requisites for creating a rich social environment.
However, taken separately, communications, content delivery and even assessment can be
delivered via the Web without the need for a VLE. Since a VLE ties all these technologies
into one product (environment) and coordinates the information seamlessly it is argued that it
should be able to offer more than any of the individual technologies. Nonetheless, this need
not always be the case. The next section considers the reasons for VLEs in HE and considers
some alternatives.

Drivers for Learning Technologies

As identified in previous sections there are a number of factors in Higher Education
which it is argued VLEs can help with and these include, increasing student numbers,
automated assessment, widening participation and improved access to limited resources. The
British Government has encouraged all universities to implement VLEs such as Blackboard
and WebCT this was partly driven by the findings of the Dearing Report [24] which
emphasised the need for 'communication and information technology' to be the new
framework upon which the 'learning society will be built. However, the most important
driver suggested for choosing a VLE is that it will give enhanced benefits to traditional face-
to-face teaching and learning. Based on the author own experiences, VLEs can be viewed as
online domains that permit synchronous, collaborative interaction among instructors and
students, while also providing asynchronous learning resources for individualised use by
students at any time. At GCU students have used Blackboard for some time, but at varying
levels of functionality depending on staff preparation and enthusiasm. However, the main
problem is that the introduction of such learning environments was a fait accompli with
lecturing staff and students having no say in the management decision to facilitate this
technology [39]. The author is obliged to use Blackboard at GCU and because of this are not
Alan Hogarth 120
encouraged to use any other learning technology. This was a major factor in the authors
decision to consider the possibility of introducing a less formal alternative eLearning
approach that could be of more benefit to students and staff.

Cultural Concerns with Learning Technology

Cultural and social problems may occur online because traditional classroom teaching is
structured both spatially and temporally. The very fact that students and instructor meet
together in the same room at the same time establishes coherence and identity for the class
that serves as the infrastructure for virtually every aspect of the course. Therefore, a more
obvious deterrent to VLEs and other learning technology is that tutors becoming online will
not have the automatic structure that regular classroom meetings confer on a course. The loss
of face-to-face presence is, understandably, one of the most contested issues in online
learning. Hara and Kling [32] note that, Human communication is inherently ambiguous but
that these ambiguities are generally resolved adequately in face-to-face contexts. Garrison et
al [29] agree but comment further when they state, In face to face interaction communication
can be entrusted to habit or instinctcommunicators in a virtual environment have to think
about their metacommunication. The problem then in conceptualising online learning is to
identify and maximise the pedagogical possibilities that distinguish it from traditional
classroom learning and lead to independent learning. The term independent learning is not
new, but it does encourage debate on an exact definition of what it is. Discussions on
independent learning are awash with synonyms to describe this term. Kesten [52] lists them
as, autonomous learning, independent study, self-directed learning, student initiated
learning, teaching for thinking, learning to learn, self instruction and life-long learning.
Moreover, this proliferation of terms is made worse by the fact that many author use the same
term to mean different things. As Broad [16] says, confusion exists due to the number of
terms and possible interpretation of those terms. Furthermore, recent reports highlight the
fact that undergraduates, struggle to cope with the independent and self directed style of
learning expected by higher education tutors, [72]. It can then come as no surprise to
discover that students are uncomfortable with independent learning. However the hope of the
author in producing their proposal is that the technology involved will encourage the students
to at least be more amenable to concept of independent learning. Fundamentally, in
encouraging independent learning by implementing teaching and learning in VLEs or other
technologies needs competence, by both staff and students, in technological and
organisational aspects as well as new skills in facilitating the relevant instructional methods.
As such given the other technologies now available for eLearning it may be the case that
some form of blended learning could be productive. In his support for this approach Masie,
cited in Rossett [63] states that, We are, as a species, blended learners. Julian and Boone
[50] agree when they argue that, The importance of a blended approach to learning is that it
ensures the widest possible impact of a learning experience Furthermore, Carman [17]
identifies five key ingredients for blended learning including, Live events, Self-paced
Learning, Collaboration, Assessment and Performance Support Materials. The author
preferred view is that of Whitelock and Jeffs[71] who state that blended learning is the
integrated combination of traditional learning with web-based online approaches. The next
section will discuss the case study which specifically concerns the proposed conversion of a
traditionally taught third year undergraduate module to one where independent learning is
facilitated in a blended learning environment.

The Re-Engineering Assessment Project (REAP)

This paper is based on a case study funded by the REAP project within Glasgow
Caledonian University. The author proposal is to convert the existing third year
undergraduate module from a traditional face-to-face format into a format based on
eLearning/blended technologies. The existing module format comprises of 12 lectures, 12
seminars, a clinic and a lab and is of 12 weeks duration. The current assessment is in two
parts, group coursework (50%) and a final examination (50%). In general it is envisaged that
the changes would encourage independent learning by the students and instigate some degree
of online assessment. It is envisaged that some form of blended learning would be involved
using Blackboard, Compendium software and social networking technology.

Initial Student Survey and Discussion of Questionnaire Responses

Prior to the implementation of the above suggested changes it was deemed essential to
elicit an initial student perspective on the proposed changes. To this end a questionnaire was
issued to those students currently undertaking module in its traditional mode. The results are
shown in Table 4. The response to Q1 is very encouraging where the vast majority (41) of
students would support the idea of video lecture. This is somewhat surprising given that so
many students are familiar with the traditional face-to-face lecture. Once again the responses
to Q2 were encouraging with 35 students supporting the idea of eSeminars. However, a
sizeable minority of 10 students, do not support this and this should be considered in the
design of the eSeminars. In response to Q3 again the majority of student responses were
positive with only 7 against. (It may be assumed that these 7 were part of the 10 who
responded negatively to Q2). In response to Q4 the majority, 35 students supported the idea
of monitoring individual student contributions to seminars for assessment. Again this should
be borne in mind when designing the module. In response to Q5, 42 responded favourably to
the concept of a clinic/e-clinic. This may not be surprising as it does offer the students the
familiarity of a face-to-face meeting with their tutor. The responses to Q6 were more evenly
balanced with 24 students supporting a change of assessment methods to an online format
whereas 20 students preferred the traditional approach (group coursework, exam etc.). One
student was unsure. Q7 asked those students who responded positively to Q6 to suggest the
kind of assessment that they would envisage as being suitable in the eLearning format. The
responses were mixed, but in general quite positive. For example some students preferred the
idea of multiple choice questions online, S1 Multiple choice; S2 Multiple choice with class
tests throughout the year. Others preferred coursework, S11Coursework rather than exams,
assessment would have to be monitored and treated strictly, group work monitored to prevent
people not contributing; S7 Group report online. Some others suggest a combination of
coursework and multiple choice, S10 Online presentations, submit an online group report,
multiple choice timed; S9 Instead of a 4000 word report have 2x2000 0r 4 x1000 (smaller
Alan Hogarth 122
reports encompassing more areas), regular online tests to assess understanding. Others are
not so sure of coursework online, S16, not sure about group work assessments.
Accepting that the questionnaire was not too rigorous there does appear to be general
support for the proposed changes to the module from those currently undertaking it. They
support the idea of video lectures and seminars, but appear to be less confident in suggesting
the most appropriate type of assessment for this mode of learning and teaching.

Proposed Teaching and Learning Structure

Based on the author original ideas and enhanced by the student responses the proposed,
blended learning, eLearning module structure would be: 12 (online video) lectures, 12 e-
Seminars (allocated groups of 5 students max, online for hour), and 1 weekly Clinic.

Lectures: The lectures would be pre-recorded video presentations (live video when
broadband capacity allows) in bite sized chunks of 5-10 minutes duration and would also
include PowerPoint Slides, relevant websites, podcasts (of say a case study in the topic area
from a practitioners perspective) and seminar material to form the Package for Independent
Learning and (PILAT) See Figure 7. The intention is to utilise Compendium software which
allows for content management of videos, podcasts etc.

Table 4. Student Responses to Questionnaire

eLearning Student View questionnaire Results
Yes No
Question 1:
Would you support the introduction of video lectures?
To replace face-to-face lectures? 41 4
Question 2:
Would you support the introduction of e-seminars (facilitated by
Blackboard Groups or similar) to replace traditional seminars? 35 10
Question 3
Each e-seminar group would comprise of 5 students, would you
support this option? 38 7
Question 4:
Would you support the monitoring of student participation in
e-seminars to be used as part of the assessment process? 35 1
Question 5:
Would you support the introduction of a clinic/e-clinic where
students could still meet their tutor face-to-face? 42 3
Question 6
Would you support the introduction of online assessment as
opposed to traditional methods? 24 20

(1student unsure)
Question 7
If the answer is YES to Q6, what kind of assessment would you envisage as being suitable in
this e-learning environment?

eSeminars: The eSeminars would have to be clearly and logically prepared. For example
if there were 100 students on MBIS then they would initially be split into the traditional
seminar groups (each of these groups are allocated a tutor). In this scenario there would be 5
groups of 20. Then each of these seminar groups would be sub-divided in to 4 sub-groups of
no more than 5 students (eLearner circles). As such each of these sub groups would be
attached to Blackboard Groups and allocated a specific time slot where they would be
expected to participate in the online seminar discussion. The tutor would act as facilitator and
the students participation/contribution will form part of their overall module assessment. It is
anticipated that these e-Seminars would run for approximately hour each and as a pre-
requisite lab times would have to be allocated. However students should be able to participate
in the eSeminar regardless of location e.g. home, Internet Caf etc. It is hoped that it will be
during these eSeminars that independent learning will be most noticeable. See Figure 8.

Pre-recorded video lecture

Powerpoint Slides or
(Review notes)

Pertinent Websites

E-Seminar Material

Blackboard (and
Compendium)

Podcasts

Figure 7: Package for Independent Learning and Teaching
(PILAT)

Figure 7. Package for Independent Learning and Teaching (PILAT)
Clinic: In keeping with the blended learning philosophy it is expected that some manner
of regular face-to-face contact remains via the tutor and students the Clinic would be for
advice and assistance with any aspect of the module and would be held to maintain a personal
link with the students. It is expected that the tutor allocated a group of twenty students (their 4
eSeminar groups) will meet them at this clinic.
The university policy dictates that the platform to facilitate the above proposal will be
Blackboard (+ Compendium). However, many students are now familiar with collaboration
technologies such as internet chat rooms, social spaces such as MySpace, YouTube and
mobile technologies used with iPods and mobile phones. This in turn may lead them to
expect a similar level of functionality with their online learning and this must be borne in
mind when creating and managing the module content.
Alan Hogarth 124
Proposed Assessment

Multiple Choice Questions (MCQ) for summative assessment will not fulfil the learning
requirements of this level of student. For summative assessments, like examinations, using
more powerful software such as Questionmark Perception could be a better option.
Blackboard provides some functionality for supporting online assessments, but it also has
some limitations when compared to specialist software tools that are devoted entirely to
assessment. It is envisaged that part of the assessment would be based on student participation
online in the eSeminars. Additionally, given that the majority of student responses to Q7
seem to indicate that they would prefer some form of coursework, a diary/blog could be kept
by the students of their online coursework activities that could also be included in the
assessment coupled with some form of online presentation (podcast/Webinar) of the results.
A suggested marking scheme could be Diary/Blog, 20%; Online Presentation/Webinar, 30%;
Final Written Report, 50%. This assessment coupled with perhaps one online MCQ to elicit
general understanding of the module content in week 12 of the module should meet
assessment criteria for the module. However, at present these are merely proposals, but as
assessment may be deemed most important part of the module in the students view more
research and experimentation will necessarily be undertaken in order that the most suitable
form be presented to the students.

Sem 1

Sem 2

Sem 3

Sem 4

Sem 5

Five trad seminar groups
for admin purposes

Sub group 2

Sub group 3

Sub group 4

Four sub-groups (e-Learner Circles) of 5 students for
Practical eSeminars (one tutor for four sub-groups) each
eSeminar hour duration

eLearner Circles

Sub group 1

eMBIS: Role,100 students

Figure 8. eSeminar Groups/Activity
This section has considered the issues surrounding the introduction of blended learning
into an environment where traditional learning, teaching and assessment methods have been
practiced. The use of technology to facilitate independent learning, both individually and in
groups, was also discussed from a number of perspectives including the cultural change and
the drivers required for such learning technology. The author then proposed a structure for a
new eLearning based module for third year students. The next phase of the project will be to
actually implement and test the proposals. The next section discuses the creation of the
blended learning prototype.

A BLENDED APPROACH TO TEACHING UNDERGRADUATE MODULES

Due to the wider, more diverse student population there is an obvious need for greater
flexibility in curriculum design and course delivery, accompanied by innovations in teaching
and learning. A more flexible style of teaching and greater independent learning by students
is now required to cope with these changes. The answer would appear to be to encourage
independent learning by facilitating a blended learning approach. This paper discusses a
blended learning approach, developed by the authors, to teaching undergraduate modules that
encourage students to undertake independent learning in a practical and non-threatening
manner. This approach is based on the utilisation of aspects of traditional teaching, VLEs and
Web 2.0 technologies. The model discussed in this section is the culmination of the project
funded by the Re-Engineering Assessment Project (REAP) which initially involved the
questionnaire survey of a group students who were undertaking the traditional module from
which a proposal for the blended learning model was posited.
The initial research and idea for a prototype was undertaken in 2006/2007 and the
prototype proposed in this paper was developed, based on that research, in the summer of
2007. The next objective is that the findings for this research should hopefully benefit a
number of stakeholders including students, staff and also business organisations that employ
training schemes as the methods and techniques applied should have a universal benefit.
Another objective for any research is to define the terms used in that research. As such it is
important to derive a working definition of the main terms in this research, namely
independent learning and blended learning. The blended learning model should
ultimately alleviate the time, space and geographical location problem of accommodating
large numbers of students.

The Importance of Independent Learning and Blended Learning

The term independent learning is not new, but it does encourage debate on an exact
definition of what it is. Discussions on independent learning are awash with synonyms to
describe this term. Kesten [52] lists them as, autonomous learning, independent study, self-
directed learning, student initiated learning, teaching for thinking, learning to learn, self
instruction and life-long learning. Moreover, this proliferation of terms is made worse by the
fact that many authors use the same term to mean different things. As Broad [16] says,
confusion exists due to the number of terms and possible interpretation of those terms.
Furthermore, recent reports highlight the fact that undergraduates, struggle to cope with the
independent and self directed style of learning expected by higher education tutors, [72].
Given this it can then come as no surprise to discover that students are uncomfortable with
independent learning. However the hope of the authors of this paper is that the technology
involved in their model will encourage the students to become independent learners. In order
Alan Hogarth 126
that independent learning is successful it will be important that staff and students are
competent in VLEs and other learning technologies. Coupled with this they will need new
skills in facilitating the relevant instructional methods. There are many views on what
blended learning is. However, like so many terms within this field it remains ill-defined. For
example, Whitelock & Jeffs [71] offer three definitions, the integrated combination of
traditional learning with web-based online approaches; the combination of media and tools
employed in an e-learning environment and the combination of a number of pedagogic
approaches, irrespective of learning technology use. Also, in his support for this approach
Masie, cited in Rossett [63] states that, We are, as a species, blended learners. Julian and
Boone [50] agree when they argue that, The importance of a blended approach to learning is
that it ensures the widest possible impact of a learning experience The authors of this
paper tend to support Valiathans view of blended learning when he states that, Blended
learning is also used to describe learning that mixes various event based activities, including
face-to-face classrooms, live elearning and self-paced learning. This view of blended
learning is enhanced by three models, skills driven, attitude-driven and competency-driven.
However, the problem is that the breadth of interpretations means that almost anything can be
seen as blended learning, and consequently this is confusing for academic staff, students and
business practitioners. The next section will consider how the utilisation of Web 2.0
technologies for blended learning can encourage independent learning.

Blended Learning and Web 2.0 Technology

There are a number of areas in Higher Education where, it is argued, that blended
learning can help and these include, increasing student numbers, automated assessment,
widening participation and improved access to limited resources. However, the most
important driver suggested for choosing a blended learning approach is that it will give
enhanced benefits to traditional face-to-face teaching and learning and facilitate independent
learning. As online tools become more ubiquitous inside and outside the classroom, and the
growth of distance learning continues, educational researchers have begun to focus on how
best to harness new technologies. As such there are many technologies being researched that
can be used to facilitate and stimulate online education including what is referred to as Web
2.0 [26]. This term encompasses a variety of different meanings that include emphasis on user
generated content, data and content sharing and collaborative effort together with the use of
various kinds of social software such as Second Life, Blogging, WiKis, social book marking,
pod casting, vidcasting and (in our case, Compendium software). However technology must
not be the driver of blended learning. Technology should never be used simply to substitute
face-to-face learning, but must clearly offer an improved educational benefit. Also, coupled
with Web 2.0 technology students must involve communication and socialisation and it is
here where social networking activity if applied correctly could prove beneficial. The loss of
face-to-face presence is, understandably, one of the most contested issues in online learning.
Hara and Kling [32] note that, Human communication is inherently ambiguous but that these
ambiguities are generally resolved adequately in face-to-face contexts. Garrison et al [29]
agree but comment further when they state, In face to face interaction communication can be
entrusted to habit or instinctcommunicators in a virtual environment have to think about
their metacommunication. Therefore a social environment online is necessary. As such, this
situation could be improved through the use of social networking tools such as WiKis and
web logs. On reviewing the available technologies associated with web 2.0 the authors were
impressed by the possibilities for their own model. The next section will discuss the activities
that led to the development of the blended learning prototype.
The proposal was to convert the existing third year undergraduate module from a
traditional face-to-face format into a format based on eLearning/blended technologies. The
existing module format comprises of 12 lectures, 12 seminars, a clinic and a lab and is of 12
weeks duration. The current assessment is in two parts, group coursework (50%) and a final
examination (50%). In general it is envisaged that the changes would encourage independent
learning by the students and instigate some degree of online assessment. The model has
incorporated blended learning features including face-to-face, Blackboard, Compendium
software and social networking technology. The methodology adopted for the original project
included a literature search and a survey. This in turn produced a proposal for the
development of a blended learning prototype. The methodology for this paper was essentially
based on this proposal. The proposal was to convert traditional lectures and seminars to an
online format using a combination of the Blackboard VLE, the Open Universitys
Compendium software, Web 2.0 technologies and some element of face-to-face
communication. This has now been completed with the production of the prototype which
will be highlighted in this paper. A student survey was previously undertaken where the
questionnaire comprised a series of yes/no questions and one opinion based question. Overall
the responses were in favour of a blended approach and this led to the proposal (See Figure
7) and a framework on the way forward for the project. The prototype discussed in the paper
was based on that proposal.
When developing the blended learning prototype it was considered from two
perspectives; pedagogy and technology. From a pedagogical perspective independent learning
and blended learning aspects were incorporated and from a technological perspective how
best to encourage the students to access the model were considered. As such a variety of
technology platforms were used to build the prototype, however the main vehicles were
Compendium software for content management and Blackboard for the group communication
element and formative assessment.

Figure 9. eMBIS Lecture on Blackboard
Alan Hogarth 128
Other Web 2.0 technologies such as Blogging and podcasting are also incorporated in the
prototype. Based on the authors original ideas and enhanced by the student responses to the
questionnaire [37] the prototype incorporates many features both in Blackboard (See Figure
9) and by the innovative use of the Compendium software (See Figures 10 14 for examples
of the developed content). Compendiums advantage is that it allows for the incorporation of
all manner of content such as the video lectures, podcasts, Powerpoint slides, seminar
material etc., (See figure 6), that the students can access online on a weekly basis (i.e. each
teaching week) thus cutting classroom time (and room allocation) and encouraging
independent learning. However, access to the tutor will always be available at the weekly
clinic to deal with any issues that may arise. The video presentations were recorded with
Movie Maker Pro and are of 5-10 minutes duration; podcasts were recorded with Audacity
(links to practitioner podcasts are also attached); links to relevant subject websites were
included as were PowerPoint slides and seminar material for the lecture topic. Eseminars are
facilitated in Blackboards Virtual Classroom and students participation will be monitored
(contribution rates can be logged in BlackBoard) and this will form part of the module
assessment.

Figure 10. Initial Screen Option for eMBIS in Compendium

Figure 11. Set up screen for text instructions
The weekly face-to-face Clinic will be timetabled for all students for advice and
assistance with any aspect of the module and would be held to maintain a personal link with
the students.
Assessment instruments are also catered for in the prototype (See figure 14). Formative
assessment using BlackBoard Multiple Choice Questions (MCQ) can be facilitated. Blogging
software is to be used for keeping a diary of issues and developments and web based
presentations will be assessed. The final examination will be held in a traditional format, thus
adding to the blended learning ethos. The blended learning prototype is a work in progress
and further work will be required. It does however currently demonstrate how the teaching
module will function in this blended learning mode.
The lessons learnt from this research project thus far are that developing such a prototype
is very time consuming (the authors worked on the project while still maintaining a full
teaching commitment) and although constrained by time and minimal funding the authors
have managed to produce a working prototype.
Essentially the next phase of the project will be to fully convert and set up the full
content of the eMBIS module (even completing the prototype was very time consuming)
before going live.

Possible Benefits for Business

According to Michael Clouser of eCornell business take up for eLearning for Continual
Professional Development (CPD) is increasing by 25% a year. Coupled with this many
business organisations have also adopted blended learning and recognise this as an important
component of their overall strategy. For example BUPA have hired Brightwave to train their
2,500 employees. Claire Shell [66], elearning manger at BUPA states that, Working with
Brightwave... has shaped our use of elearning and blended learning. County Durham
Primary Care Trust [22] have also utilised blended learning to, provide a training
programme that combines faceto-face and elearning. Furthermore, blended learning
programmes are increasing within business organisations. According to research by Balance
Learning and Training Magazine [5] ,blended learning is now used by 55% of organisations
and in a further study,81% of organisations surveyed believe blended learning is an effective
means of learning. Given that many business organisations are already familiar with the
concept of blended learning then the prototype developed by the authors will not only
encourage independent learning amongst university students, but will also provide such
business organisations with an easy to use and adaptable approach to teaching and learning. It
is expected that the blended learning model will go live in October 2008, when a group of
third year undergraduates will be asked to participate. It is envisaged that they will be issued
with either a CD or USB flash drive containing the content for the model. These students will
then be able to offer their views on the model via questionnaires and interview sessions and
the results will be compared with responses from a group of students who did not use the new
model. Given that we receive a positive response from the students then initially the idea
would be to offer it to other courses and departments via training sessions. The model will
hopefully alleviate the issues of increasing student numbers, encourage automated
assessment, allow for widening participation and improved access to limited resources.

Alan Hogarth 130

Figure 12. First Screen showing all Lectures and Assessments

Figure 13. Content of an eMBIS lecture

Figure 14. Clicking on the icons will access the assessment task
CONCLUSION

In the literature, in business and in educational institutions it has been recognised that
collaborative working is now essential. Furthermore, technology enhanced collaboration tools
in the form of groupware and Virtual Learning Environments for education have become
integral to the success of group working. However it is recognised that the introduction of
group working practices and subsequently group technologies should not be taken lightly. It
was seen as essential that organisations culture must also be taken into account prior to
introducing collaborative working. To this end a framework was developed by the author to
aid in the introduction of group working and its technology. In education blended learning is
being driven by technology and this in turn should enhance independent learning. However,
there is some confusion over which technology may be the most suitable to encourage such
independent learning. Furthermore some businesses, tutors and students are wary of the
change in traditional teaching approaches and as such do not wholly embrace the idea of
elearning for all aspects of teaching. However given that blended learning incorporates
elements of traditional teaching with those of elearning technology this approach could be the
solution to those concerns. To this end the author h developed a blended learning prototype.
Although the model is currently just that, a prototype, the next phase of the project is to test
the product with a group of students and evaluate its effectiveness. Depending on the results
of this research the blended learning model structure could then be exploited for any module
on any course and also be used/adapted in the business environment for training courses.
Given our experiences with this project the authors suggest that utilising Web 2.0 technology
and Blackboard facilities, with some aspects of traditional teaching, in our blended learning
model offers an attractive approach for students and should encourage independent learning.

REFERENCES

Abell, M. (2000). Soldiers as Distance learners: What army trainers need to know, Online at
http://tadlp.monroe.army.mil/abell%20paper.htm
Agre, P. E. & Schuler, D. E., (Eds) (1998). Reinventing technology, rediscovering critical
studies in computing as social practice. , Norwood, N.J.
Alexander, S. (2000). Virtual Teams Going Global. InfoWorld, 22(46), 55-56.
Baker, M. J. (1994). A model for negotiation in teaching-learning dialogues. Journal of
Artificial Intelligence in Education, 5(2), 199-254.
Balance Learning and Training (2004). Blended Learning in the UK, Survey 2004, Balance
Learning and Training Magazine.
Barajas, M. & Owen, M. (2000). Implementing virtual learning environments: looking for a
holistic approach, Journal of Educational technology and Society, 3(3)
Barker, J. R. (2000). The discipline of teamwork. Sage Publications, London
Barker, J. R (1999). Tightening the iron cage: Concertive control in self-management teams.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, pp408-437.
Belbin, R. M. (1981). Management teams: Why they succeed or fail. London, Heinemann.
Belbin, R. M (1993). Team roles at work London: Butterworth, Heineman
Alan Hogarth 132
Bennett, C. and Hammond, N. (2002). Enhancing small group teaching and learning with C
and IT, Poster presented at the Pathways to Excellence Conference, University of
York.
Berg, G. A. (2001). Towards a learning theory for educational technology, Webnet Journal,
2, 1.
Biggam, J. (2004). Preparing for Elearning in Higher Education: Drivers, Barriers and
Pedagogical Issues. PhD thesis, Glasgow Caledonian University.
Biggam, J. (2003). Identifying and capturing knowledge for website usage: a platform for
progress, International Journal of Electronic Business, 1(3), ISSN: 1470-6067.
Brinck, T. (1998) online at. http://www.usabilityfirst.com/Groupware/intro.html.
Broad, J. (2006). Interpretations of independent learning in further education. Journal of
Further and Higher Education, 30, 2 May.
Carman, J. M. (2002). Blended Learning Design: Five Key Ingredients. Knowledgenet.
Cheney, G. (1995). Democracy in the work place: Theory and Practice from the perspective
of communication, Journal of Applied Communication Research, 23, pp 167-200.
Christiansen, C. M. (1997). The Innovator Dilemma- When New Technologies Cause
Great Firms to Fail, H.B.S. Press 1997, and Boston.
Ciborra, C. U. (1996), What does groupware mean for hosting IT? In Ciborrra, C.U. (ed.),
Groupware and Teamwork, Wiley, Chichester.
Coleman, D. (1998). Groupware the changing environment, online at, http://www.collaborate.
com/publications/section1.html
County Durham PCT (2007), County Durham PCT opts for blended learning online at:
http://www.trainingreference.co.uk/news/b1071008.htm
Cubie, A. Glasgow Herald Article, Sept 7
th,
2002)
Dearing, R (1997). Online at. http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/ncihe/
Fisher, K., Phelps, R. & Ellis, A. (2000). Group processes online: teaching collaboration
through collaborative processes, Educational Technology and Society, 3(3).
Franklin, T. and Van Harmelen, M (2007). Web 2.0 for Content for Learning and Teaching
in Higher Education, Report funded by JISC, Franklin Consulting, May 2007.
Fulk, J. & De Sanctis, G. (1998), Articulation of communication technology and
organisational form. Shaping organisational form: Communication, connection, and
community. Newbury Park: Sage.
Future Skills Scotland (2003) Scottish Employers Skills Survey. Online at
http://www.futureskillsscotland.org.uk/
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T. & Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking, cognitive presence and
computer conferencing in distance education, American Journal of Distance
Education, 15, 1, pp7-23.
Goodall, K. & Roberts, J. (2003). Only connect: teamwork in the multinational. Journal of
World Business, 38(2), 150-164.
Guthrie. (1996). Transforming an existing organisation into a learning organisation. GDSS
Working Paper online at http://www.gds.com/wp/transform.htm
Hara, N. & Kling, R. (2000). Students frustration with a web based distance education
course: a taboo topic in the discourse, First Monday, 4(12), pp1-34.
Hayes, J. (2002). The Theory and Practice of Change Management. Basingstoke, Palgrave.
Higher Education Academy, (2004). Online at http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/
Higher Education Academy, (2004). Online at http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/
Hiltz, S. (1998). Collaborative learning in asynchronous learning networks: building learning
communities, Web 98 Symposium, Orlando, Florida.
Hogarth and Biggam (2007), Technology Enhanced Learning in Higher Education: A REAP
Case Study, in Proceedings of eChallenges 2007, The Hague, Holland.
Hogarth, A. (2006). An Exploration of Student Attitudes toward Traditional and Technology-
Based Group Work Culture in the University Environment, PhD Thesis, Chapter 2,
Glasgow Caledonian University
Hogarth, A (2006), New Conceptual Paradigms for Introducing Groupwork and Group
Based Technology in the HE Environment, in Proceedings of eChallenges 2006,
Barcelona.
Hogarth, A. (2005). Drivers for Group Working and Collaborative Technology: A Survey of
human Resource Managers. In proceedings of eChallenges 2005, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Hogarth, A. (2004). The social and cultural effects of using groupware for collaborative
eLearning: A Blackboard Groups case study. In proceedings of eChallenges 2004,
Vienna, Austria.
Hogarth, A. (2003). Change Management and Collaborative Technologies: An Industry
Survey, In Proceedings of IADIS WWW-Internet Conference, Algarve, Portugal.
Hogarth, a. (2002). Adopting Socio-Technical Concepts for Eliciting Groupware
Requirements in the Educational Environment, In Proceedings of ETHICOMP 2002,
Portugal.
Hogarth, A. (2001a). Managing the social and cultural consequences of introducing
groupware technology into the group learning environment. Education and Information
technologies, 6(3).
Hogarth, A. (2001), Enhancing the flexible learning environment: the social and cultural
aspects of introducing groupware, Proceedings of Online EDUCA, 7
th
International
Conference on IT Supported Learning and Teaching, Berlin.
Hogarth, A. & Biggam, J. (2002). Adapting the socio-technical paradigm to facilitate the
introduction of groupware into the organisational environment Systemist: Journal of
UK Systems Society,
Hogarth, A. & Biggam, J. (2000). The social and technical effects of introducing GroupWare
into the educational environment, In Proceedings of ED-ICT 2000, Vienna, Dec,
ACM, pp161-71.
Houston, S. K. & Lazenbatt, (1996). A peer-tutoring scheme to support independent learning
and group project work in Mathematics, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education,
21(3).
Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC). (2002). Inform Issue 1: Reviewing our use of
technology, Online at: http://www.jisc.ac.uk/index.cfm?name=pub_inform1
Julian, E. H. & Boone, C. (2001). Blended Learning Solutions: Improving the Way
Companies Manage Intellectual Capital online at:http://sunned.sun.com/US/
images/final_IDC_SES_6_22_01.pdf
Katzenbach, J. R. & Smith, D. K. (1993). The wisdom of teams: Creating the high-
performance organization. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Kesten, C. (1987). Independent learning: a common essential learning: a study completed for
the Saskatchewan Dept of Education: University of Regina.
Alan Hogarth 134
Kets De Vries, M. (1999). High-performance teams: lessons from the pygmies.
Org. Dynamics [2].
Kling, R. (2000). Learning about information technologies and social change: The
contribution of social informatics, The Information Society, 16(3).
Kuiper, S. (1999).Transition into Business, editor. NJ: Prentice Hall.
Laister, J. & Kober, S. (2002). Social aspects of Collaborative Learning in Virtual Learning
Environments, online at: www.shef.ac.uk/nlc2002/proceedings/papers/19. htm.
London Times Article, 4th February 2006, Student Skills.
Luker, R. (1989). Effective Teaching in Higher Education. London: Routledge
Myers, J. (1991).Co-operative learning in heterogeneous classes. Co-op. Learning, 11.
Panitz, T. (1996). Getting students ready for co-operative learning. Co-operative learning and
College Teaching, 6(2).
Rifkin, G. (2002) in ODwyer, Collaboration and Communication: Utilizing Groupware to
Enhance your Effectiveness online at http://www.fuzhen.com
Rockwood, R. (1995). Co-operative and collaborative learning. NT &L Forum, 4(2).
Rossett, A. (ed.) (2002). The ASTD E-Learning Handbook. New York, McGraw-Hill.
Rust, C. (Ed) 2003 Improving Student Learning 10: Improving Student Learning Theory and
Practice 10 years on. Proceedings of the 2002 10th International Symposium. Oxford.
Scharge, M. (1999), Shared Minds: The new technologies of collaboration, Random House.
Shell, C. (2007), Blended Learning supports BUPA project, online at: http://www.
trainingreference.co.uk/news/b1070201.htm
Skillset, (2004). Employers Survey Report. Online at, http://www.skillset.org/ interactive
Tarricone, P. & Luca, J. (2002). Employees, teamwork and social interdependence: A formula
for successful business teams. Team Performance Management, 8(3, 4), 54-59.
Tung, L. L., et al. (2000). Adoption, implementation and use of Lotus Notes in Singapore.
International Journal of Information Management, 20(5), 369-382.
Vaughan, J. (2004), Teamwork: A Dynamic Model. Online at http://www.culture-
building.com
Whitelock, D. & Jeffs, A. (2003). Editorial: Journal of Educational Media Special Issue on
Blended Learning, Journal of Educational Media, 28(2-3).
Wilde, C., Wright, S., Hayward, G., Johnson, J. & Skerrett, R. (2006). Nuffield review of
higher education in focus groups preliminary report. Oxford University. Online at:
http://www.nuffield14-19review.org.uk/files/news44-2.pdf
Zuboff, S. (1988). In the Age of the Smart Machine. Basic Books, New York.


Chapter 5

COLLABORATIVE PLAY IN EARLY
CHILDHOOD EDUCATION

W. B. Mawson
Principal Lecturer, School of Science, Mathematics and Science Education Faculty of
Education The University of Auckland.

Collaborative play in early childhood education is an under-researched area. This chapter
describes and discusses the findings of a two-year research project investigating the nature of
young childrens collaborative play in two New Zealand early childhood education settings.
In order to clearly contextualize the study the research method, participants and settings are
first described. The findings are then discussed in terms of gender, leadership, themes, and
environmental influences. Two aspects, the theme of pretending to be dead, and the nature of
leadership in childrens play are explored in depth in this discussion. Finally, suggestions are
offered for strategies to encourage collaborate play in early childhood settings

THE NATURE OF COLLABORATIVE PLAY

The importance of collaborative play is a strong belief among early childhood educators
and recent curriculum developers. Te Whaariki (Ministry of Education, 1996), the New
Zealand early childhood curriculum is a socio-culturally oriented learning document that
emphasizes the place of reciprocal relationships in childrens learning. Childrens
collaborative play is a key element in this process (Tudge, 1992) However, little is understood
about the factors that encourage young children to play together in a collaborative manner
(Carr & May, 2000).
There is a reasonably large body of literature related to the benefits of collaborative play
within general early childhood textbooks, but little specific research-based literature. Most of
the research literature is concerned with peer collaboration in specific learning tasks with
primary and secondary school students (Fawcett & Garton, 2005; Murphy & Faulkner, 2006).
There is evidence that children who are involved in high levels of peer interactive play
demonstrate more competent emotional-regulation, initiation, self-determination, and
W. B. Mawson 136
receptive vocabulary skills, and are less likely to be aggressive, shy or withdrawn. They have
greater cognitive, social, and movement coordination outcomes (Black & Hazen, 1990).
There have been a number of frameworks developed to classify the collaborative play
behaviours of children during the last twenty years. Roskos (1990) outlined a taxonomy of
pretend play which had a hierarchy of increasingly complex play that moved from individual
play with objects through to episodes which she conceptualised as having three main
elements, a readying stage, directing the play and the players, the play resembling a kind of
story complete with setting, characters and plot, and object of repetition in the play.
Verbas (1994) description of collaborative play was based on two principles,
collaboration and coherence. She identified three essential aspects of collaborative play.
These were cognitive aspects (developing the goal, linking ideas), transactional aspects
(developing mutual understanding, agreeing on ideas and intentions, resolving conflict) and
management aspects (evaluation, intervention, decision making). Verba derived three
functional categories from her analysis of the actions and behaviours of the children she
studied. These were the elaboration of activity and coordination of purpose, sharing focused
on interest in the partner and development of inter-comprehension, and management using
self-monitoring of the activity and guiding strategies
Shim, Herwig and Shelley (2001) identified three categories of collaborative play. These
were Interactive-functional play (when two or more players engage in complementary
repetitive or active physical movements), Interactive-constructive play (when two or more
players create or construct something together), and Interactive-dramatic play (when two or
more players engage in complementary fantasy actions or vocalizations and role playing).
They described eighteen behaviours that could be used by observers to identify childrens
cooperative play.
Broadhead (2004) formulated a social play continuum for the analysis of the nature of
childrens play interactions. The four broad categories within her framework are the
Associative domain, the Social domain, the highly social domain, and the Cooperative
domain. The cooperative domain is where fully collaborative play is situated. Broadhead has
suggested a number of criteria that need to be met for play to be within the cooperative
domain. These are offering/accepting objects that sustains/extends the play theme, sustained
dialogue is activity related and clear theme(s) emerge, explanations/descriptions are utilised,
new ideas/resources extend and sustain play, children display a shared understanding of goals,
they offer and accept verbal and physical help which is often combined, problems are jointly
identified and solved, and sustained dramatic scenarios are enacted and linked to play
theme(s). The Shim, Herwig, and Shelley (2001) and the Broadhead (2004) frameworks were
used as the starting point for identifying episodes of collaborative play in the research.

THE RESEARCH PROJECT METHODS

The overarching purpose of this interpretivist (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2007) case
study was to investigate the question Which factors appear to inspire and to maintain
collaborative play between young children in Early Childhood Education settings? Case
study research involves the study of an issue within a bounded system (Creswell, 2007). The
first site, in 2007, was an all-day privately owned centre and involved 22 three and four-year-
Collaborative Play in Early Childhood Education 137
old children. The second site, in 2008, was the morning session of a kindergarten and
involved 47 children four-year-old children. The cohesive nature of the groups and the
confined setting (early education centres) lent itself to a case study approach. Because of the
diversity of early childhood education settings the setting of this case study can only be
regarded as reflecting childrens play within these Auckland early childhood centres.
However, it is expected that the reader will find some resonances with their own contexts and
experiences in the stories of these children.
In both cases I spent one morning a week from the beginning of March until the end of
November in the early childhood settings. When an episode of collaborative play began I
recorded it. Shim, Herwig, and Shelley,s (2001, p. 154) modification of the nested Parten-
Smilansky play scale and Broadheads characteristics of cooperative play (Broadhead, 2004,
p. 49) were used to identify collaborative play experiences.
My role was purely as an observer and I did not participate in any of the episodes
observed, nor did I interact with any of the children involved in the play. Only those episodes
that arose from the childrens own interests were observed. I did not record any collaborative
play episodes occurring around activities the teachers had set up, and I stopped recording any
episode whenever a teacher intervened in the play in any way. During 2007 85 episodes were
observed in the all day privately owned centre. During 2008 69 episodes were observed in the
sessional public kindergarten. The episodes were documented using a mix of field notes,
videotape and audiotape recordings, and digital photographs. Not all episodes that occurred
were recorded. While observing inside I could not monitor play that was occurring in the
outside area, and the reverse also was true. Where two episodes were occurring
simultaneously in the same setting normally the episode involving the more complex themes
and interactions was more closely observed, and the other episode monitored to record the
main themes and direction of the play.
Teacher participant feedback was obtained by means of a weekly meeting to discuss the
data. If children approached me during a play episode to tell me what was happening I
recorded this, but I did not break into the play, or interrupt the play that followed to question
them about the episode I had just recorded. I would make available to the children photos
taken of previous play episodes for them to talk about if they wanted to.

SAMPLE AND SETTING

The research took place in two Auckland early childhood settings. Although
geographical separate within Auckland City they were very similar with regard to the ethnic
and socio-economic composition of the children and the qualifications and teaching
experience of the three staff responsible for the children at each centre. The privately owned
setting was open from 7.30am until 6pm and catered for children from six months of age up
to five years of age. The research involved the three and four year old group. At various
times in the privately owned daylong setting (2007) 22 children were participants in the
research project. Initially there were 15 children (6 girls, 9 boys) in the group. During the year
three children left to go to school, and 6 children moved up into this group from a younger-
age group within the centre. In November there were 18 children in the group (8 girls, 10
boys).
W. B. Mawson 138
The kindergarten was sessional, with a group of 45 four-year-old children who attended
five mornings a week for a total of seventeen and a half hours, and a group of 45 three year
olds who attended for three afternoons in a two and a half hour session. The research involved
the morning group. There were originally 35 children (23 girls, 12 boys) in the participant
group. During the year 25 children left the group and 18 children entered it. By November
the participant group consisted of 28 children (16 girls, 12 boys). The children in both settings
were predominantly of New Zealand European ethnicity from middle-class families.

ANALYSIS

All field notes, audiotapes and videotapes were transcribed and the 154 episodes over the
two settings yielded a considerable amount of data for analysis. Originally analysis was done
using categories of gender, theme, type, play area (e.g. blocks, home area). Other categories
emerged from analysis of the data itself. Examples of these were leadership roles, friendship
groupings, communication strategies, and successful/unsuccessful strategies for moving into
others play episodes.
The data is reported in regard to the episode it occurred in. The first two digits are the
day, the second two the month, the next two the year, and the last two the number of the
episode. 08/03/07.04 represents the fourth episode that was observed on the 8
th
of March,
2007. The research had ethical approval from the University of Auckland Human Participants
Ethics Committee. Pseudonyms are used for all children in this chapter.

ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS

Research with young children poses a number of important ethical issues that need to be
addressed. Although the children, aged three and four-years-old were not able to give fully
informed consent, which was gained from the parent/care giver, care was taken to explain to
the children in terms that they could understand what was being observed and to make clear
that they could ask not to be observed at any time. I also looked for non-verbal indications
that children were withdrawing their consent. As parental consent was gained for all children
in the privately owned setting the exclusion of non-consenting children was not normally a
concern when collecting data. However this became more problematic in the kindergarten
setting where parental consent varied from 75% to 66% of the children during the year. If
non-participating children were playing with participant children then only field notes were
used to record the play event, and the field notes only related to the participant children. Care
was also taken to ensure that non-participant children were not captured in any video footage
or digital photographs.

FINDINGS DOMINANT THEMES

As the play themes reflected the childrens interests and were not the result of teacher
provocations or interactions then the content of the childrens play may be seen as reflecting
the funds of knowledge learnt in home and community settings (Gonzalez, Moll, & C., 2005).
One area of fundamental inquiry focussed around exploring what it means to be part of a
responsible family and community. This was reflected in the high incidence of domestic
scenarios acting out family responsibilities such as caring for babies and pets, preparing meals
and ensuring that naps were taken by those participants taking the role of children within the
group play. Preparing for and enjoying parties and picnics was another theme that was acted
out with considerable enjoyment
A second area of interest that was explored was the role of adults outside the family
circle. In particular the work of doctors, firemen and policemen proved a rich area of dramatic
play for the children. Although these themes were enjoyed for the highly dramatic events of
life-saving medical operations, chasing, capturing and jailing burglars, and of rescuing people
from fires, they also served an important purpose of allowing the children to explore and
refine their understanding of these adult roles.
Monsters were incorporated into a range of scenarios, as there were a number of ways the
theme could be acted out. At times the monster was the protagonist, and the plot revolved
around being chased and captured, and then escaping or being rescued. At other times the
children set themselves in the roles of the protagonist and the monster became the prey
Other activities within the centre would occasionally become incorporated within
childrens collaborative play, although these themes would normally be quite short-lived. In
the private centre, a special pirates day lead to pirate scenarios emerging in the boys
collaborative play during the next week, but the interest was not sustained after that.
Similarly, a puppet performance in the kindergarten led to the staging of a number of puppet
plays by a small group of mainly girls. Again this theme soon petered out.
Contrary to what might have been expected, superhero play was not the theme of any of
the 154 episodes recorded in the two centres during the two-year period of observation.
Occasionally one or two boys would wear a superhero costume, most often Spiderman, but
Superman and Batman costumes were also recorded. Even when wearing the costumes, the
play episodes entered into by the children were not related to the superhero characters.
The themes described above were found in both early childhood centres and made up
about the same proportion of the play episodes. There were two play themes that were
context-specific. In the private-all day centre pretend Im dead appeared in 21 of the 85
episodes recorded, but did not occur once in the 56 episodes in the kindergarten setting. On
the other hand gun play did not appear in the private centre, but was a significant element in
the play of the boys in the kindergarten. A key factor in this would seem to be the presence
of one dominant child in both settings for whom the theme was of pretending to be dead, or
making guns and shooting baddies was a recurring scenario that other children would join in.

Pretend Im dead, eh An Example of a Theme of Childrens Collaborative
Socio-Dramatic Play.

Most of the literature on the theme of death in childrens socio-dramatic play is related to
Play Therapy and is focussed on using play to assist children to deal with actual death (Gil,
2006; Keith & Whitaker, 1981; Wilson, Kendrick, & Ryan, 1992). Within child development
literature violent fantasy play has been explored (Dunn & Hughes, 2001; Howe, C.M.,
W. B. Mawson 140
Jennings, & Petrakos, 2002) but the focus has been on the development of social and moral
understandings rather than as an integral element of childrens positive collaborative play.
There appears to be little written about childrens pretence of death as a theme in young
childrens play. What literature there is suggests that this theme is common within European
cultures. James, Bearne and Alexander (2004) observe that the weaving of the fundamental
issues of life and death with everyday concerns was a recurrent theme throughout their
research in England. They report an episode in which children plan for dog's death and decide
who will play the role. In a second reported scenario a boy plays a dead father, who is soon
dragged back to life. Guss (2005) in her research in Norway notes that a child acting as a wolf
dying and coming back to life was continuous theme in play studied. In the United States
West (1996) records a child introducing new theme of being turned into a dog, being
poisoned and pretending to be dead. Danger and death was the most recurrent theme in the
play she observed, being present in all six site visits made to the kindergarten during the
research. Sellares and Bassedas (1995) state that death was a theme strongly present in young
childrens play in their Spanish research.
Although playing dead occurred on twenty-one occasions, one child, Jenny, consistently
initiated it. She normally used it as means to focus the play on herself, to move from the
periphery of the play to the centre, or to move into the play of others. Occasionally the two
other girls in her particular friendship group, Claire and Sally, would initiate the theme, but
invariably it was Jenny who was to play dead.

Establishing the Rules

On nearly every occasion it was made clear that it was only a pretend death. For instance
Jenny came back into the area where Claire and Sally were playing, said and pretend I was
dead eh and laid the floor pretending to be dead (15/3.07). On another occasion Jenny
entered a family scenario involving Sally, Susan and Sasha and said Pretend kittys dead
and rolled over on her back. Sally responded Oh look, kittys dead and the dead kitty was
incorporated into their family play (05/04.15).
The dead person/animal was always brought back to life during the play episode. This
was done in a number of ways. Often the dead person was regarded as waking up as though
she had been asleep. This theme was consistent revisited. A typical example of this is
contained in the following exchange.

Sally who gets up and moves over and pushes Jenny saying Wake up, wake up!
Jenny responds, No Im dead
Simon: You have to tell her to wake up now.
Sally starts jumping up and down, calling Wake up sister, wake up sister. Jenny
wakes up.
Sally Shes waking up, hip hip hooray, hip hip hooray, hip hip hooray. (15/03.07)

Another common method of coming alive was associated with medicines and being sick.
This was clearly expressed by Jenny when she stated, Im sick now eh because after you are
dead you are sick. (05/04.15). On another occasion Simon has been pretending to be dead.
When Sally returns to the tent Claire says to her, Sh, hes dead eh. After a short time J says,
pretend hes alive eh. After some seconds Sally finally gets into the tent and says, and Im
going to make a new medicine so I can wake him up. (15/03.07)
Often coming alive was associated with being treated by a doctor or going to the hospital.
Sally. Mary, and we turned into doctors, and shes going to be ok. (30/08.62). After a fight
between their toy animals Chris says to Simon Now King Kong is dead from the bat, and
King Kong goes to hospital, eh (01/03.01). Sasha looks at Jenny lying on the floor and says
Shes dead, doctor. Sally responds Can you take her to the hospital and Jenny is carried
to the hospital to become sick. (22/03.11).
The most unusual way of coming back to life was to become younger. Jenny had
introduced death into the scenario giving the reason as Pretend Im dead because Im 20 eh.
Later in the play episode the following exchange occurs.

Jenny I cant come alive for ever and ever
Sally And Jenny, your parents came to see you
Jenny And when I turn back to 19 I come alive eh (09/08.56).

Directing the Play

As well as normally initiating the dead person scenario Jenny would often move in and
out of role in order to keep the play going. Jenny has been lying on the floor pretending to be
dead and the group has started to get sidetracked attending to a doll with a syringe. Jenny then
directs the attention back to her.

Jenny Someone has to carry me, someone has to carry both of my arms. No, two
people, only Sally, carry me this way eh, you take me feet eh, no Sasha takes my
feet. Jenny is then carried over to the hospital and becomes the centre of attention as
they work over her, the doll forgotten and discarded (22/03.11).

On another occasion Jenny not only directed the dead play, but also carried on a separate
conversation with her friend who was not part of the play episode while pretending to be
dead.

Susan, Im doing this because Jenny is dying and were playing doctor.
Jenny, Im the big sister and Im dead.
George, Mum and dad are the doctors because thats their work.
Jenny, I dont need the eyeballs in here anymore, but Im still dead eh.
George continues to doctor Jenny in the fireplace as she directs him what to do.
Claire crawls to the fireplace and Jenny stands up.
Claire Hey, Jenny.
Jenny, Hey sister, but Im dead eh.
Jenny lies down again and Claire goes behind the curtain and they start to talk quietly
to each other (09/08.56).

W. B. Mawson 142
Areas of Resistance

Rarely did children kill each other in the play scenario. On the occasions where this
happened it was invariably connected with a conflict over leadership of the scenario between
two close friends, Sally and Claire. Sally and Claire were playing a sick baby scenario and
were having a conflict over who would be the doctor. At that stage Simon entered the space,
picked up the syringe from where Sally had left it, and began thrusting it toward the girls in
an aggressive manner. Claire called out Kill her, kill her Simon and he shot Sally with the
syringe (15/03.07).
In another example Sally had started the game by saying to Susan Were doctors, eh?
And we have to go to the hospital. Sally goes over to the chimney, There is an accident,
come on doctors. You have to come in the ambulance, theres been an accident.

Claire joins in the game at this point and Sally said to her And youre dead and
youre sick.
Claire And Im the kitty and youre my mum, eh.
Sally comes back and says, Youve got to pretend youre dead. She leaves the
fireplace once more and says, You stay in there, stay in there before returning with
a basket. Claire then tries to introduce a new element to the game.
Claire Every time Im alive I turn into a monster, eh.
Sally But youre not alive, youre dead.
Claire Im a monster.
Sally But when I shoot you youre dead and she pretends to shoot Claire with a
piece of wood. You have to be dead. Claire stands up.
Sally Are you playing with me?
Claire Im not now and she leaves the space (16/08/57).

Being killed was acceptable if agreement was reached with the other person first. Claire
said to Jenny Im going to poison you, pretend that you are dead when I do this. Claire
injected Jenny with the syringe. Katy moved over to the tent and said to Claire, Do that to
me, I want to be dead. But dont do it hard because I will cry ok and Claire then injected
Katy (15/03.07).
Occasionally being dead was resisted. Claire said, Pretend he killed everyone and
pretend they were dead, but when I call everyone like this (touching Katy and Sally gently on
the chest) they are dead. Claire touched Sally who fell on to the floor. Claire then touched
Katy who resisted. Claire said, No, when I do that youve got to be dead. Katy still resisted
saying No, youre not allowed to do that to people, then theyll hurt theirselves and she
pushed Claires hand away (15/03.07).

Developing the Theme

Once the theme of being dead was incorporated into the play episode, the play then could
develop in a number of ways. The most common was for the play to move into a
doctor/hospital scenario. The death theme normally was introduced first and the doctor theme
emerged as a way to deal with the dead person. On one occasion having established that they
would pretend that the mother was dead, Sally then said, Mary, and we turned into doctors,
and shes going to be ok. (30/08.62). On another occasion Chris said, Now King Kong is
dead from the bat, and King Kong goes to hospital, eh (01/03.01)
Once the doctor had arrived, or the dead person was taken to hospital, often by
ambulance, the children would undertake a number of remedies. There was frequently a focus
on stopping the bleeding and bandaging the patient. Susan, Theres blood, urh. Sasha, We
need to put a bandage on it dont we. Medicine was normally administered by injecting the
patient, although at times it was seen as being a substance of some kind, A special cleaner to
make you be not dead (Sasha, 09/08.56). The special nature of these substances was made
clear by Sally, We need some magic cream. (22/03.11).
The role of the ambulance often featured highly in these doctor scenarios. Sally in
particular liked to introduce an ambulance into the play action, being careful to observe the
appropriate safety precautions.

Sally, No shes dead, I think the ambulance is here.
Susan pretends to ring on the phone. Hello, hello, call the ambulance.
Sally, The ambulance is already here. Were the ambulance.
Sally sits in the chair and says, Lets sit in the car. She makes a siren noise and
then says, Click, click, click Susan, click your seatbelt, click Sasha.
Sasha, I have clicked.
Sally pretends to drive the ambulance. Sally, were here, were here.
Sasha, Were at the doctors arent we. (19/07.50)

Family scenarios where a second common context for pretend dead play. This was
particularly so when only girls were involved in the play. Death and loss were combined in
some scenarios. Mummy! cried Claire, taking a train from inside the ramp. Sally looked
around the house and said, shes lost, shes dead. Claire got to her feet calling, mummy,
mummy, mum, mummy. Sally turned to her and said, I think shes locked in the gaol. She
looked in the ramp saying, No, no, wheres she gone? (08/03.04).
There was no particular family member who was the focus of pretend dead play. At
various times the mother, the father, the sister, the baby, and the kitten were all subjects of
pretend dead scenarios. On no occasion was a brother the subject, and this seems related to
the apparent reluctance of the boys to pretend to be dead. That occurred only twice in the
twenty-one episodes. On one occasion Simon had been a monster and was killed to protect
the baby. On the other occasion Alex had been playing with Chris in the block corner when
he said, Pretend Im dead and you can fix me (11/10.69) and the block building play moved
into doctor play for a short time.
A third common element was the introduction of monster characters into the play
episode. This normally was used to explain how the death occurred and often led to a hiding
from/being chased by the monster, particularly when boys were involved in the play episode.

Sally calls out Save us Sasha, Sasha here comes the monster. Simon comes out of
the tent and tries to wake Claire who has been killed by the monster. Sally gives the
syringe to Sasha and says, We kill the monster with this. Katy says to Sasha, we
are playing monster games. (15/03.07)

There were occasions when the impact of death on the other characters was recognized,
and ways of dealing with this were built into the play scenario. Ben, Claire and Peter were
W. B. Mawson 144
playing a family scenario with the dolls house when Claire said, My cat died dad. When my
cat died my kitten cried. Simon immediately responded But the baby will miss her mum.
Ok she can be dead, but only for a little while, not long, only this much. She cant be dead for
10 minutes, only this much. (11/10.71)
Pretend Im dead, eh was a regular element of the collaborative play of this group of
children. It was a long-term interest, occurring as often in October as it had in March when
the observations began. The majority of the children in the group were involved in at least
one observed episode during the year. Although Jenny was the lead character in many of the
episodes recorded she was not particularly interested in the concept of being dead, but more
in using a scenario which she knew would be picked up by the other children as a means of
entering or taking the leadership of the play scenario (Ghafouri & Wein, 2005). The theme
continued to occur regularly in the childrens play after Jennys departure for school in mid-
August.
There appeared to be no real interest in the concept of death by any of the children.
Having one of the group play dead was a means of bringing other more interesting elements,
particularly playing doctors, into the play action. At no time was there any discussion about
what it meant to be dead. Being dead was given no more importance than being the mum, the
dad, or the kitten.
In none of the twenty-one episodes was pretending to be dead the main focus of the play.
None of the episodes started from a pretend Im dead statement, this element was always
introduced into an existing collaborative play situation, and served primarily to provide a
stimulus to extend and enrich the play. It was a narrative that allowed them to explore other
social and work relationships (Guss, 2005).
It did seem important to the children that they clearly established that playing dead was a
pretend situation, and that the dead player was brought back to life before the play episode
was finished (Ma & Lillard, 2006). This was clearly different from the situations in the boys
shoot the baddies game in which the dead object was an inanimate object and not one of
the group.
Although it was usually introduced by the girls, and featured a girl as the dead player
pretend Im dead provided an opportunity for boys to become involved in the girls
collaborative play. There were 22 mixed gender episodes of collaborative play recorded in
the period March to October and on 10 occasions the pretend dead element was part of the
play. Invariably the boys assumed the role of the monster or defender against the monster or
became a doctor, roles they appeared to feel appropriate for boys to assume (Parsons &
Howe, 2006). There was clearly a greater use of language in the play episode by the boys
when playing in mixed gender settings than was evident when they were playing
collaboratively in boy-only scenarios.
Pretending to be dead was one of the main strategies used by this group of children to
maintain collaborative play episodes. It was a consistent theme within the play of Sally,
Claire and Jenny over an eight-month period. As a theme it appealed to most of the children
and at one time or another they participated in one of these play episodes. The death itself was
inconsequential; it was a mechanism for introducing new scenarios and roles into a play
episode. There was no morbid fascination with death, everyone knew it was pretend, that the
dead character would wake up, the monster be chased away, and that someone else would die
again tomorrow.
LEADERSHIP IN COLLABORATIVE PLAY

There does not appear to be a large body of research literature on leadership roles in
childrens collaborative play. Much of the research literature involves paired children
working on adult set tasks that are aimed to provide data on specific aspects of childrens
collaborative work. Lee, Recchia and Shin (2005) discuss the importance of relational and
contextual elements to explain both style of leadership and nature of other childrens
interactions. They identified four leadership styles, the director, the free spirit, the manager,
and the power man. In their study a clear gender difference in leadership style was also
evident. Further publications from that on-going research study have looked at teacher
interactions with child leaders (Mullarkey, Recchia, Lee, Shin, & Lee, 2005) and also at the
way in which three children, identified as leaders by their teachers, manipulated and
influenced not only the play of the other children, but also the teachers practice (Lee &
Recchia, 2008). These influences were both positive and negative in terms of their impact on
the classroom community. Ghafouri and Wien (2005) identified four kinds of social literacy
that frequently and successfully sustained play in their study. These were leading and
following the roles in play, supporting emotional well-being among the participants,
collaborating by including others in play by sharing or adding props, and conflict resolution
skills, both among participants and between participants and intruders. They found that
leadership and power negotiation are important in both developing and sustaining play
Apart from seven children who consistently preferred to play and work by themselves
joint play was the normal pattern of play for all 75 children in the study. Friendship was the
key factor in determining whom they played with, and the nature of the play. However, most
of these joint play episodes were of social and parallel play, and regular collaborative play
was confined to a small group within both settings. The crucial element underpinning
collaborative play seemed be the existence of a leader within the friendship group.
Within each setting there was quite a marked difference in the amount of collaborative
play undertaken by individual children, and this discussion focuses on those children for
whom collaborative play was a common experience as leadership issues were more evident in
their play. The narratives are reported separately for each of the settings so that any impact
the setting may have had can be identified.
In the kindergarten there were four clear social groupings (two dyads of boys and two
dyads of girls) that consistently were involved in collaborative play when the data collection
began at the beginning of March. During the year, as children left the group to go to school
and new children came in to replace them both the boys and girls groups coalesced to form
larger collaborative play groups. As membership changed and the groups came together,
leadership and control patterns changed within the group.
Unlike the kindergarten there were no fixed groupings of boys collaborative play groups
in the privately owned centre. The boys groupings depended more on particular interests on
the day than on friendship ties. Two boys however did tend to assume leadership and control
when involved in collaborative play. John had a dictatorial leadership style while Colin had a
more directorial style. Colin was more able than any other boy in the group to move into and
be accepted into girls play. There was a group of three girls (Clare, Meg, Jenny) who
consistently played together. They provided a core group that several other children moved
in and out of from episode to episode. The play was invariably of a socio-cultural nature with
W. B. Mawson 146
a focus on domestic relationships and enactments of school life. Within the three there were
conflicting leadership styles and control of the play fluctuated among them both between and
within individual play episodes.

Boys Collaborative Play

In both settings there was a very hierarchical structure to the boys collaborative play with
the dominant boy using a very dictatorial approach to maintain his control of the play
scenario. Control was established through a mixture of aggression and intimidation. Leaders
tended to be bigger and more aggressively oriented than the other boys. The use of loud
voice, repeated demands, exclusion from the play episode, standing over the others, and if
need be physical struggle were the common elements of this style of leadership.
One boy, John, was the uncontested leader of the boys play during the year in the
privately owned centre. The membership of the play group varied from episode to episode,
and friendship was not an important element in this, the action and plot being more significant
in attracting participants. John relied on his size and physical presence to assume control of
any collaborative play episode he was involved in. It was rare for other boys to challenge his
domination of the play script or of his right to have the policemans hat and coat or builders
helmet and jacket when playing games with those roles in them. Whether playing in a boat or
in the police car, John was always the driver or the captain (10/05/07.26). John tended to
direct the play using gesture rather than words, and a feature of the collaborative play
episodes he was involved in were the long silences while the boys worked together on a
common task. His decision on whether other children could join the play was always the
binding one. It was rare for him to get involved in mixed gender play but when this occurred
it was normally with Clare who was able to direct Johns involvement is subtle ways that did
not challenge his need to assert his position of primacy.
In the kindergarten, where there was a much greater movement in and out of the group,
leadership was always an area of contestation. In March the two pairs of boys (Barry and
Henry, Peter and James) tended to play with each other for the whole of the morning session
between the end of mat time and the beginning of clean up time. At times they would drift
off to other activities or allow other children into their play, but essentially they were self-
contained units. At this stage of the year Henry and Barry would at times move into the play
of Peter and James, but the reverse did not occur. The social dynamics within each pair of
boys were quite different. Leadership and control of the play was nearly always a contested
zone with Barry and Henry. Rejection of the play situation was a common process used when
this occurred.
When working with other children both Barry and Henry were prone to respond to
challenges to their leadership with some act of physical force. When Nathan objected to what
Henry was doing while playing together in the home corner Henry reaction was to twist
Nathans arms (27/03/08.04). Barry was one of the biggest boys in the kindergarten, and he
had a minor speech impediment that often made it difficult to understand what he was saying.
He would frequently resort to physical action in frustration when he couldnt get his point
across. This would usually lead to the end of the play episode.
Barry and Henry would often use exclusion of other children as a way to emphasise their
leadership and control. They were in the sandpit making poisoned wombat stew when Terry
came over. The following exchange took place.

Terry, Can I help?
Henry, No!!
Terry, Can I?
Henry, Im in charge.
Barry, No, were in charge of our one, were in charge of our one. Youre not
allowed over. (04/04/08.08)

James and Peter spent virtually all their time at kindergarten in the sandpit. They had a
number of common themes to their play and did not talk very much as they work together.
They tended to share leadership and their play was marked by very little conflict. When
playing with other children outside the sandpit both were content to share leadership and
control of the play with others. On one occasion James and Peter were involved in a very
complex scenario focussed around policemen and firemen with Mary and Barry. The play
episode lasted for 57 minutes and during that time Mary, Peter and James offered suggestions
to maintain and develop the scenario that were accepted without question by all the other
children. However, when Henry joined in the play he instigated a physical conflict over
possession of a seat in the police car and then of the rope to tie up the baddies as he sought to
establish his place in the play hierarchy (08/05/08.14).
The close friendship of James and Peter was threatened in early April by the move of
Fred into the morning session of kindergarten. James and Fred had been close friends in the
afternoon session and Fred quickly moved into the group. This changed the dynamics quite
dramatically as Peter and Fred competed for Jamess attention. James now became the
dominant person in the play, assigning roles and determining the script. Fred had entered the
morning session on April 11
th
, and by the end of May Peter had left the group and the sandpit
and was looking for new playmates inside. Although James made an effort to revive the
friendship, saying to Peter on 20
th
June Excuse me Peter, I do want to be your friend
(20/06/08.32) the friendship and joint involvement in collaborative play was not fully re-
established before Peter left for school at the beginning of July. No longer needing to
compete with Peter for Jamess friendship allowed Fred to become more assertive. As time
passed Fred became the dominant partner, firstly with James and later with the wider group of
boys.
The assertion of Freds leadership in his play with James was not uncontested, and was
normally associated with possession of objects associated with the play. In these disputes
increasingly Fred came to be the winner.
After Henry went to school toward the end of June Barry started to become a regular
member of James and Freds play episodes. Barry was not predisposed to accept Freds
leadership and take a subordinate role in the group play. The battle for power commenced the
first week after Henry departure when Fred, James, Andrew, Peter and Barry were in the sand
pit. Fred, James, Andrew, Peter had dug one hole looking for treasure and Barry had dug
another close by it. A joint leadership of the large group had been established, with Andrew
saying to James Youre doing all the right stuff. And me and you and Fred are all in
charge. Fred came back with some water and Barry attempted to gain some leadership and
W. B. Mawson 148
control of the play by firstly saying Look at my hole, he brings water to me too and when
that failed by trying to change the direction of the play saying We can put the poo in there
and putting liquid sand into James and Freds hole. Andrew rejected this change of theme
responding, We was making poo last week.
Barry tried another approach saying, Join them together referring to the two holes they
have dug. Fred responded to Barrys leadership challenge by introducing a new theme,
Were going to poison all the people in the lake. Barry persevered with his idea; Were
making poo, not poison. Faced with this continuing challenge James and Fred left the
sandpit and starting playing at the water trough leaving Barry to direct Andrew and Peter in
the sandpit (04/07/08.35).
The competition between Barry and Fred for prime leadership in the wider group of boys
continued for a couple of months. It was characterised by heated arguments, conflict over
possession of play artefacts and attempts to exclude the other from the play. However, they
would always unite to prevent other children attempting to direct the play. The paramount
leadership of Fred in the eyes of the other boys was clearly established by the beginning of
October. This is clearly illustrated by incidents within a play episode in the sandpit. A group
of six boys were digging a waterfall in the sandpit. Luke was about to pour water into the hole
but Carlos stopped him saying, dont pour it in the hole until Fred comes. The boys moved
away from the hole and two girls took possession of it. Some time later Carlos came back and
saw the girls digging in the hole and the following conversation took place.

Carlos, Stop that, thats Freds hole.
Elizabeth, Were making it deeper so the baddies will fall in.
Carlos, That will make Fred angry and he goes back inside to tell Fred what is
happening to the hole.
Elizabeth, Were going to keep digging, were going to.
Alf comes out with Carlos and says, Stop digging the hole, Fred will be really
angry.
Carlos, Yeah, we told him.
Alf, He will be very angry and he will push you in the hole (26/09/08.56).

Girls Collaborative Play

In both settings girls collaborative play was characterised by co-operation and leadership
was exercised in a more benign and directorial manner than was the case with the boys play.
There was more conflict within the dominant threesome in the privately owned centre than
among the pairs in the kindergarten. This was due to there being two competing leaders
among the three, and a two-on-one situation would sometimes eventuate when two competing
scenarios were being advanced.
In the kindergarten initially there were two pairs of girls (Wendy and Pat, Sarah and
April) who regularly played together. Two other girls May (Aprils twin sister) and Susan
sometimes were part of the play of both groups. Wendy and Pats play was closely associated
with the home corner and family play, nearly all their play episodes began there before
extending the scenario into the wider kindergarten setting. Sarah and Aprils play tended to
have a literacy or fantasy theme. In both these dyads the leadership of one girl (Sarah and
Wendy) was clearly recognized by the other friend and when conflict arose a negotiated
solution was normally attempted and achieved by Sarah and Wendy. The leadership was
based on Sarah and Wendys creativity in setting up and developing interesting scenarios for
the play. Sarah and Wendy also had better-developed fine motor skills than April and Pat and
would often provide help in making things. Sarah and April had made cars out of cardboard
boxes, and when Aprils broke it was Sarah who she looked to fix it (18/04/08.13)
Developments within a scenario where normally couched in terms of a suggestion and a
positive response. Sarah, April and Flora had playing family role-playing game that moved
into pretending to be a train and chugging around the kindergarten. As the train was moving
along Sarah said, Lets play hospitals. Flora responded, Yes, lets play hospitals and the
three girls quickly moved into a scenario with nurses and patients in the hospital
(04/04/08.07).
A typical example of this accepted power and leadership in the girls relationship can be
seen in this episode involving Sarah, April, and May. Sarah had established her and Aprils
role as sisters and proceeded to give May her role.

Sarah to May, Youre the baby.
May, Im the cat.
Sarah No, you have to be the baby.
Sarah April, pretend youre in the fairy dress and you can blow out the candles.
April Im just excited about the cake.
Sarah Were going to have party games, first we will play statues.
Sarah Do you want to come to the play school with us?
On the way to school Sarah shows April how to dance, saying Put your hands on
your hips skip, skip, skip as she demonstrates the steps.
April Now were big sisters.
Sarah You sit down because Im going to be the teacher and she showed April a
book and began to read it to her (01/08/08.38).

The dominant leadership role of Wendy is evident in this block area interaction with Pat.
Wendy and Pat moved to block corner and started to build a tower-like construction. Wendy
was in control. Wendy said, Its done, its done, Pat and stopped Pat from putting more
blocks on the tower. Then Wendy said We need more blocks and Pat put another block on
the tower. The two girls continued to build up the tower. As Pat put each block on top she
looked to Wendy for approval. Wendy said, We need more, we need more of those pointing
to the small blocks they had been standing on end and followed this with, Start making the
side bits indicating that enclosures should be made for the animals. As the play continued
Wendy continued to direct the building and created a story involving dinosaurs, elephants and
sharks to provide a purpose for the construction (07/08/08.43).
At the end of May the two groups of girls slowly began to coalesce. This was only an
occasional event at this time, but by September their play together was an established
practice. From the beginning there was an acceptance of joint leadership. Rather than
competing for leadership Wendy and Sarah worked harmoniously together to direct the play
of the enlarged group. Both offered suggestions for roles and for themes and it was rare for
one of them to challenge or refuse to accept the suggestion of the other. Each recognized the
others particular strength, whether it was Sarahs ability to make crowns (12/09/08.51) or
W. B. Mawson 150
Wendys expertise in organizing and directing family and cooking scenarios in the sandpit
later that morning (12/09/08.52).
In the privately owned centre there was a group of three girls Clare, Meg, Jenny) who
consistently played together. Within the three there were conflicting leadership styles and
control of the play fluctuated among them both between and within individual play episodes.
Meg was more inclined to want to dominate the play and Clare more inclined to direct the
play. Clare was normally the person who allocated the roles within play episodes she was
involved in. Jenny had a much more complex leadership style, moving from a dictatorial to a
directorial approach from episode to episode. Jenny also was the girl most able and prone to
move into boys play. Just as Colin could take over and direct girls play so Jenny was able to
do this with the boys. Again this was due to her ability to bring new and interesting scenarios
into the play (Mawson, 2008). The girls play was often punctuated by short-term conflict
between which was usually quickly resolved. If resolution was not achieved then this
generally led to the withdrawal of one of them from the play.
Both instances can be seen in one block corner episode involving Clare and Meg. Within
a two-minute period Meg responded to Clares refusal to put a block where she had told her
with No we dont. Im not your friend anymore and Clare responded to Megs removal of
the blocks with Im going to make a birthday cake and you cant have it. Youre not
coming to my birthday. Nevertheless they continued to play cooperatively together for
another 12 minutes until Clare dropped to the floor, rolled on her back and said to Meg, Im
pretending, Im not going to play and laughed. Meg walked away and then turned and said,
Dont say that. Ok, bye and turned and left the space. Clare ran after calling, Hey Meg
(08/03/07.04).
Clare normally acted as mediator in these disputes, and she also consistently sought to
bring any play episode back on track if it appeared to be moving to far away from the agreed
script. During a cooking scenario in the sandpit Jenny and Meg had a disagreement that led
Jenny to sit in the sandpit refusing to play with or look at the other two. Clare went over,
bent right over to look her in the eyes and said darling and offered Jenny her hands to pull
her up. When Jenny refused to relent Clare introduced a new idea, school time, school time
and Jenny decided to join in the new scenario (08/03/07.05).
Maintaining the friendship was an important purpose of the group and others within the
threesome would also act as mediators if Clare was one of disputants. One morning Jenny,
Clare and Meg were all painting at the easel. They had been enjoying social chat about going
to the dentist and doctor and not being hurt but being brave. Then a dispute developed
between Jenny and Clare over the use of the paint and the following exchange occurred.

Clare, But youre not playing with us Jenny.
Jenny, I am, eh Meg.
Meg, No.
Jenny, Would you be my friend Meg?
Clare, Shes not anymore.
Meg, You can be our friend, what about we be all friends, we can be three friends
and Jenny comes back to the painting easel and set about re-establishing the
friendship, by asking
Meg Are you my friend, and Clare are you my friend? Both Meg and Clare answer
yes.
Meg, we are all friends.
Jenny asks Clare if she help her with her picture, and she agrees.
Clare, And did you know, you help me paint my painting, youre helping me with
my painting arent you.
Jenny Can you help me, do a painting with me
Meg, Oh, can I help
Meg, Can I put some circle white on it?
Jenny, Yep (26/04/07.19).

Leadership in Mixed Gender Play

There was a clear difference in the amount of mixed gender collaborative play in the two
settings. Mixed gender play involved nearly one-third of the episodes in the privately owned
centre (26/85), but only one-eighth (8/65) in the kindergarten. Three of these kindergarten
episodes evolved as a result of boys aggressive intervention to disrupt girls play in the
sandpit. In all three cases the girls were able to resist the boys efforts to drive them from the
sandpit by providing a new and interesting scenario that drew the boys into their play. This
aggression/redirection process did not occur in the privately owned centre.
In the first half of the year in the kindergarten there was little mixed gender collaborative
play. An element of mixed gender collaborative play emerged as a group of children entered
the morning session at the beginning of July. The key element was the leadership of one girl,
Carol who became the recognized leader in a number of collaborative episodes that normally
involved a number of boys. It was very unusual for another girl to be involved in the play.
Her core group included four boys, two of whom John and Allen were normally involved in
active play involving guns and goodies and baddies. When playing under Carols direction
however, they were happy to take part in quite different domestic type play. Examples of this
type of play were cooking in the sandpit (Field Note 29/8/08), water play ((Field Note
19/09/08), dramatic play as office-workers (17/10/08.59) and preparing and going on a picnic
(31/10/08.64). In each of these cases Carol set the scenario and allocated the roles and her
leadership was never questioned by any of the boys.
The picnic episode is a good example of Carols leadership. She dictated the roles and
actions of the boys, And you two boys have to carry the basket together because its very
heavy. Yes all of you boys, John, Steve and Allen have to carry the basket because it is heavy.
Everybody, plates, everybody gets some plates, lets see, that should be enough. Now a bowl,
we need one each. At the same time she allowed the boys roles that they felt were gender
appropriate within the domestic, family picnic scenario. John was allowed to bring his gun to
the picnic, and while Carol changed the baby Steve said This is the phone for daddy, its my
work and he took a phone out of the basket and pretended to talk on it. John also picked up
a phone and starts a conversation, I need to . . . one one one, hello fire engine.
(31/10/08.64)
Carol already had a strong friendship relationship with her main playmate, Steve that had
developed socially outside the kindergarten. There was no strong friendship link with the
other three boys prior to moving into the morning session, and Carols leadership was based
both on an ability to communicate with them in a manner that was firm without being overly
dictatorial, and by her ability to incorporate roles and actions that allowed the boys to pursue
their own interests within the framework of the play scenario.
W. B. Mawson 152
In the privately owned centre mixed gender Jenny, Meg, or Clare almost always initiated
collaborative play. Mixed gender scenarios tended to revolve around three themes, monsters,
doctors and hospitals, and family and pets. While Meg and Clare were adept at bringing boys
into their play, Jenny, who could adopt either a dictatorial or directorial role, was able to
move into boys play and take control of the scenario and widen the number of participants in
the episode.
One of the boys also had this ability. Colin was able to move into other childrens play
episodes and change the direction of play without causing conflict in the process. When he
moved into a performing animals scenario being acted out by Jenny and James he soon
transformed the play into much more dramatic scenario involving vampire bats, King Kong,
and hospitals (01/03/07.01). On another occasion Meg, Clare, Jenny, and Ada were involved
in a family and school scenario. Colin arrived holding a large syringe and the play quickly
turned into a monsters, doctors and being dead scenario into which two other boys and
another girl entered (15/03/07.07). Similarly a group of girls were involved in a family
scenario when Colin arrived on the scene. He immediately entered the play announcing Im
going to be the dad and within two minutes had introduced a car into the play and was
walking round the centre with the girl passengers following him (05/04/07.15)
Friendship ties were most important element in defining the play group for girls. For the
boys, particularly in the privately owned centre, the action and plot was more important in the
emergence of a collaborative play episode. In both settings control of non-core members into
the play was strongly policed, and outsiders could never be sure whether their overtures to
join in the play would be accepted.
Within both settings there were clear gender differences regarding leadership and control
in collaborative play. Within boys play leadership was dictatorial in style. Leadership was
asserted in a number of ways. One was to speak in a loud authoritative voice and maintain
this until opposition was silenced. This was often accompanied by standing up to assume a
dominant posture over the rest of the group. A second technique was to exclude other
children from joining the play, or prevent them from taking some action within the play
experience. If these methods did not work then John, Matthew and Oliver would resort to
some sort of physical action such as taking possession of a disputed object or occupying the
disputed space. Very rarely did they take physical action against another boy, and this was
normally seen within the group as an unacceptable use of power and ended the collaborative
play that had been occurring.
In both settings the leadership style in girls collaborative was invariably directorial.
Leadership within a play episode was rarely contested, and conflict was relational in nature
(youre not my friend. You cant come to my party.), and soon resolved. Individual
strengths were recognized and respected and consensus and compromise was an important
element of successful leaders.
It was only in the area of mixed-gender play that clear differences emerge between the
two settings. This type of play was both more prevalent, and more invitational in the
privately owned centre. In the kindergarten not only was mixed-gender play much less
common, nearly half the observed episodes began with boys attempting to disrupt the girls
play. The key to this different behaviour may lie in the nature of the settings and the length of
the childrens interactions within them.
The group within the privately-owned centre was less than half the size of the
kindergarten group (18:45) and they were together for at least seven hours every day
compared with the three hours a day for the kindergarten children. Most of the children in the
privately owned centre had also been attending the centre for a number of years so that a
strong friendship group had developed, with little change of membership. There was a large
turnover of the children in the kindergarten setting during the year and this, combined with
the size of the group and the much greater space and freedom to move from inside to outside
play resulted in a much less cohesive group.
The children in the privately owned centre worked within a space created by combining
two rooms in an old villa for most of the day. They had access to a small outside deck, but
the outdoor play area was at the other end of the house, and their access was limited to set
times. The boys and girls were therefore working in close proximity for much of the day, and
this contributed to the greater interaction between them. The pedagogy and culture of the
centre also was strongly influenced by the example of Reggio Emilia and this appeared to
have created a strong group identify among the children.
In the kindergarten the children had open access to a large indoor, and expansive outdoor
area and as a result the girls tended to focus on indoor activities and the boys on outdoor
activities, with little interaction between members of the other gender group. Play episodes
tended to be shorter and less complex than those in the privately owned centre and this
appeared to be related to the greater range of activities available to them and the ability to
move freely about the whole kindergarten environment. The affect of the space and choice on
childrens collaborative play seems to be worthy of further investigation.

Gender

There is a wealth of literature relating to gender differences in childrens play. One area
of interest is communication strategies. Sluss and Stremmel (2004) found that girls block play
affected by capability of play partner, but not that of boys. They also found that, unlike boys,
girls communication was influenced by their play partner and that they were more likely to
offer assistance than boys. Murphy & Faulkner (2006) also identified gender differences with
regard to communication in play. They found that girls communication contained more
collaborative speech than that of boys, while that of the boys contained more controlling
speech. Girls were found to demonstrate more elaboration of peers proposals and more
responsitivity and mutual coordination than boys. Neppi and Murray (1997) believe that
preschool boys and girls differ in how they attempt to influence their partners behaviour.
Girls were found to use indirect demands, polite requests, and persuasion while the boys
relied on direct demands, commands, threats, physical force, and a greater use of statements
that expressed their personal desires and asserted leadership. Similarly West (1996) found
that all male groups used the loudest language, spoke in the simplest sentences and were the
most physical in their play. The research of Cook, Fritz, McCornack, and Visperas (1985)
indicated that males talked more to same sex peers than girls. Males also made greater use of
statements that expressed their personal desires and asserted leadership. They found that
males made greater use of lecturing or teaching/directing statements.
Gender differences have also been observed with regard to cooperation and collaboration
in play episodes. Black and Hazen (1990) found that Girls were more likely to join in the
activity of playmates and that the play was more likely to involve cooperative, cohesive turn-
taking, On the other hand boys were more likely to pursue their own ideas for play it was
W. B. Mawson 154
more likely to be characterized by abrupt shifts of topic, repeated reorganization of play
episodes and in general more dispersive social interaction. For boys the degree of liking or
friendship with the chosen partner is less relevant in decisions to initiate interaction than the
play activity itself (Cook et al, 1985)
Other research has indicated that there seems to be some benefit for boys in superhero,
war, and rough and tumble play in early childhood settings. Parsons and Howe (2006) claim
that boys have a higher frequency of character/fictive and exploration/negotiation role in
super hero play, than when playing with other representational toys. Reed and Brown (2000)
found that boys use rough and tumble to express care for one another and to develop
friendships, and recommended that early childhood educators should encourage rough and
tumble, provide outdoor space for it, and give children time to play rough and tumble. Marsh
(1999, 2000) has suggested that there is also value in superhero play for girls. Holland (2003)
suggests that the prescription of aggressive play impacts on the self-esteem of boys, also
affects the self-confidence of girls to engage in active and boisterous play scenarios.
Socio-dramatic play is another facet of play in which gender differences have been
observed. Girls engage in fantasy play both more frequently and at more sophisticated level
than do boys (Maguire & Dunn, 1997; Pellegrini & Smith, 1998). Both sexes enact roles
related to their gender. Stereotyped themes occur in fantasy play with girls focussing on
domestic items and domestic and maternal dramatic themes, dolls, dress up clothes while the
boys tends to be more fantastic and physically vigorous, often co-occurring with play fighting
and superhero themes adventure, villainy, danger cops and robbers, fire police and
superheroes and were predominantly focussed on action (Neppi & Murray, 1997; Pellegrini &
Smith, 1998; Rogers & Evans 2006). Neppi and Murray (1997) indicate that a gender
preference for sex-typed toys appears at age two and remains stable. Girls preferred soft toys
such as stuffed animals and dolls, bead bracelets, art materials, dressing up and dancing while
the boys preferred manipulation objects, blocks, transportation toys, guns and to play in the
sandpit. When boys play with female-preferred toys, such as dolls, the play is less
sophisticated than it is with male-preferred toys such as blocks (Pellegrini & Smith, 1998).
Differences in the nature of gendered social interactions have also been noted. Neppi and
Murray (1997) found that in social play, the girls played in small groups, most often in pairs.
Their play was cooperative, usually organised in non-competitive ways, and constructive in
nature. However they found that boys played in larger, more hierarchically organised groups
and that status within the group was manipulated in their interactions with their peers. Boys
also tended to indulge in functional play. Ostrov and Keating (2004) observed that girls
displayed more relational aggression than boys, and that the children tended to receive more
relational aggression from female peers. The boys however displayed more physical and
verbal aggression than girls and the children received more physical and verbal aggression
from male peers. Girls seek power by commanding the role of mother, teacher etc while boys
seek power by commanding the role of superhero (Jordan & Cowan, 1995).
Cullen (1993) has also observed differences in girls and boys play in outdoor settings.
She believes that parents and teachers interactions with children are gender stereotyped and
that this affects childrens outdoor play. Girls prefer to be where teachers are and Cullen notes
that teachers prefer indoor activities, and even when girls play in the sandpit it is quieter,
home-type play as compared to the boys more physical forms of play such as digging in
sandpit. Cullen suggests that boys are more active and spend more time outdoors where they
perform more fantasy play, making use of large open spaces and apparatus.
As has been discussed in detail earlier there were clear gender differences in leadership
style within the two settings of the research project. The differences in the type of language
used to influence other childrens behaviour mirrored those described by Neppi and Murray
(1997). The predominant male manner of speaking, even when working harmoniously with
friends was authoritarian and based on demands rather than requests. The girls consistently
used a more conciliatory spoken relationship. There was a change however in the boys
common spoken behaviour when working in mixed groups experiences where they more
closely modelled the girls vocal interactions.
There were very noticeable quantitative differences in the amount of spoken interaction
within same gender play experiences. The evidence in this study contradicted the findings of
Cook, Fritz, McCornack, and Visperas (1985) in this area. When playing together the girls
were normally maintaining a continual dialogue, some of which was related to the play
episode and some of which was purely social in nature and related to consolidating their
friendship ties. On the other hand, the most striking element of boys collaborative play was
the lack of oral communication between them. The transparent nature of the props they were
using, and the action that was the focus of the play seemed to provide sufficient shared
understanding for the play to be maintained and for plot development to take place (Black &
Hazen, 1990; Cook et al, 1985).
There was a much greater incidence of aggressive actions in the boys play. Much of this
was related to hierarchical power struggles for leadership of the play episode rather than
disagreement as to the nature of the play or the theme of the scenario being played out. Such
aggressive actions tended to be quickly resolved and rarely resulted in the loser being
excluded from or choosing to leave the play episode. Girls disputes were more likely to be
played out in spoken interactions with very little physically aggressive episodes. The focus of
the aggressive action was generally focused on relationships rather than the action of the play
episode and was exclusionist in nature, with the phrases youre not my friend or you cant
come to my birthday party featuring prominently. Often the target of the aggression would
choose to leave the play episode and look to move into another play group.
The themes of the girls and boys play were as gender stereotyped as those found in
previous research (e.g. Neppi & Murray, 1997; Pellegrini & Smith, 1998; Rogers & Evans
2006). There was a very strong element of domestic related themes in the girls play. There
was a fascination with playing out family relationships and rituals, with a strong focus on
food related scenarios. This was consistent whether playing inside at home corner or block
corner, or outside playing in the sandpit. Literacy related themes were another clear element
in the girls play. Often this was a reworking of stories and characters from popular media.
The role of the teacher taking mat time or giving the other children schoolwork to do was a
favourite activity for two girls within both settings. They were always able to find other
children, normally girls, willing to act as their students. Episodes of emergent writing were
often built into the girls play. The girls were more likely to build being chased by and
escaping monsters into their play.
The boys play was much oftener focused on scenarios involving vehicles or
construction-related activities. The sandpit rather than the block corner was the preferred
location for these construction scenarios and the play often incorporated water. Goodies and
baddies was also a very common theme in both settings, although it was only in the
kindergarten that this was accompanied by a strong element of gun play. One notable
absence in both settings was superhero play. In the private day-long centre there were two
W. B. Mawson 156
boys who often wore Spiderman or Superman costumes to the centre but on no occasion did
they develop a play episode based on those characters.

ENVIRONMENT

Shim, Herwig and Shelley (2001) examined the different effects of indoor and outdoor
settings on peer play of younger and older preschool children, and the influence of each play
environment on childrens behaviours with peers. They found that children who do not have a
rich learning environment were more like to engage in less complex peer play. Older
preschool children were more likely to show social interest and attention toward peers than
younger children. Children were more likely to engage in the most complex forms of
interactive play on the outdoor playground, which they suggest may be due to less structured
equipment in that setting.
The constraints of the environment on childrens play have been recognized by
Kritchevesky, Prescott and Walling (1997),

What is in a space, a room or a yard, and how it is arranged can affect the behaviour
of people; it can make it easier to act in certain ways, harder to act in others . . ..
particular settings invite children to involve themselves in particular activities and
the extent of childrens constructive participation will depend to a large part on how
well certain concrete, measurable aspects of the surrounding physical space meet
their hunger, attitudes and interests (p.5).

The Impact of the Environment on Childrens Play

There were some clear differences between the nature of the collaborative play in the
privately owned centre and in the kindergarten that seemed to be related to the nature of the
environment the children were playing in. Essentially, differences in the amount of space to
play in and the amount of resources available for play led to different patterns of play
emerging.
The privately owned centre was situated in an old villa which had been adapted for use as
an early childhood centre by the removal of two internal walls to make large internal space.
The infants and younger toddlers, the smallest group, occupied one normal sized bedroom.
The middle group of children, who were aged from about two years to three years, three
months, occupied one of the larger created spaces. This group also had a small outside area
for their own use. The older children who were the participants in the research reported here
had the other larger created space at the back of the house and a reasonable-sized veranda for
their use. Part of the space was also used as the dining area for the other two groups as the
wall between their rooms and the kitchen had also been removed. When the other children
were eating the space available for the older children became more restricted. There was a
large outdoor area in the front of the house that had a big sandpit, climbing frames, a
playhouse within it. The children did not have free access to the outside area and often had to
share it with the middle group of children.
In comparison the kindergarten was in a purpose built building that was about the same
size as the complete house of the privately owned centre. The outside area was also more than
twice the size of that available to the children in the privately owned centre, and it had more
fixed equipment in it. This consisted of a larger sandpit, swings, two play houses, a large
slide, a water trough, a permanently set up carpentry table, and a painting and collage area.
As well as having more space and equipment outside the children in the kindergarten also
had a greater variety of resources and play spaces available to them inside, including a large,
well stocked home space for domestically themed socio-dramatic play. There was free-flow
from the inside space to the outside play area, and apart from formal group times the children
were free to play wherever they wished.
Although the kindergarten children had more space to play and a greater range of
activities and resources to choose from, their collaborative play was less complex and less
sustained than that of the privately owned children. The lesser complexity could be seen both
in the range and depth of the themes explored in the play and the sophistication of the
language used in the play. While the privately-owned children tended to remain focussed on
the scenario they were involved in the kindergarten children tended to move more quickly in
and out of collaborative play episode and to also flit from place to place during the play.
As well as seeming to inspire differences in the complexity of the themes and language in
their play, the environmental differences would also seem to have been a significant element
in the much greater incidence of mixed-gender play in the privately owned centre. The
smaller size of the group, and the fact that they had been together as a group for a longer
period of time are other factors that may also played a part, but these do not seem as
important. The children in the privately owned centre spent much of their time together as a
group in the quite small inside space. They were constantly aware of what the other children
were doing, and needed to negotiate and compromise on a regular basis to maintain harmony
within the group. As they did not have the same access to outdoor play the gender division of
play that occurred in the kindergarten with the boys tending to play outdoors and the girls
indoors did not have an opportunity to develop.
The preference for boy to play in outdoor environments and girls to play in indoor
environments is one of a number of gender differences in the choice of play environments and
activities (Frost, Shin, & Jacobs, 1998). This was strongly evident in the kindergarten setting.
One aspect of this was the lack of boys block play in the kindergarten. Block play is seen as a
consistent element of boys play yet was almost totally absent in the kindergarten, involving
only one of the sixty-seven collaborative play episodes observed. Two block focused episodes
involving girls were documented. In comparison 16 of 85 episodes in the privately owned
centred involved block play, and the majority of these concerned boys.

Strategies to Encourage and Facilitate Spontaneous Collaborative Play

Both my research and the literature on suggest that there are a number of approaches that
early childhood educators can take that will lead to an increase in the amount and complexity
of c collaborative play in their setting.

W. B. Mawson 158
Resourcing Play

A greater range of realistic props would serve to encourage boys socio-dramatic
collaborative play. It is preferable to have more than one item of uniform clothing (e.g.
Firemans hat, construction workers jacket) than a number of different items as this allows
group scenarios to develop in which conflicts over possession of the prized clothing item do
not play a part, and group scenarios are easier to plot.
Many of the resources that are provided for childrens play have stereotyped usages
associated with them, and tend to result in same-gender collaborative play. There are clear
benefits of mixed-gender play episodes, particularly for boys in terms of language
development and social skills. When planning to resource play areas then a focus on props
that will allow mixed gender play with roles acceptable and comfortable for all is important.
Similarly, attention should be given to providing flexible materials rather than fixed or
directive resources. Children should be able to rearrange outdoor structures to provide
settings for their collaborative play but cannot do this if they are either fixed or too heavy A
collection of cardboard boxes, empty food packets, cardboard tubes etc is a richer resource for
collaborative play than a commercial construction set such as Duplo.
Early childhood settings tend to be highly structured spatially around traditional areas of
play such as the block corner, the home corner, the art area, and the library corner. If these
rigid divisions can be broken down and some integration of resources achieved then the range
of potential play scenarios for children are significantly increased. Quite simple
juxtapositions such as putting blocks in the home corner or sandpit, providing drawing
materials in the block corner or beside the carpentry table, and providing sources of running
water in the sandpit can have quite dramatic impacts on the nature of collaborative play in the
early childhood setting.

Teaching Strategies

The positive affects of teacher involvement in childrens fantasy and socio-dramatic play
on the complexity of the play have been described by Kitson (1997). However research
suggests that teachers only become involved in childrens spontaneous collaborative play in
1-2% of the time that it occurs, and that less than 20% of these interventions have positive
impact on the play episode (Kemple, David & Hysmith, 1997). They believe that free play
produces statistically significant more verbal interactions than does teacher directed activities,
and the cognitive level of the discourse, particularly in cooperative play, is also significantly
higher.
Teachers need to take time to closely observe the play episode, and to be clear that any
intervention they make will have a positive impact on the play. One morning in the
kindergarten a group of five boys had been playing together in the sandpit for just over 15
minutes. In that time they had built a volcano and had developed an increasingly more
complicated storyline using dinosaur and gorilla (King Kong) plastic animals. As the story
processed they plot turned to escaping from King Kong and the volcano that was about to
erupt. At this point Barry leapt on top of the volcano and shouted out in a very loud voice
Mayday, Mayday, Mayday. Immediately the teacher on outside duty demanded to know
why Barry was making that noise, which he should have known was not acceptable
behaviour. Although Barry and the other boys attempted to explain that they were calling out
for rescue their explanations were ignored and the result was that by the time the teacher had
re-emphasised the appropriate noise rule the rich play episode ground to a halt.
Teachers can also use stories at group times to provide provocations for childrens own
narratives within socio-dramatic play. Discussion about narratives and stories enables
children to start to see the structure that underlies story-telling and dramatic representation
that they can start to build into their own play. Group time can be used to provide positive
superhero scenarios which can be incorporated and adapted by the children into their play in a
way which allows them to explore the sense of power and control inherent in this play in
ways which adults feel comfortable with. The powerful impact of childrens own story-
telling has been vividly demonstrated by Vivian Gussin Paley in books such as The boy who
would be a helicopter (Paley, 1990) and the techniques she uses have been adapted very
successfully by many other early childhood educators.
There are a range of other teacher interventions that appear to have a positive impact on
childrens collaborative play. The ability to move into the play in a subordinate role rather
than a directing role allows teachers to offer suggestions which the children feel able to
accept or reject. This type of involvement enables the teacher to instigate discussion about
different perspectives of the various roles within the scenario and to move the play away from
a focus on the props and situation and conversation to a focus on narrative and dramatic
dialogue. Allied to the role of participant is role of provocative passer-by, where an insightful
comment or question based on prior careful observation of the play offers the children a new
direction for the episode to move in.
Careful observation of play can also provide the opportunity to enhance the play by the
subtle addition of resources rather than direct intervention in the play. In the kindergarten a
teacher had been watching a group of children playing out a collaborative construction
activity in the sandpit involving building roads and houses. The play was starting to lose
direction and focus. The teacher moved over to the storage shed and took out a couple of
traffic cones. She then went inside to the dress-up corner and collected three construction
worker jackets. Without saying anything to the group in the sandpit she placed the cones and
the jackets on the sandpit wall some distance from the play, but within the childrens
eyesight. Within two minutes the children had incorporated the cones and jackets into their
play, which now had serious road works built into it and two of the children had gone inside
to make stop signs to use in the play.
The teacher also plays a vital role in creating and maintaining an environment and culture
that encourages collaborative play. Greenman (1988) clearly set out the dimensions of this,
writing

An environment is a living, changing system. More than a physical space, it includes
the way time is structured and the roles we are expected to play. It conditions how
we feel, think, and behave; and it dramatically affects the quality of our lives. The
environment either works for us or against us as we conduct our lives (p.5).

Teachers impose a number of physical and intellectual constraints on childrens play.
Some of these constraints can be justified in terms of safety and protection, but often rules
governing childrens play appear to be based more on the convenience of the teachers rather
than the interests of the children. These rules include such things as not taking blocks or play
W. B. Mawson 160
dough outside, not allowing superhero play, and noise limits. It is important that we examine
rules and routines we have set in our early childhood settings and ask for whose benefit are
they made, what is valued and what is devalued/denied in the policy.
When planning to provide resources for children on a daily level it appears that a lesser
choice of activities may encourage greater collaborative play. This was the case with regard
to the private day care centre and the kindergarten in the research project reported in this
chapter. The lesser range of resources led to a greater interaction between the children and
the focus on the more limited range of resources and activities led to a sharing of ideas and
suggestions for group play.

SUMMARY

This chapter has used research based on two Auckland, New Zealand early childhood
settings as the basis for an exploration of the dimensions of childrens collaborative play.
Two case studies of the place of pretend death and leadership were provided to show the
complexity of the childrens play. Although the centres were similar in teacher qualifications,
personal pedagogical philosophy and teaching experience and in the socio-economic
background of the children some clear differences of play themes and play relationships
emerged. In the privately owned centre the pretend Im dead, eh theme was strongly
evident, and gun play was absent, while at the kindergarten the pretend Im dead, eh theme
was absent, and gun play was prevalent among a sizable group of boys. There was a
significantly greater amount of mixed gender play in the privately owned centre.
It has been suggested that the differences in the amount of space, access to the outdoor
environment, and the range of resources available to the children in the two settings provide
the most likely explanation of these variances. A number of suggestions with regard to
resourcing the environment and teaching strategies to minimise this impact and to encourage
collaborative play have been made. The relationship between the environment and the nature
of collaborative play would seem to be an area needing more research as the implications for
teaching and learning are important.
The research reported in the chapter throws some light on one element of the hidden
curriculum (Eisner, 1994), the curriculum the children enact away from the surveillance and
direction of adults in early childhood settings. In the privately owned setting the three
teachers had not picked up the pretend Im dead, eh theme until the researcher pointed it
out. Similarly, the three kindergarten teachers had not appreciated the degree of vocal
aggression in boys play until shown transcripts of play interactions. More fly on the wall
research of childrens non-directed play would serve to throw more light on childrens
interests and relationships and offer teachers some insight into this hidden curriculum.
Young childrens independent collaborative play is a very under-researched area. While
the research discussed in this chapter has very limited generalizability it does provide some
insight into this area of childrens play and indicate some areas such as the impact of the
environment which may have wider implications for early childhood educators.

REFERENCES

Black, B. & Hazen, N. L. (1990). Social status and patterns of communication in acquainted
and unacquainted preschool children. Developmental Psychology, 26(3), 379-387.
Broadhead, P. (2004). Early years play and learning: Developing social skills and
cooperation. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Carr, M. & May, H. (2000). Te Whaariki: Curriculum voices. In H. Penn (Ed.), Early
childhood services: Theory, policy and practice (pp. 53-73). Philadelphia: Open
University Press.
Cohen, L., Manion, L. & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education (6th ed.). New
York: Routledge.
Cook, A. S., Fritz, J. J., McCornack, B. L. & Visperas, C. (1985). Early gender differences in
the functional usage of language. Sex Roles, 12(9/10), 909-915.
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing among five
traditions (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Cullen, J. (1993). Preschool children's use and perceptions of outdoor play areas. Early Child
Development and Care, 89(1), 45-56.
Dunn, J. & Hughes, C. (2001). "I've got some swords and you're dead!": Violent fantasy, anti-
social behaviour, friendship and moral sensibility in young children. Child Development,
72(2), 491-505.
Eisner, E. W. (1994). Some concepts, distinctions, and definitions. In Eisner, E. W. (Ed.), The
educational imagination. On the design and evaluation of school programs (3rd ed., pp.
24-46). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Fawcett, L. M. & Garton, A. F. (2005). The effect of peer collaboration on children's
problem-solving ability. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 157-169.
Frost, J. L., Shin, D. & Jacobs, P. J. (1998). Physical environments and children's play. In S.
O.N. & B. Spodek (Eds.), Multiple perspectives on play in early childhood education (pp.
255-294). Albany: State University of New York.
Ghafouri, F. & Wein, C. A. (2005). "Give us privacy': Play and social literacy in young
children. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 19(4), 279-291.
Gil, E. (2006). Helping abused and traumatized children: Integrating directive and non-
directive approaches. London: Guildford Press.
Gonzalez, N., Moll, L. C. & C., A. (Eds.). (2005). Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices
in households, communities, and classrooms. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Greenman, J. T. (1988). Caring spaces, learning places : childrens environments that work.
Redmond, WA: Exchange Press.
Guss, F. (2005). Reconceptualizing Play: aesthetic self-definitions Contemporary Issues in
Early Childhood, 6(3), 233-243.
Holland, P. (2003). We don't play with guns here: War, weapon and superhero play in the
early years. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Howe, N., C. M., R., Jennings, M. & Petrakos, H. (2002). "No! The lambs can stay out
because they got cozies": Constructive and destructive sibling conflict, pretend play, and
social understanding. Child Development, 73(5), 1460-1473.
W. B. Mawson 162
James, K., Bearne, E. & Alexander, E. (2004). 'Doggy's dead': reflecting on a teacher research
study about young children's sociodramatic play. Teacher Development, 8(2 & 3), 165-
179.
Jordan, E. & Cowan, A. (1995). Warrior narratives in the kindergarten classroom:
Renegotiating the social contract? Gender and Society, 9(6), 727-743.
Keith, D. V. & Whitaker, C. A. P. t. A. p. f. w. w. f. J. o. M. a. F. T., 243254. (1981). Play
therapy: A paradigm for work with families. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy,
7(3), 243-254.
Kemple, K. M., David, G. M. & Hysmith, C. (1997). Teachers' interventions in preschool and
kindergarten children's peer interactions. Journal of Research in Childhood Education,
12(1), 34-47.
Kitson, N. (1997). Adult intervention in children's socio-dramatic fantasy play. Education 3-
13, 25(1), 32-36.
Kritchevsky, S., Prescott, E. & Walling, L. (1997). Planning environments for young
children: Physical space (2nd ed.). Washington DC: NAEYC.
Lee, Y.-J. & Recchia, S. (2008). "Who's the boss?" Young children's power and influence in
an early childhood classroom [Electronic Version]. Early Childhood Research &
Practice, 10. Retrieved 10/11/08.
Lee, S. Y., Recchia, S. & Shin, M. S. (2005). "Not the same kind of leaders": Four young
children's unique ways of influencing others. Journal of Research in Childhood
Education, 20(2), 132-148.
Ma, L. & Lillard, A. S. (2006). Where is the real cheese? Young childrens ability to
discriminate between real and pretend acts. Child Development, 77(6), 1762-1777.
Maguire, M. C. & Dunn, J. (1997). Friendships in early childhood, and social understanding.
International Journal of Behavioural Development, 21(4), 669-686.
Marsh, J. (1999). Batman and Batwomen go to school: Popular culture in the literacy
curriculum. International Journal of Early Years Education, 7(2), 117-131.
Marsh, J. (2000). 'But I want to fly too!': girls and superhero play in the infant classroom.
Gender and Education, 12(2), 209-220.
Mawson, B. (2008). "Pretend I'm dead, eh": The place of death in socio-dramatic play. New
Zealand Research in Early Childhood Education, 11, 51-64.
Ministry of Education. (1996). Te Whaariki, He Whaariki Matauranga Mo Nga Mokopuna o
Aotearoa, Early Childhood Curriculum. Wellington: Learning Media.
Mullarkey, L. s., Recchia, S. L., Lee, S. Y., Shin, M. S. & Lee, Y. J. (2005). Manipulative
managers and devilish dictators: Teachers' perspectives on the dilemmas and challenges
of classroom leadership. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 25, 123-129.
Murphy, S. M. & Faulkner, D. (2006). Gender differences in verbal communication between
popular and unpopular children during and interactive task. Social Development, 15(1),
82-107.
Neppi, T. K. & Murray, A. D. (1997). Social dominance and play patterns among
preschoolers: Gender comparisons. Sex Roles, 36(5/6), 381-393.
Ostrov, J. M. & Keating, C. F. (2004). Gender differences in preschool aggression during free
play and structured interactions: An observational study. Social Development, 13(2),
255-277.
Paley, V. G. (1990). The boy who would be a helicopter. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard
University Press.
Parsons, A. & Howe, N. (2006). Superhero toys and boys' physically active and imaginative
play. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 20(4), 287-300.
Pellegrini, A. D. & Smith, P. K. (1998). The development of play during childhood: Forms
and possible functions. Child Psychology & Psychiatry Review, 3(2), 51-57.
Reed, T. & Brown, M. (2000). The expression of care in the rough and tumble play of boys.
Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 15(1), 104-116.
Rogers, S. & Evans, J. (2006). Playing the game? Exploring role play from children's
perspectives. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 14(1), 43-55.
Roskos, K. (1990). A taxonomic view of pretend play activity among 4- and 5-year-old
children. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 5(4), 495-512.
Sellares, R. V. & Bassedas, M. B. (1995). The comprehension of symbolic play in the nursery
school. Paper presented at the 5th European Conference on the Quality of Childhood
Education.
Shim, S.-Y., Herwig, J. E. & Shelley, M. (2001). Preschoolers' play behaviors with peers in
classroom and playground settings. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 15(2),
149-163.
Sluss, D. J. & Stremmel, A. J. (2004). A sociocultural investigation of the effects of peer
interaction on play. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 18(4), 293-305.
Tudge, J. R. H. (1992). Processes and consequences of peer collaboration: A Vygotskian
analysis. Child Development, 63, 1364-1379.
Verba, M. (1994). The beginnings of collaboration in peer interaction. Human Development,
37, 125-139.
West, M. M. (1996). Kindergarten language: Rules, roles and themes in the home center.
Paper presented at the Georgia Council of Teachers of English Summer Conference.
Wilson, K., Kendrick, P. & Ryan, V. (1992). Play therapy: A non-directive approach for
children and adolescents. Boston: Elsevier Health Sciences.

Some material in this chapter has previously appeared in
Mawson, B. (2008). "Pretend I'm dead, eh": The place of death in socio-dramatic play. New
Zealand Research in Early Childhood Education, 11, 51-64.


Chapter 6

UNDERSTANDING COMPUTER SUPPORTED
COLLABORATIVE MEDICAL PROBLEM SOLVING:
DIVERSE PERSPECTIVES AND MULTIPLE METHODS

J ingyan Lu
*

Faculty of Education, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam Road, Hong Kong, China

ABSTRACT

Understanding computer supported collaborative problem solving calls for diverse
theoretical perspectives and multiple analytical methods. This chapter is divided into
five parts. Part one deals with how different theories of learning contribute alternative
social, cognitive and technological perspectives on such fundamental features of
collaborative learning as scaffolding, problem solving, argumentation and
communicative interaction. Part two argues that multiple methods provide resources for
analyzing data from social, cognitive and affective perspectives on collaborative
problem solving. Part three discusses computer-supported collaborative learning
(CSCL) environments as composed of sets of cognitive tools specially designed to
support collaborative problem solving. Part four focuses on an innovative classroom
problem solving activity in which a teacher and his third-year medical students
simulate authentic medical emergencies in which students are required to stabilize a
hospitalized patient whose vital signs have suddenly begun to deteriorate. In mounting,
directing and acting in simulations the teacher not only transforms his role as instructor
but those of his students as learners. For instance, multiple theoretical perspectives
make it possible to focus not only on diverse roles of pedagogical expertise but also on
how CSCL based cognitive tools for visualizing and formulating tasks, and for
managing data can be used in scaffolding collaborative problem solving and decision-
making. Multidisciplinary methodologies can support complementary forms of analysis
of differently sourced data. Examples of coding, analyzing, and interpreting teacher-
student and student-student discourse, medical problem solving, and tool use are
provided. Part five discusses potential challenges to and proposals for integrating
multiple methods and sources of data.

* Corresponding Author: Fax: 852-25471924, Tel: 852-22415450, Email: jingyan@hkucc.hku.hk
Jingyan Lu
166
INTRODUCTION

Collaborative problem solving (CPS), as a major form of collaborative learning, has been
characterized as small-group learning situations where individuals are encouraged to share
their knowledge and skills with their peers as they work together on a common task or in a
shared learning/training environment (Shute, Lajoie, & Gluck, 2000, p. 187). CPS provides
learners with opportunities to develop social and communication skills, encourages them to
cultivate positive attitudes towards peers and learning material, and increase motivation and
group cohesion (1989, 1999). It also promotes deeper level learning, critical thinking, shared
understanding, and long term retention of learned material (e.g., Johnson & Johnson, 1999;
Slavin, 1995).
In CPS learners work together to solve problems by explaining, justifying, and
negotiating meanings. The positive effects of CPS are enhanced when it involves authentic,
complex, and ill-structured problems, which promote both the social construction of
knowledge (Jonassen, 1991, 1994), and the development of higher-order thinking skills such
as inductive reasoning (Lajoie, 1991). This chapter focuses on collaborative medical problem
solving and in doing so will clarify the cognitive, social, cultural and technological aspects of
collaborative medical problem solving. However, we will first trace the origins of problem
solving in general.

MULTIPLE PERSPECTIVES AND METHODS
ON COLLABORATIVE PROBLEM SOLVING

CSP contains multiple perspectives from cognitive and social dimensions which provides
sources needed to analyze CPS data with diversified methods.

Cognitive Perspectives

An understanding of CPS requires an understanding of the origins of research into
problem solving in general began. In Human Problem Solving Newell and Simon (Newell &
Simon, 1972) characterized problem solving as a recursive series of information processes
that included setting goals, fixing agendas and designing actions. Newell and Simon (1972)
based their account of the role of long-term, short-term, and external memory in problem
solving in artificial intelligence (AI) and in computer simulations of human thought. Thus, the
cognitive perspective on human problem solving has from its inception been profoundly
shaped by computer technology which has in turn deeply influenced educational research on
the representation of knowledge and reasoning in learning.
Current research on human problem solving focuses on the acquisition of cognitive skills
(Anderson, 1982; Chi & Glaser, 1985; Glaser, 1984). Educational researchers are
investigating the cognitive processes and skills by which learners transform problematic
situations into situations involving problems with clear solutions (Lovett, 2002; Mayer &
Wittrock, 2006). Recent educational research characterizes problem solving as a series of
cyclic processes that recognize or identify the problem, define and represent the problem
Understanding Collaborative Problem Solving 167
mentally, develop a solution strategy, organize knowledge about the problem, allocate
mental and physical resources for solving the problem, monitor progress toward the goal, and
evaluate the solution for accuracy (Pretz, Naples, & Sternberg, 2003).

Social Perspectives

Recognition that human problem solving typically occurs in authentic, meaningful and
naturalistic situations (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989; Greeno, J., 1998) has promoted
efforts to develop socio-cultural perspectives on human problem solving. The following
sections discuss three theoretical perspectives that inform current conceptions of CPS:
situated cognition, shared cognition, and distributed cognition.

Situated Cognition

Lave (1991) argued that learning is a function of both cognitive processes and the social
and cultural contexts in which it occurs. Thus, given that learning languages and learning to
use tools are situated in specific socio-cultural contexts (Brown et al., 1989), the cognitive
and socio-cultural dimensions of learning tasks are inseparable. Context is an integral
component of all cognitive processes and not merely a backdrop against which such processes
unfold. Situated cognition views learning as a process through which learners enter
communities of practice composed of groups of collaborators with unique experiences play
different roles to accomplish common goals (Brown et al., 1989; Clancey, 1995). As
newcomers work their way from the periphery to the centre of such communities, they engage
more actively in community cultures and assume more fully the roles of experts (Lave &
Wenger, 1991).
Situated cognition involves a form of apprenticeship (Brown et al., 1989; Greeno, J. G.,
1998), which takes place within contexts of activities, tools, and cultures. Learning, both in
and out of school, advances through collaborative interaction involving the social
construction of knowledge. In the classroom, situated cognition calls for authentic learning
activities, in which learners construct knowledge dynamically and collaboratively. Activity,
participation, and cognition are codependent and a function of the ecology of the entire
community (Lemke, 1997).
In additions to educational research, researchers in AI have used situated cognition in
modeling human cognition and in building intelligent machines. AI describes situated
cognition as the study of how human knowledge develops as a means of coordinating
activity within activity itself. This means that feedback, which occurs internally and within the
environment over time, is of paramount importance. Knowledge is dynamic in both formation
and content (Clancey, 1997, p. 4). Both educational and AI researchers appreciate the
importance of context in constructing knowledge. In addition, both view situated cognition as
referring, not only to how individuals interact among themselves and with their surroundings,
but also how mechanisms of feedback are used and built on prior knowledge to direct
behavior and to guide the construction of new knowledge.

Jingyan Lu
168
Shared Cognition

Shared cognition holds that since learning is an integral part of the environment,
knowledge and skills should be acquired in the contexts in which they apply (Brown et al.,
1989; Lave & Wenger, 1991). Instead of focusing on individual cognitive processes of
individual learners, shared cognition focuses on the social processes. Socially shared
meanings cannot be reduced to mental representations, but rather arise among groups of
learners through verbal and non-verbal communication and socially shared artifacts (Resnick,
Levine, & Teasley, 1991). Collaborative learning is a process of building and maintaining
shared understandings in authentic learning environments (Roschelle & Teasley, 1995).
Clearly, theories of shared and situated cognition are closely related.
The principles of shared cognition guiding the examination of collaborative learning are
highly compatible. However, what collaborators share must be clearly defined, e.g.,
background knowledge, attitudes and beliefs as well as task-specific and task-related
knowledge. Thus, the term shared in 'shared cognition' needs to be operationalized. For
example, does it refer to cognitions whose contents are identical, similar, complementary, or
distributed? Can cognitions be measured with respect to what they share and if so how?
Developments in computer technology provide new opportunities for investigation of the
notion of sharedness beyond the conditions of traditional face-to-face communication. Such
issues guide the design and study of computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) and
will be discussed later.

Distributed Cognition

Proponents of distributed cognition argue that rather than residing in the heads of
individual learners, cognition is distributed among people, tools and contexts (Hutchins,
1995). Cognition is distributed because the knowledge and effort required to solve many
problems are often distributed among participants and environments.
There are different views of how cognition is distributed (Salomon, G., 1993b), such as
dynamic interaction (Salomon, Gavriel, 1993) or cultural-historical view (Cole & Engestrom,
1993). Salomon (1993) argues that because cognition is rooted in psychological, social and
cultural processes, learning is distributed among individuals, via common artifacts and shared
languages. Three themes have emerged that focus attention on cognition as situation
dependent and socially distributed (Salomon, G., 1993a): (1) the increasingly important role
of technology in handling intellectual tasks to ease individual cognitive loads, (2) an emphasis
on Vygotsky's socio-cultural theory in which externally mediated social interactions serve to
account for internalized cognitive processes, and (3) a dissatisfaction with the view that
cognition resides entirely in the minds of individuals.
Because cognition is distributed among the components of activity systems, e.g.,
members, social milieus, cultural contexts and historical settings (Cole & Engestrom, 1993) it
is not a mental process. Rather, it emerges out of relationships among mental structures and
culturally constituted tools (Pea, 1993; Sternberg & Preiss, 2005). According to Pea (1993),
external resources change the nature and operation of activity systems. Similarly, Sternberg
and Preiss (2005) propose that beyond paper-based skills and thought processes, tools
including information and communication restructure human thinking. Distributed cognition
is not limit to the study of participants in activity systems it also examines tools and
technologies and suggests notions to be used in the design of computer-based learning
environments in order to reduce the cognitive load on learners (Lajoie, 1993; Lajoie, 2005,
2000). Such tools may function as external memory systems (Lajoie, Greer, Munsie et al.,
1995), reference sources (Lajoie et al., 1995), communication systems (Hutchins & Klausen,
1996), or other technologies used for daily work (Hutchins, 1995).
Above three theoretical perspective emphasizes significant contextual aspects of CPS.
Situated cognition emphasizes context knowledge and dynamic feedback. Shared cognition
emphasizes the building and maintaining of shared understandings in authentic contexts.
Distributed cognition emphasizes the distribution of expertise among learners, environments,
and artifacts. The discussion of the four perspectives of collaborative learning provides
insights on the examination of collaborative problem solving. Since medical problem solving
typically involves collaboration, both socio-cultural and cognitive theoretical perspectives
have roles to play in its investigation. The next section describes the multiple perspectives
from which CPS activities have been examined.

Multiple Perspectives on CPS

Although, there is no clear and consistent definition of CPS, some researchers have
define it as a coordinated and synchronous activity within which collaborators work to solve
problems by reflecting on, negotiating, correcting and co-constructing meanings (Roschelle &
Teasley, 1995; Van Boxtel, 2000; Webb & Farivar, 1999). Other researchers broadly define
CPS as involving groups of people working together to solve problems (Avouris,
Dimitracopoulou, & Komis, 2003; O'Neil, San-Hui, & Chung, 2003). This relatively broad,
though vague definition of CPS supports the emergence of various theoretical rationales,
methods, and techniques. For instance, some research focuses on the cognitive processes of
problem solving that occur in pairs and groups (Chiu, 2008; Ding, 2009). Some research
focuses on collaborative or interactive aspects of CPS (Jermann & Dillenbourg, 2008). Some
research focuses on the cognitive and collaborative aspects of problem solving and the
connections between them (Hmelo-Silver, 2008). Methods of research and data analysis
associated with these perspectives will be introduced in the methodology section. Some
theoretical models of CPS will now be discussed.
A number of instructional approaches have been developed to meet the increasing
demands for collaborative problem solving in learning and working environment. Both
constructivist and socio-cultural theories provide insight into the learning mechanism of CPS
(Greeno, Collins, & Resnick, 1996). With respect to individual learning, problem solving
triggers access to prior knowledge, establishes joint problem spaces, implements searches for
new information, and initiates the transformation of information into knowledge that both fits
and shapes new mental models. CPS also encompasses social systems and larger cultural-
historical contexts. Learners seek not only to accumulate knowledge but to embed knowledge
in social systems and cultural structures and in so doing they are transformed from novices
into full expert members of professional communitives (of learners) (Hmelo & Evenson,
2000).
A prerequisite of collaborative learning is the creation of common ground which both
initiates and supports the construction of shared knowledge (Baker, Hansen, Joiner, & Traum,
Jingyan Lu
170
1999; Dillenbourg & Traum, 2006; Teasley & Roschelle, 1993). A deeper understanding of
how problem solvers collaborate in processing and sharing knowledge it is essential in so far
as this knowledge becomes embodied in the group. Stahl (2000) proposed a model of
collaborative knowledge building characterizing the mutual constitution of individual and
society as a learning process. Beginning with tacit pre-understandings collaborators become
aware of their personal beliefs and through their woldly activities learn to articulate them and
to interact with peers. Shared cultural context enters into and shapes personal understandings,
ways of thinking and motivational concerns. CPS also enters into the perspective of
constructing knowledge together (Visschers-Pleijers, Dolmans, Wolfhagen, & Van Der
Vleuten, 2004; Visschers-Pleijers, Dolmans, Wolfhagen, & Van Der Vleuten., 2002) where
elaboration and co-construction lead to the emergence of deeper understandings. Elaboration
occurs when learners explain or justify their statements and may occur during group learning
when pieces of knowledge are considered in richer and wider contexts (van Boxtel, van der
Linden, & Kanselaar, 2000). Elaboration is initiated by verbalizing learned content during
collaboration and has been found to be an important ingredient in collaborative medical
problem solving (Schmidt & Boushuizen, 1993; Schmidt, De Volder, De Grave, Moust, &
Patel, 1989).
Co-construction occurs when collaborators seek to resolve conflicts by arguing about a
possible solution (Visschers-Pleijers et al., 2004; Visschers-Pleijers et al., 2002).
Collaborative argumentation is a medium for co-construction. Argumentation has been
shown to be effective in both individual and collaborative problem solving (Diehl, 2000).
Individual argumentation skills (Lajoie, Lavigne, Guerrera, & Munsie, 2001) involve
formulating theories or hypotheses, gathering evidence and assessing the reliability of
accumulated evidence in order to arrive at reasoned judgments or conclusions. Collaborative
argumentation occurs when collaborators focus on the same issues and learn to negotiate
conflicting opinions in order to arrive at common solutions. It is regarded as a tool for
promoting critical thinking and as an essential quality of academic discourse (Veerman,
Andriessen, & Kanselaar, 2002). Conflicts that occur in collaborative learning require
learners to effectively discuss and negotiate ideas in order to articulate their thinking and to
provide evidence for their assertions. Learners must not only assess the evidence of other
learners but also introduce their own perspectives through argumentation. Thus,
argumentation in CPS promotes the externalization, negotiation and reconstruction of
knowledge (Savery & Duffy, 1995). Elaboration occurs in the thinking of individual learners
as a result of interactions with other learners while they co-construct knowledge. Thus,
elaboration involves individual knowledge building while co-construction involves
collaborative knowledge building.
Scaffolding is described as a process by which by more knowledgeable teachers and
caretakers assist less knowledgeable students and dependent children in reaching their
potential by performing tasks which they are as yet unable to do alone based on their current
skills (Wood, Bruner, & Ross, 1976; Wood & Middleton, 1975). Scaffolding is closely
aligned with Vygotskys (1978) concept of the zone of proximal development (ZPD) which
he defined as the distance between the actual development level as determined by
independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through
problem solving under the guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers (Vygotsky,
1978: p. 130).
The notion of ZPD is at the heart of scaffolding and although it has been narrowly
interpreted as essentially adult-driven, many studies have found it to be successful in many
situations. Scaffolding supports child learning by focusing on contingencies between adult
assistance and child performance. For example, Wood et al (Wood et al., 1976; Wood &
Middleton, 1975) found that childrens skills developed when mothers tailor instruction to fit
their current needs, background knowledge, and level of performance. According to Wood et
al, intervention within one's ZPD is key to successful learning. The contingent method is also
effective in interactions between adults and older children (Pratt & Savoy-Levine, 1998).
Following the contingent principle experimenters increased support for children who fail and
decreased support for children who succeed. This approach is particularly effective for long-
term maintenance and the near generalization of mathematics skill learning. Scaffolding
plays an important role in medical PBL because students are typically faced with problems
that are beyond their current levels of expertise. Researchers have proposed various
scaffolding strategies to help students overcome various conceptual and procedural hurdles
(Hmelo-Silver & Barrows, 2006; Lajoie, Faremo, & Wiseman, 2001; Quintana, Reiser, Davis
et al., 2004; Reiser, 2004)
The theoretical rationales for such features of CPS instructional models as building
common ground, co-constructing knowledge, and scaffolding are rooted in collaborative
learning which informs the methods and techniques of designing and analyzing CPS.
Given that medical problem solving involves both cognitive and socio-cultural
perspectives, the next section will discuss current research in this area from both perspectives.

Medical Problem Solving

Medical problem solving has been traditionally examined from a cognitive perspective.
Studies of medical problem solving began in the late 1960s with the recognition of the
importance of reasoning and problem solving in the highly complex and uncertain domain of
medical diagnosis and decision making. Elstein and colleagues used simulated patients and
think-aloud protocols to explore the problem solving procedures of physicians at different
levels of expertise (Elstein, Shulman, & Sprafka, 1978). Influenced by research on expertise
(Newell & Simon, 1972), Glaser and Chi (1988) characterize experts as (a) excelling mainly
in their own domains, (b) perceiving larger meaningful patterns in their domains, (c)
performing domain skills more quickly and solving problems with fewer errors, (d) having
superior long- and short-term memory, and (e) seeing and representing problems in their
domain at deeper or more principled levels than non-experts who tended to represent
problems at more superficial or less principled levels.
Research on medical expertise focused on how various cognitive processes are related to
physicians at different levels of expertise. For instance, Patel and colleagues (Patel, Arocha,
& Kaufman, 1994) found that during problem solving different reasoning strategies and
knowledge representations are associated with differences in expertise. Although, other
cognitive processes such as hypothesis generation (Joseph & Patel, 1990), evidence selection
(Arocha, Patel, & Patel, 1993), search strategies (Lesgold, Rubinson, Feltovich et al., 1988),
and knowledge use (Lesgold et al., 1988) have also been examined this chapter focuses
mainly on the role of reasoning strategies and knowledge representation in medical problem
solving.
Jingyan Lu
172
Reasoning Strategies

Medical problem solving studies have identified two types of reasoning strategies to
differentiate experts and novices: forward or data-driven reasoning and backward or
hypothesis-driven reasoning (Patel & Groen, 1986; Schwartz, 2000). Forward reasoning
involves drawing inferences from available data such as patient symptoms and is used by
experts working in their specialties. Backward reasoning involves breaking down larger
problems into smaller ones and collecting data based on hypotheses. Although, it is typically
used by novices, experts may also use it in diagnosing diseases outside their areas of
specialization (Patel & Groen, 1991). The fact that experts use forward reasoning to solve
problems within their domains of specialization suggests that it requires highly organized
domain knowledge. Forward reasoning also enables experts to draw conclusions quickly from
meaningful data unlike novices who tend to rely on backward reasoning which is more time
consuming. Because backward reasoning is less knowledge dependent it is most common
when domain knowledge is inadequate (Patel & Groen, 1991).
Forward and backward reasoning have been extensively investigated in different medical
domains and at different levels of expertise and several subtle differences have been found.
For example, Patel and colleagues (Patel & Groen, 1986; Patel, Groen, & Arocha, 1990)
found that sub-experts (individuals with generic knowledge but inadequate specialized
domain knowledge, i.e. endocrinologists solving cardiology problems) tend to use a mixture
of forward and backward reasoning when they are unsure of a diagnosis. This suggests that
directionality of reasoning is related to diagnostic accuracy (Patel & Groen, 1986). In a study
of diagnostic reasoning among radiologists, Lesgold and colleagues (Lesgold et al., 1988)
found neither backward nor forward reasoning to predominate. Rather, they found reasoning
to be a multi-step process where an initial perceptual decision was made, producing a
differential diagnosis set with associated probabilities triggering cognitive processes to
resolve ambiguities, either by searching for initially overlooked perceptual features or by
considering other sources of data such as medical history and diagnostic tests. This multi-step
reasoning process which can be characterized as schema-driven incorporates characteristics of
both forward and backward reasoning into a recursive, interactive decision-making process
which includes locating anatomical features and abnormalities and characterizing and
explaining medical issues. In a study of diagnostic reasoning in mammography, Azevedo
(1997; Azevedo & Lajoie, 1998) identified different findings from Lesgold. He found that
both staff and residents used forward reasoning and schema-driven problem solving
strategies. Protocol analysis characterized their diagnostic reasoning as involving a (a) heavy
use of forward reasoning diagnostic strategies and of (b) backward reasoning strategies, or a
combination of both strategies depending on case typicality and clinical experience, and (c)
rapid schema-based problem solving to facilitate search, characterize mammography features,
integrate clinical theory cues, and accurately diagnose and make subsequent
recommendations.

Knowledge Representation

Knowledge representation focuses on the nature and structure of knowledge (Markman,
1999) in order to provide a basis for characterizing problem-solving processes. Problem
solving can be examined from the perspective of declarative and procedural knowledge.
Experts use their procedural knowledge more extensively than their declarative knowledge
because they can execute it more quickly and reliably (Lesgold, 1988). This is consistent with
Andersons (1982) stage learning theory in which expertise is acquired in three stages: (1)
the declarative knowledge stage, (2) the knowledge compilation stage, and (3) the procedural
stage. The traditional medical curriculum incorporates these stages into its two-stage strategy
for training and facilitating medical problem solving: (1) rule-based learning, where students
learn through textbooks and lectures, and (2) experience-based learning, where they learn
through exposure to real patients (Schmidt, Dauphinee, & Patel, 1987). The two stages
depend on two types of knowledge: (1) basic science (biochemistry, anatomy, and
physiology) and clinical (knowledge of diseases and associated findings) knowledge based on
declarative knowledge, and (2) clinical experience (knowledge of findings related to diseases)
based on procedural knowledge. The acquisition of problem solving skills and procedural
knowledge relies more on clinical experience as expertise develops.
Reasoning and knowledge representation are important aspects of medical problem
solving. However, given that medical problem solving occurs in the real world, as opposed to
the laboratory, calls for the ability to collaborate on solving problems under conditions of
uncertainty.

Medical Problem Solving in Naturalistic Contexts

In so far as medical problem solving in real world or naturalistic contexts typically
involves collaboration, it is situated, shared, and distributed and scaffolded by the tools and
its environments. In order to work effectively, collaborators must develop shared mental
models of the task at hand, shared awareness of the current situation, efficient lines of
communication and effective metacognitive skills (Orasanu, 2005).
Examples of shared mental models involving shared understandings of task-relevant
goals and knowledge (Cannon-Bowers, Salas, & Converse, 1993), come from an analyses of
how air crews learn to collaborate effectively and efficiently under conditions of high stress
(Klein, Orasanu, Calderwood, & Zsambok, 1993) by developing the shared understandings
needed to effectively pursue long term goals. Share mental models guide daily activities
becoming extremely important under abnormal or emergency conditions by allowing team
members to pursue shared goals, without the need for explicit directions. Shared mental
models help define problems, acceptable outcomes, and roles of team members.
Shared situation awareness which is rooted in shared mental models, relies on common
understandings of dynamic situations (Cannon-Bowers et al., 1993) and support effective
communication which in turn facilitates the development of shared understandings. In
emergency medical situations, doctors must assess and communicate rapidly changing patient
conditions to other medical personnel for various reasons. This in turn facilitates the
construction of shared goals, plans, and actions for managing patients.
In sum, the literature contains two perspectives in problem solving research: one focused
on cognitive processes, such as diagnostic reasoning and knowledge structure, the other
focused on collaborative processes through which shared understandings and shared situation
awareness develop. The former perspective has been more fully examined because it is easier
Jingyan Lu
174
to investigate individual cognitive processes. The latter perspective has been less fully
investigated due to difficulties in studying groups working in the real world settings.
Studies of medical problem solving and CPS are relatively independent and although
some research on medical problem solving was carried in the context of PBL, a form of
collaborative learning, the focus is on contrasting individual cognitive processes with what
happens in the traditional curriculum (ref by Patel et al). Although there are some connections
between individual cognitive process and collaborative interaction in other domains, more
studies need to examination the connection among individual cognitive processes, such as
reasoning, hypothesis generation and communication.
Research on CPS is rooted in human problem solving and collaborative learning.
Methodologies and techniques implemented in CPS studies should follow those used in
various domains. However, are there techniques specific to research on CPS? Given that
research on HSP is itself rooted in the computational perspective what opportunities do recent
developments in information technology afford? These issues will be discussed in the next
section.

METHODOLOGIES FOR STUDYING CPS

Methods for studying CPS should be examined with respect to their appropriateness to
the various cognitive, social and cultural dimensions of collaborative tools. Cognitively
oriented studies of CPS tend to focus on measuring gains in domain-specific knowledge
(Arts, Gijselaers, & Segers, 2002), problem solving skills (Dabbagh, 2002) and logical
thinking (Cooper, 2008). Socio-cultural approaches tend to focus on measuring
communication and interaction (Liu & Tsai, 2008), participation (Jermann & Dillenbourg,
2008), and different levels of discourse (ref). Further, a series of studies have combined both
orientations (Avouris et al., 2003; Chiu, 2000; Okada & Simon, 1997; Saab, van Joolingen, &
van Hout-Wolters, 2005).
CPS methodologies should also focus on measuring learning in well-designed and
effective learning environments. Research in traditional educational psychology has tended to
use experimental or quasi-experimental designs to evaluate learning. Learning processes and
outcomes were examined with respect to whether and how certain instructional approaches or
learning environments affected students collaborative problem solving. Independent
variables included group composition, such as comparing individual-group differences (Hsieh
& O'Neil, 2002; Laughlin, 2008), gender difference and friendship (Strough, Berg, &
Meegan, 2001), familiarity (Janssen, Erkens, Kirschner, & Kanselaar, 2009), group members
ability (Cooper, 2008) and task design, i.e., putting students in different task scenarios that
place theoretical rationales on collaborative learning, or transfer skills, i.e., examining
whether students could transfer problem skills better after group work (Barron, 2000).
In one study (Hsieh & O'Neil, 2002) students assigned to one of two feedback conditions,
adaptive versus non-adaptive, created environmental science knowledge maps by exchanging
messages in a collaborative environment and by searching for relevant information on a
simulated World Wide Web. Both individual and group communicative and cognitive
processes were measured for types of messages exchanged and types of information searched.
Correlations between information searching and communicative interaction were examined.
A similar study examined the relation between cognition and communicative interaction by
examining cognitive processes during CPS. Okada and Simon (1997) found that paired
learners outperformed single learners in verifying hypotheses and making justifications. An in
depth qualitative examination revealed that exploratory collaborative activities, such as
justifying and requesting explanations have an important impact on verifying hypotheses.
The emerging recognition in the learning sciences that authentic classroom and real world
situations enhance learning calls for a further combining of methodologies. As a form of
collaborative learning, CPS calls for substantially more complex methodologies involving
multiple perspectives (Sawyer, 2006b). For instance, communication, social interaction and
cognition are dynamic mutually reinforcing processes that shape and are shaped by each other
(Frederiksen, 1999). Webbs longstanding research program demonstrates that the amount of
student learning in group work depends on the quality of interactions (Webb, 1982, 1989,
1992). A number of learning science researchers have adopted a range of methodologies to
study moment-to-moment interactions (Sawyer, 2006a). For instance, Sawyer identifies three
types of interaction analysis: 1) classroom discourse theories emphasizing asking questions or
giving explanations, 2) socio-cognitive frameworks emphasizing conflict and controversy
during interaction, and 3) socio-cultural frameworks emphasizing the collaborative
participation and joint contributions during collaborative learning. Each of these forms of
analysis originated is a separate theoretical framework.
Discourse analysis is widely used in interaction analysis to identify and investigate the
role of discourse in interaction. Hmelo (2002, 2003) found that the quantity and quality of
questions and explanations during interactions in student-centered tutor-facilitated problem-
based learning (PBL) environments were important in predicting students problem solving
skills. In a study of peer collaboration, King (1999) found that certain types of questions can
guide cognitive and metacognitive learning activities in peer problem solving. She identified
three types of strategic questions: planning, monitoring, and evaluation and found that
learners who were trained to ask and answer these types of questions were better problem
solvers than untrained students because the former activated existing problem-related
knowledge, analyzed problem components, re-conceptualized problems, evaluated
alternatives, and accessed strategies in their knowledge base. Training can also generate
socio-cognitive conflicts and the search for solutions to such conflicts. Finally, encouraging
students to articulate their reasoning provides them with opportunities for modeling effective
cognitive and metacognitive behaviors.
Examinations of social cognitive conflicts usually focus on the type and nature of
conflicts such as disagreement as opposed to consensus building during collaboration (Chiu,
2008; Dosie & Mugny, 1984; Teasley, 1997). For example, types of disagreement affect the
solving math of problems by pairs. Polite agreement has a positive effect on constructive
problem solving while rude disagreement has a negative effect (Chiu, 2008).
Sociocultural perspectives emphasize the collaborative co-construction of knowledge in
social settings. Students in collaborative problem solving situations, construct joint problem
spaces while solving problems. Dillenbourg and Traum (Dillenbourg & Traum, 2006)
proposed that learners build common ground during CPS and qualitatively and quantitatively
relate the levels of common ground to problem solving skills. They conclude that common
ground is a form of group memory built up at both task and utterance levels. In a study of
how high school students used computer simulations to solve velocity and acceleration
problems, Teasley and Roschelle (1993) used microanalytic methods to identify and describe
Jingyan Lu
176
interaction as the general forms of discourse used to overcome barriers to joint problem
solving. These include turn-taking structures that students used to build up joint problem
spaces and ways of dealing with divergent understandings.
This section looked at the use of various methodologies to examine different aspects of
CPS: different theoretical perspectives and experimental/quasi-experimental and qualitative
perspectives deriving from different theoretical perspectives. As no one model of CPS is
analytically adequate due to its complexity, different models are needed to focus on specific
aspects. However, given that both social and cognitive processes are involved, a combination
of social and cognitive methods, techniques, and perspectives is called for, especially given
recent developments in computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL). As more
collaborative problem solving activities are implemented in online environments multiple
methods will be increasingly needed to examine relationships between cognition and
communication in such environments.

FROM COGNITIVE TOOLS TO COLLABORATIVE TOOLS

Learning scientists have discovered that deep learning is more likely to occur in socially
complex and technologically rich learning environments. As attention to the collaborative
elements of learning increases, the design of CBLEs has become increasingly socially
oriented. Computers and computer networks are known as cognitive tools that support
learning in many ways (Lajoie, 1993; Lajoie, 2000) and have been found to be especially
useful in supporting collaborative learning. Collaborative learning tools have been found to
support visualization, argumentation, and management. This section will discuss in detail the
characteristics of collaborative learning tools from these three aspects.

Visualization Tools

CSCL environments typically employ representation tools (Roschelle & Pea, 1999), such
as concept maps, graphics, or diagrams that allow learners to construct, elaborate and
augment knowledge. Visual representations have been found to aid individual understanding
and problem solving (Larkin & Simon, 1987; Zhang, 1997, 2002) and to serve as mindtools
affording multiple knowledge representations for learning (Jonassen & Carr, 2000).
Visualization tools can be content-unspecific and content-specific (Fischer, Bruhn,
Grasel, & Mandl, 2002; Fischer & Mandl, 2005). Content-unspecific visualization tools such
as graphics editors are not tired to particular knowledge domains (Hron & Friedrich, 2003),
while content-specific ones are constrained by content and task-relevant structures, such as
visual language tools (Suthers & Hundhausen, 2003) .
Content-unspecific approaches have had promising effects on collaborative learning in
such fields as chemistry (Wu, Krajcik, & Soloway, 2001), physics (Pea, Edelson, & Gomez,
1994), and mathematics (Baker, Cohen, & Moeller, 1997). Expressive visualization tools
model three-dimensional (3D) molecular structures to promote the conceptual understanding
of chemical representations (Wu et al., 2001). Visualization tools can provide graphics,
images, colors, and motion to present large quantities of data so as to allow high school
science students to observe atmospheric patterns in large data sets (Gomez, Fishman., & Pea,
1998; Pea et al., 1994). In the Collaborative Visualization Project (CoVis), visualization
features are tightly integrated into collaborative learning activities and generate logs of the
entire experimental process. Students can get copies of logs, put them into Collaboratory
Notebooks, annotate them and use them as tools for reflection and collaboration (Edelson &
O'Neill, 1994). Childrens mathematical concepts can be developed with the help of symbolic
representations of mathematical objects/noun type entities for text and simples pictures,
spatial relationships, and operator actions (Baker et al., 1997). KidCode (Baker et al., 1997)
enables children to manipulate texts, images, symbols, and graphs and to use them to
communicate with peers. Multiple forms of visualization have been found to improve
mathematical conceptual understanding and to foster communication.
The formats adopted by visualization tools, concepts maps, diagrams, texts affect
different aspects of learning and interactions (Suthers & Hundhausen, 2001). Students using
concept mapping to collaboratively design and produce multimedia projects acquire greater
concept fluency and flexibility when engaged in shared interaction scenarios than when
engaged in distributed and mediated interaction scenarios (Stoyanova & Kommers, 2001).
More communicative interaction occurred between learners using electronic diagrams to
solve electricity problems (van Boxtel et al., 2000; van Boxtel & Veerman, 2001) because
diagrams provided shared views that can help them get an overview of the complex problem
solving process. Diagrams can stimulate a continuous focus on thematic content. Text
representations, such as threaded discussions can facilitate the conceptual understanding of
physics concepts (Hoadley & Linn, 2000).
Content-specific visualization tools support domain specific collaborative knowledge
construction in two ways. First, by providing pre-structured visual representations of task-
relevant knowledge they induce both higher level discourse and support conflict-oriented
consensus building (Fischer et al., 2002). Second, they (visualizations) foster the
externalization of task-relevant abstract concepts (Suthers & Hundhausen, 2003).
Visualization tools are generally integrated with tools to mediate argumentation or to
monitor learning. The next two sections will discuss how these tools are used in CSCL
environments.

Argumentation Tools

Argumentation is a key component of collaborative problem solving and knowledge
building. It is a complex and variable activity, ranging from negotiation, and justification, to
persuasion (Andriessen, Baker, & Suthers, 2003). Computer environments can scaffold the
argumentation processes by supporting collaborative elaboration, providing opportunities for
explaining and reflecting, and helping students keep track of their ideas (Lajoie, Lavigne et
al., 2001). Computer supported argumentation can be represented as computer mediated
communication, structured interactions, argument representations, and active guidance. These
four features are described in detail below.
Argumentation tools can support synchronous and asynchronous communication.
Synchronous communication occurs when learners interact at the same time either face-to-
face or over computers via text, audio, or video files. Synchronous communication formats
range from typed messages to networked, objected-oriented, multi-user, virtual environments
Jingyan Lu
178
for immersing learners in conversation (Jonassen, 2000; Jonassen & Carr, 2000). The
immediacy of synchronous interactions can motivate participants to engage in and carry out
interpersonal negotiations. Students are allowed to test and refine what they are learning in a
community that offers immediate feedback to their thinking and writing. Asynchronous
communication tools address the issue of temporal separation. They give students time to
reflect before responding and include e-mail, threaded discussions, and collaborative
notebooks. E-mail was found to facilitate teacher-student communication (Levin, Haesun, &
Riel, 1990) and peer-peer interactions (Baker et al., 1997). Threaded discussions can promote
both communities of inquiry and cognitive apprenticeship (Lajoie, Garcia, Berdugo et al.,
2006). Instructor can use discussion forums to scaffold the effective use of communication
technology and course content. Collaborative notebooks allow students to co-construct
knowledge and to share it visually across time and space (Edelson & O'Neill, 1994;
Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1996; Winne, 2006). For example, the Knowledge Forum of the
CSILE project is a graphical collaborative knowledge building notebook (Scardamalia &
Bereiter, 1996, 1999) on which students post ideas and questions. In addition, students build
on to notes, reference the work of others, make solicited contributions, and rise-above
previous notes to create new syntheses, or make collections of related notes. The interactive
and collaborative nature of asynchronous communication allows students to share
perspectives, establish relationships, and seek assistance (Chong, 1998), distinguish
alternative views on scientific topics (Hoadley & Linn, 2000), and promote sustained and in-
depth discussions (Guzdial & Turns, 2000).
Argumentation tools should structure interactions to improve subject matter orientation,
reduce off-task talk, support greater coherence in subject matter discussions, and increase
focus on topics (Hron, Hesse, Cress, & Giovis, 2000). In synchronous communication,
structuring is achieved through communication acts (Baker, 2003) or sentence openers (Baker
& Lund, 1997; Hirsch, Saeedi, Cornillon, & Litosseliti, 2004). In asynchronous
communication, structuring is determined by such task-required processes as knowledge
construction tasks requiring the posting of notes and comments (Fischer et al., 2002;
Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1996). If scaffolding is involved, the discussion framework should
have multiple representations to help students express their opinions and to integrate the
opinions of others (Hoadley & Linn, 2000).
Argumentation tools can support the construction of argument representations by
dynamically creating visual representations of arguments, such as Belvedere (Suthers,
Connelly, Lesgold et al., 2001). Such representations can serve as external frames for
constructing knowledge and solving problems (Hron & Friedrich, 2003) and can encourage
explicit exploration and negotiation, thus improving the effectiveness of knowledge
construction. Argumentation representations can shape the context of arguments either
epistemologically or heuristically. Both of them are useful for different reasons.
Epistemological designed representations such as Emails or non-threaded discussions
promote less-structured forms of communication. Heuristically designed representations such
as threaded discussions promote well-structured forms of communication (Jermann &
Dillenbourg, 2003; Suthers & Hundhausen, 2003) or predefined argumentation structures
(Suthers, 1999).
Argumentation tools should help guide argumentation and although individual guidance
is common in intelligent tutoring system (ITS), research on one-on-one guidance is rare in
CSCL and will be discussed in the section on management tools.
There are two major pitfalls in dealing with social interactions in CSCL environments: 1)
interaction is taken for granted or 2) its social psychological dimensions outside of task
contexts are ignored (Kreijins, Kirschner, & Jochems, 2002). Communication exists in both
on-task and off-task contexts and social interactions can directly foster both content and
instructional interaction. To encourage collaborative learning, social interaction can be
initiated in CSCL environments by tools, i.e. the Group Awareness Widget (WAG) which
supports learner group awareness about others in task and non-task contexts (Kreijins et al.,
2002).

Management Tools

In face-to-face student-centered learning environments, instructors provide students with
contingent scaffolding. In ITS, students receive adaptive guidance from computer tutors. In
CSCL environments, guidance is provided in more complex ways by three management tools:
mirroring tools, metacognitive tools, and advising tools (Jermann, Soller, & Muehlenbrock,
2001; Reimann, 2003). Mirroring tools help manage collaboration by tracing and tracking
interactions and collaborative performance among group members. Interaction and
performance data can be collected and analyzed for further comparison and guidance.
Metacognitive tools require learners to construct models of interactions and then compare
them to desired states. Advising tools are used to intervene, advise and guide learners after
collaboration data has been analyzed.

Mirroring Tools

Ideally, managing collaborative learning involves making students and teachers aware of
their actions. Mirroring tools collect raw data in log files and display it to participants. The
collected information helps participants to reflect on their actions and to provide and receive
guidance. Information is tracked and collected by means of a structured interface. For
example, in HabiPro (Vizcaino, Contreras, Favela, & Prieto, 2000), a collaborative
programming environment, the pedagogical and social roles of student group performances
are tracked and categorized. Pedagogical support is provided by (a) finding mistakes, (b)
putting programs in the correct order, (c) predicting results, and (d) completing programs.
Social performance is categorized as motivation and participation. The computer system
stores different group models according to different pedagogical and social patterns based on
collected information. While learners work with HabiPro, the computer analyzes their
performance with respect to various pedagogical and social perspectives and tries to classify
them into new patterns. Mirroring tools also collect student information based on structured
learning tools. For example, in the gStudy project designed by Winne and colleagues (Winne,
2006), a learning kit uses structured learning tools to trace student note-taking activities.
Students can select information from given contexts and then classify it into pre-defined
categories. In addition to displaying pre-structured information, mirroring tools can also carry
out statistical analyses on collected collaborative information (Chen & Wasson, 2002).

Jingyan Lu
180
Metacognitive Tools

Metacognitive tools are promising because they can model cognitive, motivational,
behavioral and contextual aspects of situations in which students can regulate their learning
(Lajoie & Azevedo, in press). In group settings, metacognition also includes interaction
related reasoning. Thus, in CSCL environments, metacognitive tools should model
interactions and provide collaborators with visualizations that can be used to analyze them
Metacognitive tools can model complex group interaction variables by displaying student
participation statistics and patterns. For example, COTRAS can display the number of
messages each student has sent as they collaboratively solve a traffic light tuning problem
(Jermann, 2004). The system shows students both observed and desired interaction states and
students can judge the quality of their interactions and decide whether to take remedial
actions. Such tools have a positive impact on metacognitive activities by aiding in the
construction and maintenance of shared mental models of the interaction (Soller, Martinez,
Jermann, & Muehlenbrock, 2005). Metacognitive tools can also construct effective models of
interaction and use them as criteria for providing guidance. EPSILON (Soller & Lesgold,
2003) monitors group communication patterns and problem solving actions in order to
identify situations in which students effectively share new knowledge with peers while
solving object-oriented design problems. Effective and ineffective knowledge sharing
interactions are recorded in an information log of student speech acts (e.g. Request, Opinion,
Suggest, Apologize) and workspace actions (e.g. one student created a new online class).
Knowledge sharing episodes are considered effective if one or more students learn newly
shared knowledge as shown by differences in pre- and post-test performances. Appropriate
guidance is given if ineffective knowledge sharing is detected.

Advice Tools

Advice tools are used to guide collaborators by recommending actions for improving
their learning and interactions. Since effective collaborative learning includes both learning to
collaborate effectively and collaborating effectively to learn, advice tools should address both
social-collaborative issues and task-oriented ones.
HabiPro (Vizcaino et al., 2000) provides both pedagogical and collaborative guidance
based on different group models. With respect to pedagogical advice, if a group chooses a
solution without explanation, the system suggests a finding mistakes exercise by adding
clues to help learners find mistakes. With respect to collaborative advice, if the system
discovers that only one or two students take part in the group activity, it proposes activities to
increase group participation, such as activating a rotation turn system so that all students must
participate.
Interaction models are also employed in COLER (Constantino-Conzalez & Suthers,
2001), which uses decision trees to coach students in solving database-modeling problems.
Entity-Relationship Modeling also integrates task and social aspects of interaction. COLER
provides categories of advice for collaboration-oriented and domain-oriented activities.
Collaboration-oriented advice includes discussions and participation categories such as ask
for justification and invite others to participate. Domain-oriented advice includes feedback,
self-regulation, and entity-relationship modeling. For example, if the system discovers that a
student does not participate enough, advice is generated by a decision tree and then selected
randomly from each AND/OR leaf of the tree.
Advice can be provided by a computer agent. Here the agent is defined as a system that
exhibits some aspects of intelligent human behavior (Wooldridge & Jennings, 1995). For
example, agents often represent different pedagogical roles, such as expert (Johnson, Rickel,
& Lester, 2000), tutor (Graesser, Moreno, Marineau et al., 2003), mentor (Baylor, 2000;
Baylor & Kim, 2003), motivator (Baylor & Kim, 2003), learning companion (Ayala & Yano,
1998; Chan & Baskin, 1990; Dillenbourg & Self, 1992; Goodman, Soller, Linton, & Gaimari,
1998; Uresti, 2000), and troublemaker (Aimeur & Frasson, 1996). The agents assume
different roles in the learning system based on different models. It has been found that
varying the role of a collaborative agent and adjusting the data in the agent pattern can meet
the needs of individual learners and provide collaborative agents for different learning models
and different theories.
This section has described various uses of CSCL environments for managing
collaboration by means of mirroring, metacognitive, and advising tools. A review of
management tools for mirroring, metacognition, and advising reveals that these features are
organized into feedback cycles in the collaborative problem solving. Mirroring tools trace,
collect, store, and model student interactions, metacognitive tools display and compared
desired states with the current states allowing students the freedom to take the remedial
actions. Advising tools allow students to propose remedial actions based on the results of the
mirroring and metacogntive tools which can lead to a new cycle of collaborative problem
solving.
In summary, collaborative tools facilitate learning in a number of ways. Visualization
tools are either content-specific or content-unspecific and use various formats: graphics,
diagrams, and concept maps. Both content-specific and content-unspecific visualization tools
are useful in different ways: content-specific tools facilitate both the process and quality of
collaborative knowledge while content-unspecific tools mainly facilitate the process of
collaboration. Argumentation tools may be communicative, structured, representative, and
guided. Management tools can facilitate mirroring, metacognition, and advising. An ideal
CSCL can be achieved by implementing these tools. However, there are trade-offs. For
instance, it has been found that the more specific a visualization tool, the more difficult and
time-consuming it is to learn to use (Suthers, Toth, & Weiner, 1997). Furthermore, the more
complex an argument, the greater its cognitive load (van Bruggen, Kirschner, & Jochems,
2002). Thus, when implementing collaborative tools in CSCL environments, it is important
be aware of trade-offs between specificity and generality, complexity and simplicity, and
autonomy and dependency (Dimitracopoulou, 2005). For a summary of collaborative tools,
see Figure 1.

SIMULATED COLLABORATIVE MEDICAL EMERGENCY

In this section, a case study is introduced that focusing on an innovative learning activity
in which a teacher prepares his third year medical students for their rotation in internal
medicine by acting in a medical emergency scenario called the deteriorating patient (DP) in
which the vital signs of hospitalized patients suddenly begin dangerously deteriorating.
Jingyan Lu
182
Drawing on his clinical and pedagogical experience and expertise, the teacher acts not only as
a traditional PBL coach but also plays the roles of the deteriorating patient and the duty nurse
in order to challenge and scaffold his students who as medical residents struggle to save the
life of the patient.

Collaborative Tools
Management tools
Argumentation Tools
Visualization tools
Structured Interaction
Computer-mediated
communication
Synchronous Asynchronous
Communication acts
or sentence opener
Notes and comments
Argumentation
representation
Epistemological
designed
Heuristic designed
Less structured
Structured
Content
Unspecific
Content Specific
Concept Map
Diagram
Text
Advising
Tools
Mirroring
Tools
Metacognitive
Tools

Figure 1. Collaborative tools
The researcher introduced a technological condition, Interactive Whiteboard (IW), into
this learning activity to investigate whether and how it might support the collaborative efforts
of students. Thus, the teacher as coach posted and updated information about the patients
medical history, medications, and fluxuating vital signs on a whiteboard and also played the
roles of patient and nurse. Students were divided into subgroups and while one subgroup was
solving the case and being tutored by the instructor, the other subgroups were discussing and
documenting their own medical arguments via networked laptops that were posted on the IW.
Data pertaining to both groups that is being tutored and the groups that are observing and
using the IW. Verbal discourse and computer annotations were analyzed with respect to how
networked, IW-equipped laptops mediated student communications and problem-solving
activities. Making sense of the data required an understanding of this unique learning activity
as well as how other groups influence knowledge construction.
Collaborative learning tools were designed and integrated into the IW to support
collaborative decision-making in medicine. The tools support shared visualization and
collaboration argumentation. Shared visualization tools facilitate collaborative problem
solving by enabling users to construct shared problem spaces. The IW can display in real
time representations of the actions of role-playing and observing sub-groups. Whiteboard
diagrams represent what happens in scenarios by displaying content specific information.
Patients information is categorized as brief history, vital signs, prescriptions, and
decisions. The structure is similar to patient hospital charts. Some changes are made in
order to make the change of problem space obvious so that students could recognize the
pattern of the problem. For example, patient vital signs are put in the middle to highlight
the deteriorating situation of the patient. Decisions and prescriptions are marked next to the
changing vital signs column to demonstrate the connection of these three kinds of
information. Collaborative argumentation tools allow observing students to play an active
role by annotating, commenting on and suggesting alternatives to decisions of other
students. The tools were designed to scaffold collaborative problem solving processes by
promoting productive discussions of various proposed actions and plans by providing a
structured patient chart where students could comment on the decisions of other
participants in the activity and by proposing alternative moves (See Figure 2).
The study adopted several theoretical rationales. A social learning perspective lead it to
investigate whether technological support of communication and argumentation during group
problem-solving lead to better problem solving and if so how. A cognitive apprenticeship
perspective led it to investigate the role of pedagogical expertise and technological support in
scaffolding communication and problem solving. Two research questions were formulated.
1) Did the use of IWs to document the construction of medical arguments on the fly
promote group problem solving? 2) Did the teacher adjust his scaffolding strategies to
developments in problem solving and differences under the two conditions and if so how?
Data included protocols of student-student and teacher-student verbal interactions and
computer annotations. Protocols of student-student verbal interactions provided evidence of
problem solving and communicational aspects of student argumentation and protocols of
teacher-student verbal interactions provided evidence of cognitive, social and affective
aspects of strategies for scaffolding student problem solving. Computer annotations revealed
the online argumentations of experimental group students made and shared by IW condition
students on their laptops while students under the other condition interacted with the teacher
and solve the problem.

Figure 2. Screenshot of Interactive Whiteboard

Table 1. Common scaffolding strategies that achieving educational and performance goals

DP activity Scaffolding strategies Major Role(s)
played
Purpose Comparison between Technology
and non-technology group
Phase 1: Rules and case
introduction
Constructing problem space by
stipulating rules, assigning roles,
and introducing cases
Constructing shared problem
representation by creating
structured patient chart
Instructor Cognitive and social Two groups are similar as to
goals, scaffolding strategies, roles
played and purpose
Phase 2: Problem solving Revoicing
Creating stress
Structuring
Problematizing

Nurse and
patient
Cognitive, social and
affective: e.g. facilitating
a student-centered
discourse and promoting
reflection by playing
nurse roles and using
related discourse pattern;
promote students
situation awareness of
emergency by creating
and updating vital signs
Technology tend to create more
problamatizing and non-
technology tend to structure more.
But roles and discourse patterns
related to these the strategies
differed in the two stages of
problem solving

Qualitative methods were used to analyze verbal protocols and annotations because they
contained discourse dependencies, which by violating the assumptions of most inferential
statistics rendered quantitative methods largely ineffective. The qualitative methods used
were discourse analysis and microanalysis. Discourse analysis was used to assign verbal
protocols and annotations into four coding categories: problem solving, communications,
scaffoldings or annotations. Decision-making discourse was coded as planning, data
collection, managing the patient or interpreting the situation. Communicative discourse was
coded, based on van Boxtel (van Boxtel, 2000) and Saab and her colleagues (Saab et al.,
2005), as informative, argumentative, elicitative, responsive, directive or off-task. Scaffolding
discourse was coded in accordance with its role and function in role-play scenarios. For
instance, the teacher played the role of patient or nurse to help students a) understand and
implement the emergency algorithm appropriately, b) manage patients under emergencies c)
understand hospital hierarchy, d) develop medical situation awareness, e) work
collaboratively with peers. Finally, annotations were coded as proposals, disagreements or
interpretations.
The study (Lu & Lajoie, 2008) comparing of IW and TW group discourse revealed that
shared annotations guide IW group communicative activities leading to more productive
decision-making. The findings suggest that interactive whiteboards enabled the IW group to
share data and to construct shared understandings about the patient. Shared visualizations can
clarify verbal interaction, promote productive argumentation and facilitate negotiation. In the
early stage of simulations the IW group spent more time interpreting the patients history,
laboratory tests, and vital signs and in the later stage as the patients situation grew
increasingly dire, the IW group engaged in more management actions to stabilize the patient.
In contrast, the TW group interpreted less in the early stage of the simulation but more in the
later stage but engaged in fewer patient management actions. In emergency medical care
physicians seek to stabilize patients rather than to diagnose them. For instance, when a patient
stops breathing the physician needs to ventilate them before finding out why. Thus, given that
the IW group did more to manage the patient than the TW group, IW groups performance is
more adaptive to emergency medicine. Shared cognition facilitates the construction of shared
situation models and joint problem spaces which lead to better decision making and problem
solving.
A scaffolding study (Lu, Lajoie & Wiseman, submitted) demonstrated that the teacher
used his scaffolding expertise in playing different roles during the simulation in order to use
different strategies to scaffold student problem solving. Roles and strategies received
different attention during different phases of the DP activity. The instructors role was
important in the Rule and Case Introduction phase where scaffolding strategies were
implemented within the game space and problem space. For example, when the teacher
deteriorates the patients vital signs, students need to understand that they failed to do
something or they did something wrong. The Nurse Role was more important in the Problem
Solving Phase where the teacher had greater freedom to effectively and innovatively scaffold
diverse features of student decision-making performance. For example, the teacher used
revoicing strategies to induce students to reflect on their actions. He deteriorated the patients
vital signs in order to create stress and to induce students to intensify their awareness of the
patients medical problems. By playing different roles the teacher had opportunities to
scaffold cognitive and meta-cognitive skills (and competencies) as well as highlight the
Jingyan Lu
186
relevant social and emotional dimensions of medical emergency decision making (see Table 1
for a summary of roles, goals, purposes, and strategies).

CONCLUSION

Medicine is so complex and knowledge-rich that any single theory of learning is
unlikely to ever adequately address the range of skills and knowledge involved in
collaborative medical problem solving. However, cognitive analysis should be seen as a
basis for developing and evaluating new structures and methods of medical practice.
Further, due to its collaborative and real world nature, the cognitive foundations of
medical practice are in turn shaped by socio-cultural practices and affective forces and
contextually embedded technological artifacts. Consequently, medical education must
take into consideration the cognitive, socio-cultural, affective and technological
dimensions of collaborative medical problem solving (Patel, Yoskowitz, Arocha, &
Shortliffe, in press)
The methodological challenges confronting this study involved describing and
interpreting a complex clinical learning activity. Thus, the use of medical scenarios
using role-plays rather than traditional PBL activities to introduce students to clinical
problem solving skill called for a change in the theoretical perspective on student
learning from that of ill-structured problem solving to that of naturalistic decision-
making. The teacher scaffolded various cognitive, socio-cultural, affective and
technological role-play needs of students engaged in trying to stabilize the deteriorating
patient. Consequently, understanding how and why the teacher sought to achieve
various pedagogical goals posed unique methodological challenges requiring
familiarity with this uniquely innovative teaching activity.
Although this study provide valuable data, future studies might triangulate the
various forms of data so as to better reveal relationships and interdependencies between
teaching, scaffolding, technology, communication and decision making. Although,
decision-making, scaffolding and communicative discourse were examined and coded
from multiple perspectives significant connection were surly missed given the
complexity of medical scenarios. For instance, although the semantic functions of
annotations in solving medical scenarios were examined, their pragmatic, affective and
cultural functions in dealing with medical scenarios were not. Annotations may be more
fully explored through retrospective interviews. Methodological challenges also bring
analytical challenges. How can verbal discourse, actions, interactions, computer logs
and annotations be integrated so as to support insights into student learning? How can
we incorporate diverse forms of data in such a way as to assist teachers in scaffolding
student learning? If there is scaffolding synergy between the teacher and technology, is
it mediated by student actions? Although answering these questions is a work i n
progress we have given thought to future work in this area. Given that authentic
learning activities are socially situated, cognitively structured and affectively charged
they should not be examined in isolation from communicative activities and technology
using behavior.

REFERENCES

Aimeur, E. & Frasson, C. (1996). Analyzing a new learning strategy according to different
knowledge levels. Computers and Education, 27(2), 115-127.
Anderson, J. R. (1982). Acquisition of cognitive skill. Psychological Review, 89, 369-406.
Andriessen, J., Baker, M. & Suthers, D. (Eds.). (2003). Arguing to learn: Confronting
cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments Dordrecht,
Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
Arocha, J. F., Patel, V. L. & Patel, Y. C. (1993). Hypothesis generation and the coordination
of theory and evidence in novice diagnostic reasoning. Medical Decision Making, 13,
198-213.
Arts, J. A., Gijselaers, W. H. & Segers, M. S. (2002). Cognitive effects of an authentic
computer-supported, problem-based learning environment. Instructional Science, 30(6),
465-495.
Avouris, N., Dimitracopoulou, A. & Komis, V. (2003). On analysis of collaborative problem
solving: An object-oriented approach. Computers in Human Behavior, 19(2), 147-167.
Ayala, G. & Yano, Y. (1998). A collaborative learning environment based on intelligent
agents. Expert Systems with Applications, 14(1-2), 129-137.
Azevedo, R. (1997). Expert problem solving in mammogram interpretation: A visual
cognitive task. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec,
Canada.
Azevedo, R. & Lajoie, S. (1998). The cognitive basis for the design of a mammography
interpretation tutor. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 9, 32-44.
Baker, M. (2003). Computer-mediated argumentative interactions for the co-elaboration of
scientific notions. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn:
Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning (pp. 47-78).
Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
Baker, M., Cohen, J. L. & Moeller, B. (1997, December). KidCode: Using email to structure
interactions for elementary mathematics instruction. Paper presented at the Second
International Conference of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Toronto,
Canada.
Baker, M., Hansen, T., Joiner, R. & Traum, D. (1999). The role of grounding in collaborative
learning tasks. In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Collaborative learning: Cognitive and
computational approaches (pp. 31-63). Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
Baker, M. & Lund, K. (1997). Promoting reflective interactions in a CSCL environment.
Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 13, 175-193.
Barron, B. (2000). Problem Solving in Video-based Microworlds: Collaborative and
Individual Outcomes of High-Achieving Sixth-Grade Students. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 92(2), 391-398.
Baylor, A. L. (2000). Beyond butlers: intelligent agents as mentors. Journal of Educational
Computing Research, 22(4), 373-382.
Baylor, A. L. & Kim, Y. (2003). Validating pedagogical agent roles: Expert, Motivator, and
Mentor. Paper presented at the Annual World Conference of Educational Multimedia,
Hypermedia, & Telecommunication (Ed-Media 2003), Honolulu, Hawaii.
Jingyan Lu
188
Brown, J. S., Collins, A. & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning.
Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42.
Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Salas, E. & Converse, S. (1993). Shared mental models in expert team
decision making. In N. J. J. Castellan (Ed.), Individual and group decision making (pp.
221-246). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Chan, T. W. & Baskin, A. B. (1990). Learning companion systems. In C. Frasson & G.
Gauthier (Eds.), Intelligent tutoring systems: At the crossroad of artificial intelligence
and education (pp. 6-33). New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Chen, W. & Wasson, B. (2002). An instructional assistant agent for distributed collaborative
learning. In S. Cerri, G. Gouarderes & F. Paraguacu (Eds.), Intelligent Tutoring Systems:
Vol. 2363. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (pp. 609-618). London, UK: Springer.
Chi, M. T. H. & Glaser, R. (1985). Problem solving ability. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Human
abilities: An information processing approach (pp. 227-250). New York: W. H. Freeman
and Company.
Chiu, M. M. (2000). Group problem-solving processes: Social interactions and individual
actions. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 30(1), 27-49.
Chiu, M. M. (2008). Flowing toward correct contributions during group problem solving: A
statistical discourse analysis. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17(3), 415 - 463.
Chong, S. M. (1998). Models of asynchronous computer conference for collaborative learning
in large college class. In C. J. Bonk & K. S. King (Eds.), Electronic collaborators (pp.
157-182). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associations.
Clancey, W. J. (1995). A tutorial on situated learning. In J. Self (Ed.), Proceedings of the
International Conference on Computers and Education (pp. 49-70). Charlottesville, VA:
AACE.
Clancey, W. J. (1997). Situated cognition: On human knowledge and computer
representations. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Cole, M. & Engestrom, Y. (1993). A cultural-historical approach to distributed cognition. In
G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations
(pp. 1-46). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Constantino-Conzalez, M. & Suthers, D. (2001). Coaching collaboration by comparing
solutions and tracking participants. In P. Dillenbourg, A. Eurelings & K. Hakkarainen
(Eds.), European perspectives on Computer-supported collaborative learning: First
European Conference on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (Euro-CSCL) (pp.
173-180): McLuhan Institute: University of Maastricht.
Cooper, M. M., Cox Jr., C. T., Nammouz, M., Case, E. & Stevens, R. (2008). An Assessment
of the effect of collaborative groups on students' problem-solving strategies and abilities.
Journal of Chemical Education, 85(6), 866-872.
Dabbagh, N. (2002). Assessing complex problem-solving skills and knowledge assembly using
web-based hypermedia design. Paper presented at the Paper presented at the Annual
Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (New Orleans, LA, April 1-
5, 2002).
Diehl, C. L. (2000, April ). "Reasoner's Workbench" program supports students' individual
and collaborative argumentation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National
Association for Research and Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA
Dillenbourg, P. & Self, J. (1992). People power: a human-computer collaborative learning
system. In C. Frasson & G. McCalla (Eds.), The 2nd International Conference of
Intelligent Tutoring Systems, Lecture Notes in Computer Science (pp. 651-660). Berlin,
Germany: Springer-Verlag.
Dillenbourg, P. & Traum, D. (2006). Sharing solutions: Persistence and grounding in
multimodal collaborative problem solving. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(1), 121 -
151.
Dimitracopoulou, A. (2005, June). Designing collaborative learning systems: current trends
and future research agenda Paper presented at the conference of Computer Supported
Collaborative Learning, Taipei, Taiwan.
Ding, N. (2009). Visualizing the sequential process of knowledge elaboration in computer-
supported collaborative problem solving. Computers & Education, 52, 509-519.
Dosie, W. & Mugny, W. (1984). The Social development of the intellect. Oxford: Pergamon
Press.
Edelson, D. & O'Neill, D. K. (1994, June). The CoVis collaboratory notebook: Supporting
collaborative scientific enquiry. Paper presented at the Annual National Educational
Computing Conference, Boston, Massachusetts.
Elstein, A., Shulman, L. & Sprafka, S. (1978). Medical problem solving: An analysis of
clinical reasoning Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Fischer, F., Bruhn, J., Grasel, C. & Mandl, H. (2002). Fostering collaborative knowledge
construction with visualization tools. Learning and Instruction, 12, 213-232.
Fischer, F. & Mandl, H. (2005). Knowledge convergence in computer-supported
collaborative learning: The role of external representation tools. Journal of the Learning
Sciences, 14(3), 405 - 441.
Frederiksen, C. H. (1999). Learning to reason through discourse in a problem-based learning
group. Discourse Processes, 27(2), 135-160.
Glaser, R. (1984). Education and Thinking: The Role of Knowledge. American Psychologist,
39(2), 93-104.
Glaser, R. & Chi, M. T. H. (1988). Overview. In M. T. H. Chi & R. Glaser (Eds.), The nature
of expertise (pp. xv-xxviii). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Gomez, L. M., Fishman., B. J. & Pea, R. D. (1998). The CoVis Project: Building a large scale
science education testbed. Interactive Learning Environments, 6(1-2), 59-92.
Goodman, B., Soller, A., Linton, F. & Gaimari, R. (1998). Encouraging student reflection
and articulation using a learning companion. Paper presented at the 8th World
Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (AI-ED 98), Kobe, Japan.
Graesser, A. C., Moreno, K. N., Marineau, J. C., Adcock, A., Olney, A. & Person, N. (2003).
AutoTutor Improves Deep Learning of Computer Literacy: Is It the Dialog or the Talking
Head? Paper presented at the International Conference of Artificial Intelligence in
Education, Sydney, Australia.
Greeno, J. (1998). The situativity of knowing, learning, and research. American Psychologist,
53(1), 5-26.
Greeno, J. G. (1998). The Situativity of Knowing, Learning, and Research. American
Psychologist, 53(1), 5-26.
Greeno, J. G., Collins, A. M. & Resnick, L. B. (1996). Cognition and learning. In D. C.
Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 15-46). New
York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.
Guzdial, M. & Turns, J. (2000). Effective discussion through a computer-mediated anchored
forum. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9, 437-469.
Jingyan Lu
190
Hirsch, L., Saeedi, M., Cornillon, J. & Litosseliti, L. (2004). A structured dialogue tool for
argumentative learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20, 72-80.
Hmelo-Silver, C. E. & Barrows, H. S. (2006). Goals and strategies of a problem-based
learning facilitator. The Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 1(1), 21-
39.
Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Chernobilsky, E. & Jordan, R. (2008). Understanding collaborative
learning processes in new learning environments. Instructional Science, 36(5-6), 409-
430.
Hmelo, C. E. (2002). Collaborative ways of knowing: Issues in facilitation. In G. Stahl (Ed.),
Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer-Supported Collaborative
Learning 2002 (pp. 199-208). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Association.
Hmelo, C. E. (2003, January). Facilitating collaborative knowledge construction. Paper
presented at the 36th annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences Big
Island, Hawaii.
Hmelo, C. E. & Evenson, D. H. (2000). Problem-based learning: gaining insights on learning
interactions through multiple methods of inquiry. In D. H. Evenson & C. E. Helmo
(Eds.), Problem-Based Learning: A research perspective on learning interactions.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associations.
Hoadley, C. M. & Linn, M. C. (2000). Teaching science through online, peer discussions:
SpeakEasy in the knowledge integration environment. International Journal of Science
Education, 22, 839-857.
Hron, A. & Friedrich, H. F. (2003). A review of web-based collaborative learning: Factors
beyond technology. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19(1), 70-79.
Hron, A., Hesse, F. W., Cress, U. & Giovis, C. (2000). Implicit and explicit dialogue
structuring in virtual learning groups. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 53-
64.
Hsieh, I. L. G. & O'Neil, H. F. (2002). Types of feedback in a computer-based collaborative
problem-solving group task. Computers in Human Behavior, 18(6), 699-715.
Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild Cambridge, MA: MIT press.
Hutchins, E. & Klausen, T. (1996). Distributed cognition in an airline cockpit. In Y. Engestr
& D. Middleton (Eds.), Cognition and communication at work (pp. 15-34). New York,
NY: Cambridge University Press.
Janssen, J., Erkens, G., Kirschner, P. A. & Kanselaar, G. (2009). Influence of group member
familiarity on online collaborative learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(1), 161-
170.
Jermann, P. (2004). Computer support for interaction regulation in collaborative problem-
solving. University of Geneva.
Jermann, P. & Dillenbourg, P. (2003). Elaborating new arguments through a CSCL script. In
J. Andriessen, M. Baker & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in
computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 205-226). Dordrecht,
Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
Jermann, P. & Dillenbourg, P. (2008). Group mirrors to support interaction regulation in
collaborative problem solving. Computers & Education, 51, 279-296.
Jermann, P., Soller, A. & Muehlenbrock, M. (2001, March). From mirroring to guiding: A
review of state of the art technology for supporting collaborative learning. Paper
presented at the First European conference on Computer-supported collaborative
learning, Maastricht, Netherlands.
Johnson, D. W. & Johnson, R. T. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and research:
(1989).
Johnson, D. W. & Johnson, R. T. (Eds.). (1999). Learning together and alone: Cooperative,
competitive, and individualistic learning (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Johnson, W. L., Rickel, J. W. & Lester, J. C. (2000). Animated pedagogical agents: face-to-
face interaction in interactive learning environments. International Journal of Artificial
Intelligence in Education, 11, 47-78.
Jonassen, D. H. (1991). Context is everything. Educational Technology, 31(6), 35-37.
Jonassen, D. H. (1994). Toward a construtvisit design model. Educational Technology, 34(4),
34-37.
Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Computers as mindtools for school: Engaging critical thinking.
Upper Saddle River, N.J: Merrill.
Jonassen, D. H. & Carr, C. (2000). Mindtools: Affording multiple knowledge representations
for learning. In S. P. Lajoie (Ed.), Computers as cognitive tools II: No more walls:
Theory change, paradigm shifts and their influence on the use of computers for
instructional purposes (pp. 165-196). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Joseph, G. M. & Patel, V. L. (1990). Domain knowledge and hypothesis generation in
diagnostic reasoning. Medical Decision Making, 10(1), 31-46.
King, A. (1999). Discourse patterns for mediating peer learning. In A. M. O'Donnell & A.
King (Eds.), Cognitive perspectives on peer learning (pp. 87-115). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associations.
Klein, G. A., Orasanu, J., Calderwood, R. & Zsambok, C. E. (1993). Decision making in
action: Models and methods. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.
Kreijins, K., Kirschner, P. A. & Jochems, W. (2002). The sociability of computer-supported
collaborative learning environments. Educational Technology & Society, 5(1), 8-22.
Lajoie, S. P. (1991). A framework for authentic assessment for mathematics. Education
Reserach Review, 1(1), 6-12.
Lajoie, S. P. (1993). Computer environments as cognitive tools for enhancing learning. In S.
P. Lajoie & S. J. Derry (Eds.), Computers as cognitive tools (pp. 261-288). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Lajoie, S. P. (2005). Cognitive tools for the mind: The promises of technology: Cognitive
amplifiers or bionic prosthetics? In R. J. Sternberg & D. Preiss (Eds.), Intelligence and
technology: Impact of tools on the nature and development of human skills (pp. 87-102).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Lajoie, S. P. (Ed.). (2000). Computer as cognitive tools: No more walls. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Lajoie, S. P. & Azevedo, R. (in press). Teaching and learning in technology-rich
environments. In P. Winne & P. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of Educatinal Psychology
(2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Lajoie, S. P., Faremo, S. & Wiseman, J. (2001). Identifying human tutoring strategies for
effective instruction in internal medicine. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence
in Education, 12, 293-309.
Jingyan Lu
192
Lajoie, S. P., Garcia, B. C., Berdugo, G. C., Marquez, L., Espndola, S. & Nakamura, C.
(2006). The creation of virtual and face-to-face learning communities: An international
collaborative experience. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 35, 163-180.
Lajoie, S. P., Greer, J. E., Munsie, S. D., Wilkie, T. V., Guerrera, C. & Aleong, P. (1995).
Establishing an argumentation environment to foster scientific reasoning with Bio-World.
In D. Jonassen & G. McCalla (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference on
Computers in Education (pp. 89-96). Charlottesville, VA: Association for the
Advancement of Computing in Education.
Lajoie, S. P., Lavigne, N. C., Guerrera, C. & Munsie, S. D. (2001). Constructing knowledge
in the context of BioWorld. Instructional Science, 29(2), 155-186.
Larkin, J. H. & Simon, H. A. (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand
words. Cognitive Science, 11(11), 65-99.
Laughlin, P. R., Carey, H. R. & Kerr, N. L. (2008). Group-to-Individual Problem-Solving
Transfer. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 11(3), 319-330.
Lave, J. (1991). Situated learning in communities of practice. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine
& S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 63-82).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (Eds.). (1991). Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation.
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Lemke, J. L. (1997). Cognition, context and learning: A social semiotic perspective. In D.
Kirshner & J. A. Whitson (Eds.), Situated cognition: Social, semiotic, and psychological
perspectives. (pp. 37-56). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associations.
Lesgold, A. (1988). Problem solving. In R. Sternberg & E. Smith (Eds.), The psychology of
human thought (pp. 188-213). Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Lesgold, A., Rubinson, H., Feltovich, P., Glaser, R., Klopfer, D. & Wang, Y. (1988).
Expertise in a complex skill: Diagnosing X-ray picture. In M. Chi, R. Glaser & M. J. Farr
(Eds.), The nature of expertise (pp. 311-342). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associations.
Levin, J., Haesun, K. & Riel, M. (1990). Analyzing instructional interactions on electronic
mail networks. In L. M. Harasim (Ed.), Online education: Perspectives on a new
environment (pp. 185-213). New York, NY: Praeger Publishing.
Liu, C. C. & Tsai, C. C. (2008). An analysis of peer interaction patterns as discoursed by on-
line small group problem-solving activity. Computers & Education, 50(3), 627-639.
Lovett, M. C. (2002). Problem solving. In D. Medin (Ed.), Stevens' handbook of experimental
psychology (3rd ed., Vol. 2, pp. 317-362). New York: Wiley.
Lu, J. & Lajoie, S. P. (2008). Supporting medical decision making with argumentation tools.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 425-442.
Lu, J. & Lajoie, S. P., Wiseman, J. (submitted, Nov. 2008). Scaffolding collaboration in
simulation based medical emergencies. Instructional Science.
Markman, A. B. (1999). Knowledge representation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associations.
Mayer, R. E. & Wittrock, M. C. (2006). Problem solving. In P. A. Alexander & P. H. Winne
(Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 287-303). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Newell, A. & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-
Hall.
O'Neil, H. F., San-Hui, C. & Chung, G. K. W. K. (2003). Issues in the computer-based
assessment of collaborative problem solving. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy
& Practice, 10, 361-373.
Okada, T. & Simon, H. A. (1997). Collaborative discovery in a scientific domain. Cognitive
Science, 21(2), 109-146.
Orasanu, J. (2005). Crew collaboration in space: A naturalistic decision-making perspective.
Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine 76(6 (Sect2,Suppl)), B154-B163.
Patel, V. L., Arocha, J. F. & Kaufman, D. R. (1994). Diagnostic reasoning and medical
expertise. In D. L. Medin (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Vol. 31.
Advances in research and theory (pp. 187-252). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Patel, V. L. & Groen, G. J. (1986). Knowledge based solution strategies in medical reasoning.
Cognitive Science, 10(1), 91-116.
Patel, V. L. & Groen, G. J. (1991). The general and specific nature of medical expertise: A
critical look. In K. A. Ericsson & S. Jacqui (Eds.), Toward a general theory of expertise:
Prospects and limits. (pp. 93-125). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Patel, V. L., Groen, G. J. & Arocha, J. F. (1990). Medical expertise as a function of task
difficulty. Memory & Cognition, 18(4), 394-406.
Patel, V. L., Yoskowitz, N. A., Arocha, J. F. & Shortliffe, E. H. (in press). Cognitive and
learning sciences in biomedical and health instructional design: A review with lessons for
biomedical informatics education. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, In Press,
Corrected Proof.
Pea, R., Edelson, D. & Gomez, L. (1994, June). The CoVis Collaboratory: High school
science learning supported by a broadband educational network with scientific
visualization, videoconferencing, and collaborative computing. Paper presented at the
annual meeting of American Education Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
Pea, R. D. (1993). Practices of distributed intelligence and designs for education. In G.
Salomon (Ed.), Distributed Cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations
Pratt, M. W. & Savoy-Levine, K. M. (1998). Contingent tutoring of long-division skills in
fourth and fifth graders: Experimental tests of some hypotheses about scaffolding.
Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 19(2), 287-304.
Pretz, J. E., Naples, A. J. & Sternberg, R. J. (2003). Recognizing, defining, and representing
problems. In J. E. Davidson & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The Psychology of problem solving
Quintana, C., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Krajcik, J., Fretz, E., Duncan, R. G., et al. (2004). A
scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry. Journal of the
Learning Sciences, 13(3), 337-386.
Reimann, P. (2003, July). How to support groups in learning: More than problem solving.
Paper presented at the 11th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in
Education Sydney, Australia.
Reiser, B. J. (2004). Scaffolding complex learning: The mechanisms of structuring and
problematizing student work. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 273-304.
Resnick, L., Levine, J. & Teasley, S. (Eds.). (1991). Perspectives on socially shared
cognition. Washington DC: APA Press.
Roschelle, J. & Pea, R. (1999). Trajectories from today's WWW to a powerful educational
infrastructure. Educational Researcher, 28(5), 22-25. + 43.
Jingyan Lu
194
Roschelle, J. & Teasley, S. D. (1995). The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative
problem solving. In C. E. O'Malley (Ed.), Computer-supported collaborative learning
(pp. 69-97). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Saab, N., van Joolingen, W. R. & van Hout-Wolters, B. H. (2005). Communication in
collaborative discovery learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology 75, 603-621.
Salomon, G. (1993a). Editor's introduction. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions:
Psychological and educational considerations (pp. xi-xxi). New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press.
Salomon, G. (1993). No distribution without individuals' cognition: A dynamic interactional
view. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational
considerations (pp. 111-138). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Salomon, G. (Ed.). (1993b). Distributed cognition: psychological and educational
considerations. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Savery, J. R. & Duffy, T. M. (1995). Problem based learning: An instructional model and its
constructivist framework. Educational Technology, 35(5), 31-37.
Sawyer, R. K. (2006a). Analyzing collaborative discourse. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The
Cambridge handbook of the learning sceinces (pp. 187-204). New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Sawyer, R. K. (2006b). Introduction: The new science of learning. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The
Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 1-18). New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Scardamalia, M. & Bereiter, C. (1996). Computer support for knowledge-building
communities. In T. Koschmann (Ed.), CSCL: Theory and practice of an emerging
paradigm: Vol. 1. Computers, cognition, and work. (pp. 249-268). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Scardamalia, M. & Bereiter, C. (1999). Schools as knowledge-building organizations. In D.
P. Keating & C. Hertzman (Eds.), Developmental health and the wealth of nations:
Social, biological, and educational dynamics (pp. 274-289). New York: Guilford.
Schmidt, H. G. & Boushuizen, H. P. A. (1993). On acquiring expertise in medicine.
Educational psychology Review, 5, 205-221.
Schmidt, H. G., Dauphinee, W. D. & Patel, V. L. (1987). Comparing the effects of problem-
based and conventional curricula in an international sample. Journal of Medical
Education, 62(4), Apr 1987.
Schmidt, H. G., De Volder, M. L., De Grave, W. S., Moust, H. C. & Patel, V. L. (1989).
Explanatory models in the processing of science text: the role of prior knowledge
activation through small-group discussion. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 610-
619.
Schwartz, A. S. E. A. (2000). Clinical reasoning in medicine. In H. J. J. Mark (Ed.), Methods
in the study of clinical reasoning (2nd ed., pp. 95-106): Butterworth heinemann.
Shute, V. J., Lajoie, S. P. & Gluck, K. A. (2000). Individualized and group approaches to
training. In S. Tobias & J. D. Fletcher (Eds.), Training and retraining: A handbook for
business, industry, government, and the military (pp. 171-207). New York, NY:
Macmillan.
Slavin, R. E. (1995). Cooperative learning: Theory, research and practice (2nd ed.).
Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Soller, A. & Lesgold, A. (2003, July). A computational approach to analyzing online
knowledge sharing interaction. Paper presented at the 11th international Conference of
Artificial Intelligence in Education Sydney, Australia.
Soller, A., Martinez, A., Jermann, P. & Muehlenbrock, M. (2005). From mirroring to guiding:
A review of state of the art technology for supporting collaborative learning.
International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 15(4), 261-290.
Stahl, G. (2000). A model of collaborative knowledge building. Paper presented at the Fourth
International Conference of the Learning Sciences, Ann Arbor, MI.
Sternberg, R. J. & Preiss, D. (Eds.). (2005). Intelligence and technology: Impact of tools on
the nature and development of human skills. Mahwah, NJ Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Stoyanova, N. & Kommers, P. (2001, March). Learning effectiveness of concept mapping in a
computer supported collaborative problem solving design. Paper presented at the First
European International Conference on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning,
Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Strough, J., Berg, C. A. & Meegan, S. P. (2001). Friendship and Gender Differences in Task
and Social Interpretations of Peer Collaborative Problem Solving. Social Development,
10, 1-22.
Suthers, D., Connelly, J., Lesgold, A., Paolucci, M., Toth, E., Toth, J., et al. (2001).
Representational and advisory guidance for students learning scientific inquiry. In K. D.
Forbus & P. J. Feltovich (Eds.), Smart machines in education: The coming revolution in
educational technology. (pp. 7-36). Menlo Park, CA: AAAI/Mit Press.
Suthers, D. & Hundhausen, C. (2001, March). Learning by constructing collaborative
representations: An empirical comparison of three alternatives. Paper presented at the
First European Conference on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, Maastricht,
Netherlands.
Suthers, D., Toth, E. & Weiner, A. (1997, December). An integrated approach to
implementing collaborative inquiry in the classroom. Paper presented at the Second
International Conference on Computer-Support Collaborative Learning, Toronto, Canada.
Suthers, D. D. (1999, December). Effects of alternate representations of evidential relations
on collaborative learning discourse. Paper presented at the Third International
Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, Stanford, CA.
Suthers, D. D. & Hundhausen, C. D. (2003). An experimental study of the effects of
representational guidance on collaborative learning processes. Journal of the Learning
Sciences, 12(2), 183-218.
Teasley, S. (1997). Talking about reasoning: How important is the peer in peer collaboration?
In R. S. L.B. Resnick, C. Pontecorvo and B. Burge (Ed.), Discourse, tools and reasoning:
Essays on situated cognition (pp. 361-384). Berlin: Springer.
Teasley, S. D. & Roschelle, J. (1993). Constructing a joint problem space: The computer as a
tool for sharing knowledge. In S. P. Lajoie & S. J. Derry (Eds.), Computers as cognitive
tools (pp. 229-258). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Uresti, R. (2000, June). Should I teach my computer peer? Some issues in teaching a learning
companion. Paper presented at the Intelligent Tutoring System, Montreal, Canada.
van Boxtel, C. (2000). Collaborative concept learning: Collaborative learning tasks, student
interaction, and the learning of physics concepts. Unpublished Doctoral thesis, Utrecht
University, Utrecht, Netherlands.
Jingyan Lu
196
van Boxtel, C., van der Linden, J. & Kanselaar, G. (2000). Collaborative learning tasks and
the elaboration of conceptual knowledge. Learning and Instruction, 10(4), 311-330.
van Boxtel, C. & Veerman, A. (2001, March). Diagram-mediated collaborative learning:
Diagrams as tools to provoke and support elaboration and argumentation. Paper
presented at the first European Conference on Computer-Supported Collaborative
Learning, Maastricht, Netherlands.
van Bruggen, J. M., Kirschner, P. A. & Jochems, W. (2002). External representation of
argumentation in CSCL and the management of cognitive load Learning and Instruction,
12(1), 121-138.
Veerman, A., Andriessen, J. & Kanselaar, G. (2002). Collaborative argumentation in
academic education. Instructional Science, 30(3), 155-186.
Visschers-Pleijers, A. J. S. F., Dolmans, D. H. J. M., Wolfhagen, I. H. A. P. & Van Der
Vleuten, C. P. M. (2004). Exploration of a method to analyze group interactions in
problem-based learning. Medical Teacher, 26, from 10.1080/01421590410001679064
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=14573962&site=ehost-live
Visschers-Pleijers, A. J. S. F., Dolmans, D. J. M., Wolfhagen, I. H. A. P. & Van Der Vleuten.,
C. P. M. (2002). Group interaction processes in problem-based learning: Elaborations
and co-constructions. Paper presented at the JURE Conference, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Vizcaino, A., Contreras, J., Favela, J. & Prieto, M. (2000, June). An adaptive, collaborative
environment to develop good habits in programming. Paper presented at the 5th
International conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems, Montreal, Canada.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Webb, N. M. (1982). Students intraction and learning in small groups. Review of Educational
Research, 52, 421-445.
Webb, N. M. (1989). Peer interaction and learning in small groups. International Journal of
Educational Research, 13, 21-40.
Webb, N. M. (1992). Testing a Theoretical Model of Student Interaction and Learning in
Small Groups. In R. Hertz-Lazarowitz & N. Miller (Eds.), Interaction in Cooperative
Groups (Vol. 102-119). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Winne, P. H. (2006). How software technologies can improve research on learning and
bolster school reform. Educational Psychologist, 41, 5-17.
Wood, D., Bruner, J. S. & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal
of Child Psychology & Psychiatry & Allied Disciplines, 17(2), 89-100.
Wood, D. & Middleton, D. (1975). A study of assisted problem-solving. British Journal of
Psychology, 66(2), 181-191.
Wooldridge, M. & Jennings, N. R. (1995). Agent theories, architectures, and languages: A
survey. In M. Wooldridge & N. R. Jennings (Eds.), Intelligent Agents (lecture Notes in
Artificial Intelligence) (Vol. 890, pp. 1-21). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Wu, H.-K., Krajcik, J. S. & Soloway, E. (2001). Promoting Understanding of Chemical
Representations: Students' Use of a Visualization Tool in the Classroom. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 38(7), 821-842.
Zhang, J. (1997). The nature of external representations in problem solving. Cognitive
Science, 21(2), 179-217.
Zhang, J. (2002). Representations of health concepts: a cognitive perspective. Journal of
Biomedical Informatics, 35(1), 17-24.


Chapter 7

ARE YOU TALKING TO ME? AN OVERVIEW
OF TECHNIQUES TO MEASURE PEER INTERACTIONS
FROM THREE PERSPECTIVES AND A PROPOSAL
FOR AN INTEGRATIVE MODEL

Michiel B. Oortwijn
1
*
, Astrid C. Homan
2
**
and Nadira Saab
3
***

1
Leiden University, Department of Clinical Child and Adolescent Studies P.O. Box 9555,
2300 RB Leiden, the Netherlands
2
VU University, Psychology and Education, Dept. of Work and Organizational
Psychology Van der Boechorststraat 1, 1081 BT Amsterdam, The Netherlands
3
Leiden University, Department of Education and Child Studies P.O. Box 9555, 2300 RB
Leiden, the Netherlands

ABSTRACT

A unique aspect of working in small groups is that students have the opportunity
to interact with each other about how to solve problems. Research in educational and
social psychology has shown that task-related (TR) peer interactions are positively
related to performance. The positive relation of task-related peer interactions with
performance is influenced by both individual and contextual factors. In this chapter
we will give an overview of the current knowledge on methods to analyze task-
related peer interactions in three major research fields: the face-to-face, computer-
supported, and group decision-making setting. We will outline that there are several
methods of interaction analysis in each research field which differ from each other on
multiple aspects. In the face-to-face setting the two dominant approaches are: (1)
discourse analysis (analysis of interaction patterns), and (2) functional analysis
(analysis of aspects of individual statements). In the computer-supported setting,

*
Corresponding Author: Phone: +31.71.5273425 E-mail: oortwijn@fsw.leidenuniv.nl
**
Phone: +31 (0)20 598 5956, Email: ac.homan@psy.vu.nl
***
Phone: +31.71.5274049
Michiel B. Oortwijn, Astrid C. Homan and Nadira Saab

198
peers communicate through means of computer-mediated communication (CMC).
Two types of communication tools can be distinguished: asynchronic communication
tools, such as e-mail and discussion forums, and synchronic tools, such as chat.
Compared to the face-to-face setting, methods used to code CMC make use of the
fact that CMC can be directly logged. In group decision-making settings, group
processes are assessed using real-time as well as survey-based measures of
interaction quality (e.g., social climates and conflicts) and task progress (e.g., shared
mental models and group-level information processing). We will provide a state-of-
the art overview of current peer interaction methodologies and illustrate each
methodology with case studies from relevant research.
Additionally, we will discuss what individual and contextual factors have been
found to affect the relation between task-related peer interactions and performance.
In doing so, we will draw parallels between educational psychology and social
psychology and propose an integrative model to better understand what determines
the effectiveness of task-related peer interactions.

Keywords: Peer interaction analysis, group learning, CSCL, group decision-making

1.1. INTRODUCTION

In this chapter, we will focus on the measurement of processes leading up to group
learning and performance. Group learning is presently integrated in many educational
tracks. The widespread use of group learning in formal education coincides with an
impressive line of scientific research showing that learning in groups can be more
effective (in terms of learning results) than individual learning (Qin, Johnson & Johnson,
1995). This has been attributed to group members opportunity to share their knowledge
(Johnson & Johnson, 1982; Webb, Nemer & Ing, 2006). However, many studies suggest
that group learning is not always as effective as it could be (Homan, Van Knippenberg,
Van Kleef & De Dreu, 2007b; Oortwijn, Boekaerts, Vedder & Strijbos, 2008; Saab, Van
Joolingen & Van Hout-Wolters, 2005; Webb et al., 2006). These researchers showed that
the effectiveness of group learning depends on the degree to which group members share
their task-related knowledge.
In line with this, we will focus on the methodological techniques to measure task-related
peer interactions and how the task-related peer interactions relate to performance. To this
purpose, we will first give an overview of the different types of group learning. Second, we
will outline what methodological techniques have been developed to analyze task-related peer
interactions. We will discuss methodologies for the face-to-face, computer-supported, and the
group decision-making settings, because the degree to which students share knowledge is
different in each of these settings. For each setting, we will outline how the task-related peer
interactions relate to performance. Third, we will illuminate what factors (antecedents) impact
the relation of task-related peer interactions with performance by presenting an integrative
model of task-related peer interactions, discussing the antecedents, the process (task-related
peer interactions), and outcome (performance). Finally, methodological implications of the
proposed model will be discussed.

Are You Talking to Me? An Overview of Techniques to Measure Peer

199
1.2. Three Types of Group Learning

Damon and Phelps (1989) argued that three types of group learning may be
distinguished: Tutoring, cooperative learning, and collaborative learning. In tutoring, students
are unequal in their skill-level (novice versus expert). In cooperative learning, students are
seated in groups and have a mutual goal. Typically, student assignments in a cooperative
learning setting do not require students to work together: The assignments can also be
completed individually. A variation on this is the jigsaw task. In this type of assignment,
group members first develop expertise individually and then come back to their own group
where they can input their expertise while solving the group assignment (Johnson & Johnson,
1982). In collaborative learning, students are equal in skill-level and are explicitly stimulated
to jointly complete assignments. Damon and Phelps (1989) asserted that these three different
types of group learning affect the synchronicity of the peer interactions. Synchronicity refers
to the degree to which group members can exert the same influence in the peer interactions
(Suthers, Hundhausen & Girardeau, 2003). Other researchers refer to this situation as the
degree of reciprocity (e.g., Duran & Monereo, 2005). Damon and Phelps argue that whereas
peer interactions during tutoring are mostly asynchronous, peer interactions during
collaborative learning are characterized mostly by synchronicity and cooperative learning by
a substantial amount of synchronous and asynchronous interactions.

2. OVERVIEW OF METHODS TO ANALYZE
TASK-RELATED PEER INTERACTIONS

Below we will present the major methodologies to analyze task-related peer interactions.
Before doing so, we will first give a definition of task-related peer interactions. This is
followed by a short introduction on the methods that are available to calculate inter-rater
agreement.

2.1. Definition of Task-Related Peer Interactions

Within the task-related peer talk domain, earlier researchers distinguished social peer
interactions (e.g., dividing tasks) from cognitive peer interactions (e.g., discussing problem-
solving steps; Bennett & Dunne, 1991). For conceptual clarity, we will also use this
distinction, although it is important to keep in mind here that both overlap to some extent (see
also Barron, 2003). Following Bennett and Dunne (1991), we define task-related peer
interactions as all peer talk that is about cognitive and social aspects of problem-solving.
There are three major settings in which methods to investigate task-related peer interactions
have been developed. These are the face-to-face, the computer-supported, and the group
decision-making setting. We will discuss the dominant methodologies of task-related peer
interaction analysis (henceforth interaction analysis) that are used in these three settings.
Differences between settings will be discussed. One similarity between settings, however, is
that the methods to investigate task-related peer interactions should be reliable. In order to
attain reliable analyses, the inter-rater agreement between coders must be computed. In all

200
settings, different methods can be used to measure the inter-rater agreement. Before
discussing the methods to analyze task-related peer interactions in the face-to-face, computer-
supported, and group decision-making settings, we will first shortly discuss what measures
are used to assess the inter-rater agreement.

2.2. Inter-Rater Agreement Measures

In order to achieve reliable coding results, multiple coders need to code the protocols. To
compute the inter-rater reliability different statistics can be used: proportion agreement (%),
Cohens kappa (), Scotts pi, or Krippendorffs alpha () (Neuendorf, 2002). Proportion
agreement is usually calculated by dividing the number of statements that both coders agree
on by the total number of statements. An agreement of 70% or higher is considered to be
sufficiently high. Proportion agreement, however, does not correct for chance agreement
(Neuendorf, 2002). That is, if two coders have to rate whether a student says yes or no, and
one of the coders purposefully does not listen while coding, they will agree 50% of the time
just by chance alone. Because Cohens kappa, Scotts pi, and Krippendorffs alpha do control
for chance agreement, it is advisable to use these statistical measures to calculate inter-rater
agreement.
For Cohens kappa and Krippendorffs alpha the criteria can be defined as follows: a
value below .45 is considered poor, between .45 and .59 is considered fair, between .60 and
.74 is considered good, and .75 and higher is considered excellent (Strijbos & Stahl, 2007).
Cohens kappa is mostly used in face-to-face and computer-supported settings and can
therefore be used to compare reliabilities between studies. Possible scores range from .00 to
1.00. Research has shown that Cohens kappa is not always the right choice to calculate inter-
rater agreement (Arstein & Poesio, 2005; Krippendorff, 2004). For instance, Cohens kappa
might give problems when applied to dichotomous data (Weinberger & Fischer, 2006). In
addition, Cohens kappa only credits agreement beyond chance, which is difficult to obtain in
data that have extreme distributions (Neuendorf, 2002), like often is the case with coded peer
interaction data.
Because of these limitations, and also the fact that only the agreement between two
coders can be calculated in SPSS, Krippendorffs alpha is increasingly being used. With
Krippendorffs alpha not only attention is paid to non-occurrence (i.e. one of the coders has
not given a score) but also to the co-occurrence of non-occurring statements (i.e. agreement
between the coders that a specific statement does not occur). Also, inter-rater agreement
between more than two coders can be easily calculated. See Neuendorf (2002) for more
information on how Cohens kappa, Scotts pi, and Krippendorffs alpha are calculated.
In the group decision-making literature, group members are often used to rate their own
experiences of group learning or other group processes. In other words, the students/
participants code their own behaviors by means of questionnaires. The individual level
responses are then aggregated to the group-level by, for instance, taking the mean (e.g.,
Kashy & Kenny, 2000). This aggregation is often justified by providing measures of within
group agreement such as intraclass correlations (ICCs), and r
wg
(the within-group interrater
reliability; see for an overview Klein & Kozlowski, 2000; cf. Bliese, 2000; James, Demaree,
& Wolf, 1984; Kashy & Kenny, 2000). These measures determine to which degree the
individual level answers are shared within the group and distinct from other groups. The ICC

201
determines the proportion of the total variance that can be explained by group membership
(James, 1982; Shrout & Fleiss, 1979), taking group size into account. The r
wg
is an estimation
of within group agreement, in which the observed variance is compared to an expected
random variance (James et al., 1984; 1993).

3. INTERACTION ANALYSIS IN FACE-TO-FACE SETTINGS

3.1. Two Type of Methods to Analyze Peer Interactions in the Face-to-Face
Setting

To assess the relation of task-related peer interactions with performance, peer interactions
have been investigated with two types of analyses: Discourse analysis and functional analysis.
They are analogous to the distinction between collaborative learning and cooperative learning
in the sense that discourse analysis is rooted in Vygotskys socio-cultural theory (Vygotsky,
1978) as is collaborative learning. On the other hand, functional analysis is related to the
motivational perspective, as is cooperative learning. Both types have their merits and
drawbacks, as we will outline below.

Discourse analysis. Discourse analysis is concerned with the examination of all
sequences of peer interactions. Sequences of peer interactions, or episodes, refer to
conceptually distinct segments of the peer interactions which are bordered by a sudden shift
in conceptual focus, like a question (see Table 2 for an example). In discourse analysis, all
interactions are categorized. Several researchers have proposed methods to categorize the
peer interactions in episodes. Mercer (1996), for instance, argued for the following
hierarchical categorization: (1) disputational talk, characterized by disagreement and
individualized decision-making, (2) cumulative talk, positively, but uncritically elaborating on
what another person has said, and (3) exploratory talk, critically, but constructively take on
each others ideas. Another suggestion on how to categorize the peer interactions in episodes
comes from Keefer, Zeitz, and Resnick (2000). They discern four categories: (1) critical
discussion, defined by a difference of opinion that must be overcome, (2) explanatory inquiry,
in which the main goal is to gather knowledge, (3) eristic discussion, characterized by conflict
and antagonism (non-cooperative), with the goal to maintain ones own position, and (4)
consensus dialogue, when everyone agrees with each other. Another example is the coding
scheme developed by Kumpulainen and Mutanen (1999), who discerned three categories: (1)
explorative/interpretative talk, characterized by planning and discussion of the problem-
solving process and hypothesis testing. (2) Procedural/routine talk, characterized by problem-
solving without reflection on the problem-solving process. (3) Off-task talk.
In the ideal scenario, all group members equally participate in critical but constructive
discussions. However, this is usually not the case (e.g., Oortwijn et al., 2008). Moreover, the
degree to which groups have critical but constructive discussions is relatively low when
compared to the total interaction time (Bennett & Dunne, 1991). This makes it harder to
reliably relate these discussions to performance in empirical studies. Coinciding with this,
many researchers analyze students discourse through case studies (e.g., Cobo & Fortuny,

202
2000; Fraivillig, 1999; Kaartinen & Kumpulainen, 2002; Keefer et al., 2000; Kovalainen &
Kumpulainen, 2005; Kumpulainen & Mutanen, 1999; Mercer, 1996; Meyer & Turner, 2002).

Functional analysis. In functional analysis, specific aspects of the total interaction time
are analyzed using pre-defined categories. That is, in contrast with discourse analysis, the
coding categories in functional analysis are already defined prior to the data collection. The
frequency with which these aspects occur are counted. Furthermore, the individual is the unit
of analysis in functional analysis. An example of functional analysis is the analysis of helping
behavior. Various researchers have reported that providing help is related to benefits for both
the receiver of the help as well as the help giver (e.g., Oortwijn et al., 2008; Webb, 1991;
Webb & Farivar, 1994; Webb, & Mastergeorge, 2003; Webb, Troper, & Fall, 1995). More
specifically, these studies revealed that the help receivers opportunity to apply the help is the
best predictor of learning gains.
The occurrence of helping behavior necessitates the involvement of someone who needs
help and someone who provides help. The positive effect of help giving on the performance
of the help giver has consistently been demonstrated (e.g., Oortwijn et al., 2008). The impact
of help giving on the performance of the help receiver has yielded less convincing results.
Webb et al. (1995) suggest that this may be because the amount of help received is in itself
not always enough to promote learning gains. For instance, a student may receive an
explanation without asking for it, thus frustrating their own problem solving process.
Alternatively, they may receive an explanation to a question, but not apply it. To
accommodate these issues, Webb (1991; Webb & Farivar, 1994) developed a functional
coding scheme that not only assesses whether a student asks for an explanation, but also
whether this is followed by the provision of an explanation, and whether this explanation is
applied by the help receiver to constructive activities on the current problem and the next
problem.

3.2. Case Study: Comparing Discourse with Functional Analysis

Oortwijn et al. (2008) examined the relation between peer interactions and performance.
In their study, students completed math assignments in groups of four (tetrads) during 11
math lessons. The tetrads were videotaped during two randomly selected lessons.
The coding scheme that Oortwijn et al. (2008) used was developed by Webb and her
colleagues (Webb & Farivar, 1994; Webb & Mastergeorge, 2003; Webb et al., 1995). The
coding scheme consisted of four dimensions (see Table 1). (1) Type of talk, (2), need for help,
(3) level of verbally received help, and (4) constructive activity on current problem.
Regarding dimension 1, following Bennett and Dunne (1991), utterances were scored as task-
related, or as off-task (e.g., Did you do the homework for today?). The task-related
utterances were split up further into social (e.g., You are the leader today. You should tell us
what we should do first.) and cognitive aspects. Only the cognitive utterances were further
categorized on dimension 2, 3, or 4. Dimension 2 consisted of: (2A) Request for an answer,
characterized by an implied question (e.g., I dont get this.), asking for verification (e.g.,
This is two, right?), or asking for an outcome (e.g., What is this times this? (points to
worksheet)). An implied question was only scored when it was followed by a task-related
response of a peer. (2B) Request for an explanation, characterized by a request for a specific

203
explanation (e.g., How do you calculate the circumference of the school yard?), or general
explanation (e.g., How do you calculate circumference?). Dimension 3 was composed of:
(3A) Low quality help, characterized by unclear help, undesired help, and (numerical)
outcome only. Undesired help was scored when someone gave help that was relevant for the
assignment, but not attuned to the help receivers request for help. (3B) High quality help,
characterized by explanations with part of a problem-solving step, or complete problem-
solving step(s). Lastly, dimension 4 entailed: (4A) Low quality activity, characterized by a
nonverbal response (e.g., nodding), acknowledgement of the help received, or verbally
copying the provided (numerical) outcome. (4B) High quality activity: Characterized by
working out part of a problem-solving step, or working out one or more complete problem-
solving steps.
Two research assistants coded the videotaped peer interactions with a coding scheme
developed by Webb and her colleagues (Webb & Mastergeorge, 2003; Webb et al., 1995). Before
the coding started, three steps were followed: (1) Definition of important concepts, like problem-
solving step and statement, to deal with ambiguous statements. (2) The problem-solving steps
and solutions to the math assignments were worked out. These identified problem-solving steps
formed the basis for the demarcation of the categories that were used in this coding scheme. Only
those statements that incorporated (part of) these problem-solving steps and/or solutions were
scored as problem-solving oriented. (3) The inter-coder reliability between the two coders was
calculated using six recordings (approximately ten percent of the total sample). For dimension 1
the agreement was 71.8%, and Cohens k=.60. Regarding dimension 2, the agreement was 83.1%,
and Cohens k=.73. For dimension 3, the agreement was 76.2%, and Cohens k=.60. The
agreement for dimension 4 was 72%, and Cohens k=.60. In addition to the functional coding
scheme, we applied discourse analysis here on the presented case example, using the coding
scheme developed by Mercer (1996).
The peer interactions were coded by using the software program Noldus Observer 5.0
(Noldus, 2003). With this software program it is possible to compose a coding scheme that
can take the form of a discourse scheme (assessing states) or a functional scheme (assessing
events). The coding scheme consequently can be used to mark specific behavioral events or
states on a timeline in real-time during video playback with an integrated video player. The
program saves the time points that have been marked. These marks and the time points can be
exported to other programs, like SPSS, for further analyses.
The case example presented in Table 2 shows that tutoring behavior was the dominant
type of task-related peer talk in this group. One group member took on the role of tutor,
automatically placing the other group members in the tutee role. The tutees, especially tutee
Vera, displayed low-quality constructive activity: She only copied and acknowledged the
feedback, but did not use the feedback to independently solve (part of) the task at hand.
Oortwijn et al. (2008) showed that the frequency of the tutoring behavior was positively
associated with performance. However, they also showed that it were the tutors, not the
tutees, who benefited from the tutoring. Earlier research by Webb and her colleagues (e.g.,
Webb & Mastergeorge, 2003) demonstrated that tutees will only benefit from the feedback
when they use the feedback to verbalize high-quality constructive activity on the task at hand.
Regarding the discourse analysis, the case example shows that the group members discussed
with each other in an uncritical way: They did not build on each others knowledge to gain
new, shared insights. Earlier research by Wegerif, Mercer, and Dawes (1999) revealed that
only explorative talk is positively related to performance.

Table 1. Overview of a coding scheme for functional analysis and for discourse analysis.

Functional analysis Discourse analysis
Type of talk
1a. Off-task
1b. Social task-related talk
1c. Cognitive task-related talk

2. Need for help Disputational talk Disagreement and individualized decision-
making
2a. Asking for an answer No intention to ask for an explanation,
typically a yes / no question
Cumulative talk Positively, but uncritically elaborating on
what another person has said
2b. Request for an explanation Typically an open ended question, that
asks for a process rather an answer
Explorative talk Critically, but constructively take on each
others ideas
3. Level of verbally received
help

3a. Low quality help Help that only includes an answer /
answers

3b. High quality help Help that includes an explanation (with
or without answer(s))

4. Constructive activity on
current problem

4a. Low quality activity Help application that does not contain
new information (copying / finishing
anothers calculation)

4b. High quality activity Help application that includes new
information (explanation with or
without answer(s))

Tutor actions (unsolicited
help)
Utterance targeted at provoking a
problem-solving response from a peer

Developed by Webb and colleagues (Webb & Farivar, 1994; Webb & Mastergeorge, 2003; Webb et al., 1995) and adapted by Oortwijn et al. (2008).
Developed by Mercer (1996).

Table 2. Fragment of a videotaped peer interaction session

Student Statement Functional analysis Discourse analysis
1 Vera O!, can I use your ruler, I dont have one. Organizational statement**
2 Bart Sure. Do you know what to do now? This is 8.5 and
this is 19, ok? So 8 and a half times 2 is 19. So you
have to write 8.5 centimeters here and 19 here, ok?
(shows on work sheet of V)
Tutoring behavior Start of episode 1: Cumulative talk
3 Vera Yes, so I have to write here 8.5 centimeters first. Low quality constructive activity
4 Bart No! No, dont write. You have to do 8.5 centimeters in
length and 19 centimeters in width.
Tutoring behavior
5 Vera Yes (starts calculating) Low quality constructive activity
6 Bart But not like that! Look like this (writes on the
worksheet of V)
Tutoring behavior (part 1)
7 Vera (interrupts B) No but(unintelligible) Unclear statement (not coded)
8 Bart look 8.5 centimeters. You have to do it like this, like
this (shows by writing on Vs worksheet)
Tutoring behavior (part 2)*
9 Vera Is 8 Low quality constructive activity
10 Bart No, 8.5. Low quality help
11 Dave OK Low quality constructive activity
12 Vera (writes answer down) And this is 10, right? Need for help
13 Bart No, we dont have to do that one yet. Just finish this
one.
- Low quality help
- Organizational statement
End of episode 1
14 Alex Has everyone finished? Organizational statement
15 Dave Yes Organizational statement
16 Vera Almost, just filling in the numbers Organizational statement
* Coded as a single tutor action. Although the first tutor action is interrupted by the tutee, the utterance of the tutee is unintelligible and the tutor is not distracted
by the interruption, continuing the tutor action.
** Organizational statements refer to statements that were about choosing materials, general remarks about sharing resources, the lay-out not personal
judgments- and where to write the calculations and solutions. They were not used in the analyses.

206
4. INTERACTION ANALYSIS IN COMPUTER-SUPPORTED SETTINGS

Students engaged in computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) collaborate in a
technology-enriched environment. In a CSCL environment, shared tools are provided to
support the CSCL process. The collaborating students communicate through means of
computer-mediated communication (CMC). Different means of CMC can be distinguished:
asynchronic communication tools, which refer to communication tools that can only be used
serially, like e-mail and discussion forums, and synchronic communication tools, which are
tools that can be used in parallel, such as chatrooms and video-conferencing. Although
videoconferencing is increasingly used, most educational CSCL environments are text-based.
This means that students working in a CSCL environment mostly communicate through e-
mail, discussion forums, or chat.

4.1. Synchronic Versus Asynchronic Peer Interactions

Bromme, Hesse, and Spada (2005) suggest that there is not just one method to analyze
peer interactions that can be used for all CSCL environments. The suitability of an analysis
method depends on research goals and communication form. As mentioned earlier,
communication in CSCL environments can take two forms: synchronic or asynchronic.

Synchronic peer interactions. Synchronic communication tools are akin to
communication in face-to-face settings and include chat and video-conferencing. In
educational settings, video-conferencing is scarcely used. Chat, however, is used frequently in
educational settings, as well as in research settings. Chat is a fast way to communicate and
can be used when students have to accomplish a task in a short amount of time. The
communication typically comprises short lines of texts. Chat can be easily used for dyadic
interaction, whereas using chat in small groups is more difficult. When students in small
groups react to each other simultaneously, it is difficult for them to keep an overview of the
interaction in terms of who responds to whom (Strijbos & Stahl, 2007).

Asynchronic peer interactions. Asynchronic communication tools like e-mail or
discussion forums can be used more easily in small group learning than chat. A threaded
discussion forum permits multiple students to reply to the same comment. As a result, a
discussion tree is formed, which provides an ordered overview of the peer interactions.
Although e-mail can be used more easily in small groups than chat, the overview of the
interaction is less clear than when using a discussion forum. Another advantage of
asynchronic tools is that students do not have to respond immediately to a received message.
Instead, they can take their time to reflect on the message and to formulate a new contribution
(De Wever, Schellens, Valcke, & Van Keer, 2006; Pena-Shaff & Nicholls, 2004). Those
contributions are mostly longer than the average chat message. However, a limitation of
communicating through asynchronic tools is that students do not know when the other
participants will respond. It takes more time to complete the assignment than when using
synchronic communication tools.


207
4.2. Research Goals Influence the Choice of Communication Tools in CSCL

What communication tool researchers should use depends on the research goal. This
research goal is based on the theoretical framework used and the research questions asked
(ODonnell, 2006). In studying CSCL, different research goals can be pursued. Research
questions can be aimed at the CSCL process and/or the results.
When investigating the CSCL process, the focus can lie on interaction processes between
students, on the process of co-construction of knowledge, or on the individual activities of
students. When investigating the learning results, one can study the group products or the
individual knowledge gain.
The CSCL process can be studied by analyzing the communication process. The learning
results can be analyzed by judging the group product or by administering (individual) pre-
and post-test. In CSCL environments, pre- and post-tests can be easily administered on
screen, which makes it easy for researchers to process the results.

4.3. Two Methods to Analyze Peer Interactions in Computer-Supported
Settings

The CSCL process can be analyzed quantitatively or qualitatively. Quantitative
approaches (e.g., Saab, Van Joolingen & Van Hout-Wolters, 2005; 2007) focus on individual
contributions (i.e., statements, cognitive strategies, communicative functions, or content of
the contribution, Hmelo-Silver, 2003). Sequences of contributions can also be analyzed.
Quantitative interaction analysis is similar to the earlier mentioned functional analysis in face-
to-face settings.
Qualitative approaches (e.g., Hmelo-Silver, 2003; Stahl, 2006) have a more descriptive nature
and stress the importance of contextual factors. With these approaches, an overview of the
interaction can be sketched. Whereas quantitative results can be easily compared with each other, it
is more complicated to compare qualitative results across different interactions (Hmelo-Silver &
Bromme, 2007). Qualitative interaction analysis is akin to discourse analysis in face-to-face settings.
Recently, researchers increasingly use mixed-method strategies where quantitative approaches
are combined with qualitative methods (Hmelo-Silver, 2003; Strijbos, Martens, Jochems, & Broers,
2007; Weinberger & Fischer, 2006). To gain insight into the content of peer interactions, coding of
communication (content analysis) has frequently been used to investigate the effects of CSCL on
peer interactions (Chi, 1997; Fischer & Mandl, 2005; Saab et al., 2005; 2007).

4.4. Case Example of Quantitative and Qualitative Analysis on Logged Chat
Interaction

Saab et al. (2005) studied the relation between communication and discovery learning. In
collaborative discovery learning, students communicate and work together in a shared
environment gathering data and use these data for joint knowledge construction. By altering
variables and parameters and observing the effects, students can uncover the rules that hold in
a phenomenon they investigate, and in doing so, build new knowledge. Specifically for

208
discovery learning, research has indicated that collaboration can make the discovery learning
process more accessible and more effective (Okada & Simon, 1997; Salomon & Globerson,
1989). Saab and colleagues (2005) explored which communicative activities in collaborative
learning would contribute to the discovery learning process. In this study, students worked in
pairs on separate computers in a shared environment and communicated through chat.
Students could share control over the cursor. The interactions between the students were
logged and included the chat actions and their activities in the learning environment.
A multidimensional coding scheme was used to code the protocols. This coding scheme
was partly based on the coding scheme Van Boxtel (2000) used in her study into concept
development and partly based on the research of Njoo and De Jong (1993) into discovery
learning. Each chat action (a complete message) was scored on both dimensions. Table 3
shows the coding scheme. In the left column, the communicative activities are shown. These
activities refer to the function of the chat actions. For example, when a student justified an
earlier stated idea, this chat action was coded as argumentative. Or when a student asked his
partner a question, this chat action was coded as elicitative. In the right column, the discovery
activities are shown. These activities consist of cognitive activities which can be carried out
in the discovery learning environment to accomplish the task. These discovery learning
activities include orientation, generating hypotheses, testing these hypotheses and drawing
conclusions. These activities resemble phases in the scientific process of discovery (Klahr &
Dunbar, 1988; Van Joolingen & De Jong, 1997).

Table 3. Coding scheme used to analyze protocols in a study by Saab et al. (2005).

Communicative activities Discovery activities
Informative
Argumentative
Evaluative
Elicitative (asking the other for response)
Responsive
Confirmation/Acceptance
Directive
Off task
Off task technical

Orientation
Identifying parameters and variables
Collecting data
Interpreting data and graphics
Generating hypotheses
Describing and recognizing relations
Thinking of alternatives
Proposing an answer
Formulating hypotheses
Testing hypotheses
Experimental design
Predicting
Collecting data
Conclusion
Interpreting data and graphics
Rejecting hypotheses
Concluding

The protocols were analyzed using the computer program MEPA (Multiple Episode Protocol
Analysis; Erkens, 1998). With MEPA, a (multiple dimensional) coding system can be developed
and protocols of different kinds of interaction (e.g., chat, e-mail, threaded discussions) can be
coded. In addition, the coded protocols can be analyzed with the program, both with quantitative
and qualitative methods. It is also possible to export the files to a preferred statistical analysis
program, such as SPSS. Furthermore, because coding is a time-consuming task, MEPA also

209
provides a module to program if-then rules for automatic coding. Not only will this minimize the
coding time, but in addition the coding reliability will be increased.
Saab and colleagues (2005) used MEPA to code the interaction (they did not use the
automatic coding option) and to get an overview of the frequencies of activities used. To
compute the inter-rater reliability, two independent coders rated 10% of the protocols.
Cohens kappa was used as the statistic to analyze the inter-rater reliability. The Cohens
kappa was on the communication dimension k=.79 and on the discovery dimension k=.84
which can be considered excellent.
Table 4 shows a example of part of a coded protocol (Saab et al., 2005). The example
displays a quantitative and a qualitative analysis. Student A and B are working together in the
learning environment and trying to find an answer for one of the assignments. The students
perform two experiments (SIMULATION) in this fragment of the coded protocol.
Table 4 gives an example of the chat activities in a fragment of a coded protocol (Saab et
al., 2005). As can be seen, not all activities are used by the dyad. With respect to the discovery
activities, describing and recognizing parameters and variables in the generating hypotheses
process and experimental design were used most often. Regarding the communicative
functions confirmation/acceptance (i.e., verbal acknowledgement, e.g., OK.), elicitative
(i.e., asking questions), and directive (i.e., giving orders). Regarding the qualitative analysis, it
can be seen in this protocol fragment that the students are trying to agree on the design of the
experiment before carrying out this experiment in the simulation. From line 1 to 12, student A
has the control over the cursor, while student B gives the orders. From line 12 it is the other way
around and student B gives the orders. They do not argue about who is in charge, but exchange
the control over the cursor without discussion. It seems as if the student that does not have the
control over the cursor decides what action will be taken.

5. INTERACTION ANALYSIS IN GROUP DECISION-MAKING SETTINGS

Within social psychology and work- and organizational psychology, small groups have
been an increasing research interest (De Dreu, Nijstad, & Van Knippenberg, 2008; Ilgen,
Hollenbeck, Johnson, & Jundt, 2004; Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006). Group work is supposed to
help organizations to deal with complex problems and decision-making. Group learning has
long been seen as a process leading to group effectiveness or performance, but the focus has
recently shifted towards understanding critical group processes such as group learning
(Wilson, Goodman, & Cronin, 2007; cf. Argote & McGrath, 1993). As often happens with
related, but distinct research fields, the research on learning in the group decision-making
literature has been developed largely in isolation from learning in schools and in student
teams. In contrast to the methods discussed in the previous sections, most of the research in
the group decision literature has paid little or no attention to basic dynamic learning
processes, such as how information is encoded, stored, or retrieved (Wilson et al., 2007). This
is visible in the often static measurement of team processes or outcomes (Weingart, 1997),
such as the use of questionnaires to assess group learning. Individuals are questioned about
their learning experience and these individual responses are aggregated to the group-level. In
defense of these measurements, questionnaires do provide an insider perspective, giving
group members a chance to rate their own learning experiences, rather than that their
behaviors are being coded by outsiders.

Table 4. A fragment of a coded protocol for the study into the relation between communication and discovery learning (Saab et al., 2005).

Quantitative coding Qualitative analyses
Student (Chat) action Communicative activity Discovery activity
1 A Which one was the x (t)? Elicitative Describing and recognizing
parameters and variables in the
generating hypotheses process
Student A has the control
over the cursor, while
student B gives orders.
2 A The first one, isnt it? Elicitative Describing and recognizing
3 B Yes Confirmation/acceptance
4 B Oh no, just try it again Directive
5 A Doesnt work Informative
6 B Try some different things now Directive Experimental design
7 A OK Confirmation/acceptance
8 B Change the mass Directive Experimental design
9 A OK Confirmation/acceptance
10 B What was the velocity again? Elicitative Describing and recognizing
11 A I dont remember Responsive
12 A Leave it like this Directive Experimental design
Student B has the control
over the cursor, while
student A gives orders.
13 B Just leave it on 10? Elicitative Experimental design
14 A Yes Confirmation/acceptance
15 B OK Confirmation/acceptance
16 SIMULATION Collecting data for testing hypotheses Experiment is performed
(by student B)
17 A Enlarge the mass Directive Experimental design Student A gives orders
18 SIMULATION Collecting data for testing hypotheses Experiment is performed
(by student B)

211
Group decision-making research has of course not been limited to survey-based measures
of group learning. Weingart (1997) has called for a more dynamic way of studying group
processes. Wilson et al. (2007) agree with this quest and call for measurement of learning at the
group-level, in which groups are followed over time. Luckily, researchers have indeed focused
on more group-level learning by videotaping groups and assessing learning related construct at
the group-level (e.g., Homan, van Knippenberg, De Dreu, & Van Kleef, 2007a; 2007b). Below
we will elaborate on measures to analyze task-related peer interactions that are based on self-
reports and measures that are based on the coding of videotaped task-related peer interactions.

5.1. Two ways to Measure Group Processes

Next to the distinction of measuring group learning-related processes with self-reports or
real-time coding, group decision-making research makes a distinction between task-related
and social-related group processes (e.g., Guzzo & Dickson, 1996). Groups are supposed to be
effective when both task and relationship processes are of high quality. Group learning is
supposed to be aided by exchange and processing of task-relevant information by the group
(e.g., De Dreu et al., 2008; Hinsz, Tindale, & Vollrath, 1997), a moderate level of task
conflict (e.g., Jehn, 1995), by high reflexivity and effective error management (e.g.,
Edmondson, 1999; Schippers, Den Hartog, & Koopman, 2007), and the existence of shared
mental models concerning the task (Cannon-Bowers, Salas & Converse, 1993). Additionally,
groups benefit from low interpersonal friction (e.g., Jehn, 1995), a supportive team climate
(e.g., Tse, Dasborough & Ashkanasy, 2008), group cohesion (Hogg, 1992), and high trust
(Simons & Peterson, 2000). Task-related as well as social processes can be assessed using
self-reports as well as by coding the interactions. Below, both ways of measuring group
processes that are inductive to learning will be discussed by means of a case study.

5.2. Case Study: Self-Reports Versus Video-Coding

To illuminate these measurements, two group decision-making experiments will be
discussed (Homan et al., 2007a; 2007b). In the first, Homan et al. (2007b) were interested in
examining how group diversity affected task-related and interpersonal group processes.
Diversity has been shown to positively as well as negatively influence group functioning
(e.g., Williams & O'Reilly, 1998). Following the theoretical model put forward by Van
Knippenberg, De Dreu, and Homan (2004), Homan et al. (2007b) hypothesized that certain
diversity constellations would be more conducive for negative group processes whereas other
constellations would be more conducive to positive group processes. More specifically, they
argued that the alignment of multiple diversity dimensions (i.e., when gender, personality,
and informational differences create two distinct subgroups) would instigate negative group
processes, whereas the crossing of diversity dimensions would instigate positive group
processes. 70 four-person groups were brought together in a laboratory and worked on the
Desert Survival Exercise (Johnson & Johnson, 1982). The Desert Survival Exercise is a group
decision-making task in which groups have to decide which items are important for survival
in the desert. In the original version of the task, a list with 12 items is presented which have to
be rank ordered in order of importance.

212
The specific composition of the group was manipulated. Demographic diversity was
instigated by means of gender (i.e., two males and two females) and fake personality
feedback (i.e., the males were supposedly personality type H and the females were personality
type K). The descriptions of the two personality types consisted of broad statements that
could in fact be a description of everyone. Informational diversity was manipulated by
providing the groups with task-relevant information before the task. Twelve information
items were developed based on the twelve items in the task. This information was either given
to all group members or was divided in two equally informative halves (4 shared and 8
unshared items) and distributed among the group members (i.e., two members received
information half A [consisting of 4 shared and 4 unshared items] and the other two received
information half B [consisting of the 4 shared and other 4 unshared items]). The main
hypothesis was that crossing demographic differences with informational differences would
benefit task-related as well as social processes within the group. Information exchange and
processing and satisfaction with cooperation were assessed by means of questionnaires. Task
conflict and relationship conflict were assessed by coding of videotapes.
In the second experiment with 45 groups, the composition of the group was again
manipulated as well as beliefs about group diversity. Demographically diverse groups
received homogeneous or heterogeneous information and were convinced of the benefits of
homogeneity or heterogeneity. The authors expected that having a positive outlook on
diversity would lead to more information exchange and processing and better performance,
but only if groups were diverse on a task-related dimension (i.e., were informationally
diverse). Information elaboration in this experiment was assessed using videocoding.
Survey measures. Information elaboration was assessed using a self-developed
questionnaire based on the definition of information elaboration given by Van Knippenberg et
al. (2004). Individual group members responded to the following statements: "During the
group task, I actively processed the information provided by the other group members.
During the group task, things were said that made me think about the task. During the task,
things were said that gave me new ideas". Satisfaction was assessed with an adapted version
of a questionnaire developed by Thomas, Ravlin, and Wallace (1996). The four items were
"I'm satisfied with the cooperation within this group. The members of this group did well. I'm
satisfied with the performance of the group. I have the impression that the cooperation within
this group went well."
As discussed before, people that work in groups are not independent (Kashy & Kenny,
2000), that is, there responses will be influenced by their group membership. Therefore, it has
been advised to aggregate individual level scores on questionnaires to the group-level.
However, if group-level measures are created from individual level responses it is important
to control whether people within the same group indeed are more similar in their responses
than people between groups (e.g., Bliese, 2000). To test whether the groups could be reliably
differentiated on satisfaction and information exchange, intraclass correlations (ICC) and the
within-group interrater reliability (r
wg
) were calculated. Statistically significant ICC values
were found for both measures (satisfaction: ICC value .25, F[64, 195] = 2.32, p < .01;
information elaboration: ICC value .15, F[64, 195] = 1.58, p < .01;). Additionally, the authors
calculated r
wg
values, and found that all measures scored higher than .70, indicating
satisfactory agreement (George, 1990). These findings combined justified aggregation to the
group-level based on the group mean (Homan et al., 2007b).

213
Videotape coding. In the first experiment (Homan et al., 2007b), task and relationship
conflict were coded from videotapes. All groups were videotaped during their interaction and
the videotapes were watched by two coders that counted the number of negative remarks that
were made regarding the task (i.e., task conflict) and regarding individual group members and
the group as a whole (i.e., relationship conflict; Jehn, 1995). Examples of remarks that were
coded to be task conflicts are "This is not the way we should approach this task." and "You're
wrong about the flashlight, it has batteries and it won't work in the heat." Examples of
remarks that were coded to be relationship conflicts are "We should never have gone into the
desert with women, they don't know how to survive."; "You men are so stubborn."; and "I can
see you have a different personality type, you're obnoxious." The coders were blind to
conditions and were not aware of the hypotheses of the experiment. To make sure that the
coders were in agreement about what constituted task and relationship conflicts, intra-class
correlations were calculated. Cicchetti and Sparrow (1981) developed criteria for reliability
coefficients that are necessary to assess the quality of a coding scheme.
A more specific example is given for the coding of information elaboration (See Table 5;
Homan et al., 2007a). Information elaboration can be defined as the exchange of information and
perspectives, individual-level processing of the information and perspectives, feeding back the
results of this individual-level processing into the group, and discussion and integration of their
implications (Van Knippenberg et al., 2004). Again, all groups were videotaped during the
interaction and the videotapes were coded. The information elaboration score was a continuous
one, with the higher the score, the more an information item was elaborated upon. As explained
before, eight information items were used to create an unshared information condition. The
information elaboration score was based on these eight items and information elaboration was
determined for each information item. A score of "0" was given when an information item was not
mentioned at all during the group discussion. A score of "1" was given when information was
mentioned, but none of the other members reacted to it (i.e., if the information was only
exchanged). A score of "2" was given when one of the members mentioned an information item
and at least one of the other members reacted to it (e.g., by nodding or saying something like
"OK"), but after this the group still failed to ask questions about it or integrate the item with other
information. A score of "3" was given when a piece of information was mentioned by one of the
group members and one or more other members clearly responded by asking a question about it
(e.g., "Why is it important to give light signals?"). A score of "4" was given when the mentioning
of an information item resulted in a conclusion about whether something was important or not
(e.g., "Ah, a mirror must be important, you can use the light of the sun to signal with that.").
Finally, a score of "5" was given when the information item was combined with another piece of
information by one of the other group members (e.g., I don't think it's smart to take a knife with us.
There's barely any vegetation we can use it on and we might be a danger to ourselves and others if
we indeed get a sunstroke.").
The highest level of information elaboration for each information item was used in
subsequent analyses (from 0 to 5); the total elaboration was then determined by computing
the sum of information elaboration for the eight information categories. It is important to
stress that information elaboration was coded in the same way in all conditions (i.e.,
regardless of whether information items were shared or unshared). Thus, groups in all
conditions could obtain scores between 0 and 5 for all eight information items. The maximum
number of points that could be obtained thus was 8 items x 5 points is 40 points. Two
independent raters, blind to the experimental conditions and hypotheses, coded the

Table 5. An overview of an interaction sequence of which information elaboration was coded from videotapes in Homan et al. (2007a)

Group
member
Statement Level of elaboration Score (information item)
1 F1 Hey, what about taking some water with us. We will
dehydrate pretty quickly in this heat.
Information exchange 1 (information item water)
2 M2 Sure, but what about making sure they can find us. It
might be smart to take something to signal with us.
Response (Sure)
Information exchange
2
1 (information item
signaling)
3 F2 Ok, that sounds good, but how do you want to do that? Question about information 3
4 M2 Well, let's assume they come to find us with a helicopter,
which is quite reasonable in a big desert; it might be a
good idea to have something to signal with.

5 F1 Oh, that's cool, we could take a mirror then or something
else that reflects the sun?
Choice for a relevant object 4
6 M1 Wait a minute, we need protection from the sun as well,
right? Why don't we take an aluminum tent with us?
That will create shade and will reflect light as well.
Integration with other information
(information item shade with information
item signaling)
5


215
videotapes. They provided double ratings of twenty percent of the videotapes to check
interrater reliability. The average intra-class correlation for the two raters was .96, which is
considered excellent (Cicchetti & Sparrow, 1981).
Table 5 shows how the group members interacted to determine what they should bring with
them in a survival situation in a desert. People use each others information to get informed as well
as use the shared information to integrate it with their own (unshared) knowledge. Combining
information (in the example shade and signaling) makes them think of items in which these two
characteristics are combined. However, this does not happen constantly. More basic, simple
knowledge (like bringing water) is usually not a big part of the discussion. The thorough exchange
and processing of information on the group-level seems to occur for information that is not
directly obvious or needs an integration of different ideas (cf. Wilson et al., 2007).

6. FACTORS THAT AFFECT THE RELATION BETWEEN PEER
INTERACTIONS AND PERFORMANCE

Above, we have discussed methodological issues associated with group interaction research.
Of course, peer interactions cannot be examined without taking relevant situational and group
characteristics into account. Research has demonstrated that peer interactions are shaped to a large
extent by individual, group, and setting factors. Most prominent of these are the task the students
work on (Bonner, Baumann, & Dalal, 2002; Keefer, Zeitz & Resnick, 2000), leadership (Kahai,
Sosik & Avolio, 2004), the support structure (e.g., the teacher; e.g., Newman & Schwager, 1993;
Oortwijn, Boekaerts & Vedder, 2008), group diversity (Homan et al., 2007; Van Knippenberg et
al., 2004), and the communication medium (Solimeno, Mebane, Tomai, & Francescato, 2007;
Suthers et al., 2003). In the remainder of this chapter we propose a model of peer interactions in
which we distinguish antecedents, process, and outcome (see Figure 1).
In the proposed model, the antecedent variables affect how students interact with each
other during group work. We argue here that the group learning process is shaped by the four
antecedent variables diversity, task complexity, support, and leadership. Communication
medium is argued to moderate the relationships between the antecedents and the group
learning process. We will discuss all aspects of the model below.

Antecedents of Group Learning

Diversity. Research shows that the value in diversity in group learning is most likely to be
found in cognitive differences between group members (Van Knippenberg et al., 2004).
Cognitive diversity is defined here as heterogeneity in prior academic knowledge. Van
Knippenberg et al. (2004) argued that cognitive diversity can enhance the elaboration of task-
relevant information and perspectives within the group -that is, exchanging, discussing, and
integrating task-relevant ideas, knowledge, and insights. Although diverse perspectives within
a group can lead to enhanced group functioning through information elaboration, this effect
may be reduced or even reversed when these differences give rise to subgroup categorization
(Van Knippenberg et al., 2004), leading to intergroup bias, such as in-group favoritism,
outgroup derogation, prejudice and conflicts (Kirchmeyer, 1993; Watson, Johnson, &
Zgourides, 2002).

216

Output

Group learning process

Leadership
Shared mental
models
Diversity
Task
complexity
Regulative peer
talk
Learning result
Task-related
knowledge
Task
independent
knowledge
Perceived group
effectiveness

Support

Communication medium
(F2F vs. CSCL)

Experience

Figure 1. The influences of antecedents on decision-making and the effect on learning result.
Regarding the underlying processes, diversity affects task-related peer talk and the
development of shared mental models (SMM). As described above, differences can instigate
negative intragroup processes, such as low cohesion, prejudice, and conflicts due to the
division of the group into subgroups. Concerning the development of SMMs, one can predict
that the differences within the group will likely lead to a reduced degree of agreement.
Cognitive differences will probably decrease the level of agreement in cognitive mental
models. Students with different ideas, perspectives, and knowledge will bring something new
to the table, instigating the need for information processing, lowering the chances of
groupthink, and improving learning results. However, these differences might also decrease
the sharedness about social regulations within the group. As different students might take
with them different expectations regarding learning in groups, the group as a whole might
have difficulties interacting effectively lowering learning results. In sum, we expect that some
diversity in student groups will produce beneficial outcomes, whereas pronounced diversity
will deteriorate regulative peer talk and decrease sharedness of shared mental models
(SMMs).

Leadership. Kahai et al. (2004), distinguished participative and directive in-group
leadership. Participative leaders strive for equal participation and consult group members
before making a decision. Directive leaders guide the group members towards the decision
they have in mind. Leadership has not been widely studied in group learning research. The
few studies that have investigated leadership in group learning are mostly descriptive in
nature, using self-reports to assess emergent leadership. For instance, Yamaguchi and Maehr
(2004) suggest that emergent leadership often takes the form of participative leadership. Their
study suggests that participative leadership is positively related to regulative (social and
Are You Talking to me? An Overview of Techniques to Measure Peer

217
cognitive) peer talk. They could not find a positive relationship with learning results.
Concerning SMMs, a participative leader is likely to instigate more divergence within the
team as everyone is allowed to voice their opinion, lowering the sharedness of cognitive as
well as social mental models. Directive leaders, on the other hand, are less open to divergent
perspectives and more task-focused. This will not only increase the sharedness of shared-
mental models, but also lower the degree of regulative peer talk within the group.

Task complexity. Earlier studies have shown that variation in task complexity influences
affective, cognitive and behavioral responses of task performers (Harvey, 1997). It is
important to note that task complexity is not the same as task difficulty. While task
complexity is an objective characteristic of the task, task difficulty is a subjective task
characteristic, depending on the cognitive ability of the student(s) who solve(s) it. If a task is
too complex to complete for all group members, they cannot help each other (Bonner et al.,
2002). When the task is too simple, however, the group members do not need each others
help and knowledge to perform well. As such, tasks with high and low complexity do not
stimulate group members to engage in task-related peer talk. Therefore, the task should have a
level of complexity that allows for substantial variation in member performance for members
to identify the differences in point of views and expertise among the different group members
(Bonner et al., 2002).

Support. Support of group learning can positively affect the task-related peer interactions
and the learning results face-to-face, computer-supported, and group decision-making settings
(Janssen, Erkens, Kanselaar, & Jaspers, 2007; Saab et al., 2007; Wegerif et al., 1999;Wilson
et al., 2007). However, support has different meanings in the different settings. In the face-to-
face group learning setting, support often refers to a teacher (cf. Oortwijn, Boekaerts, &
Vedder, 2008). In the group decision-making setting, support can either be instigated by the
experimenter or by a confederate, who can be present in real-life or be videotaped. Support in
the computer-supported setting often refers to a software application. For instance, Saab and
colleagues (2005; 2007) developed a support structure for effective communication in a
computer-supported setting, called RIDE. It comprises four principles based on research into
effective communication: Respect, Intelligent collaboration, Deciding together, and
Encouraging. The RIDE rules directed students into regulating the group behavior through a
specially designed computer interface.

Communication Medium as a Moderator

We argue that the communication medium will act as a moderator between the antecedent
variables and the group learning process. For instance, manifest features of diversity, such as
gender, physical appearance or speech (e.g., speech accents), are not apparent in a computer-
supported setting (Dubrovsky, Kiesler, & Sethna, 1991). Consequently, students are not
distracted by these differences and can focus more on the task at hand (Walther, 1992).
Furthermore, the computer-supported environment allows for more flexibility of the peers in
terms of when and where to work together. Research suggests that the freedom to choose
when and where to work with peers may undermine productivity, since students may feel less
attached to their peers (Straus, 1997). Therefore, leadership and support structures are likely

218
to be more important in a computer-supported setting when compared to a face-to-face setting
(Carte, Chidambaram & Becker, 2006; Kahai et al., 2004). Regarding task complexity, we
mentioned before that tasks that are too complex for students may result in poor task-related
peer interactions and performance. By definition, in a computer-supported environment,
interfaces for task-related peer talk are more complex and less automated than is verbal task-
related peer talk in the face-to-face setting. It might therefore be argued that completing an
assignment in a computer-supported environment is more difficult for students than
completing an assignment in a face-to-face setting, which may undermine the group learning
process and performance.

Importance for Techniques for Interaction Analysis

The model proposed above has consequences for the analysis of peer interactions. If all
these factors indeed play a role in group learning, they should be assessed or at least be
controlled for. Different techniques might be more insightful in different settings. For
instance, self-reports on the group-level might be more predictive of group learning in a face-
to-face setting than in a computer-supported environment, because people interact more
closely with one another and are therefore more capable of assessing their own interaction
patterns and learning behaviors. Whether this is indeed the case could be examined by
measuring the within-group agreement regarding similar group processes in the two settings.
We would predict that groups show less within-group variance in the face-to-face setting than
in the computer-supported setting. Another illustration of the implications of our model for
interaction analyses is the fact that helping behavior might be more relevant in a computer-
supported setting than in a face-to-face setting. The way in which a task is approached is
probably easier established in direct contact than in a-synchronic contact. Coding for certain
behaviors might therefore not always be similarly conducive for learning in different
situations.
To test the model mentioned above, we propose an experimental, longitudinal study. In this
study, students are placed in groups and complete comparable group decision-making tasks
during multiple sessions. After every session they complete a performance test and fill in a
questionnaire on how they perceived the group learning process. Video recordings of the groups
are made during each session. One session will take place via computer-supported media to
examine the role of communication media on the group learning process and performance. With
the performance tests, the task-related and task independent knowledge is measured. The
questionnaires are used to record the perceived group climate (e.g., in-group belongingness; cf.
Homan et al., 2007b), which provides a measure of sharedness. The video recordings are used
to code the cognitive and social aspects of the verbal problem-solving process at individual and
group-level. The cognitive aspects of the verbal problem-solving process are coded with helping
behavior (individual-level; Oortwijn et al., 2008), conflicts (individual-level; Homan et al,
2007a), and discourse analysis (group-level; Mercer, 1996). Quantitative analyses are carried
out with a multi-level approach, to take into account variance on the individual and the group-
level (Klein & Kozlowski, 2000). We argue that the development of groups in problem-solving
skillfulness can only be fully explored when research methodologies from the three research
settings that were discussed in this chapter are combined.


219
7. CONCLUSION

The aim of this book chapter was to give an insight in methods to analyze task-related
peer interactions in three research settings: face-to-face, computer-supported, and group
decision-making. Although these research settings have developed their own research
methodologies to measure task-related peer interactions, we aimed to show that they also
show large overlap in what they measure and that all three settings can learn from each other.
For instance, in the study of task-related peer interactions in the face-to-face group learning
setting, traditionally, attention has been paid mostly to the analysis of individual utterances.
Only recently, studies have been conducted on the group-level analysis of task-related peer
interactions. These studies typically have an inductive nature and are limited to a specific
educational situation. The situational, inductive character of discourse analysis might inhibit
generalization to other settings as well as theory-generation (Bennett & Dunne, 1991). In
group decision-making literature, however, group-level analysis of task-related peer
interactions in an experimental design is a well-researched methodology (e.g., Phillips,
Mannix, Neale & Gruenfeld, 2004). In group learning literature, the development of students
skills has traditionally been a central research theme. Researchers in group decision-making
only recently have started to argue that learning processes should be one of the central
dependent variables in group decision-making research designs (Wilson et al., 2007). With
this chapter we intend to build a case for a multi-domain perspective on group learning. The
computer-supported, face-to-face, and group decision-making research settings overlap to a
considerable degree and we believe major progress can be made by combining insights from
these three research settings.

REFERENCES

Argote, L. & McGrath, J. E. (1993). Group processes in organizations: Continuity and
change. International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 8, 333389.
Arstein, R. & Poesio, M. (2005). Kappa3 = alpha (or beta) (NLE Technical Note 05-1).
University of Essex: Natural Language Engineering and Webb Applications Group.
Barron, B. (2003). When smart groups fail. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 307-259.
Bennett, N. & Dunne, E. (1991). The nature and quality of talk in co-operative classroom
groups. Learning and Instruction, 1, 103-118.
Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability:
Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski
(Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations,
extensions, and new directions (pp. 349-381). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bonner, B. L., Baumann, M. R. & Dalal, R. S. (2002). The effects of member expertise on
group decision-making and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 88, 719-736.
Bromme, R., Hesse, F. W. & Spada, H. (2005). Barriers and biases in computer-mediated
knowledge communication. And how they may be overcome. New York: Springer.

220
Cannon-Bowers, J. E., Salas, E. & Converse, S. (1993). Shared mental models in expert team
decision-making. In J. Castellan (Ed.), Individual and Group Decision-Making: Current
Issues (221-246). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Carte, T. A., Chidambaram, L. & Becker, A. 2006). Emergent leadership in self-managed
teams. Group decision and negotiation, 15, 323-343.
Chi, M. T. H. (1997). Quantifying qualitative analyses of verbal data: A practical guide. The
Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6, 217-315.
Cicchetti, D. V. & Sparrow, S. S. (1992). Developing criteria for establishing the interrater
reliability of specific items in a given inventory: Applications to assessment of adaptive
behavior. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 86, 127-137.
Cobo, P. & Fortuny, M. (2001). Social interactions and cognitive effects in contexts of area-
comparison problem solving. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 42, 115-140.
Damon, W. & Phelps, E. (1989). Critical distinctions among three approaches to peer
education. International Journal of Educational Research, 13, 9-19.
De Dreu, C. K. W., Nijstad, B. A. & Van Knippenberg, D. (2008). Motivated information
processing in group judgment and decision making. Personality and Social Psychology
Review, 12, 22-49.
De Wever, B., Schellens, T., Valcke, M. & Van Keer, H. (2006). Content analysis schemes to
analyze transcripts of online asynchronous discussion groups: A review. Computers &
Education, 46, 6-28.
Dubrovsky, V. J., Kiesler, S. & Sethna, B. N. (1991). The equalization phenomenon: Status
effects in computer-mediated and face-to-face decision making groups. Human Computer
Interaction, 6, 119-146.
Duran, D. & Monereo, C. (2005). Styles and sequences of cooperative interaction in fixed and
reciprocal peer tutoring. Learning and Instruction, 15, 179-199.
Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 350-383.
Erkens, G. (1998). Multiple Episode Protocol Analysis (MEPA 3.0) (Internal publication.
Utrecht, The Netherlands: Department of Educational Science, Utrecht University.
Fischer, F. & Mandl, H. (2005). Knowledge convergence in computer-supported
collaborative learning: the role of external representation tools. The Journal of the
Learning Sciences, 14, 405-441.
Fraivillig, J. L. (1999). Advancing childrens mathematical thinking in everyday mathematics
classrooms. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 30, 148-170.
George, J. M. (1990). Personality, affect, and behavior in groups. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 75, 107116.
Guzzo, R. A. & Dickson, M. W. (1996). Teams in organizations: recent research on
performance and effectiveness. Annual Review of Psychology, 47, 307-38.
Harvey, C. M. (1997). Toward a model of distributed engineering collaboration. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation: Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN.
Hinsz, V. B., Tindale, R. S. & Vollrath, D. A. (1997). The emerging conceptualization of
groups as information processors. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 43-64.
Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2003). Analyzing collaborative knowledge Construction: multiple
methods for integrated understanding. Computers & Education, 41, 397-420.

221
Hmelo-Silver C. E. & Bromme, R. (2007). Coding discussions and discussing coding:
Research on collaborative learning in computer-supported environments. Learning and
Instruction, 17, 460-464.
Hogg, M. A. (1992). The social psychology of group cohesiveness: From attraction to social
identity. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Homan, A. C., van Knippenberg, D., Van Kleef, G. A. & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2007a).
Bridging faultlines by valuing diversity: The effects of diversity beliefs on information
elaboration and performance in diverse work groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92,
1189-1199.
Homan, A. C., van Knippenberg, D., Van Kleef, G. A. & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2007b).
Interacting dimensions of diversity: Cross-categorization and the functioning of diverse
work groups. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 11, 79-94.
Ilgen, D. R., Hollenbeck, J. R., Johnson, M. & Jundt, D. (2004). Groups in organizations:
From I-P-O models to IMOI models. Annual Review of Psychology.
James, L. R. (1982). Aggregation bias in estimates of perceptual agreement. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 67, 219-229.
James, L. R., Demaree, R. J. & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within-group interrater reliability
with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 85-98.
James, L. R., Demaree, R. J. & Wolf, G. (1993). r
wg
: An assessment of within-group interrater
agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 306-309.
Janssen, J., Erkens, G., Kanselaar, G. & Jaspers, J. (2007). Visualization of participation:
Does it contribute to successful computer-supported collaborative learning? Computers &
Education, 49, 1037-1065.
Jehn, K. A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup
conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 256-282.
Johnson, D. W. & Johnson, F. P. (1982). Joining together: Group theory and group skills
(2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Kaartinen, S. & Kumpulainen, K. (2002). Collaborative inquiry and the construction of
explanations in the learning of science. Learning and Instruction, 12, 189-212.
Kahai, S. S., Sosik, J. J. & Avolio, B. J. (2004). Effects of participative and directive
leadership in electronic groups. Group Organization Management, 29, 67-105.
Kashy, D. A. & Kenny, D. A. (2000). The analysis of data from dyads and groups. In H. T.
Reis & C. M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality
psychology (pp. 451-477). Cambridge, UK: University Press.
Klein, K. J. & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (Eds.) (2000). Multilevel theory, research, and methods in
organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Keefer, M. W., Zeitz, C. M. & Resnick, L. B. (2000). Judging the quality of peer-led student
dialogues. Cognition and Instruction, 18, 53-81.
Kirchmeyer, C. (1993). Multicultural task groups: An account of the low contribution level of
minorities. Small Group Research, 24, 127-148.
Klahr, D. & Dunbar, K. (1988). Dual space search during scientific reasoning. Cognitive
Science, 12, 148.
Krippendorff, K. (2004). Reliability in content analysis: some common misconceptions and
recommendations. Human Communication Research, 30, 411-433.
Kovalainen, M. & Kumpulainen, K. (2005). The discursive practice of participation in an
elementary classroom community. Instructional Science, 33, 213-250.

222
Kozlowski, S. W. J. & Ilgen, D. R. (2006). Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and
teams. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7(3), 77-124.
Kumpulainen, K. & Mutanen, M. (1999). The situated dynamics of peer group interaction: an
introduction to an analytic framework. Learning and Instruction, 9, 449-473.
Mercer, N. (1996). The quality of talk in childrens collaborative activity in the classroom.
Meyer, D. K. & Turner, J. C. (2002). Using instructional discourse analysis to study the
scaffolding of student self-regulation. Educational Psychologist, 37, 17-25.
Neuendorf, K. A. (2002). The content analysis guidebook. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage
publications, Inc.
Newman, R. S. & Schwager, M. T. (1993). Students perceptions of the teacher and
classmates in relation to reported help seeking in math class. The Elementary School
Journal, 94, 3-17.
Njoo, M. K. H. & De Jong, T. (1993). Exploratory learning with a computer simulation for
control theory: Learning processes and instructional support. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 30(8), 821-844.
Noldus, L. P. J. J. (2003). The Observer (Version 5.0) [Computer software]. Wageningen,
The Netherlands: Noldus Information Technology Inc.
ODonnell, A. M. (2006). Introduction: Learning with technology. In A. M. ODonnell, C. E.
Hmelo-Silver & G. Erkens (Eds.), Collaborative reasoning, learning and technology (pp.
1-14). Mahwah: NJ: Erlbaum.
Okada, T. & Simon, H. A. (1997). Collaborative discovery in a scientific domain. Cognitive
Science, 21(2), 109-146.
Oortwijn, M. B., Boekaerts, M. & Vedder, P. (2008). The impact of the teachers role and
pupils ethnicity and prior knowledge on pupils performance and motivation to
cooperate. Instructional Science, 36, 251-268.
Oortwijn, M. B., Boekaerts, M., Vedder, P. & Strijbos, J. W. (2008). Helping behaviour
during cooperative learning and learning gains: The role of the teacher and of pupils'
prior knowledge and ethnic background. Learning and Instruction, 18, 146-159.
Pena-Shaff, J. B. & Nicholls, C. (2004). Analyzing student interactions and meaning
construction in computer bulletin board discussions. Computers & Education, 42, 243-
265.
Phillips, K. W., Mannix, E. A., Neale, M. A. & Gruenfeld, D. H. (2004). Diverse groups and
information sharing: The effects of congruent ties. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 40, 497-510.
Qin, Z., Johnson, D. W. & Johnson, R. T. (1995). Cooperative versus competitive efforts and
problem solving. Review of Educational Research, 65, 129-143.
Saab, N., Van Joolingen, W. R. & Van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M. (2005). Communication in
collaborative discovery learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(4), 603-
621.
Saab, N., Van Joolingen, W. R. & Van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M. (2007). Supporting
communication in a collaborative discovery learning environment: The effect of
instruction. Instructional Science, 35(1), 73-98.
Salomon, G. & Globerson, T. (1989). When teams do not function the way they ought to.
International Journal of Educational Research, 13, 89-99.

223
Schippers, M. C., Den Hartog, D. N. & Koopman, P. L. (2007). Reflexivity in teams: A
measure and correlates. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 56, 189-211.
Shrout, P. E. & Fleiss, J. L. (1979). Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability.
Psychological Bulletin, 86, 462-470.
Simons, T. L. & Peterson, R. S. (2000). Task conflict and relationship conflict in top
management teams: The pivotal role of intragroup trust. Journal of Applied Psychology,
85, 102-111.
Solimeno, A., Mebane, M. E., Tomai, M. & Francescato, D. (2007). The influence of students
and teachers characteristics on the efficacy of face-to-face and computer supported
collaborative learning. Computers & Education, 51, 109-128.
Stahl, G. (2006). Group cognition: Computer support for building collaborative knowledge.
Cambridge, MA: MIT press.
Straus, S. G. (1997). Technology, group process, and group outcomes: Testing the
connections in computer-mediated and face-to-face groups. Human-Computer
Interaction, 12, 227-266.
Strijbos, J. W. & Stahl, G. (2007). Methodological issues in developing a multi-dimensional
coding procedure for small-group chat communication. Learning and Instruction, 17,
394-404.
Strijbos, J. W., Martens, R. L., Jochems, W. M. G. & Broers, N. J. (2007).The effect of
functional roles on perceived group efficiency during computer-supported collaborative
learning: A matter of triangulation. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 353-380.
Suthers, D., Hundhausen, C. & Girardeau, L. (2003). Comparing the roles of representations
in face-to-face and online computer supported collaborative learning. Computers &
Education 41, 335-351.
Thomas, D. C., Ravlin, E. C. & Wallace, A. (1996). Effects of cultural diversity in work
groups. In P. Bamberger, M. Erez & S. B. Bacharach (Eds.), Research in the sociology of
organizations (Vol. 14, pp. 1-13). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Tse, H. H. M., Dasborough, M. T. & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2008). A multi-level analysis of
team climate and interpersonal exchange relationships at work. Leadership Quarterly, 19,
195-211.
Van Boxtel, C. (2000). Collaborative concept learning. Collaborative learning tasks, student
interaction, and the learning of physics concepts. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Van Joolingen, W. R. & De Jong, T. (1997). An extended dual search space model of learning
with computer simulations. Instructional Science, 25, 307346.
Van Knippenberg, D., De Dreu, C. K. W. & Homan, A. C. (2004). Work group diversity and
group performance: An integrative model and research agenda. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 89, 1008-1022.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Watson, W. E., Johnson, L. & Zgourides, G. D. (2002). The influence of ethnic diversity on
emergent leadership, group process, and performance: An examination of learning teams.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 26, 1-16.
Walther, J. B. (1992). Relational communication in computer-mediated interaction. Human
Communication Research, 19(1), 50-88.

224
Webb, N. M. (1991). Task-related verbal interaction and mathematics learning in small
groups. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 22, 366389.
Webb, N. M. & Farivar, S. (1994). Promoting helping behavior in cooperative small groups
in middle school mathematics. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 369-395.
Webb, N. M. & Mastergeorge, A. M. (2003). The development of students' helping behavior
and learning in peer-directed small groups. Cognition and Instruction, 21, 361-428.
Webb, N. M., Nemer, K. M, & Ing, M. (2006). Small group reflections: Parallels between
teacher discourse and student behavior in peer-directed groups. The Journal of the
Learning Sciences, 15, 63-119.
Webb, N. M., Troper, J. D. & Fall, R. (1995). Constructive activity and learning in
collaborative small groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 406-423.
Weinberger, A. & Fischer, F. (2006). A framework to analyze argumentative knowledge
construction in computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers & Education, 46,
71-95.
Weingart, L. R. (1997). How did they do that? The ways and means of studying group
process. In: B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior
(Vol 19, pp 189-239). JAI Press, Greenwich.
Williams, K. Y. & O'Reilly, C. A. (1998). Demography and diversity in organizations.
Research in Organizational Behavior, 20, 77-140.
Wilson, J. M., Goodman, P. G. & Cronin, M. A. (2007). Group Learning. Academy of
Management Review, 32, 1041-1059.
Wegerif, R., Mercer, N. & Dawes, L. (1999). From social interaction to individual reasoning:
An empirical investigation of a possible socio-cultural model of cognitive development.
Yamaguchi, R. & Maehr, M. L. (2004). Childrens emergent leadership: The relationships
with group characteristics and outcomes. Small Group Research, 35, 388-406.

Chapter 8

THE ROLE OF SIMULATIONS AND REAL-TIME
APPLICATIONS IN COLLABORATIVE LEARNING

Maria Limniou
a
, Nikos Papadopoulos
b
and Ioannis Kozaris
b
a
University of Manchester, UK
b
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece

ABSTRACT

As Computer-Supported Collaboration Learning (CSCL) is the combination of
collaborative learning and support by computer technology, the effectiveness of
CSCL depends on the kind of collaboration, the technical environment, the learners
characteristics, the teachers role and the task demands. The aim of this chapter is to
demonstrate the integration of synchronous and asynchronous activity based on real-
time application and simulations into chemistry laboratory. In synchronous
collaboration students observed the progress of an experiment from their PC and
collected and interpreted data as the experiment was on the progress by using a real -
time application for control the instrument remotely. Another example for
synchronous collaboration was based on simulation program where the teaching
procedure was conducted in a computer-cluster. The students performed virtual
experiments by using a simulation program on their PC and they shared their
measurements, observations and conclusions by using the LAN. In the cases of
synchronous collaborations the teacher and the students had a face-to-face
communication in computer cluster and the computer interaction was through LAN.
In asynchronous collaboration, students performed virtual experiments by using a
simulator and by using the discussion boards of Virtual Learning Environments
(VLEs) they shared their experience and discussed the conclusions. In that case the
teacher and students had an on-line collaboration and the computer interaction was
through VLEs. The results in all the cases were interpreted in terms of the l earners
characteristics, the teachers role, task demands and learning outcomes.

Maria Limniou, Nikos Papadopoulos and Ioannis Kozaris

226
INTRODUCTION

Constructivism is based on the idea that learning occurs when there is a change in the
learners existing ideas either by adding some new information or by reorganizing what is
already known. The knowledge, which is constructed by the learner, is not a simple
transmission of facts from the teacher to the students, but a continuous and active process on
both sides. According to von Glaserfeld (1988), knowledge has a social construction where
concepts are developed in a process of fine-tuning involving interaction with others.
Constructivism and Collaborative Learning (CL) have established the social interdependence
where students consolidate their knowledge by teaching one another. Collaborative Learning
(CL) involves the mutual engagement of learners in a coordinated effort to solve a problem or
to examine an issue all together. This is different idea from Cooperative Learning where each
learner is responsible for solving only a portion of a whole problem. However, there are
common points between Collaborative Learning and Cooperative Learning (Matthews et al.,
1995; Kirschner, 2001) such as

Learning takes place in an active mode
The teacher is more a facilitator than sage on the stage
Teaching and learning are shared experiences between teacher and student
Students participate in small-group activities
Students must take responsibility of their learning
Discussing and articulating ones ideas enhances the ability to reflect on ones own
assumptions and thought processes
Students develop social and team skills through the give-andtake of consensus-
building
Students experience diversity, which is essential in multicultural democracy.

According to Dillenbourg (1999), collaboration may concern four aspects of learning:

1. Situation which is characterised by the following criteria:

Symmetry: for example symmetry of knowledge (learners should have the same or
a slightly different level of knowledge/skills. If one of them believes his/her partner
to be more expert then she/he adopts a weaker position in the argumentation) and
symmetry of status (collaboration is more likely to occur between people with a
similar status than between a teacher and a learner).
Common goals: learners should not only develop shared goals, but they also become
mutually aware of their shared goals.
Division of labour among the group members: the roles in collaboration may shift
every few minutes, the regulator partner may become the regulated.

2. Interactions: take place between the group members and are characterised by the
following criteria: interactivity, synchronicity and negotiability

The Role of Simulations and Real-Time Applications in Collaborative Learning

227
3. Learning mechanisms:

Induction: the grounding mechanism is inductive since the learner must induce
patterns relating referring expressions with referents
Cognitive load: the division of labour into task-level and strategy-level tasks reduces
the amount of processing performed by each individual. The interaction with other
group members increases the cognitive load.
(Self-)explanation: what needs to be added or removed to existing individual
explanation to fit with real (social) explanations.
Conflict between individual knowledge with the others peers individual knowledge.
Process of Internalisation: as one interacts with the other(s) in the group to solve a
problem, she/he adopts the way of solving the task from the others concepts or
actions.
Appropriation: one re-interprets his/her own action or utterance under the light
of what the others do or say next (very similar to internalisation process).

4. Effects of collaborative learning on different kind of interaction and on individual
task performance.

Crucial points for a successful collaboration are i). the nature of the learning task, which
should be not so obvious or/and unambiguous discouraging learners to make questions, give
explanations and make arguments (Arvaja et al., 2000) and ii). the interactions between group
members (Offir et al., 2008). In a face-to-face situation, teachers structure and regulate
students interaction by preparing the lecture and setting up the group work and then
intervening in the collaboration when they feel it is necessary. Thus, the presence of a
teacher-student interaction which accompanies the learning process is very important for
learners. According to Laurillard (1993), a model describes the conversational framework of
the teaching-learning process in more detail that one can use for analysing the interactions
between students, tutor and learning environments (Bostock, 1996) (Figure 1).
Through current technologies of computers, learners and teachers not only can interact
synchronously but also have an efficient cooperation or collaboration over distance.
Computer-Supported Collaboration Learning (CSCL) is one of the most promising
innovations to improve teaching and learning as it achieves the combination of the
communication technology, psychological and pedagogical aspects (constructivism)
(Silverman, 1995). CSCL can be a powerful tool in creating learning communities where
students have a chance to collaboratively make representations, develop explanations of the
subject studied and analyse knowledge (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1994). The importance of
the interaction and its influence on the learning process in distance education was described
by Moore (1993) in a model called the transactional distance, i.e. the distance created
between the teacher and the students during the lesson, which potentially increases in distance
education. The term transaction refers to a mutual action between the environment, the
individuals and the behavioural patterns in a particular situation. The distance education
transaction is the mutual action between teachers and students, in environments whose
uniqueness is their separation from each other, and as a result exhibit unique behaviour
patterns of distance education (Moore & Kearsley, 1996). The transactional distance is

228
affected by two variables, the dialogue or verbal interaction and its adaptation to distance
learning. The transaction distance will decrease as the level of dialogue increases and this will
lead to an increase in the effectiveness of learning (Offir et al., 2008).
There are two methods used for implementing distance learning systems (two different
types of CSCL environments) according to the moment when the student-teacher interaction
takes place: asynchronous and asynchronous systems (Bafestou & Mentzas, 2002). Ellis et al.
(1991) categorised group interactions according to time and space. Collaboration could be
enhanced within a real-time interaction or an asynchronous (non-real time interaction) (Figure
2). A distinction is made between same time (synchronous) and different times
(asynchronous), and between same place (face-to-face) and different places (distributed).

Figure 1. The conversational framework which identify the necessary activities to complete the learning
process (Laurillard, 1993, p. 102)
Same Time Different Times
Same Place Face-to-face interaction Asynchronous interaction
Different Place Synchronous distributed
interaction
Asynchronous distributed
interaction
Figure 2. Group interactions depending on time and space

229
Asynchronous communication is very different from face-to-face communication and
allows students to exchange data and views in their own time and space. Students may or may
not have access remotely to web-based course material. E-mail is originally designed for
supporting asynchronous communication. This type of collaboration offers some advantages.
Firstly, students are not pressed to react in a shot unit of time and secondly, students can
organise their messages by branching them around themes (Veerman et al., 2000).
Problems for asynchronous communication will be raised when we expect from two or more
group members which are coming from different countries or have different background
knowledge and/or have not previously worked together to work on a common task
electronically (Jaervelae et al., 2004). Additionally, isolation feelings are usually common at
the students who participate in an asynchronous communication causing motivation reduction
for learning. Students do not receive instant feedback from their questions and cannot talk in
real-time about results obtained in the learning activities (Jara et al., 2009). On the other hand,
in CSCL synchronous environments students share data and views through the Internet in
real-time like a face-to-face interaction without feeling isolated (Marjanovic, 1999). Example
for synchronous communication tool is the live chat room, where users receive a response
within seconds or minutes. One of the challenges to communication technology is how to
make distributed interactions as effective as face-to-face interactions, as human interaction,
like creation mutual understanding or shared values and goals are hard to produce in a distant-
environment. A remote interaction supported by appropriate technology which will allow
students to have access other relevant information without interrupting the flow interaction
should be the solution to the challenge.
Teachers evaluate communication tools in light of their learning goals and choose the
most appropriate medium. Many researchers have studied how different communication tools
have been used to facilitate collaborative and distributed teaching and learning including
special network application for CSCL, different multimedia formats and different
experimental simulations (Wild & Winniford, 1993; Garrison et al., 2000; Ong & Mannan,
2004; Scanlon et al., 2004; Zurita & Nussbaum 2004; Wegerif, 2004; Nickerson et al., 2007;
Monahan et al., 2008) with positive effects on learning and social interaction of computer-
based peer-to-peer interaction. However, there are other negative results (Kreijns et al., 2002),
where there are evaluations of the design of CSCL environments that do not completely fulfil
expectations on supporting interactive, coordinated group learning and social construction of
knowledge.
Although the design of CSCL environment is based on subjective decisions regarding
learning outcomes, teaching approach and procedure, tasks types and technology used, many
researchers have proposed general models for the design of efficient and effective CSCL
environments (Kirschner et al., 2003; Strijbos et al., 2004). According to Kirschner, Strijbos
and Kreijns (2003), a designer should determine

1. what learners actually do
2. what can be done to support those learners
3. the given constraints and conventions prior to determining which designed
constraints can support the group learners
4. how learners perceive and experience the support provided
5. how the learner actually uses the support provided
6. what has been learnt

230
More specifically, according to Strijbos, Martens and Jochems (2004), a designer should
determine

1. the type of learning objective
2. the expected interaction
3. the task type
4. whether and how much pre-structuring is needed
5. group size
6. how computer support can be applied

Virtual Learning Environments such as WebCT or Blackboard, simulators and real-time
applications are used in order to support Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning. Their
role as learnings mediator is essential to improve the educational experience in the scientific
concepts. Especially, these mediators are really useful in the filed of science education, where
the lecture material comes from predetermined texts, giving students little incentive to attend
and participate in class. In the laboratory sessions, students are lost as they struggle to
combine technical and scientific concepts and principle, which tend to be incomprehensible,
or detached from real-world contexts. As a result, students do not have the opportunity to
critically think through the issues and arguments presented in class. Consequently, students
have the feelings that the most important step in mastering the material is memorizing large
amounts of scientific information from chunks of seemingly unrelated examples (Seng &
Mohamad, 2002).
The aim of this chapter is to propose different methodologies based on CSCL which
encourages the learning, increases the experience, provides active roles and social abilities to
the students in the building of their knowledge and promotes the role of teacher and
technological resources (simulator and real-time applications) as a facilitator and mediator. In
order to compare the different methodologies with the conventional way of teaching, the
authors have chosen to display the situation in one of the science educations disciples such as
chemistry education. We present the difficulties of the conventional way of laboratory
teaching, the difficulties that the students and the teachers usually face, the role of
technological recourses and the alterative methodological procedures.

CHEMISTRY EDUCATION AND PEDAGOLOGICAL BACKGROUND

Chemistry is an experimental science which is expensive in terms of equipment,
consumables and time of the academic and technical staff and its development and
application demand a high standard of experimental work. Through laboratory sessions the
students practice the theory that they have been taught in the lectures, as they obtain
laboratory skills such as manipulation of glassware and instruments, collection, processing,
analysis and interpretation of experimental data and general skills such as communication
skills, team work and problem solving. However, during every laboratory session, the
students receive a huge amount of information, such as the location of chemicals, recognition
of equipment and the associated handling, instrumentation and safety requirements in a
laboratory environment etc. in a short period of time (Johnstone, 1997). As a result students,

231
who can only process a few piece of information at the same time, can not respond at the
demands of the practical work. Additionally, the students who lack a solid theoretical
background cannot grasp the aim of the experiment they are about to perform and may
understand the underlying concepts of the laboratory experiment. According to
constructivism students previous knowledge influence their leaning process as the previous
knowledge may consist of misconceptions or be not well constructed in their long-term
memory (Bodner, 1986; Bodner et al., 2001).
In order for teachers to facilitate students to face these difficulties in combination with
the demand of the practical work, they usually give a short lecture presentation at the
beginning of the laboratory session. Usually, teachers give emphasis on the laboratory
procedures directly related to the experiment and where and how students can collect
information around a specific experimental procedure. The learning environment is passive,
as the teacher presents technical and scientific concepts and principles on the blackboard.
After the pre-laboratory session students perform the experiments which are presented at the
laboratory manual. However, most of the laboratory manual presents the experiments as a
recipes and students carry out the instructions of the recipes labs line-by-line. During the
practical work students are divided into smaller groups usually in pairs. After the students
collect their experimental data in the laboratory, they process, analyse and interpret them
individually at their home. Finally, they will submit their laboratory report before their
participation in the next laboratory session.
Following this traditional way of laboratory teaching, the academic staff faces quite a
large number of students during the quite limited laboratory time (usually 4 hours/lab session)
effectively. As Garratt (1997) pointed out, using such recipe labs is an effective strategy for
maximising both the quantity of practical experience gained by students and quality of their
results. However, recipes labs do not provide opportunities to learn about experimental
design, investigation, critical analysis of results, and sources of error. Students who are
following a recipe lab are not doing an experiment, but carrying out an exercise, because
they usually follow instructions mechanically without thinking (Clow & Garratt, 1998). Other
key points to be taken into account are the previous knowledge of the students, their
misconceptions and their learning difficulties as a way to understand their cognitive process.
The background upon which the students construct their models, affect the way in which the
new knowledge is assimilated. The traditional way of laboratory teaching, as we have
described, does not take into account the students previous knowledge and the cognitive
difficulties that they probably have in order to obtain the necessary skills. The collaboration
that takes place between the students in the laboratory session is essential for carrying out the
experiment and sharing ideas about the process and analysis of the experimental data.
However, this is not a deep collaboration as it takes place only during the laboratory time and
their only task is to follow the recipes without sharing ideas on the scientific way of
thinking.
Thus, many researchers suggested a different kind of pre-laboratory activities in order to
improve students preparation before they start their practical work. Formation of small
groups of students (Cooper, 1994), organizational plan consisting of instruction and
communication between the instructor and the students (Isom & Rowsey, 1986), questions on
the experimental procedure (Poganik & Cigi, 2006), action research plan (circles of plan,
act and evaluation) (Lyle & Robinson, 2002) and integration of education software into the
pre-laboratory session (Winberg & Berg, 2007) are some of the researchers suggestions. All

232
these proposed pre-laboratory activities allow students to have a better preparation before
their laboratory session working in a quite flexible environment, allow teachers to clarify
students misconceptions or providing students the opportunity to refresh their knowledge by
making the connections between the previous and new knowledge, and/or allow students to
collaborate with their peers having a more active role in the learning procedure. However, the
pre-laboratory time is limited, focused on the limited laboratory time and a specific
experimental work. Meester and Maskill (1995) outline major types of improvements or
innovations taking place in the organization of practical work such as the explicit teaching of
practical skills, the use of computer or simulations and the use of new approaches to practical
courses. Additionally, through practical work teachers should i). encourage students to control
their learning independently, ii). promote deep processing of the learning material and iii).
encourage to obtain the scientific way of way of thinking.

TECHNOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Teachers adopt teaching approaches depending on the university facilities in order to
address difficult by nature scientific concepts to students and to enhance the teaching and
learning process. Thus, teachers usually use simulations, real time applications and Virtual
Learning Environments (VLEs) or a combination of them in their teaching approach.

Simulations

Simulations have been demonstrated to provide useful learning experiences in science for
many years, specifically; simulations have been used to support practical work. As several
concepts in science education are difficult by nature to be illustrated during the lecture or/and
laboratory sessions, a variety of simulation programs have been developed and used in the
Engineering and Physical Sciences. Simulators mimic important elements of science
phenomena and students have the opportunity to manipulate input values of variables which
describe the system, observe their effects on output displays and manipulate the simulated
instrument as the real one (Thomas & Neilson, 1995). Additionally, the use of simulation
reduces the purchase and maintenance cost of the laboratory equipment in science education.
Generally, by using simulations students have the opportunity to understand
unobservable phenomena in science and/or to familiarise themselves with laboratory
techniques (de Jong et al., 1999). Specifically, in simulation-based learning students gradually
infer the features of the concept model whilst they proceed through the simulation, which
may lead to changes in their original concept. In simulation-based science learning
environments new forms of teacherstudents interaction can be created in which the
spontaneous activity of the student and the teachers guidance are in balance, where students
use their knowledge of the target concept to evaluate observations of the system, pose new
questions and subsequently design experiments to answer these questions (de Jong & van
Joolingen, 1998). According to Chang, Chen, Lin and Sung (2008), five categories of learning
support are beneficial to simulation-based learning


233
1. Providing background knowledge
2. Helping learners to make hypothesis
3. Helping learners to conduct experiments
4. Helping learners to interpret data
5. Helping learners to regulate the learning process

In chemistry education many researchers have developed simulation programs to
demonstrate to students the characteristics of the basic components of the instruments and
their function (Mattson & Mattson 1995; Shiowatana 1997; Papadopoulos et al. 2001), to
discover concepts through guided inquiry using the simulation modules (Fermann et al.,
2000), to make calculations (Heil & Schfer, 2002; Burnett & Burns, 2006) to perform
virtual experiments on the desktop (Papadopoulos et al., 1999) and/or to perform more
complex virtual experiments comparing and interpret different experimental data
(Papadopoulos & Limniou, 2003).

Real-Time Experiment

Many scientific instruments have been replaced by displays on computers, so that the
experience of turning a knob has become the experience of moving a mouse. Hands-on
laboratories are often defined as laboratories in which students are in the physical presence of
the equipment. However, the equipment may be controlled through a computer. Thus, it is
possible that the laboratory experience mediated by a remote computer may not be so
different than that mediated by a nearby computer (Nickerson et al., 2007).
Remote-controlled experiments refer to the real time computer-based or Internet-based
controlled experiments. It allows students to manipulate or control real apparatus to complete
experimental activities for scientific investigations at a distance with the use of specific
hardware and software (Scanlon et al., 2002, 2004; Kong et al., 2009). There is a distinction
between remote experiments and remote simulations where remote experiments involve the
manipulation or control of real apparatus at a distance, whereas remote simulations involve
control of simulations of the apparatus. For any experiment the sense of reality can be
influenced by whether real experimental equipment is being manipulated but also by being
remote from the full sensory experience of the laboratory (Scanlon et al., 2004).
Many researchers have studied the perspectives of the use remote-controlled experiments
in science education (Colwell et al, 2002; Scanlon et al., 2004). According to their view
remote-controlled experiments can help to 1. increase students participation in experimental
activities, thereby solving the access problems, 2. stimulate students interest in science
learning, thereby enhancing the learning outcomes and 3. develop basic observation skills,
which are the core skills for scientific investigations (Scanlon et al., 2004).
With remote labs, the ability to asynchronously run experiments is convenient from a
scheduling perspective, as students can initiate a run and later view for example a video of the
experiment, without having to actively wait for the other students to relinquish the equipment.
Real-time video of the experiment will provide direct interaction, but will also create more
complex scheduling problems, as students may be in contention for devices that are to be
controlled synchronously (Nickerson et al., 2007). However, according to Nowak, Watt and

234
Walther (2004), in a different domain suggests that student preference will be for hands-on or
synchronous experiences, but asynchronous video will be just as effective.

Virtual Learning Systems (VLSs)

Most students are familiar with web-based tools which are attractive alternatives for
collecting information and University teachers are increasingly encouraged to use e-learning
techniques to enrich the educational experience and to expand the learning environments
which are available to students. Thus, students can learn through the VLSs in a practical way
and become aware of physical phenomena that are difficult to explain from a theoretical point
of view.
Two primary categories of virtual learning systems can be identified: (1) virtual learning
systems designed for use in classroom settings (involving onsite synchronous interactions),
and (2) distributed VLS designed for environments in which the learners and instructors are
distributed across time and/or geographic distance (involving offsite synchronous and/or
asynchronous interactions). In the first category the teaching takes place into an electronic
classroom, which is a classroom equipped with advanced information technologies, such as
computer cluster. Teachers and/or students store, retrieve, process, and communicate
information in support of learning activities. The interactive use of VLS in the classroom
(such as simulations) aims to the support of student active and exploratory learning during
class. Learning can be enhanced through hands-on problem solving. This approach is based
on the cognitive learning theories that view learning as an active and constructive process
(Alavi & Leidner, 2003). Additionally, simulations are effective pedagogical resources, well
suited for web-based and distance education, as encourage students to have a more active role
in the e-learning process and provide realistic hands-on experience (Waller & Foster, 2000;
Dormido et al., 2005). The majority of the simulations added in web-learning environments
are designed to be used individually and they do not allow work group or collaboration
among students and teachers (Moreno et al., 2007).
Distributed VLS can be divided into broadcast VLS model, online VLS model,
collaborative distributed VLS model and combination of more than one (Alavi & Leidner,
2003):

Broadcast VLS model: the instructor and students are located at two or more remote
locations. Sound, full-motion video, and presentation material are transmitted from a
central location (classroom or laboratory) to remote locations. The instructor is the
primary source of knowledge, controlling the content and the rate of information
transmission to students. The predominant pedagogical approach remains the
conventional chalk and talk method commonly found in more traditional face-to-
face classroom environments. The vision for VLS is primarily that of automation and
efficiency gains. Information flow between the instructor and the remote students is
automated.
Online VLS model: remote students (using information and communication
technologies) gain access to course content and learning resources such as
simulations, computer-based exercises. Students are in charge of their learning thus

235
providing greater flexibility in choosing the time, pace, frequency, and form of
learning activities.
Collaborative distributed VLS model: students create knowledge and
understanding primarily through social interactions across time and/or
geographic distance through the use of information and communicati on
technologies such as e-mail and online chat facilities. In the collaborative
distributed VLS, learning occurs from the opportunity of the group members to
be exposed to each others thinking, opinions, and beliefs, while also obtaining
and providing feedback for clarification and comprehension.

The above three VLSs or combination of them can be supported by Virtual
Learning Environments (VLEs). These systems have opened up a host of opportunities
when they come to e-learning, offering new way to engage students in their studies and
with their teachers. WebCT
, Blackboard
and Moodle
are educational platforms that

have been adopted by numerous universities in order to enable teachers to have a
flexible virtual learning environment to deliver on-line quizzes or courses in addition to
standard classes. VLEs support mainly four distinguished capabilities important for
teaching and learning:

1. Deliver content (html pages, pdf files, video lectures, power point
presentations, embedded animations or simulations etc.)
2. Communication between learners and learners or/and learners and teachers
(synchronous and asynchronous communication)
3. Assessment (on-line quizzes, assignments)
4. Management, record and track learners

Specifically, these on-line management systems provide a means of organizing
supported learning environments by allowing instructors to automate and provide
information on selective portions of course materials, such as online learning modules
and simulations. Additionally, they record the time that the students spend in an on-line
quiz, the number of students viewing a course and other useful statistical data ( Seng &
Mohamad, 2002; OConnor & Ross, 2004; Bunce et al., 2006; Ngai et al., 2007). Thus,
by using this Virtual Learning Environment students have access to the educational
material whenever and wherever they want and teachers can track the time that students
spend in an on-line course material and on-line quizzes.
Additionally, from a pedagogical point of view, teachers have the opportunity to
create on-line learning communities, where students and teachers can participate
actively in the learning process and collaborate in groups. The collaborative activities
often promote metacognitive processes such as reflection, self-explanation, self-
regulation, problem solving strategies and validation (Goos & Galbraith, 1996; Goos et
al., 2002). This platform increases the student-faculty contact time since a student is in
contact with their peers and with the learning subjects for more time using both
asynchronous (forums) and synchronous (chats) tools.


236
PROPOSED METHODOLOGICAL PROCEDURES

The theoretical background, which supports the proposed methodologies, is based on
CSCL and constructivism, implications on the practical work. The key points in the
methodologies are the following:

1. Mental activity: Students can be asked to identify variables, to design experimental
procedure (problem statement, hypothesis, variables, constants, data tables,
summary, and conclusions), to make comparisons of data between groups in class
which may raise questions.
2. Naive theories: Students are asked to generate questions, predictions, explanations.
The learning contexts allow students to build knowledge, when they have the chance
to explore materials (such as simulations, graphs etc.) or consider a problem.
3. Dissatisfaction with present knowledge: Questions are posed by the teacher to
create dissatisfaction with the learners present knowledge. Define the instructive
situation starting from the previous ideas of the students (Moreno et al., 2007).
4. Flexible learning environments: The knowledge can be represented in different
ways (Moreno et al., 2007). Learning only occurs when students create their own
understanding; but teachers are needed to create the environment in which this can
happen (Shiland, 1999).
5. Social dimension: Knowledge construction is primarily a social process where
through the context of dialogue with others students construct their knowledge.
Learning is aided by conversation that seeks and clarifies the ideas of learners
(Shiland, 1999). Collaborative learning supports the use of the effective learning
methods (e.g. make explicit, discuss, reason) while allowing for the acquisition of
essential social communications skills (Kirschner, 2001).
6. Computer: a supporter tool for the experimentation and building of knowledge.
They are medium in Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) which is
focused on how collaborative learning supported by technology can enhanced peer to
peer interaction and work in groups and how collaboration and technology facilitate
sharing and distributing of knowledge and expertise among community members
(Lipponen, 2002).
7. Teacher: a facilitator rather than a being sage on the stage (Kirschner, 2001).
Students are being initiated into the ideas and practices of the scientific community.
Learning is not the simple transmission of facts from teacher to student, but a
continuous and active process on both sides (Shiland, 1999). Teachers will always be
essential to address the human, creative and artistic parts of teaching, and this makes
a major difference in how well students learn and more importantly how well they
build up their knowledge (Bunce, 2001).
8. Applications: Application to specific instructive situations of constructivism and
mediation of learning through computers and people (Moreno et al., 2007).
9. Motivation: group motivation determined by factors such as sharing the same goals
(Slavin, 1994) and personal motivation determined by factors such as active
participation and personal responsibility (Salomon & Perkins, 1998).

237
10. Feedback: Students, who are involved actively assuming responsibility for their own
learning, expect feedback either from their interactions with students or with teachers
or with educational software.

DESCRIPTION OF METHODOLOGICAL PROCEDURES

As the construction of knowledge in science education demands the development of both
the conceptual and procedural understanding by appropriate actions in practical work, the
authors have given emphasis on the practical work and its enhancement with CSCL
achievements. In the section synchronous communication two methodological procedures
for a) laboratory course and b) instrumentation course will be described. Section
asynchronous communication presents an alterative way of teaching for the practical work
where VLE and simulator are used.

SYNCHRONOUS COMMUNICATION

Simulation, LAN and Laboratory Session

Aim and objectives
The aim of this methodology is to suggest a pre-laboratory teaching approach based on
CSCL which allows students to participate actively in the teaching procedure. The objectives
of this methodological procedure are for students to:

1. work together as a team
2. be familiar with the theory behind the experiment
3. design the experimental procedure themselves
4. obtain skills such as processing and analysis of experimental data
5. feel more confident before they enter a laboratory

Pre-Laboratory Training

This section is conducted in a classroom equipped with PCs (Computer Cluster) which is
supported by Local Area Network (LAN). A LAN is a computer network covering a local area,
for example a classroom, in which two or more computers are connected together using a
telecommunication system for the purpose of communicating and sharing resources (Figure 3).
The pre-laboratory session is divided in 4 stages as described below:

i. Experimental theory and procedures discussion
At this stage the teacher poses questions to the students based on real examples related to
the experimental theory in order to clarify misconceptions and/or to create dissatisfactions
with students prior knowledge. The students will then make an effort to give answers to the
question that the teacher poses by relying to their prior knowledge. Listening to the students

238
answers the teacher is able to identify whether there are any misconceptions that he needs to
address. Should any be identify, then by using Power-Point presentation, images, animations
or graphs, (s)he represents scientific concepts, principle or phenomena to students without
providing directly the answer to them. After the students explore the visual information, the
teacher asks the same questions again, expecting a more well-structured reply by the students.

ii. Experimental procedures design
The next step is for both teacher and students to design together the experimental
procedure. The teacher presents the available instruments or glassware and leave the students
some time among themselves, to discuss the experiment they are about to perform. The
students based on the experimental theory, that they have already revised or clarified in the
previous stage, discuss together with the teacher presence, which procedure they should
follow and why. During this process the teacher acts as a facilitator by posing questions to
students eliciting replies on why they suggest that procedure and how they are thinking of
implementing it. After the experiment is discussed among students and understood, it is
broken down in several sub-tasks. Each team is then assigned the responsibility of gathering
results and analyse them for a specific sub-task.

Figure 3. Classroom equipped with computers and LAN

239

Figure 4. Part of the simulation which represents the steps that students follow when they perform the
virtual experiments

iii. Experimental procedure
Following the above, the teacher then presents to students the simulation of the
experiment and asks them to explore it. Students are working in groups of 2 sitting in front of
one computer running the simulation program, which is related to the chemical problem at
hand. The design of the simulator impacts the students problem solving strategies. For
example, it allows for the students to change several parameters at a time or it enforces an
experimental approach by allowing changes to only one parameter at a time (Figure 4). The
students task at this stage is to perform only their assigned part (sub-task) of the virtual
experiment(s), to process the data and send them to the teachers PC by using LAN. After
collecting all the experimental data from all teams at one file, the teacher sends the file to all
of the teams. By this point all the teams have performed at least their part of the virtual
experiment and they have a file with all the experimental data of all the other group sub-tasks,
in essence each team has now all their peers results and thus have the whole picture of the
experiment.

iv. Analysis and interpretation of experimental data
At this final stage, the students in their groups of two have to analyse and interpret the
experiment as a whole by using the data that they themselves gathered for their sub-task and
also by using the data of the other teams. The teacher now expects from students to make the
appropriate calculations in order to produce graphs, to give relationships between factors that
affect the experiment such as temperature and concentration, or to make statistical analysis.
Students can collaborate or exchange data with other peers from other team in order to
discuss their results. When they finish with the analysis, they present their results to the

240
teacher and discuss all together as a whole team the interpretation of them. In that part of the
teaching approach the teacher make a revision of what they have done and why and provide
each team with valuable feedback.
After the end of the pre laboratory course as described above the students enter the
laboratory in order to perform real experiments in the real environment. The teacher now
offers minimal support and the idea is for the students to perform them without any
instructions. The students perform only one subtask as they did in the pre lab course,
exchange their experimental data and process them as homework.

Outcomes
Following the above procedure, students consolidate the experimental procedure as they
do not follow line-by-line recipes but instead constantly exchanging and connecting facts,
ideas and concepts throughout the duration of the pre lab course. As they are working as a
team, they share data, exchange views, discuss several different aspects, and ultimately feel
the responsibility for their quality of work as any mistakes made in their sub-tasks influences
the other teams as well. They obtain skills such as processing, analysis and interpretation of
experimental data, problem solving and communication skills through collaboration with their
peers. Students, who usually do not feel comfortable in the conventional way of teaching,
participate more actively in the suggested methodology, as the teacher adopt a more
stimulating role by posing questions to the learners. However, the teacher should make sure
not to press students to reply to his/her questions, but rather his/her aim to create a flexible
learning environment. Thus, (s)he use questions, Power-Pont presentation and simulations in
order to motivate students and encourage them to participate in the teaching procedure with
any way is more suitable in their learning style. The role of simulation in this methodology is
essential, as it visualises the real laboratory giving students the opportunity to receive, process
and save useful information gradually. A specific example based on the above methodology
in combination with students evaluation is presented in the journal Chemistry Education
Research and Practice (Limniou et al., 2007).

Simulation, LAN and Instrumentation Course

Aim and objectives
The aim of this methodology is to suggest a teaching approach for instrumentation course
based on CSCL which combines virtual experimentation with the instrumentation theory
following teaching and learning theories.
The objectives of this methodological procedure are for students:

1. to understand the function of the instruments and their basic technical principles
2. to feel more confident with the instrumentation connecting the technical and the
scientific principles
3. to obtain the necessary skills such as instrument manipulation, collection, process
and analysis of experimental data by using Information Technology,
4. to obtain computer experience by giving them the feeling of working on modern
instrumentation and

241
5. to work together as a team.

The structure of this methodology is as follows:

Before Lecture

One week before the lecture is conducted; the teacher informs students which prior
knowledge is an absolute prerequisite for attending the instrumentation lecture. To ensure that
all the students have a similar background, the teacher distributes a questionnaire in order for
students to prepare themselves before the lecture. The questionnaire includes some basic
questions related to the lecture.

Lecture

This lecture is conducted in a computer cluster and the students are divided into two-
person teams who work on a personal computer (PC) with a simulation program. In this way,
the teams can share measurements, observations and conclusions about the virtual
experiments with the other teams through the local area network (LAN), after processing and
analysing data. The lecture then proceeds in three steps

i. I nitial part of the lecture
At the beginning of the lecture, the teacher distributes to the students the components of
an old instrument and presents figures and animations to explain their functions and discusses
the technical principles of them using a Power-Point presentation. In this initial part of the
teaching procedure, the teacher poses questions to the students in order to make them think
about the components and to make a comparison between the different kinds of every
component. Additionally, the teacher discusses with students the questions that (s)he
disturbed to them one week before. The purpose of the discussion is twofold, to stimulate
students to participate in the teaching procedure actively and to express their opinions and
also to identify any misconceptions the students might have.

ii. I ntroduction to the simulator
The simulator, which is used in that case, includes virtual objects on the screen which look like
the same objects on the real instruments; this makes it easier to transfer what is learned into the real
application (Figure 5). Ideally, the simulator should have two parts. One to represent the inside part
of an old instrument, as students face instruments in laboratory as black boxes with no real
understanding of their inner components and functions. The other part of the simulator should give
the opportunity to the students to familiarize themselves with the interface of modern instruments.
The aim of the teacher is to introduce students to simulation by familiarising them with
the simulator environment and its basic functionalities. The teacher performs virtual
experiments and processes the experimental data in a spreadsheet. As the teacher performs the
virtual experiments and at the same time explains his/her steps, he enables students with a
visual style of learning to receive information through visualisation, while students with
verbal style of learning receive information through his/her explanations. The purpose of

242
these experiments is not only for students to familiarise themselves with a simulator before
use it but to better understand the instruments function.

Figure 5. Simulation suitable for instrumentation course which represents old and modern instruments
and gives opportunity for virtual experiments
iii. Practice on simulator
Students are divided into two-person teams and each team is working on a personal
computer (PC) with the simulation installed on it. Usually, the scientific instrument needs an
initial calibration so that becomes the students first task with the simulation. At this point the
collaboration which takes place is between the two students.
The next step is for all the teams to work in a bigger and more complicated task by using
simulation. Thus, teacher encourages them to think and suggest which kind of experiments
and for what purpose scientists perform experiments with the specific samples that included
in the simulation. Teachers role is to encourage students to make the connections between
the scientific principles and technical characteristics of the instruments. Students suggest the
experimental procedure and the way of collection, processing and analysis of experimental
data. When all teams decide for the procedure and the measurements, they use the instruments
performing the experiments and process the data in a spreadsheet. Communication is at the

243
centre of collaboration, be it to exchange points o view, debate disagreements or explain
difficult concepts. Thus, all the teams share the same resources (necessary information,
experimental data, graphs and figures through the LAN), the division of work between
students is differentiated and complementary and share the cognition though a joint activity
carried out in an explicit manner. The aim of the virtual experimentation for students is to
collaborate all together in order to understand better the instruments function and their
technical principles, to get for themselves what knowledge of the topic they may need and to
analyse and process experimental data as they should do in the laboratory. At the end of the
virtual experiments, teacher discusses with the students their graphs and the capabilities of
modern instrumentation regarding the old instruments in order to assist students to
consolidate the new knowledge.

Outcomes

The role of the teacher is not to provide specific answers to the students but (s)he to
continue the teaching procedure depending on the students suggestions and their level of
understanding. Thus, the key point is that students do not follow the teacher instructions but it
is the teacher who follows the students suggestions and their cognitive background.
Usually, students have been taught the components and the function of the instrument
following the traditional way of teaching, the teacher draws the components on the board and
explains their functions. The access to expensive chemical equipment may be limited in many
situations, as many of the instruments are available for students only for a little time.
However, the inner function of an instrument cannot be seen from the outside, but must be
shown from the interior if students are to see how it works and even then its intricate
construction can be baffling. As students lift the hood and look at the inside of an instrument,
the impression they receive is likely to be somewhat confusing and complex because of the
considerable array of subsidiary parts, wires, electronic components and optical parts. At this
procedure (s)he distributes to students old part of instruments, describes how they work,
presents the inner part of instruments as visual objects on the simulation and encourages
students to make the connections between scientific and technical principles. Ultimately what
the teacher tries to achieve is for students who tend to think of modern instruments as
complicated to begin to consider an instrument as merely a combination of useful components
needed to perform a certain job. Following the above procedure both students with verbal and
visual style of learning respond positively through visualisation by using simulation and
verbal interactions via collaboration (student-student and student-teacher interactions). A
specific example based on the above methodology in combination with students evaluation is
presented in the journal Educational and Information Technologies (Limniou et al., 2007).

Real Time Application, LAN and Laboratory Session

Aim and objectives
The aim of this methodology is to give high quality learning experiences in science
education by bringing real working environment into the laboratory.

244
The objectives are:

1. for students to obtain experience on manipulation of modern instruments,
observation of experiments and collection of data
2. for students to control and improve the reliability of measurements
3. for students to interact with the scientific instrument and their peers for solving the
common problem or performing the same experiment
4. for students and teacher to discuss the common errors and observations.

In this case the teacher uses a real time application by connecting a scientific instrument
with different personal computers through LAN and capturing changes on the experimental
apparatus by video camera (Figure 6).

Figure 6. The laboratory structure supported by a real time application and video camera, and the
interactions between student-student and student-computer-instrument.
At the beginning of the laboratory session the teacher explains to students the theory and
describes the experiments. The students then are divided into two person teams. This part is
similar with the conventional way of laboratory teaching. In this case however, all students
work at the same experimental apparatus or instruments which are configured by teacher.
Specifically, a video camera is set up in order to capture the instrument and its
measurement displays. By using a projector the images are projected and the students can see

245
the changes in the measurements from their working places. At this phase of the laboratory
session each team of students is working on its PC and they can share data and graphs
through LAN. Each team has access to the same kit, however only one team at a time can
change the measuring parameters. In addition the teacher has already set up the real time
application on their PCs which allows students to send and receive from their PC commands
to the instrument and to manipulate it as the reality (Figure 7).
At the next step each team puts their samples to instruments one at a time, and observes
the changes in the samples or the measurement displays on the projector. In that way the
measurements of one team are clearly visible to all the other teams in the classroom via the
large projector. All students then discuss with the teacher and with their peers the changes on
the instruments/measurements or possible errors. The discussion is hence based on real
samples and measurements in the laboratory bring up the importance of incorporating some
errors in the data or allowing the students to make mistakes in the experiments to mimic real
life events.
The real time application provides an easy-to-use interface to the instrumentation, where
students can make all the appropriate actions working on the instrument by moving only the
mouse on the computers desktop as it is happened in an industrys laboratory. At this phase
of the laboratory session teacher asks for each team of students to making different changes
on the instruments by using real time application. All the teams of students collect all the
experimental data at their computer by using the real time application. Each team processes
the data by using a spreadsheet, shares their results with the others through the LAN and
interprets them through discussion. All the teams of students prepare part of their laboratory
report within the supervised teaching laboratory hours.

Outcomes

The students can alter experimental parameters, run real experiments and analyse data all
together and that methodology permits an enhanced teacher-student interaction by making the
learning experience more flexible than the conventional way. The discussion gives students
and teacher the opportunity to clarify the objectives and the theory behind the experiment and
allows students to practice the experiment in real time by setting, organising and controlling
the instrument. Usually, students in the lab have some anxiety regarding how they will be
able to deal with the technical problems, should they occur. In this methodology students
have the opportunity to discuss with their teacher or with their peers the technical problems or
errors as a group which alleviates the burden of having to face a technical problem on their
own, as they would in a traditional laboratory. Ultimately the aim is for students to become
comfortable with scientific principles and involvement in instrument operation and computer
interface.
In summary this laboratory approach presents the advantages of the conventional way of
teaching such as dealing with a large number of students in a limited period of time and in
addition it offers to students access to modern instrumentation and to teacher the opportunity
to create a flexible environment related to the students needs. Furthermore, during the
laboratory session the teacher can explain to students how the modern instruments are
configured by presenting them with a real example.


246

Figure 7. Example from the laboratory which is supported by a real time application, video camera and
LAN.

ASYNCHRONOUS COMMUNICATION

Simulation, VLE and Laboratory Session

Aim and objectives
The aim of this methodology is to present how a online course promotes asynchronous
collaboration and independent learning by using a simulation. The objectives of this
methodological procedure are for students to:

1. refresh their previous knowledge independently by reading the theory which is
uploaded on the VLE
2. discuss with the teacher or their peers questions that are posted on-line through
VLEs communication tools related to the new knowledge
3. perform virtual experiments by using simulation programs
4. send electronically their final results to the teacher and
5. interpret the results though on-line discussion


247
Structure of the On-Line Course

In asynchronous communication the teacher should establish the common knowledge for
the participants so that communication can be efficient. Thus, the theory relevant to the
course topic is presented in a variety of ways such as text, images and animations allowing
students to refresh their prior knowledge in their own space and rate. The text is limited as to
emphasise only the most important points. For example, the text includes Notes and
Useful Tips for students. The students can be aware of the important issues for the
experiments before they perform them in the laboratory. Images with clear message and
without using a lot of colours are integrated into the text. Flash animations and videos
represent the techniques and simulation programs mimic the experimental procedure allowing
students to understand the technique and to have training on the data collection before they
perform the experiment in the real laboratory. Part of the on-line content material can be self-
assessment questions enhancing the opportunity students have to prepare themselves before
they participate in the on-line discussion (Figure 8). Additionally, at the end of the theory part
the students can find a task assignment for their evaluation.

On-Line Discussion

The aim of the fist part of the on-line discussion is for students to refresh their previous
knowledge, to clarify their misconceptions and to be introduced to the new knowledge (the
topic of the course). For that purpose the teacher poses questions to the students and
encourages them to explore the on-line material. It is now difficult for the teacher to indentify
the students misconceptions, as the interactions between students, teacher and content
material are mediated by technology. However, the teacher can pose statements through on-
line discussion encouraging students to make a comment on it. Even if some students do not
participate actively in the discussion, (s)he has the opportunity to read her/his peers thoughts.
In the second part of the on-line discussion the teacher encourages students to make
hypothesis by using the simulation. As the students perform the virtual experiments, they
observe changes on variables and parameters on the scientific phenomenon and save their
experimental data for further analysis at spreadsheets. Students who are divided into two-
person teams, share measurements, observations and conclusions regarding virtual
experiments with the other teams through the VLEs communication tool. The teacher
collects from each team the spreadsheet and after creating a common file which includes all
the teams spreadsheet, (s)he forward it to all the teams. Thus, all students have all their
peers experimental analysis and the teacher has the opportunity to pose questions to students
regarding their results. In the following discussion all students can participate, even if the
teacher poses questions to a specific teams results.

248

Figure 8. Structure of the on-line course
The students can participate in the on-line training any time they want within the period
of one week. They submit their results electronically two days before the laboratory session.
The teacher and students have two days to discuss their results asynchronously. In the
laboratory students perform the same experiments but without the teachers instructions.

Outcomes

The students can discuss with the teacher and their peers parts of theory through VLEs
communcation tools or they can collect the information independently either by reading the
uploaded parts of theory or by searching on the Internet. In this teaching approach the
students do not have the teacher and the discussion with their peers as the only resource for
collecting information. The independent learning is promoted by allowing students to adapt
their learning style to the teaching approach. The teacher adopts an active and stimulating role

249
by posing questions without being a direct provider for the students learning. Following this
methodology the teacher can interact with a huge number of students without space
requirements creating a flexible learning environment. The integration of simulation into a
VLE can enhance the laboratory training in case of an overloaded curriculum where time
restrictions are severe. A specific example based on the above methodology in combination
with students evaluation is presented in the journal Computers & Education (Limniou et al.,
2009).

DISCUSSION

The aim of this chapter is to study the reflection of the CSCL on the practical work in
Science Education and particularly in Chemistry Education. The selected examples are
intended to present the difficulties that both students and teachers face in Science Education
and how CSCL can enhance the teaching approach. There are many useful CSCL applications
for the Higher Education based on software that are nowadays common known and available.
However, knowledge construction is particularly difficult for learners of science because they
need to be developing both their conceptual and procedural understanding by appropriate
actions, which involves practical work. In the above methodological procedures the teacher
participated actively in developing simulations and real-time applications, creating learning
environments focused on science education needs. Specifically, the laboratorys difficulties,
the learning goals and the task level are the starting point for the design and the use of the
CSCL applications.
The laboratory sessions and instrumentation courses in science education are vital part of
its curriculum. Information Technology can simulate a large number of experiments in a very
short period of time; however it cannot replace the teacher and hands-on laboratory training.
Simulations or real-time applications are not intended to supplant experimental work in
science but to expand experience and aid interpretation. All the examples above, in which
there is a relationship between different modes of learning such as face-to-face and computer
supported learning approaches, comprise the basis of so called blended learning. According to
Bliuc, Goodyear and Ellis (2007), blended learning describes activities that involve a
systematic combination of co-present (face-to-face) interactions and technologically-mediated
interactions between students, teachers and learning resources.
In the above methodological procedures, the teacher has a vision of the learning approach
where students learn from each other, develop methods on their own and discover what is
important instead of being told by the teacher. All participants in discussions (teacher and
students) have a constructive dialogue by giving feedback to each other. This procedure is
different from the conventional way of teaching where feedback is provided only by the teacher.
During discussion, students construct their new knowledge through addition, explanation,
evaluation and summary. According to Veerman, Andriessen and Kanselaar (2000), during
the addition process an input of new information is linked to the discussion. During the
explanation process, information is differentiated, specified, categorised, or made clear by
examples. Evaluations are (personally) justified considerations of the strength or relevance of
already added or explained information. During summary the already given information is

250
reorganised or restated in such a way that the main points or (sub) conclusions reflect the
discussion.
The students who attend the above methodological procedures will most probably reach a
deeper level of understanding as they:

1. connect facts, ideas and concepts in order to interpret, propose or judge
2. create new information that is collected using hypothesis
3. propose one or more solutions in terms of judgement
4. present proof for support by examples
5. handle a problem in a wider perspective
6. develop new strategies for problem solving.

According to Gutwin, Roseman and Greenberg (1996), a good design of CSCL activities
can offer support for coordination, communication, negotiation and interactivity among group
members. The computer can be seen as a mechanism to support social interaction and
therefore, modify the nature and the efficacy of this interaction (Blaye, 1991; Mandryk et al.,
2001). The students become active members in the classroom or in the laboratory. They are
not working individually in front of a PC or on their working bench, but they have the feeling
of sharing the some common goals with the rest of the team, working on the common
educational tool, developing interpersonal relationship with their peers and evaluating their
peers view. An activity oriented toward the communication is its motivation implying a need
for any human activity. Additionally, the students motivation is influenced by the flexible
learning environment, the learning resources and the active students participation in the
learning process. Technology can enable and facilitate the communication and transmission
of information providing to the students the opportunity to exchange knowledge and
resources and develop mutual understanding. Authentic learning recourses can bring reality
into the learning environment assisting the students to prepare themselves for the real-life
situation. In the simulations and real-time applications that are used, the data are real and
students have training in real situations and face difficulties that they can meet in the
laboratory or in their future working place. In the presented synchronously methodological
procedures, students have the opportunity to spontaneously ask questions, react to what
happens and to perceive how other members react. The asynchronous collaboration gives
students the opportunity to have more time to prepare their comments. Additionally, students
who do not express themselves orally during lectures can participate actively in the
asynchronous collaboration.
The universities financial difficulties and the emergence of new technologies have
impelled universities to create new systems for delivering laboratories in science education, in
particular simulations and real-time applications in the laboratory. Remote applications are
similar to simulation techniques in that they require minimal space and time, because the
experiments can be rapidly configured and run over the LAN. In a computer cluster the
teacher has a face-to-face interactions with the students, while VLEs such as Blackboard
or
WebCT
support communication components that enable information exchange and on-line

discussion both asynschronous and synchronous. These platforms allow the management of
contents, students and teachers and offer a large variety of resources and activities, such as
quizzes, workshops among others. In both these two case the teacher can manage a high
number of students, reduce the laboratory cost, give students time to process any new

251
information by making the connections with their previous knowledge and to improve the
students performance in collaborative situations.

CONCLUSIONS

Through collaborative learning students can be provoked to engage themselves to a
series of constructive cognitive activities such as interact and communicate with their peers,
exchange ideas/data, debate disagreements, explaining difficult concepts to one another, make
argumentation, inquire processes or mutual regulations. Technology can facilitates the
transmission of information, but a well organised curriculum/course, meaningful tasks,
assistance by a teacher/facilitator and the opportunity for students to develop social skills are
necessary for leading to positive learning outcomes. The communication tools mediate the
students activities, facilitating the process in which the students become a member of a
community. The use of the common educational tool (simulation and real-time application)
and the work on the common tasks enhance the interaction between the students, students-
teacher and students-content material. The scientific knowledge, which is by nature difficult,
the hands-on experience with scientific instruments and skills that students struggle to obtain
during their practical work, can be achieved through the collaborative learning if the learning
task and environment are well in line with the established goals. The teacher can adopt both
these teaching approaches depending on the university facilities, the staffs time and the
students familiarity with virtual learning environments and the students followed learning
strategies though collaboration or/and independent learning to obtain the similar learning
outcome.

REFERENCES

Alavi, M. & Leidner, D. E. (2003). Virtual Learning Systems. Encyclopaedia of Information
Systems, 4, 561-572.
Arvaja, M., Hakkinen, P., Etelapelto, A. & Rasku-Puttonen, H. (2000). Collaborative
processes during report writing of a science-learning project: The nature of discourse as a
function of task requirements. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 15(4),
445-446.
Bafestou, G. & Mentzas G. (2002). Review and functional classification of collaborative
systems. International Journal of Information Management, 22(4), 281-305.
Blaye, A. (1991). Collaboration as a facilitator of planning and problem solving on a
computer-based task. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 9(4), 471483.
Bliuc, A. M., Goodyear P. & Ellis R. A. (2007). Research focus and methodological choices
in studies into students' experiences of blended learning in higher education. Internet and
Higher Education, 10(4), 231-244.
Bostock, A. J. (1996). A critical review of Laurillards classification of educational media.
Instructional Science, 24 (1), 71-88.
Bodner, G. M. (1986). Constructivism: A theory of knowledge. Journal of Chemical
Education, 63(10), 873878.

252
Bodner, G., Klobuchar, M. & Geelan, D. (2001). The many forms of constructivism. Journal
of Chemical Education, 78(8), 11071115.
Bunce, D. M. (2001). Does Piaget Still Have Anything to Say to Chemists? Journal of
Chemical Education, 78(8), 1107-1121.
Bunce, D. M., VandenPlas, J. R. & Havanki, K. L. (2006). Comparing the effectiveness on
student achievement of a student response system versus online WebCT quizzes. Journal
of Chemical Education, 83(3), 488493.
Burnett, J. & Burns, W. A. (2006). Using a spreadsheet to fit experimental pH titration data to
a theoretical expression: Estimation of analyte concentration and Ka. Journal of
Chemical Education, 83(8), 11901193.
Chang, K. E., Chen, Y. L., Lin, H. Y. & Sung, Y. T. (2008). Effects of learning support in
simulation-based physics learning. Computers & Education, 51(4), 14861498.
Clow D. & Garratt J., (1998). Computer simulations: creating opportunities for science
writing. University Chemistry Education, 2(2), 51-54.
Colwell, C., Scanlon, E. & Cooper, M. (2002). Using remote laboratories to extend access to
science and engineering. Computers & Education, 38(1-3), 6576.
Cooper, M. M. (1994). Cooperative Chemistry Laboratories. Journal of Chemical Education,
71(4), 307.
De Jong, T., Martin, E., Zamarro, J. M., Esquembre, F., Swaak, J. & van Joolingen, W.
(1999). The integration of computer simulation and learning support: An example from
the physics domain of collisions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(5),
597615.
De Jong, T. & Van Joolingen, W. R. (1998). Scientific discovery learning with computer
simulations of conceptual domains. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 179-201.
Dillenbourg P. (1999). Introduction: What do you mean by collaborative learning?. In P.
Dillenbourg (Ed) Collaborative-learning: Cognitive and Computational Approaches.
(pp.1-19). Oxford: Elsevier.
Dormido, S., Dormido, R., Sanchez, J. & Duro, N. (2005). The role of interactivity in control
learning. International Journal of Engineering Education, 21(6), 11221133.
Ellis, C. A., Gibbs, S. J. & Rein, G. (1991). Groupware: Some issues and experiences.
Communications of the ACM, 34(1), 3958.
Fermann J. T., Stamm K. M., Maillet A. L., Nelson C., Codden S. J., Spaziani M. A.,
Ramirez M. & Vining W. J., (2000). Discovery learning using Chemland simulation
software. The Chemical Educator, 5(1), 31-37.
Heil, G. & Schfer, H. (2002). Modelling and graphic presentation of acid. base titration
curves. presentation of an alternative method. The Chemical Educator, 7(6), 339346.
Garratt J. (1997). Virtual investigations: ways to accelerate experience. University Chemistry
Education, 2(1), 19-27.
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T. & Archer, W. (2000). Critical Inquiry in a Text-Based
Environment: Computer Conferencing in Higher Education, The Internet and Higher
Education, 2(2-3), 87-105.
Goos, M. & Galbraith, P. (1996). Do it this way! Metacognitive strategies in collaborative
mathematical problem solving. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 30(3), 229260.
Goos, M., Galbraith, P. & Renshaw, P. (2002). Socially mediated metacognition: creating
collaborative zones of proximal development in small group problem solving.
Educational Studies in Mathematics, 49(2), 193223.

253
Gutwin, C., Roseman, M. & Greenberg, S. (1996). A usability study of awareness widgets in
a shared workspace groupware system. In Proceedings of ACMCSCW96. Conference on
Supported Cooperative Work. Boston, MA, ACM Press.
Isom, F.S. & Rowsey, R.E. (1986). The effect of a new prelaboratory procedure on students'
achievement in chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23(3), 231-235.
Jara, C. A., Candelas, F. A., Torres, F., Dormido, S., Esquembre, F. & Reinoso O. (2009).
Real-time collaboration of virtual laboratories through the Internet. Computers &
Education, 52(1), 126140.
Jaervelae, S., Haekkinen, P. Arvaja, M. & Leinonen, P. (2004). Instructional Support in
CSCL. In Strijbos, J.W., Kirschner, P.A. & Martens, R.L. (Eds.) What we know about
CSCL: An implementating It In Higher Education. (pp. 115-139). Boston: Kluwer
Academic Publishers.
Johnstone A. H., (1997). Chemical education, science or alchemy? Journal of Chemical
Education, 74(3), 262-268.
Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P. & Jochems, W. (2002). The sociability of computer-supported
collaborative learning environments. Educational Technology & Society, 5(1), 8-22.
Kirschner P. A. (2001). Using integrated electronic environments for collaborative
teaching/leaning. Research Dialogue in Learning and Instruction, 2, 1-9.
Kirschner, P. A., Strijbos, J. W. & Kreijns, K. (2003). Designing integrated electronic
collaborative learning environments. In W. M. G. Jochems, J. J. G. Van Merrieenboer &
R. Koper (Eds), Integrated E-learning (pp. 24-38). London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Kong, S. C., Yeung, Y. Y., Wu, X. Q. (2009). An experience of teaching for learning by
observation: Remote-controlled experiments on electrical circuits. Computers &
Education, 52(3), 702-714.
Laurillard, D. (1993). Rethinking university teaching: a framework for the effective use of
educational technology. London: Routledge.
Limniou, M., Papadopoulos, N., Giannakoudakis, A., Roberts, D. & Otto, O. (2007). The
integration of a viscosity simulator in a chemical laboratory. Chemistry Education
Research and Practice, 8(2), 220-231.
Limniou, M., Papadopoulos, N. & Roberts D. (2007). An integrated lecture, virtual
instrumentation lab approach to teaching UV-Vis spectroscopy. Educational and
Information Technologies, 12(4), 229-244.
Limniou, M., Papadopoulos, N. & Whitehead, C. (2009). Integration of simulation into pre-
laboratory chemical course: Computer cluster versus WebCT. Computers and Education,
52(1), 45-52.
Lipponen, L. (2002). Exploring foundations for computer-supported collaborative learning.
CSCL 2002. Colorado Boulder. USA, January.
Lyle, K. S. & Robinson, W. R. (2002). An Action Research Report: Improving Pre-
Laboratory Preparation of First-Year University Chemistry Students. Journal of
Mandryk, R. L., Inkpen, K. M., Bilezikjian, M., Klemmer, S. R. & Landay, J. A. (2001).
Supporting childrens collaboration across handheld computers. In Extended Abstracts of
CHI, Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Seattle, USA.
Marjanovic, O. (1999). Learning and teaching in a synchronous collaborative environment.
Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 15(2), 129138.

254
Matthews, R. S., Cooper, J. L., Davidson, N. & Hawkes, P. (1995). Building bridges between
cooperative and collaborative learning. Change, 27 (4), 34-37.
Mattson, M. E. & Mattson, W. A. (1995). Obtaining a spectrum easily using a single-beam
spectrophotometer. Journal of Chemical Education, 72(6), 569573.
Meester M. A. M. & Maskill R. (1995). First-year chemistry practicals at universities in
England and Wales: organizational and teaching aspects. International Journal of Science
Education, 17(5), 705719.
Monahan T., McArdle, G. & Bertolotto M. (2008). Virtual reality for collaborative e-learning.
Computers & Education, 50(4), 1339-1353.
Moore, M. (1993). Theory for transactional distance. In D. Keegan (Ed.), Theoretical
principles of distance education (pp. 2238). London, New York: Routledge.
Moore, M. & Kearsley, G. (1996). Distance education: A system view. New York:
Wadsworth.
Moreno, L., Gonzalez, C., Castilla, I., Gonzalez, E., & Sigut, J. (2007). Applying a
constructivist and collaborative methodological approach in engineering education.
Computers & Education, 49(3), 891915.
Ngai, E. W. T., Poon, J. K. L. & Chan, Y. H. C. (2007). Empirical examination of the
adoption of WebCT using TAM. Computers & Education, 48(2), 250267.
Nickerson, J. V., Corter, J. E., Esche, S. K. & Chassapis, C. (2007). A model for evaluating
the effectiveness of remote engineering laboratories and simulations in education.
Computers & Education, 49(3), 708-725.
Nowak, K. L., Watt, J. & Walther, J. B. (2004). Contrasting time mode and sensory modality
in the performance of computer mediated groups using asynchronous videoconferencing.
In Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii international conference on system sciences, pp. 110.
OConnor, S. & Ross, A. (2004). WebCT role-playing: Immediacy versus e-Mediacy in
learning environments. Learning Environments Research, 7(2), 183201.
Offir, B. Lev, Y. & Bezalel, R. (2008). Surface and deep learning processes in distance
education: Synchronous versus asynchronous systems. Computers & Education, 51(3),
1172-1183.
Ong S. K. & Mannan, M. A. (2004). Virtual reality simulations and animations in a web-
based interactive manufacturing engineering module. Computers & Education, 43(4),
361-382.
Papadopoulos N., Pitta A. T., Markopoulos N., Limniou M., Lemos M. A. N. D. A., Lemos F.
& Freire F. G. (1999). Viscosity measurement: a virtual experiment. Journal of Chemical
Education, 76(11), 1600.
Papadopoulos, N., Limniou, M., Koklamanis, G., Tsarouxas, A., Roilidis, M. & Bigger, S. W.
(2001). Spec UV-Vis: An ultraviolet-visible spectrophotometer simulation. Journal of
Papadopoulos, N. & Limniou, M. (2003). pH Titration simulation. Journal of Chemical
Education, 80(6), 709.
Poganik L. & Cigi B. (2006). How To Motivate Students To Study before They Enter the
Lab. Journal of Chemical Education, 83(7), 10941098.
Salomon, G. & Perkins, D. N. (1998). Individual and social aspects of learning. Review of
Research in Education, 23(1), 124.

255
Scanlon, E., Morris, E., Di Paolo, T. & Cooper, M. (2002). Contemporary approaches to
learning science: Technologically-mediated practical work. Studies in Science Education,
38, 73114.
Scanlon, E., Colwell, C., Cooper, M. & Di Paolo, T. (2004). Remote experiments, re-
versioning and re-thinking science learning. Computers & Education, 43(1-2), 153-163.
Seng, L. & Mohamad, F. S. (2002). Online learning, Is it meant for science course? The
Internet and Higher Education, 5(2), 109118.
Shiland, T. W. (1999). Constructivism: the implication for laboratory work. Journal of
Chemical Education, 76(1), 107-108.
Silverman, B. G. (1995). Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL), Computers &
Education, 25 (3), 81-91.
Scardamalia, M. & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge building
communities. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(3), 265-283.
Shiowatana, J. (1997). Demonstration of characteristics of basic components of a
spectrophotometer. Journal of Chemical Education, 74(6), 730731.
Slavin, R. (1994). Cooperative learning: theory, research, & practice (2nd Edition). Boston:
Allyn & Bacon.
Strijbos, J. W., Martens, R. L. & Jochems, W. M. G. (2004). Designing for interaction: Six
steps to designing computer-supported group-based learning. Computers & Education,
42(4), 403-424.
Thomas R. & Neilson I. (1995). Harnessing Simulations in the service of education: the
interact simulation environment. Computers and Education, 25(1-2), 21-29.
Veerman, A. L., Andriessen, J. E. B. & Kanselaar, G. (2000). Learning through synchronous
electronic discussion. Computers & Educations, 34(3-4), 269-290.
von Glasersfeld, E. (1988). Cognition, construction of knowledge, and teaching. In ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 294 754.
Zurita, G. & Nussbaum M. (2004). Computer supported collaborative learning using
wirelessly interconnected handheld computers. Computers & Educations, 42(3), 289-314.
Waller J. C. & Foster N. (2000). Training via the web: a virtual instrument, Computers &
Education, 35(2), 161-167.
Wegerif, R. (2004). The role of educational software as a support for teaching and learning
conversations. Computers & Education, 43(1-2), 179-191.
Wild, R. H. & Winniford, M. (1993). Remote collaboration among students using electronic
mail, Computers & Education, 21 (3), 193-203.
Winberg, T. M. & Berg, C. A. R. (2007). Students Cognitive Focus During a Chemistry
Laboratory Exercise: Effects of a Computer-Simulated Prelab. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 44(8), 11081133.

Chapter 9

DESIGN RESEARCH ON ESTABLISHING A LEARNING
ECOLOGY FOR THE USE OF A GRAPHIC
CALCULATOR DURING COLLABORATIVE WORK

Dirk J . Hoek
*

Faculty of Psychology, Open Universeit Nederland.

ABSTRACT

Research that goes beyond the numerous effect studies on the influence of the graphic
calculator on student achievement shows that the use of this tool in an explorative manner
asks for a well-tuned learning ecology. Thus, if the latter is seen as a valuable option, the
question arises how such a learning ecology can be developed. To answer this question, a
design research project was carried out in two classrooms within schools for vocational
education. This study aimed at changing the learning ecology by fostering gradual changes in
teacher behavior. As a result of this intervention, teachers changed their teaching style, which
resulted in changes in the students way of working together. Teachers developed a more
process and group oriented coaching style and students started to work collaboratively, using
the graphic calculator in an exploratory and investigative way. This paper will report on the
intervention strategy that has been developed as part of the study.

Keywords: vocational education, collaborative work, design research, teacher guidance, and
graphic calculator

INTRODUCTION

Over the last decade information technology has become increasingly important in
mathematics education. One of the tools that has gained popularity is the graphic calculator.

*
Corresponding Author: Open University of the Netherlands, Vondellaan 202, 3521 GZ Utrecht or by Email:
dirk.hoek@ou.nl
Dirk J. Hoek

258
So far, a substantial amount of research on the use of this tool has been done (Ellington, 2003;
Penglase & Arnold, 1996; Ruthven, 1996), mostly aimed at determining the effects of the use
of (graphic) calculators on student achievement and attitude. These studies show that students
can benefit from the use of this tool. That is, although no difference between users and non-
users in student achievement was found, users showed a more positive attitude towards
mathematics in most studies (Ellington, 2003).
Yet, these effect studies hardly give insight into the relationship between the nature of
instructional activities and the use of the graphic calculator (Dunham & Dick, 1994; Penglase
& Arnold, 1996). Lim (2002) stated that many empirical studies lack a detailed analysis of
what actually takes place in the classroom. In fact, the implementation of a tool like the
graphic calculator instigates changes in the different elements of the learning environment,
such as in the instructional activities, the curriculum design and the roles of teachers and
students, while at the same time the implementation is reciprocally affected by the changes it
causes (Salomon, 1993). An IT-tool can establish or change the students way of thinking and
influence their cognitive growth, which in turn will change the way they use the tool
(Ruthven, 1992). However, without carefully taking into account the processes that take place
in the learning environment, and its multifaceted complexity, it is not possible to analyze the
role of IT-tools in mathematics education.
Following Berger (1998), it can be argued that research needs to move beyond
investigating learning outcomes to address more fundamental issues like the actual processes
of teaching, learning and thinking. Learning depends on the students interactions with the
teacher, the mathematical tasks and their peers within the social context of the classroom (see
also Meira, 1995; Roth & McGinn, 1997; Yackel & Cobb, 1996). Significant aspects of the
latter include the conceptualization of the tool and the norms for tool use that emerge as
students and teacher interact. Through these interactions, teacher and students construct
meaning for the graphic calculator as a tool for mathematical learning, so meaning is
constructed for the tool as it is used, and learners construct mathematical meaning with the
tool (Hiebert et al., 1997). Tool use and mathematical meaning coevolve. The tool supports
the students mathematical development. At the same time this growing mathematical ability
contributes to a more efficient use of the tool. Thus, there is a reciprocal relation between tool
use and learning mathematics (Meira, 1998). An example of the kind of research that Berger
is asking for, and that addresses these aspects, is the research of Doerr & Zangor (2000).
These researchers describe in detail a learning ecology
1
(Cobb, Confrey, diSessa, Lehrer,
& Schauble, 2003) in which the graphic calculator is integrated. They show that a variety of
elements of the learning ecology play an important role in supporting the students use of the
tool. According to them, learning depends on the different aspects of the learning ecology,
such as the teachers beliefs (rule based or non-rule based), the teachers knowledge and
(pedagogical) skills, the social practices, the social norms and socio-math norms of the
classroom, the structure of the instructional sequence (aimed at reinvention or at problem
solving) and the tasks used (meaningful or reproductive based).
The role of the teacher was an important element in establishing the learning ecology that
Doerr and Zangor (2000) describe in their research. As they pointed out, the teachers

1
Cobb et al. (2003) use the term ecology instead of environment to emphasize the complexity of factors that
influence learning.
Design Research on Establishing a Learning Ecology for the Use of

259
confidence in her own knowledge and skills and her own flexible use of the graphic calculator
contributed to establish a classroom environment where students were free to use the tool
actively to calculate, explore, confirm, or check mathematical ideas. The teachers knowledge
about the limitations of the calculator took her, for instance, to encourage students to question
their calculator results, which made students aware of the need of a critical attitude towards
the results given by the calculator.
In conclusion, a substantial amount of research is done about the influence of the graphic
calculator on students achievement and attitude, but it does not give much insight into the
relationship between learning ecology and tool use. The study of Doerr and Zangor (2000)
points out the important role of the learning ecology in supporting the students use of the
tool. This, however, begs the question how such learning ecology can be developed. The
research we will present in the following aims at developing such a learning ecology, by
fostering gradual changes in the teacher behavior.

Research Method

The main goal of this research is to understand how teachers can be supported in
developing the kind of learning ecology described by Doerr and Zangor (2000), where the
students use the graphic calculator in an investigative and exploratory way during
collaborative work in small groups. The main research question focuses on understanding
how this kind of learning ecology can be established.
For this, a design research project (Cobb, Stephan, McClain, & Gravemeijer, 2001; Cobb
et al., 2003; see also Gravemeijer, 1998) was established. This kind of research aims at
creating and understanding innovative learning ecologies - complex, interacting systems
involving multiple elements of different types and levels- by designing its elements and by
anticipating how these elements function together to support learning. Elements of a learning
ecology typically include the tasks or problems that students are asked to solve, the kinds of
discourse that are encouraged, the norms of participation that are established, the tools and
related material means provided, and the practical means by which classroom teachers can
orchestrate relations among these elements. Cobb et al. (2001) use the metaphor of an ecology
to emphasize that designed contexts are conceptualized as interacting systems rather than as
either a collection of activities or a list of separate factors that influence learning.
A design study starts with a preliminary phase, it is followed by a teaching experiment,
and it finishes with a retrospective analysis. The preliminary phase is used to outline an initial
plan of intervention, based on the initial situation and the intended goals. Next, a teaching
experiment is carried out, consisting of a cyclic process of trials and revisions: each cycle
starts with anticipating what will happen in class, next it is observed and analyzed what
actually happens, and finally initial ideas are revised, and a new cycle starts again. The
teaching experiment is followed by a retrospective analysis, which involves a careful review
and reflection on the process of the teaching experiment, in order to develop an explanatory
model of what induced the changes observed in the learning ecology. For the retrospective
analyses guidelines of Glaser and Strauss (1967) are usually used.
The study we are reporting on here is based on the idea that teachers have a central role in
the classroom, and that they primarily mediate changes in instructional practices.
Consequently, we aimed at changing the learning ecology by fostering gradual changes in the
Dirk J. Hoek

260
teaching behavior, which would hopefully induce changes in the students way of
collaborative working. In order to ensure that the changes in teaching behavior would be
meaningful and sensible to the teachers, all the instructional activities were developed in
cooperation with them, as part of a cyclic process analogous to the mathematical teaching
cycle described by Simon (1995). A concept he developed when he analyzed his own
teaching behavior in a teaching experiment. Our research is different in that the researchers
are the agents who guide the development of teachers, instead of a teacher who guide the
learning process of students. Analogous to the way Simon developed the concept of a
teaching cycle, the cyclic process that governed our design experiment emerged in analyzing
the data. In retrospect, we found that we could describe our experiment with the following
cycle that was repeated a number of times. The cycle starts with observations of the
classroom teaching practices. These are interpreted in order to understand the processes
going on in the learning ecology. Based on those interpretations, researchers look for
arguments that convince teachers to change their practices. Based on that, a plan is made with
the teachers for the next lesson(s). Next, the conjectures about the expected changes in the
teachers behavior and in the learning ecology form the basis for the observations in the
subsequent cycle.

Research Setting

The research has been carried out in the Netherlands at two different schools for
vocational education where a new textbook series for mathematics, called TWIN (Goris &
Van der Kooij, 1997-2000), had been introduced some years earlier. This textbook series,
based on the ideas of Realistic Mathematics Education (Gravemeijer & Doorman, 1999;
Treffers, 1993; van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, 2003), uses the graphic calculator as a tool, and
presupposes a classroom culture where students construct mathematical knowledge by
working together on meaningful, rather open-ended problems, and reflect on their solutions.
During the study, the students worked collaboratively on chapters of these textbooks
dealing with notations and functions (linear functions: y = ax + b, power functions: y = ax
n
,
and exponential functions: y = an
x
). Each student possessed a graphic calculator he or she
could use. Classrooms were equipped with a device that makes it possible to project the
calculator display on an overhead screen.
The teachers who participated in this study had already used the TWIN textbooks in their
mathematics lessons. These two teachers had worked with the graphic calculator in their
classrooms for two years already but did not have much experience with coaching
collaborative groups or group interaction processes. Moreover, they were familiar with the
use of the graphic calculator in the classroom, and had some experience with students
working in small groups.
The students who participated in the study were 32 male and 13 female first year students
from two schools for vocational education, aged between 16 and 18 years. In general, these
students had low to moderate learning abilities, which is inherent to this type of education.
Enrolment in the math class was compulsory.
Video registrations of the various instructional activities were used to write out protocols
of the verbal interactions. Furthermore, field notes on the classroom activities and on the
meetings with the teachers were used to support the interpretation of the observational data.

261
In each class, a group of four students was monitored during the whole school year. We used
video-recording the student as they use the calculator (Berry, Graham, & Smithz, 2006).

Preliminary Plan

In cooperation with two teachers we developed our instruction. At the start of the
experiment, the researchers had global ideas about the instruction. The starting points were
situated in former experiences of the teachers with the use of graphic calculator during group
work. These experiences came from observations in classes of vocational education. Besides,
the researchers had experiences in designing coaching of small groups.
For the instruction of the graphic calculator the researchers and the teachers agreed to
start with whole class instructions about the interface of this tool. Later in the school year the
graphic calculator would be used during whole class discussions. For small group work it was
agrees that the teachers would coach their students during small group work. As a start, it was
agreed that in the first part of the school year they would visit all the small groups at least one
time per lesson. During this visit they would give feedback on both the mathematical content
and about how students work together. During outside of classroom discussions the teachers
and the observer would talk about the small group coaching. From these observations field
notes were made. These field notes were used to discuss the teachers coaching style.
In total four types of instructional activities would be involved: (1) whole-class
instruction; (2) whole-class discussion; (3) coaching of small group work and (4) small group
work without teacher intervention.
During whole class instructions the teachers would explain the interface of the graphic
calculator. They would project their displays to show what they had done and they would ask
the students how the output on the display could be interpreted.
During whole-class discussions they would model the intended use of the graphic
calculator by demonstrating and explaining exploratory applications. The idea was that this
would improve an investigative and collaborative use of the graphic calculator during
problem solving in small groups. During these whole-class discussions, the teachers were to
ask challenging and reflective questions about mathematical phenomena and they were to ask
students to explain what they did and why. The teachers were expected to stimulate students
to discuss and reflect on the ideas and strategies that would be brought in.
Whole-class instructions and discussions would cover about a quarter of the classroom
time. Most of the time, students would work in small groups. While working in small groups,
the teachers were to stimulate discussions about the problem-solving processes and
commented on how students collaborated. At this point, teachers would have a dual role in
both helping students to learn how to solve problems and in helping them to acquire effective
co-operative techniques (see Hoek, Van den Eeden, & Terwel, 1999). A way to help students
to monitor their collaborative problem solving activities would be by alternately asking the
small groups of students questions on what they thought the problem is, where they thought
they were in the problem-solving process, and how they planned to proceed (cf. Schoenfeld,
1985, 1992). The teachers were to stimulate the students to explain and to reason among
themselves without interfering in the group discussion (cf. Kaartinen & Kumpulainen, 2002).
To design the instruction, the author visited the participating teachers every week to make
observations and videotapes of classroom activities. These observations and videotapes were
Dirk J. Hoek

262
used as a basis for subsequent discussions and changes for the instruction and the coaching of
the teachers.

Data Collection

The author observed the two participating classes. Field notes, transcriptions of
videotaped group work, transcriptions of videotaped whole class discussion and of small
group discussions constituted the data corpus for this study. These data were supplemented
with teachers interviews and planning sessions with the teacher. These observational data
were analyzed in a retrospective analysis. This includes data analysis, reflection on the
findings. As a first step all videotapes were verbatim transcribed. Then a selection was made
of fragments by event sampling. Criteria for the selection were the relevance of the fragment
for the focus of our research (how the graphic calculator was used during small group work
and whether this use changed over the school year). For this we went through the data with an
open focus inspired by the constant comparative method (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Then we
searched for trends and tried to interpret the findings.
For the selection of the teachers, the researchers visited before the start of the experiment
teacher meetings with the writers of the new method. During these meeting we encountered
with some teachers and made appoints to visit and observe in their classrooms. Based on
these observations and discussions with them, we selected our teachers. The main selection
criteria were that in the class of these teachers the graphic calculator was used and that the
students were working in small groups. This resulted that two teachers participated in this
design experiment.
All (visited) instructional activities -whole class instructions, whole class discussions and
small group work, were discussed before hand, videotaped and discussed afterwards. Field
notes were made of all visited lessons and discussion with the teachers. During small group
work every small group during that particular lesson was observed and field notes were made
of these observations.

The Development of the Instruction

The development of the instruction will be discussed with respect to both whole-class
discussions and small group collaborative work. Analyses of whole-class discussions
show how teachers adapted to a new style of interaction with the students. The
collaboration with the teachers enabled them to enact the intended instructional activities.
During whole-class discussions, the students were willing to use the graphic calculator in
a collaborative and investigative way. This is in line with observations of Doerr and
Zangor (2000). However, the teachers had difficulties with helping the students to
transfer this to the situation where they worked in small groups. We conjectured that this
lack of transfer was caused by the teachers willingness to give individual, content
related, feedback when students were working in small groups. This was ineffective as it
allowed students to avoid collaboration. The teachers gradually accepted that this kind of
instructional behavior inhibited both collaborative and exploratory use of the graphic
calculator during small group work. Consequently, they gradually started to stimulate

263
students to help each other and to discuss problems with their peers. They did so by re-
directing questions to the group, by giving feedback on how the students worked together
and by stimulating discussions about how the graphic calculator could be used during
collaborative problem solving. They stimulated discussion about the output of the graphic
calculator by asking students what it represented in the context of the problem they were
trying to solve.
Analyses of small group interactions showed how student collaboration developed
and how improved collaboration affected integration of the graphic calculator as an
exploratory tool.
On the basis of the data analyses, we think that three important elements contributed
to changes in teachers coaching behavior. Firstly, teachers used whole-class discussions
to model effective problem solving strategies and integration of the graphic calculator as
an exploratory tool during small group work. Secondly, teachers avoided reacting to
individual questions while students worked collaboratively. Instead, they re-directed
questions to the group and they gave process-oriented feedback instead to improve the
collaborative process. Thirdly, teachers stimulated discussion and exchange of ideas by
asking for explanations and by inviting students to clarify their ideas.
At the beginning of the school year, we discussed our ideas about the intended
practices with the teachers. It was agreed that a researcher would observe classes and take
field notes, which, together with the videotapes, were to be used as a basis for discussion
in the briefing sessions in order to prepare forthcoming lessons. It was argued that
students should learn the interface of the graphic calculator first, and it was therefore
planned that the first lessons would start with a 15-minutes whole-class instruction about
it. During this part of the lessons, teachers would have a steering and directing role. After
that, students would work in small groups on the problems of the textbooks. Our
conjecture was that explaining the interface of the graphic calculator simultaneously with
their work on the mathematical problems would lay a basis for an integrated use of this
tool. In the following paragraphs, a description of each of the cycles of the design
experiment will be given.

Graphic Calculator and Whole-Class Discussions

On the basis of observations and discussions, it was agreed that the teachers would
try to redirect questions to other students. However, redirecting questions turned out to
be difficult for teachers. Observational data showed that teachers tried to keep control
of the progress of the students work, responding to individual questions, rejecting
students suggestions, and correcting their mistakes. At the same time, students also
showed that they expected teachers to answer their questions and claimed explanations.
Our interpretation was that expectations and obligations of teachers and students
hindered the change. Apparently, merely suggesting teachers to redirect the students
individual questions to the group didnt work. We argued that this behavior was not
effective, since the teacher had to repeat explanations. Moreover, students still used the
graphic calculator for computation and they took its output for granted. Therefore, it
was planned that teachers would observe students during collaborative work, reflect on
the students errors and misconceptions, and try to make this subject of a whole-class
Dirk J. Hoek

264
discussion. To start the latter, the teacher would ask one of the students to explain how
his or her group used the graphic calculator to solve the problem. Here, a student -
initiated model that is known as the Sherpa student in the work of Guin and Trouche
(1999) was introduced. This student had to explain how the group had come to the
answer, while the rest of the students would have to listen to the explanation, without
interfering. At the end, all students would be invited to comment on what was said. We
introduced this student-initiated model, because we conjectured that it would clarify
how a discussion can be an effective tool in solving problems and it would work as a
model for effective interaction processes within the groups.
However, this student-initiated model didnt turn out to be effective. We observed
that the students had difficulties to put the groups discussion into his/her own words,
and frequently skipped this phase. In addition, peers often interrupted the student and,
as a result, teachers frequently broke off the discussion in order to take control . This
discussion model was abandoned after a few lessons. It was too difficult for these
students, and we argued that this role would have to be performed by the teacher.
Teachers would take the initiative by starting the whole-class discussion, questioning
students solutions to the problems, and asking them questions about the meaning of the
graphic calculators output. Our conjecture was that in this teacher-initiated
discussion model the teacher would keep control over the whole-class discussion and
was, therefore, better in position to model the effectiveness of specific collaborative
activities.
Analyses of whole-class discussions showed that teachers tried to stimulate
exploratory use of the graphic calculator by challenging students to give explanations.
However, their behavior was not consistent.
After the first chapter, during which teachers had explained the interface to draw
graphs students were working on a chapter about power functions (y = a
n
). Before the
start of this chapter the researchers and teachers agreed on organizing a whole class
discussion. The results showed that, especially at the beginning of the school year,
teachers were inclined to interrupt the whole-class discussions and to revert to direct
explanations and instruction. They interrupted whole class discussions to secure
conclusions. This may be illustrated with a fragment of a whole-class discussion,
taking place in the second month of the school year. During this whole class discussion
one of the teachers tried to stimulate an exploratory use of the graphic calculator. The
teacher organized this whole-class discussion, because students had a serious
misconception with respect to graphs of power functions (y =a
n
). This misconception
implied that raising to a higher power always leads to a graph that is situated above the
graph of a function with a lower power. To challenge this assumption the teacher
started the whole-class discussion by asking the students to enter the data and to plot
the graphs as given in Figure 1.


265

Figure 1. plots of power graphs
The next protocol shows how the discussion develops after the teacher asked his students
whether these graphs intersect.

Teacher Do these graphs intersect?
L I do not know.
Teacher All these graphs start at the origin. Do these graphs have more intersections?
B Yes they do. I have zoomed in. These graphs intersect near the thick.
Teacher Where did you zoom in?
B Near the intersection point.
Teacher Near the intersection point?
S These graphs intersect where x is equal to one.
Teacher Where do these graphs intersect, what are the values of x and y? What are the
co-ordinates where they intersect?
S One, one.
Teacher One, one?
G I have traced on three graphs and they al pass (1,1).
Teacher You can check with your graphic calculator that the y-value will be one when
the x-value is one. I have zoomed in and you see that these graphs all pass
through (1, 1).

In this protocol the teacher tried to orchestrate the whole-class discussion by asking for
an explanation. To find an explanation, students had to investigate the position of the graphs
as shown in the display. While exploring the graphs they talked about how they thought the
problem could be solved. The collaboration started with a remark that was made by student B.
This remark helped to find an answer to the question the teacher asked. Then a student came
up with the trace option to trace the graph of the function after they had zoomed in. This
option allowed one to move a point along a graph while the screen of the graphic calculator
showed the coordinates. One of the students discovered that, while tracing the graphs, each of
the graphs went through a single point with coordinates (1,1). Having noted this, the students
agreed after some time that the graphs intersected in this point. Once they had reached this
conclusion, the teacher took control. He abruptly broke off the discussion by stating that the
answer was correct, even though the question how it could be checked whether the answer
was correct had not been answered.
Another episode in the same lesson gives another example of how the teacher tried to
stimulate an exploratory use of the graphic calculator, but reverted to giving directions at the
end. Given the situation in Figure 1, he started the discussion by asking the students to trace
Dirk J. Hoek

266
the graphs of the functions: y =
2
and y =
4
, and to explain what happened. The following
protocol shows the interaction that developed.

Teacher Can you trace the graphs of the function of: y = x
2
and y = x
4
. Please tell me
what happens.
J Between the x-values of zero and one, it is just the other way around.
Teacher What is just the other way around?
J Raising to a higher power results in a graph that is lower.
Teacher How is that when the value of x is greater than one?
P The higher the power the higher the function.
Teacher Can somebody explain this?
J They intersect, so they have to change position.
Teacher (to L:) Is that a good reason?
L I dont think so. I can see that the numbers are smaller.
Teacher What do you mean by that?
L I have asked for a table and I saw that the numbers are smaller.
Teacher Yes, but why?
L I do not know.
Teacher Take for instance x = 2 for both functions (y = x
2
and y = x
4
). Then take x =
0.5. How much is that?
J y = 2
2
, that is 4 and y = 2
4
, that is 2*2*2*2, that is 16.
B y = 0,5
2
, that is 0,25 and y = 0,5
4
, that is 0,5*0,5*0,5*0,5, that is 0,0625.
Teacher Yes, that means .?
R The higher the power the lower the graph, between zero and one.
Teacher Okay, does everybody understand this?
All Yeah.

This protocol is another example of how the teacher tried to stimulate student thinking
and reflecting. Most students seemed to agree that raising to a higher power implies a higher
situated graph. As a consequence, it was accepted that the graph of the function y =
4
was
always plotted above the graph of the function y =
2
. In this whole-class discussion the
teacher challenged his students to discuss this idea. During this discussion, students used the
graphic calculator to represent, to check and to investigate mathematical concepts. The
teacher initiated exploration and reflection by asking the students what they saw on the
screen.
The teacher asked his students to trace the graphs. While the students were tracing the
graphs one of the students (student J) remarked that between 0 and 1, it is the other way
around. Asked by the teacher to clarify what he meant by this remark, student J explained
that the positions of the graphs changed. At this point, the teacher challenged the students to
give an explanation. Student J responded that the graphs intersected, hence they had to change
position. Apparently, the teacher was not satisfied with this explanation, asking the class
whether they agreed that this was a good explanation. Student L remarked that the numbers
were smaller. Again the teacher asked him what he meant. Student L reacted by saying that he
had the graphic calculator display a table. This table showed that the numbers are smaller
between 0 and 1. At this point, the teacher took control. He asked the students to calculate the
value for y given different values for x. Apparently, he assumed that this should be enough
for students to accept this as an explanation.

267
A gradual change in teacher behavior could be seen in the protocols that were collected in
the second half of the school year. They seemed to be more able to orchestrate whole class
discussions. They interrupted lesser the whole class discussions to secure results. This
change can be illustrated by a protocol that was taken from a lesson, in the last part of the
school year. Students were working on a chapter about exponential function (y = an
). At the
beginning of this chapter the same teacher as above organized a whole-class discussion to
discuss the properties of exponential functions. In the former lesson, the class had been
working to find out the formula that described the growth of the amount of plants in a small
pond when this amount doubles each day (y = 2
). At the start of the observed lesson, the

teacher recapitulated this information. The students then continued with the problem where
they had to calculate at what point in time the amount of plants would match exactly 100.

Teacher Do you have any idea how this problem can be solved?
B The formula is y = 2
?
Teacher Yes I have written it on the blackboard.
S We have to calculate when y becomes 100. After how many days are there 100
plants in the pond?
L Yes.
To I have calculated how many plants there will be on each consecutive day. After 6
days there are that is 64, after 7 days there are 128 plants.
Teacher How did you calculate that T?
To I have calculated that by doing for instance 2
5
and it gave 32. So I tried then 2
6
, it
gave 64 and then 2
7
, this gave 128.
Teacher What can we conclude from this?
J After seven days there are 100 plants.
Teacher Does everybody agree with his conclusion?
R No, because after 7 days there are 128 plants in the pond.
To It must be between 6 and 7 days.
A I have plotted the graph of the function and I have traced the graph. I think that
after 6.6 days there are 100 plants in the pond.
H Are you sure about that? How can you check your answer?
To You can calculate how much 2
6.6
is. That is a little more than 97. So his answer is
not correct.
R I have asked for a table, starting from x = 6.6 and with steps of 0.01 and I see that
y is almost 100 when x is 6.64.
H Is that a correct answer?
D Let me check: 2
6.64
= 99.7. This is almost 100. So it must be a little bit more.
Ba I have zoomed in and I think it is between 6.64 and 6.6645 days.
Teacher Has somebody solved this differently?

In this protocol the teacher avoided giving direct answers. He sometimes directed
the discussion. Asking questions such as whether everybody agreed with the conclusion
of student J (after 7 days there were 100 plant in the pond), he challenged the students
to solve the problem. In the final part of the protocol the teacher asked whether
somebody had used another strategy. Implicitly he seemed to agree with the given
answer.
The first two fragments were characteristic for the situation at the beginning of the
school year. These fragments are representative for the beginning of the school year.
While working through the data of whole class discussions we encountered this kind of
Dirk J. Hoek

268
behavior quite often. While re-working again through the data, it seemed to be a pattern
of both teachers. Confronted with this we went through the data to check if this pattern
changed during the school year. This turned to be the case. The used protocols show
only some snap shots of what happened during some lessons. These prot ocols show
how the teachers tried to stimulate students to solve a problem together, to help each
other and to bring in new ideas. However, at some point the teacher tended to revert to
instructional control. This instructional behavior was in line with student expectations
about the teachers role. Students expected the teacher to decide whether the problem
had been solved correctly and to explain to the students why that was so. Gradually,
teachers behavior changed. The retrospective analyses showed that the teachers
increasingly tried to avoid to give direct answers and leave it to the students to discuss
solutions and to infer conclusions from the discussions.
We paid attention to this, because whole class discussions modeled the discussions
during small group work. During the small group discussions the teacher is not always
available to use as a rich resource. Especially, during small group interaction students
have to learn to rely on each other. Consequently, the teacher should give less content
related feedback during whole class discussions.
Analyses of the observational data showed that teachers did challenge students to
give explanations, but their behavior was not always consistent. They were inclined to
interrupt discussions in order to secure results and give direct explanations and
instruction. Once again, we interpreted this hindrance, as the outcome of expectations
and obligations perceived by teachers and students. Teachers were still reluctant to
hand over control and by giving direct instruction. Teachers wanted to be sure that
students would come to a conclusion at the end of the discussion. There was a tension
between researchers, teachers and students interests. The researchers considered this
teacher behavior as ineffective and argued that it supported neither students reflection
nor exploratory use of the graphic calculator, and, for certain, not collaborative work.
The teachers themselves wanted to be sure that all students would reach specific levels
of understanding, and felt therefore an urge to control this by imposing specific
conclusions, reverting to directed instruction. They also often answered students
questions as this was also seen as a way to control their progress. It was planned to try
to orchestrate whole-class discussions in such a way that no conclusion would be
imposed, but where students would be able to make sensible inferences, as we
conjectured that this would stimulate reflection, discussion and collaboration.

Graphic Calculator and Collaborative Work

As a next step data will be discussed that were collected while students were working
collaboratively in small groups. Analysis showed two important changes in the participating
classrooms. A first change concerned the coaching style of the teachers. At the start, teachers
were aimed at giving content related feedback to individual students. In this feedback, they
often stressed the correctness of specific answers. Gradually, this changed into more process-
oriented feedback. A second change was how the graphic calculator was used during small
group work. In the beginning of the school year students mainly used the graphic calculator to
calculate specific outcome values. Gradually, students learned to use the graphic calculator to

269
support discussions, to clarify ideas, to illustrate solutions, and to investigate mathematical
phenomena. They used the graphic calculator to show, explain and to check things (cf.
Dekker & Elshout-Mohr, 1998).
The following protocols show how the teacher intervened while students were working
together. The situation is characteristic for how coaching was enacted by the teachers at the
beginning of the school year. Students were working on the problem that is given in Figure 2.
The task was developed as an introduction to the power-of-ten-scale. The task was to make a
collage that represents these numbers ordered on a power-of-ten-scale.

Collect in newspapers, magazines, encyclopedias, for instance articles, reports or graphs (at least
five per person) in which there are very big or very small numbers. The subject it deals about is
not important.
Design per group a collage of the gathered cuttings. Put these cuttings in order of the numbers,
you start with the cuttings with the smallest number and finish with the cuttings with the biggest
number. Write the number of every cutting as a power of ten. When you design the collage keep
some spare space in the middle of it. In this space draw a horizontal power-of-ten scale. Project
the numbers of the cuttings on this scale.
Write the numbers of the cuttings in the engineering and scientific notation.
Figure 2. Power-of ten-task
The students spent two lessons on this problem. The first lesson was spent on designing
the collage. At the beginning of the second lesson students face the problem of converting the
normal notation into engineering notation. They discussed this point to reach agreement
on what they had to do to solve this problem.

E This is the engineering notation, is it?
Teacher That is the engineering notation, but rounded off. You have to discuss how
you want to round it off
H Three.
M This for example is 2400.
Teacher No, no, you have to discuss how you want to round it off.
H Three decimals.
E Oh, now I understand, you can enter the number and in this mode you can
choose how you want to round off in the engineering notation.
M When I enter 2390, I get 2.399 K.
E This is how I have to enter it?
Teacher Yes.
E I have to enter it like this?
Teacher Yes.

The protocol is characteristic of how the teachers coached their students while they used
the graphic calculator at the beginning of the school year during small group work. In this
example, student E was working individually with his graphic calculator to convert the
normal notation into the engineering notation. At some point, he did not understand the
output on the graphic calculator display. He asked the teacher for help without consulting his
group members. The above protocols illustrate how the teacher reacted by giving feedback to
individual students on whether the answer was correct or not. Especially, at the beginning of
the school year when students are using the graphic calculator, they use it individually. Their
Dirk J. Hoek

270
teachers support this kind of use, because when students asked them for help, they gave
content related feedback to the individual working student(s). This teacher behavior changed
during the school year.
Discussions about this kind of teachers behavior changed the use of the graphic
calculator during small group work. Even when students are using the graphic calculator
collaboratively, things can go wrong. After a few weeks of the lessons of the above protocol
students of our first teachers are using the graphic calculator during small group work. The
group is working on a problem while the teacher did not intervene. Students were working on
the problem how to convert numbers into scientific notation (write down 12 mV in scientific
notation). The observer is visiting another group. The camera registrates their interaction. The
next interaction develops.

M Write down the next with the scientific notation. (Reads aloud).
What is the scientific notation?
C I just told you: you can put your graphic calculator on SCI.
E So, this is the scientific notation?
M Yes.
E The E means ten to the power .
M Yes.
E Ten powered to one, that is the same as E. You understand?
M A charge U of 12 millivolt.
C Yes, we have to write this in SCI .....
E What is SCI? Let me have a look.
M 1,2 .. 1,20 E volt.
C 12 multiplied with 10
1
.
E 12 millivolt, how much is 0,012 volt?
C Yes, you have to write down how many multiplied with 10
1
.
E If you enter 12, you get 12 10
1
.
C Yes, that is correct.

This protocol shows how the students used the graphic calculator to get an answer to the
sub-problem. One of the students, M, started to read the problem. The students used the
graphic calculator to get an answer to the sub-problem. Student C knew that it was possible to
use the mode function of the graphic calculator to determine the scientific notation. Student E
explained that 12 E must be read as 12 10
1
. When student M wrote this down in his exercise
book as 12 mV = 1,2 E Volt, student E remarked that 12-millivolt is 0,012 volt. However,
the meaning of milli was not taken into account. The students literally copied the output on
their displays into their exercise notes. During this protocol students help each other to solve
this problem. They are focused on what the display represents. They take the output for
granted and do not reflect on what it represents. This kind of behavior we encountered during
observations often. Students were working with the graphic calculator collaboratively and
focusing on what the display represented. They, however, do not reflect on what the output
meant. They might not able to reflect because the teachers until that moment focused during
his instruction on collaborative use of the graphic calculator. Researchers also show that
reflecting on an answer is difficult to achieve when students lack cognitive capacities
(Artigue, 1997).
The observation of these first lessons showed that students mainly used the graphic
calculator to get computational results, and that the tool was not used to support further

271
problem solving activities. Furthermore, teachers were not effective in supporting a more
investigative use of the graphic calculator, as they mainly gave content related and technical
feedback to individual students. Our interpretation, supported by the discussions with the
teachers, was that teachers felt responsible to give this kind of feedback to individual
students. However, teachers understood the argument that this was not effective as they
experienced that they were forced to repeat explanations of identical problems. To alter this
behavior, we planned with the teachers that they would redirect the questions to the group,
challenging students to discuss their problems among themselves, instead of asking the
teacher. Our conjecture was that this would lead to less repetition and better discussions
during collaborative work.
In the next lessons, we observed that, gradually, teachers managed to orchestrate whole-
class discussions in such a way that students were able to infer themselves whether a
conclusion was right or wrong. The teachers guided the discussion asking whether or not
everybody agreed with a certain conclusion, and they challenged students to show different
solutions or applied strategies. Moreover, they stimulated students to discuss solutions by
giving suggestions, and posing challenging questions. The teachers interrupted discussions
less frequently to secure results, and, while handling students questions, they increasingly
avoided giving direct answers. We interpreted these changes in the teacher behavior as
showing that teachers had appropriated a supportive style (coaching vs. directing) for whole-
class discussions. We hoped that this would constitute a model for the interactions within the
small groups work.
Throughout the lessons in which the teachers were changing their instructional approach
during whole class discussion, we observed their coaching style in relation to collaborative
working. Observational data showed that teachers kept giving individual, content related
feedback during groups work and that students still avoided collaboration. Our interpretation
was that it was difficult for teachers to transfer what they had apprehended from whole-class
instructional activities to the coaching of group work. We argued that this kind of behavior
was ineffective as it inhibited collaborative work and exploratory use of the graphic
calculator. Consequently, it was planned to adapt their behavior towards the group work.
Teachers no longer would give answers to individual questions, but would redirect these to
the small group members. Teachers were also asked to actively interfere during collaborative
work by asking the students questions about how they were solving a problem, and by posing
challenging questions. They also agreed to ask suggestions about how to further investigate a
problem. They would try to change from instructor to coach: instead of giving content related
direct feedback, the teachers would try to give process-oriented feedback. We conjectured
that this would stimulate reflection, as well as discussion and collaboration within the groups.
During the school year our teachers changed their coaching. They were more able to
guide the students by scaffolding their instructions. As a result their education became more
students oriented. This might be that, gradually, collaborative problem solving and integration
of the graphic calculator during small group discussions improved. To illustrate what changed
in the small group discussions we skip to the end of the school year. We take two
representative protocols from lessons at the end of the school year. One of the mayor changes
we encountered during our observations and our analysis is the change in coaching style
during small group work. At the beginning of the school year teachers were mainly focused to
give feedback to an individual student about the content or about how to use the graphic
calculator. During this school year there were discussions about this behavior with the
Dirk J. Hoek

272
teachers. Gradually they changed their coaching style from giving feedback to individual
students to giving feedback to the whole small group. Another change in their coaching style
was that they redirected questions to the group. Implicitly the group became the resource to
turn to instead of the teacher. The next protocol illustrates what our second teacher did when
one of the students working in a small group on the problem that is given in Figure 3.
As Figure 3 shows students have to comment on what student J (in the problems) states.
The students have to find out if student J is right or wrong and what is right or wrong. While
the students are discussing about the problem, they have decided that they have to do. In the
meantime, the teacher has been listening to the group discussion. One of the students wants to
know if they are right about what they have to check and asks the teacher for help. In the next
protocol is shown how the interaction develops from the moment the students asks the teacher
for help.

In chapter 4 you worked on tasks about exponential relations. All these relations can be written
with the function: y = a x
n
, a is the proportional quantity. In this case the n is a negative power.
During a whole-class discussion the graphs of the following functions are drawn: y=x
-1
, y=x
-2
,
y=x
-3
, y=x
-4
.
Below you see the input of the window screen on the left and on the right the graphs of the
functions above are drawn.

Just below you see a very short fragment of the whole-class discussion.
Teacher J what do you see and think when you look at those graphs?
J The higher the power the steeper the graphs. So, the most left graph has the highest
power. Further to the right this graph stays below the other ones.
You have to investigate if J is right. To do this it is advised to use your graphic calculator.

It is expected that you together as group make a clear, systematic report. I, the teacher have to
understand what you have been doing to find out if Janneke was right or wrong. I want to get an
explanation why you think she is right or wrong.
Figure 3. Power function task
B Sir, do we have to check three things: the steepness of the graph, the position of the
graphs to one and other, and we have to look what happens further to the right?
Teacher If you think that you have to check that and your group agrees with you. You have
to think about how you can check it.
B By zooming in.
Teacher You have to discuss this together.


273
The students have been discussing about the tasks. They seem to have decided what they
have to check. Student B asks their teacher to confirm whether he understood the task
correctly. In contrast to the beginning of the school year, the teacher redirects his question by
saying that he has to discuss this with his group-members. After this the students discuss the
task for a while again and start to find a solution.The protocol illustrates how the teachers
coaching has changed during the school year. By re-directing the question to the group he
challenged the group to think about the problem and to discuss it together. Implicitly, he
stimulates the small group discussion. It starts the re-discussing about the problem and how to
solve this problem.
The changes in the coaching style of the teachers might also have contributed to the
change of the use of the graphic calculator. At the beginning of the school year this tool was
mainly used at an individual bases, even during small group work. Gradually, the students
used this tool during their discussions to illustrate, to explain and to investigate things. We
encountered this change in behavior during our observations and latter during our
retrospective analyses. We use the next protocol to illustrate how students were using the
graphic calculator during small group discussions at the last part of the school year. After the
teacher has left the group, the students have determined what they have to check. As a start
they have drawn the graph as they are represented in the problem (see Figure 3). Now, they
are discussing about which graph represents which function and which one was steeper.

B These are the graphs in the figure? (Shows his display to the other group
members).
C Yes, but I dont know which graph represents which function.
E How can we determine which one represents which function?
B It is simple the first graph that is plotted represents to the first function on
your input display.
M When you use the trace function you can see on which graph you are.
E Oh yeah, I see. Oh this is the graph of y= x
-2
(see shows her displays and
points at a graph).
M I think that the lower the power the steeper the graph of the function.
E What do they mean by steeper? I dont understand that.
M Look here it declines faster and here it becomes flat.
E So, you think the higher the power the steeper the graph?
M Here this graph is steeper than that one (she points first to y=x
-4
and than to
y=x
-2
). So the higher the power the steeper the graph.
C This one is the first (y=x
-1
).
M Yes, that is right. So the higher the power the steeper the graph.
C No, it is further in negative. This one is y=x
-1
and that one is y=x
-4
.
M Yes, when the power is minus four the graph is steeper than when the power
is minus one.
C Yes, that is correct. Minus four is smaller than minus one. So, it must be the
lower the power the steeper the graph.
M Oh, yes you are right.

Students discuss with each other how they can determine which graph represents which
function. Student B assumed that the first graph entered would also be plotted first. Another
student, M, said that it was possible to use the trace function (when the trace function was
used the display of the calculator shows in the lower left corner on the screen on which
function the pointer is moving). During this first part of the discussion the graphic calculator
Dirk J. Hoek

274
is not directly used in the discussing. This tool, however, plays a role in the students
discussion: they discuss about how this tool can be used to determine which graph represents
which function.
After this short discussion student C and student M discussed which graph was steeper.
During this discussion the tool is used to analyze, to explain. For instance student M and
student C frequently show their display and point to the graphs. At the end of the protocol
student C uses the graphic calculator to explain a mistake of student M.
In the next lessons, we observed that teachers started redirecting questions to the group,
giving feedback on how students worked together and stimulating discussions about how the
graphic calculator could be used during collaborative problem solving. Additionally, teachers
also instigated discussions about the output of the graphic calculator by asking students what
it represented in the context of the problem they were trying to solve. Our interpretation was
that the teachers coaching style during group work also changed, from content and individual
related, to more process and group-oriented feedback. Gradually, group members started to
ask each other for help. In the final quarter of the school year, students discussed the
problems more intensely to decide on how they wanted to solve the problems. In addition,
students frequently used the graphic calculator during their work in order to illustrate, to
explain and to investigate. The changes induced in the teacher behavior generated changes in
the learning ecology, which in led to changes in students behavior.

A Synthesis of Our Experiment

The design experiment had the duration of a whole school year. We can discern a number
of cycles that evolved along the same pattern we have described in the methodology section.
Observations of the first lessons showed that students mainly used the graphic calculator
to get computational results, and that the tool was not used to support further problem solving
activities. Furthermore, teachers were not effective in supporting a more investigative use of
the graphic calculator, as they mainly gave content related and technical feedback to
individual students.
As a next step it was agreed that the teachers would redirect questions. This redirection of
questions turned out to be difficult for teachers. Observational data showed that teachers tried
to keep control of the progress of the students work, responding to individual questions,
rejecting students suggestions, and correcting their mistakes. At the same time, students also
showed that they expected teachers to answer their questions and claimed explanations.
Therefore, it was planned that teachers would observe students during collaborative
work, reflect on the students errors and misconceptions, and try to make this subject of a
whole-class discussion. Here, a student-initiated model that is known as the Sherpa student
in the work of Guin and Trouche (1999) was introduced. However, this student-initiated
model didnt turn out to be effective. We observed that the students had difficulties to put the
groups discussion into his/her own words, and frequently skipped this phase. In addition,
peers often interrupted the student and, as a result, teachers frequently broke off the
discussion in order to take control. This discussion model was abandoned after a few
lessons.
Instead we introduced a teacher-initiated discussion model. The teacher would keep
control over the whole-class discussion and was, therefore, in a better position to model the

275
effectiveness of specific collaborative activities. Analyses of the observational data showed
that teachers did challenge students to give explanations, but their behavior was not always
consistent. They were inclined to interrupt discussions in order to secure results and give
direct explanations and instruction.
In the next lessons, the teachers gradually managed to orchestrate whole-class discussions
in such a way that students were able to infer themselves whether a conclusion was right or
wrong.
Throughout the lessons in which the teachers were changing their instructional approach
during whole class discussion, we observed their coaching style in relation to collaborative
working. During these lessons teachers kept giving individual, content related feedback
during groups work and that students still avoided collaboration. Consequently, it was
planned to adapt their behavior towards the group work. In the next lessons, we observed that
teachers started redirecting questions to the group, giving feedback on how students worked
together and stimulating discussions about how the graphic calculator could be used during
collaborative problem solving. Additionally, teachers also instigated discussions about the
output of the graphic calculator by asking students what it represented in the context of the
problem they were trying to solve.

Retrospective Analysis

This analysis is the result of a retrospective, systematic and thorough analysis of the
entire data set, collected during the experiment. The analysis approach we used is a variant of
Glaser and Strausss (1967) constant comparative method (see also Cobb & Whitenack,
1996). Basically, one first works through the data chronologically, episode by episode, testing
at each point de current conjectures against the next episode, and eventually refuting them. As
a result of this first round of data analysis, one establishes a set of conjectures and refutations
tied to specific episodes, providing an overview of the experiment. In a second round, as one
meta-analyzes that set of conjectures, confirmations, and refutations, particular moments
come to the fore as being pivotal in the context of the analysis. These pivotal moments are the
main result of the retrospective analysis. The major outcome of the retrospective analysis of
this study is a strategy for intervention in a learning ecology, constituted by four key
elements.
First, the teachers willingness to experiment with new forms of instruction and
interaction patterns. This is important since this researcher-induced change must be based on
a didactical contract between teacher and coach (the researcher), where goals and
responsibilities are shared, and where the intervention is seen as a mutual endeavor. In fact,
this offers an opportunity for a process of trial and improvement, where it is possible for the
coach to indicate directions to the intended means of interacting and offer suggestions for
progression.
Another key element is the acknowledgement of a resistance to change, which could be
found at the start of the project in the didactical contract between the teachers and the
students, and the need for a proper response to it. This resistance results from believes and
expectations of both teacher and students. The former feels obligated/responsible to explain
or even literally tell the students how they have to solve the problems, as well as interrupt
discussions and give individual content related feedback in order to monitor students
Dirk J. Hoek

276
progress. Students, on the other hand, expect or even demand that teachers answer their
questions and help them overcome their difficulties. This study proved, however, that this
resistance gradually evaporates when evidence is given to the teachers of the consequences of
their behavior on the students conduct and experiments with alternative behavior are started.
In this design experiment, teachers were confronted with observational data where they could
see how students kept asking for help, as well as kept working individually while using the
graphical calculator in a very instrumental manner. The teachers could, therefore, undertake
the arguments for the intended change.
The design experiment has also provided evidence that it is most effective to start the
intervention by fostering changes in the teacher behavior and the correspondent interaction
pattern during whole-class discussions. In this way, subsequent changes in the way students
and teacher interact during group work can be addressed more easily. In fact, the changes
accomplished during the whole-class discussions function as a model for changes in the
interaction patterns within small groups. On the one hand, it works as a model for the students
since they experience how the graphic calculator can be used in an investigative and
exploratory way. They get familiar with a different interaction pattern, which they might then
also use within the local learning ecology of their group. On the other hand, it also constitutes
a model for the teachers, since the coach can refer back to their experiences with the whole-
class discussions, in order to convince them even easier of the need of the intended changes.
Finally, another important element of this intervention approach is the cyclic process of
trial and improvement. As the experiment is going on, teachers gradually experience positive
changes in the students working style, which help to convince them of the successful effects
of the changes of their own behavior. In short, the positive changes the teachers experience in
their class during this cyclic process help promoting further changes.

CONCLUSION

We started by observing that many early studies on the influence of the graphic calculator
on students achievement and attitude failed to give insight in the relationship between
learning ecology and tool use. We also drew attention to the study of Doerr and Zangor
(2000) who did analyze and characterize an effective learning ecology in relation to the
students tool use, and the goals of reform mathematics education. With the study reported
here, we try to contribute to the next step, by developing some insight in how such a learning
ecology can be developed.
The main purpose of our study was to understand how one can help teachers in
developing a learning ecology where students work collaboratively in small groups using the
graphic calculator in an explorative and investigative way, and where the teacher has a
coaching role. We explored how this change in the learning ecology could be achieved by
fostering consecutive changes in the teachers behavior, based on the idea that the teacher has
a decisive influence on the development of the social and socio-math norms in the classroom
(Cobb et al., 2001; Yackel & Cobb, 1996).
The major outcome of this study is a model of intervention characterized by a cyclic and
iterative process based on the following points of departure. First, establish an adequate
didactical contract between teacher and coach (researcher), in which goals and responsibilities

277
are shared and where the experiment is seen as a common endeavor. Second, be aware of the
existence of a probable resistance to change as a consequence of the teachers and students
believes about their roles and obligations, and one should, therefore, look for observational
data that offer arguments for change. Third, start by changing the teachers role within whole-
class discussions, as this may function as a model for changes within the groups work.
Finally, make sure that the teachers experience success, this helps fostering further changes in
the teacher behavior.
The cycle that governs this iterative process is to some extent similar to Simons (1995)
mathematical teaching cycle, but includes some extra steps as there is the extra layer of the
researcher who coaches the teacher. The cycle starts with observations of the classroom
teaching practices and student participation. These are interpreted in order to understand those
processes. Based on those interpretations, researchers look for arguments that convince
teachers to change their practices. Based on that, a plan is made with the teachers for the next
lesson(s). Next, the conjectures about the expected changes in the teachers behavior and in
the learning ecology form the basis for the observations in the subsequent cycle
2
.
As a final note, we want to remark that we do not claim that what occurred in these
classrooms will replicate in precisely the same ways in other classrooms. Instead, coaches
who want to support teachers in such processes will continually have to adjust their plans on
the basis of assessments of what is going on in the classrooms. We do claim, however, that
what is learned in these design experiments can effectively be used to support similar
processes of teacher change.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The study reported in this article was supported by NWO, the Dutch National Science
Foundation, under grant no. 575-36-003D. The opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect
the views of the Foundation.

REFERENCES

Artigue, M. (2002). Learning mathematics in a CAS environment: the genesis of a reflection
about instrumentation and the dialectics between technical and conceptual work.
International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 7, 245274.
Berger, M. (1998). Graphic calculators: an interpretative framework. For the Learning of
Mathematics,18, 13-20.
Berry, J., Graham, J., & Smith, A. (2006). Observing student working styles when using
graphic calculators to solve mathematics problems. International Journal of
Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 37, 291308.

2
At first sight Simons (2000) label teacher development experiment might be used to describe this process, but a
closer inspection suggests that he preserves this term for teacher development that takes place in an
educational setting outside the teachers own classroom.
Dirk J. Hoek

278
Cobb, P. & Whitenack, J.W. (1996). A method for conducting longitudinal analyses of
classroom videorecordings and transcripts. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 30,
213-228.
Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design Experiments in
Educational Research. Educational Researcher, 32, 9-13.
Cobb, P., Stephan, M., McClain, K., & Gravemeijer, K. (2001). Participating in classroom
mathematical practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10, 113-163.
Dekker, R. & Elshout-Mohr, M. (1998a). A process model for interaction and mathematical
level raising. Educational Studies of Mathematics, 35, 303-314.
Doerr, H.M. & Zangor, R. (2000). Creating Meaning for and with the Graphing Calculator.
Educational Studies in Mathematics, 41, 143-163.
Dunham, P.H. & Dick, T.P. (1994). Research on graphing calculators. Mathematics Teacher,
87, 440-445.
Ellington, A. J. (2003). A meta-analysis of the effects of calculator on students achievement
and attitude levels in precollege mathematics classes. Journal for Research in
Mathematics Education, 34, 433-463.
Glaser, B. & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Strategies for qualitative
research, qualitative research. Chicago, CA: Aldine.
Goris, T. & Van der Kooij, H. (1997-2000). Twin wiskunde, volumes 1, 2, 3 and 4, Leiden,
The Netherlands: SMD.
Gravemeijer K. & Doorman, M. (1999). Context problems in realistic mathematics education:
a calculus course as an example. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 39, 111-129.
Gravemeijer, K. (1998). Developmental Research as a Research Method. In J. Kilpatrick, &
A. Sierpinska (Eds.), Mathematics Education as a Research Domain: A Search for
Identity (An ICMI Study book 2) (pp. 277-295). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer
Academic Publishers.
Guin, D. & Trouche, L. (1999). The complex process of converting tools into mathematical
instruments: the case of calculator. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical
Learning, 3, 195-227.
Hiebert, J., Carpenter, T.P., Fennema, E., Fuson, K., Wearne, D., Murray, H., Olivier, A., &
Human, P. (1997). Making Sense: Teaching and Learning Mathematics with
Understanding. Heinemann, Portsmouth, NH.
Hoek, D. J., Terwel, J., & van den Eeden, P. (1999). The effects of integrated social and
cognitive strategies instruction on the mathematics achievement in secondary education.
Kaartinen, S. & Kumpulainen, K. (2002). Collaborative inquiry and the construction of
explanations in the learning of science. Learning and Instruction, 12, 189-212.
Lim, C.P. (2002). A theoretical framework for the study of ICT in schools: a proposal. British
Journal of Educational Technology, 33, 411-421.
Meira, L. (1995). Mediation by tools in the mathematics classroom. In L. Meira, & D.
Carraher (Eds.), Proceedings of the 19th Annual Conference of the International Groups
for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Vol. 1 (pp 102-111). Colombus, OH:
ERIC Clearinghouse.
Meira, L. (1998). Making sense of instructional devices: The emergence of transparency in
mathematical activity. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29, 121142.

279
Penglase, M. & Arnold, S. (1996). The graphics calculator in mathematics education: a
critical review of recent research. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 8, 58-90.
Roth, W. M. & McGinn, M. K. (1997). Graphing: cognitive ability or practice? Science
Education 81, 91-106.
Ruthven, K. (1992). Personal technology and classroom change: a British perspective. In J.T.
Fey, & C.R. Hirsch (Eds.), Calculators in Mathematics Education: 1992 yearbook (pp.
91-100). Reston, VA: NCTM.
Ruthven, K. (1996). Calculators in the mathematics curriculum: The scope of personal
computational technology. In A.J. Bishop, K. Clements, & C. Keitel (Eds.), International
Handbook of Mathematics Education (pp. 435- 468). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic
Publishers.
Salomon, G. (1993). On the nature of pedagogic computer tools: the case of writing partner.
In S. P. Lajoie, & Derry, S. J. (Eds.), Computers as Cognitive Tools (289 - 317).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1985). Mathematical problem solving. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1992). Learning to think mathematically: problem solving, meta-
cognition, and sense making in mathematics. In D.A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of
research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 165-197). New York: MacMillan.
Simon, M.A. (1995). Reconstructing mathematics pedagogy from a constructivist perspective.
Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 26, 114-45.
Treffers, A. (1993). Wiskobas and Freudenthal: Realistic mathematics education. Educational
Studies in Mathematics, 25, 89-108.
Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M. (2003). The didactical use of models in realistic mathematics
education: an example from a longitudinal trajectory on percentage. Educational Studies
in Mathematics, 54, 9-35.
Yackel, E. & Cobb, P. (1996). Sociomathematical norms, argumentation, and autonomy in
mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27, 458-477.

Chapter 10

TYPES OF INTERACTIONS IN SCIENCE MUSEUM
CLASS VISITS

Yael Bamberger
School of Education, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI

ABSTRACT

Exhibitions in science museums stimulate conversations and collaborative learning
in different ways. This chapter describes a research method that aims to analyze various
types of interactions in relation to these exhibits. Since the museum setting is strongly
socio-culturally mediated, the theoretical framework is based on socio-cultural theory,
which emphasizes social interactions and stresses the importance of cultural symbols as
essential elements in meaning-making. Types of interactions can describe the
collaborative learning in class visits to museums, and defined here as: individual,
collective and multiple zones of interaction. The zones are centered on a single exhibit
that encourages interpersonal or intrapersonal interaction. The individual zone occurs
when only one student manipulates the exhibit; the collective zone occurs when two or
more students share their experience regarding the exhibit; and multiple zone describes a
situation in which two or more separate zones occur at the same time and both are
centered on the same exhibit. Since learning in museums is mainly interest-driven, this
method further characterizes the collaborative learning within the three zones of
interaction through evaluation of expressions of curiosity. These expressions of curiosity
are manifested in technical, emotional and intellectual ways. In order to elucidate the
implementation of the suggested method to study interactions at museums, this chapter
presents a study utilizing the framework to evaluate class visits to a science center. Two
class visits of eighth graders were observed and videotaped, focusing on student-student
and student-adult interactions. The framework suggested in this chapter enables an
innovative method for investigating exhibits-centered collaborative learning involving the
different types of interactions in science museums.

Yael Bamberger

282
INTRODUCTION

Collaborative learning has long been a riveting area for researchers and educators. The
process of learning through collaboration is difficult to decipher: what is happening in that
process that impacts each participant? The importance of collaboration in learning has been
known for thousands of years. For example, the sages of the Talmud, the rabbinic literature
written over 1,500 years ago, emphasized the importance of learning through collaborating.
They compared the need of peers to collaborate to the process of sharpening a knife, saying
that a knife could be sharpened only by its peer (Genesis Rabba 69:2). This analogy presents
a radical opinion which claims that meaning-making could be obtained only by collaboration.
Recent scholarship has provided evidence that learning by collaboration is a useful conduit
for conceptual change and improving achievements (Baron, 2003; Roschelle, 1992; Stacy,
1999). On the socio-cultural theory based on meaning-making through collaboration, Lev
Vygotsky (1978) emphasized the social nature of learning that occurs in a cultural context.
Vygotsky asserted that social interactions and cultural symbols provide essential
opportunities for learning. The adult takes the role of mediating knowledge in social and
cultural contexts, and group members also play a role in the knowledge construction of each
member of the group.
The museum setting is rich in cultural symbols that provide opportunities for learning.
Some exhibits present impressive cultural achievements, while others present phenomena
considered by the culture as important to share with the public for enrichment and education.
Moreover, usually in museums, adults take the role of mediating knowledge (Falk &
Dierking, 1992; Rennie, Feher, Dierking, & Falk, 2003). This adult could be a parent in a
family visit, a teacher in students class visit, or one of the museums educators. Several
studies have investigated conversations and collaborative learning in museums from the
socio-cultural perspective (Allen, 2002; Ash, 2003; Gilbert & Priest, 1997; Leinhardt &
Knutson, 2004; Tunnicliffe, Lucas & Osborne, 1997). Significantly, collaborative learning is
considered to be one of the important outcomes of the museum visit by visitors, including
students, in both the short and the long term (Bamberger & Tal, 2008a, b; Falk et al., 2006).
Yet, collaborative learning in museums is highly connected to the physical context (Falk
& Dierking, 2000). In general, interactions cannot be separated from the place in which they
occur (Kendon, 1990; Scheflen & Ashcroft, 1976); this is especially true in museums.
Museum interactions occur in a socio-cultural context situated within a physical context: the
exhibitions. The exhibits are designed to enhance manipulation and conversations (Ciolfi &
Bannon, 2002; Koran, Morrison, Lehman, Koran & Gandara, 1984; Rounds, 2004), and
therefore, encourage interpersonal and intrapersonal interactions. Hence, the place of the
interaction is tremendously important in the museum, as both a trigger and a subject of
interaction.
The study presented here focuses on interactions in a science museum, using the physical
context as the means to explain and identify types of interactions centered on exhibits. The
research method described here may be used to better understand interactions that occur
during class visits to a science museum, and to gain understanding about different learning
opportunities within the exhibits.

Types of Interactions in Science Museum Class Visits

283
METHOD

Research Context

The study was carried out in the National Museum of Science, Technology and Space,
the largest science center in Israel. Although there are some differences between science
centers and museums, the institute is referred to here as a museum, after Falk and Dierking
(2000, p. xi). Thousands of classes visit the museum each year, having a tour guided by the
museums staff.
This research is part of a larger study investigating learning in museums (Bamberger &
Tal, 2007, 2008a,b, 2009) in which tens of class visits were observed and videotaped. Two
class visits of eighth graders (ages 13.514.5) from the larger study were randomly selected
for this analysis. The class visits of interest will be referred to in this chapter as Visit A and
Visit B. Visit A consisted of 30 students from a public school, which draws students from
several communities in its region, while the 22 students in Visit B were from a town public
school. Both schools were allocated in the north of the country and the classes were mixed
gender. The visits were divided into two parts: a guided visit to the interactive exhibition, and
an inquiry activity held in the laboratories of the educational center of the museum. This
study deals only with interactions that occurred during the interactive exhibition, since the
inquiry activities were more similar to classroom-based learning, and did not reflect the
museums unique environment.

The Structure of the Visit

Each class arrived at the museum with one or two accompanying teachers. At the
entrance to the museum they met a member of the museums staff, who will be referred to
here as a guide (Tal, Bamberger & Morag, 2005), who led the group during the whole visit
in the exhibition wing. The guides are primarily temporary employees who are science and
engineering undergraduate students. The two observed visits began with a guide-directed tour
of three exhibition halls: mirrors, darkness and aviation (described below). In each hall, the
guide explained to the whole group the scientific phenomena or principles related to one or
two exhibits, and then allowed free exploration. In each hall, the guide's explanation took 10
15 minutes, and the time dedicated for free exploration was 1520 minutes. During free
exploration, the guide and the teacher(s) were available to the students.

The Exhibition

The exhibition wing of the science center is located in the historical building of the
Technion, Israel Institute of Technology, built in the 1920s as a University campus. As such,
the building is composed of separate halls. Each hall holds a different exhibition, and contains
mainly hands-on elements that are connected to a specific scientific subject such as energy,
optics, aviation, chemistry, and computers. Participating students visited three exhibitions:
Yael Bamberger

284
The 'mirror, horror' hall presents scientific phenomena related to optics and vision. This
hall contains a range of large mirrors allowing visitors to explore mirror images, and a
number of hands-on exhibits that deal with vision, perception, light and colors. A small
theatre located in the exhibit hall provides a space for visitors to listen to and observe as a
guide explains and demonstrates optical illusions.

The dark hall presents scientific phenomena related to light, photography and
electrostatics. There is an absolute darkness in the room, and the only light sources are within
the exhibits. An exhibit of spotlights in three colorsred, green and blueenables visitors to
explore different colors of shadows by turning the lights on and off; a plasma sphere enables
visitors to get a sense of electrical conductivity; convex and concave lenses placed near a
light source enable visitors to explore light refraction. Visitors can inspect a semi-pervious
mirror, look through a camera obscura, comprehend the impact of the density of materials on
their other characteristics, and more.

The aviation hall presents exhibits related to aviation such as a hot-air balloon, a mini
remote pilot-less vehicle (MRPV) that captures photos of visitors' real-time activities while
they are in the hall, and an air pipe that enables visitors to explore the aircraft's rudders.

Data Collection

The two visits were observed and videotaped by the author, knowing that the use of only
one camera limited the numbers of interactions that could be captured simultaneously. In
addition, the teachers who accompanied the students were interviewed by telephone the
evening following the visit in order to understand the connection of the visit to the students
school science curriculum and the teachers role in school.

Data Analysis

Units for the analysis of the observations were defined according to the significant
event framework suggested by Doris Ash (2004). Ashs framework recognizes
significant events as having recognizable beginning and end centered on one particular
exhibit. The beginning of an event is a gathering of a small group of students around an
exhibit and the ending is the dispersal of the group. In addition, an event sustained
conversation that contains dialogs and interactions (verbal or physical), different
sources of knowledge transfer (from the exhibit, sub-title, peers, museum staff or
teacher), and several kinds of strategies (including activating an exhibit, questioning,
advising, and conversing).
Each significant event was analyzed by its zones of interaction. Shepardson and
Britsch (2006) defined a zone of interaction as: A distinct area distinguished by a
spatial and temporal boundary that separates it from the surrounding peer interaction
(p.450). The authors described three zones of interaction between a teacher and
students in classroom: individual, collective and multiple. In order to fit this
framework, which takes into account the space of the interaction, into the museum

285
setting, the three zones of interaction must be centered on a single exhibit that
encourages interpersonal or intrapersonal interaction. An individual zone occurs when
only one student manipulates the exhibit; a collective zone occurs when two or more
students share their experience regarding the exhibit; and a multiple zone describes a
situation in which two or more separate zones centered on the same exhibit occur at the
same time.
Figure 1 is a graphical representation for the zones of interaction among students in
an interactive exhibition, while 'E' denotes the exhibit and 'S' the student. For example,
in Figure 1a, student S1 operates the exhibit, while student S2 observes and does not
interact with student S1. In Figure 1b, student S1 operates the exhibit, while students
S1-S3 interact and discuss about the exhibit. Figure 1c presents a situation when
student S1 operates the exhibit and interacts with student S2, while students S3 and S4
interact between themselves regarding the same exhibit E.
When an adult, teacher or museum guide, was involved in an interaction, the zones
were defined according to the students, denoted by 'T' for teacher and 'G' for guide. For
example, if the adult was speaking only with the student who operated the exhibit, the
zone was defined as individual. In cases that the adult was interacting with more than
one student, or when the adult and the group of students shared the experience together,
the zones were defined as collective. When two or more separate zones occurred at
the same time, the event was classified as multiple.
In aim to characterize the type of interaction in the three zones, different
expressions of curiosity have been defined. Curiosity well characterizes the unique
nature of learning in museums, since the collaborative learning in museums is mainly
interest-driven. Csikszentmihalyi and Hermanson (1995) defined curiosity in museums
as: Individual differences in the likelihood of investing psychic energy in novel
stimuli (p.68). These scholars indicated three types of opportunities for involvement in
the museum: sensorial, emotional and intellectual. Based on this idea, three types of
expressions of curiosity are defined for this study. A technical expression stands for
investigating an exhibit by pressing buttons, touching, and conversing about technical
issues, such as how to manipulate the exhibit; an emotional expression describes an
emotive response, such as laughing, expressing excitement or disgust; and an
intellectual expression describes curiosity expressed by conversing about how the
exhibit works and about the scientific phenomenon and concepts embodied in the
exhibit.

Figure 1. Graphic representation of zones of interaction
E=Exhibit; S=Student

S1 S2 S3

E

b) Collective zone

S1 S2 S3

E S4

c) Multiple zone

S1 S2

E

a) Individual zone

Yael Bamberger

286
Table 1. Teachers participating in interactions

Teacher
Number of
events
T1 3
T2 8
T3 3

Table 2. Emotional and intellectual expressions of curiosity

Expression of
curiosity
Zone of
interaction
Exhibit* (times) Events
with an
adult
Events
without an
adult
Total
Emotional Individual Bernoulli effect, Mask 2 0 2
Collective Bernoulli effect (2), MRPV
(2), Floating ball (2),
Plasma sphere (5), Semi-
pervious mirror (2),
Phosphorescent wall,
Convex and concave
mirrors (2), Two vertical
mirrors
2 15 17
Multiple Plasma sphere (2), Pitching,
yawing and rolling
3 0 3
Intellectual Individual Hot-air balloon, Plasma
sphere, Leading edge of the
wing, Conversion of
motion, Bernoulli effect,
Convex and concave lenses
(2), Two parallel mirrors
8 0 8
Collective MRPV (3), Plasma sphere 0 4 4
Multiple Plasma sphere (3), A
projected slide - no screen
1 3 4
* For exhibits' description see appendix C

The observed interactions in the museum were analyzed by the suggested method
described above. All the significant events were analyzed by the two dimensions: zones of
interactions and expressions of curiosity. Typically, each event contains several zones of
interaction and expressions of curiosity.
In order to establish reliable classification, three researchers analyzed the events. Each
significant event was classified by two of the three researchers, and cases of disagreement
were discussed and resolved between them.
In addition, the teacher interviews were analyzed for further information regarding the
teachers role in school and the connection of the visit to the students school science
curriculum. The data regarding the teachers role in school was important for understanding
her relationships and interactions with the students. The information about the connection of
the visit to the school science was essential for understanding students conversations about
the scientific phenomena that were exhibited in the museum.

287
FINDINGS

In both visits the teachers indicated no connection between the visited exhibitions and the
school science curriculum. In addition, none of the subjects of the visited exhibitions optics,
electrostatics and aviation - exist in the 8
th
grade curriculum and under. Hence, it could be
assumed that the students had had no formal education regarding these topics.
Overall, 49 significant events were analyzed: 22 events of visit A and 27 events of visit B
(detailed in appendices A and B). In visit A, less than quarter of the events included an adult
(the teacher and/or the guide), while in visit B more than half of the events were of adult-
student interactions.
Table 1 presents the number of events in which the teachers interacted with the students.
The teacher that accompanied class visit A (T1) was the science teacher of the class. In visit
B, the two chaperon teachers were science teachers, but only one of them (T2) was the
science teacher of the observed class. The other teacher (T3) was the science department head
of that school but did not teach the class at the time of the visit.
Although both teachers T1 and T2 were the class science teachers, each interacted
differently with her students. Teacher T2 was much more involved with the students and
presumably more engaged in her students learning.
Most of the exhibits evoked technical expressions of curiosity in all the zones of interactions,
since this expression of curiosity is basic for operating interactive exhibits. Emotional and
intellectual expressions were found to be in several zones of interaction, depends on the exhibits.
Table 2 presents the distribution of events in the emotional and intellectual expressions of
curiosity. A short description of the exhibits mentioned in Table 2 appears in appendix C.
In almost half of the events (22 out of 49), emotional expressions were involved. The
emotional expressions were the most common in the collective zone, in events without an
adult (15 events). It seems that the students preferred to share their emotions with peers and
not necessarily with the teacher or the guide. The adult present when the emotional
expression occurred in all the zones of interaction, but this influence was minimal (7 events in
all zones). The exhibits that evoked the emotional expressions were mainly the plasma sphere
(7), all types of mirrors (5), and the Bernoulli Effect exhibit (3). The common characteristic
of those exhibits is the kinesthetic experience as part of the exhibited phenomena.
As for the intellectual expressions, in more than half of the events (9 out of 16), an adult
was involved. However, the adult, the teacher or the guide made an impact mainly in the
individual zone and not in the other zones. It seems that the adults tended to discuss the
scientific ideas that were exhibited with individual students, and not with groups of students.
In addition, in the shared zones, collective and multiple, the students tended to share their
intellectual expressions among themselves, with no intervention of an adult (7 out of 8
events). Though, most of the intellectual expressions of curiosity centered two exhibits: the
plasma sphere (5) and the MRPV - Mini Remote Pilot-less Vehicle (3). The next sections
describe these exhibits and examples for interactions centered them.

Yael Bamberger

288
Plasma Sphere Interaction

The plasma sphere, shown in Figure 2, contains a small amount of gas at low pressure
that is ionized by high voltage applied to the small bar at the bottom of the sphere. The
ionized gas particles move like jet streams in the symmetrical electric field created by the
high voltage. When the student slides his fingers on the sphere, the symmetry of the electric
field is distorted and the ion streams move in trajectories outline by the distorted electric field.
The students feel the sting of conducting electricity on their own body by touching the sphere,
or by touching a friend who touches the sphere.

Figure 2. Plasma sphere
The combination of short pain, fear, and the need for friends to examine the conducting,
evoked several curiosity expressions in all zones of interactions. The common knowledge
about the danger of touching electricity is in conflict in this exhibit, and therefore aroused
some intellectual expressions, mainly between students and the guide. Here is an example of
students-guide interaction centered the plasma sphere.
Three students (S1-S3) explored the plasma sphere while the museums guide joined
them. Table 3 describes the event.
In this event, student S2 turned to the guide with a question about the characteristics of
the exhibit. The question that reflects an intellectual expression of curiosity could lead to a
discussion about the scientific phenomena that were exhibited, such as conductivity, high and
low voltages, grounding and electrocution. The question evoked from the students prior
knowledge about the dangerous aspects of touching electricity. It also might reflect his fear of
touching the sphere. Nevertheless, the guides answer was at a very superficial level, and
reduced the conversation from an intellectual level to a technical one.

Table 3. Students-guide interaction related to the plasma sphere (Visit A, 29:40-30:40)

Step Action Zone of
interaction
Expression
of curiosity
Graphical
representation
Picture
1 S2 (to G, while S2 is touching the plasma sphere
with no fear): Is it dangerous?
G: What?
S2: Is it dangerous?
G: No. Actually, the electricity flows through
your fingers (demonstrates with her fingers)

Individual Intellectual
S1 S2 S3
E
G

2 (S1 and S3 touch the sphere, S1-S3 screaming
and laughing)

Collective Emotional
S1 S2 S3
E
G

3 G (to S2): Do you think that we would put it here
if it was dangerous?! (G leaves the exhibit)

Multiple Technical
S1 S2 S3
E
G

G=Guide; E=Exhibit; S=Student

S 1
S 2
S 3
S 1
S 2
S 3
S
S 1
S 3
G
2
G
G
G

Table 4. Students interactions related to the MRPV (Visit A, 06:48-07:26)

Step Action Zone of
interaction
Expression of
curiosity
Graphical representation Picture
1 (S1 is operating the exhibit
while looking at the screen
which shows the picture of S5)
S2 (to S5): Look up! (S5 is
looking up, searching what to
look at)

Multiple Technical
S2 S1 S3 S4

E

S5*

2 S4: Where is the camera?
(S1, S2, S3, S4 are looking up,
searching for the camera that
takes the picture that they see on
the screen)
S1 and S3: Here it is (pointing
up at the camera)

Collective Intellectual
S1 S2 S3 S4

E

3 (S2 is trying to operate the
exhibit but S1 is pushing her
hand and continuing to operate
the exhibit)

Collective Technical
S1 S2 S3 S4

E

*S5 unseen in the picture

Table 4. (Continued)
Step Action Zone of
interaction
Expression of
curiosity
Graphical representation Picture
4 S4 (to S5): Wave your hand!
S1 (to S5): Move there (S6, who
joined the group, and S1 are
pointing at the direction)
S1 (to S5): Stay there
S2 (to S5): Look up (S2 is trying
again to operate the exhibit. S6
leaves the exhibit)
S1 (to S5): Wave your hand!

Collective Technical
S6 S1 S2 S3 S4

E

S5*

5 (S1, S2, S3, S4 and S7, who
joined the group, laughing while
they are looking at the picture of
S5 on the screen)

Collective Emotional
S7 S1 S2 S3 S4

E

E=Exhibit; S=Student
Yael Bamberger

292
Mini Remote Pilot-Less Vehicle (MRPV) Interaction

The MRPV at the aviation hall films visitors' real-time activities while they are in the
hall. The picture is seen on a screen next to the joysticks that control the camera. This exhibit
encouraged the students to film their friends, and the need of collaboration for operating the
exhibit causes interactions in shared zones. Here is an example of students interactions
centered the MRPV (more information about the exhibit appears in appendix C).
A small group of students (S1-S4) operated the MRPV that filmed another student (S5)
who was exploring the helicopter's rudders on the other side of the hall. Table 4 describes the
event.
The MRPV evoked interactions in the collective zone in several expressions of curiosity:
technical, emotional and intellectual. The need to operate the exhibit by a group of students
encouraged sharing the experience in the collective zone. It evoked discussions regarding the
way it works, by understanding that a camera should be somewhere and emotional
expressions as well.

DISCUSSION

This study describes a method for analyzing social interactions in museums that takes into
account the place in which they occur. Learning in museums is known as context-based. Falk
and Dierking (2000) suggested a contextual model of learning to describe the museum
experience, which is based on ones personal, socio-cultural and physical context. The
framework of zones of interactions enables researchers to study interactions in their physical
contexts, which, in the case of museums, are the exhibits. The method described here points to
inter-connections between the two contexts: the social and the physical. These contexts refer to
totally different elements, since the social context deals with people, and the physical context
deals with objects. However, interactions in museums are actually the combination of the two.
The method also describes the relationship of interactions to technical, emotional and
intellectual forms of curiosity in social settings. Interactions in museums have been studied
from the social perspective (Allen, 2002; Ash, 2003; Gilbert & Priest, 1997; Leinhardt &
Knutson, 2004; Tunnicliffe, Lucas & Osborne, 1997), but types and aspects of curiosity have
not yet been connected to the social setting. Curiosity can be a fertile context for collaborative
learning that might be further studied.
In the Individual zone of interaction, when only one student manipulates the exhibit,
more intellectual (8) than emotional (2) expressions were found. However, in contrast to the
technical expressions of curiosity, the emotional and intellectual expressions can be seen in
this zone only with attendance of an adult. This limitation is a result of the fact that emotions
and intellectual thoughts cannot be observed on an individual student who operates an exhibit.
Moreover, when a student interacted with an adult in this zone, discussions were observed to
be more intellectual than emotional.
The Collective zone of interaction, in which two or more students share their
experience regarding the exhibit, was the most common zone of interaction. This
museum-setting certainly provides opportunities for collaborations, therefore evoking
more emotional (17) than intellectual (4) expressions in the collective zone. This

293
happened mainly without any interference from the teacher or the guide. The emotional
experience is an important component of learning in museums (Hong & Song, 2006;
Koran, Longino & Shafer, 1983; Pedretti, 2002) and influences on long term memory as
well (Dierking & Falk, 1997). Exhibits that drew out emotional expressions of curiosity
in the shared zones (collective and multiple) made a use of the visitors body, like the
plasma sphere and mirrors. This finding supports previous studies that have shown that
exhibits that make use of the human body elicit students engagement more than other
hands-on exhibits (Allen, 2002; Bamberger & Tal, 2008a; Labeau, Gyamfi, Wizevich &
Koster, 2001).
The Multiple zone of interaction describes a situation in which two or more separate
zones occur at the same time and both are centered on the same exhibit. In this zone,
almost the same quantitiess of emotional and intellectual expressions were found, with
and without adults. This could happen, for example, when the teacher talked to an
individual student, and other students joined to listen. Exhibits that elicited intellectual
expressions in the collective and multiple zones were mainly the plasma sphere, and the
MRPV. These exhibits provided the need for peers to operate. Museums may use this
finding to foster collaboration by designing exhibits that cannot be operated by an
individual, and which require cooperation between visitors.
During the two observed class visits, different patterns of teachers involvement were
found. Although two of the teachers were the class science teacher, one of them was
much more involved in interactions than the other one. However, the teachers usually
interacted with individual students, and avoided interacting with groups of students.
Different patterns of teachers role in fieldtrips to museums have been described in recent
studies (Cox-Petersen et al., 2003; Tal & Steiner, 2006), which have shown different
levels of engagement in the students learning. The role of adults, including teachers and
museum guides, in mediating knowledge and is an important component of the socio-
cultural theory (Vygotsky, 1978). Therefore, museum educators and science teachers
should encourage and draw out students group discussions, described here by the
collective and the multiple zones.
The recent call for museums to function as a place for both intellectual and social
experiences (Braudburne, 2001; Pedretti, 2002, 2004) was the foundation of this research,
along with the belief that interactions make a fruitful learning context that must be
fostered (Barron, 2003). The methodology of examining social interactions in their
physical context in museums presented here could be further studied, in the hope that its
implementation will be adapted to improve learning through collaborating in science
museums.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The research reported here was supported by the Israel Foundations Trustees grant. Any
opinions expressed in this work are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those
of the funders.
I thank Clara Cahill for her careful proofreading and useful comments.

Yael Bamberger

294
REFERENCES

Allen, S. (2002). Looking for learning in visitor talk: a methodological exploration. In: G.
Leinhardt, K. Crowley, & K. Knutson (Eds.), Learning conversations in museums (pp.
259-303). NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Ash, D. (2003). Dialogic inquiry in life science conversations of family groups in a museum.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(2), 138-162.
Ash, D. (2004). Reflective scientific sense-making dialogue in two languages: The science in
the dialogue and the dialogue in the science. Science Education, 88(6), 855-884.
Bamberger, Y. & Tal, T. (2007). Learning in a personal context: levels of choice in a free-
choice learning environment in science and natural history museums. Science Education,
91(1), 75-95.
Bamberger, Y. & Tal, T. (2008a). Multiple outcomes of class visits to natural history museums:
the students view. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17(3), 274-284.
Bamberger, Y. & Tal, T. (2008b). An experience for the lifelong journey: the long term effect
of a class visit to a science center. Visitor Studies, 11(2), 198-212.
Bamberger, Y. & Tal, T. (2009). The learning environment of natural history museums:
multiple ways to capture students' views. Learning Environments Research, 12(2). In press.
Barron, B. (2003). When smart groups fail. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(3), 307-359.
Bradburne, J. M. (2001). Charm and chairs: the future of museums in the 21st century.
Journal of Museum Education, 26(3), 3-9.
Ciolfi, L. & Bannon, L. J. (2002). Designing interactive museum exhibits: enhancing visitor
curiosity through augmented artefacts. The Eleventh European Conference on Cognitive
Ergonomics, Catania, Italy, September.
Cox-Petersen, A. M., Marsh, D. D., Kisiel, J. & Melber, L. M. (2003). Investigation of guided
school tours, student learning, and science reform recommendations at a museum of
natural history. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(2), 200-218.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. & Hermanson, K. (1995). Intrinsic motivation in museum: what makes
visitors want to learn. In: J. H. Falk & L. D. Dierking (Eds.), Public institutions for
personal learning: Establishing a research agenda (pp. 67-77). Washington DC:
American Association of Museums.
Dierking, L. D. & Falk, J. H. (1997). School field trips: assessing their long-term impact.
Curator, 40(3), 211218
Falk, J. H. & Dierking, L. D. (1992). The museum experience. Washington, D.C.: Whalesback
Books.
Falk, J. H. & Dierking, L. D. (2000). Learning from museums: visitor experiences and the
making of meaning. Walnut Creek, CA.: AltaMira Press.
Falk, J. H., Dierking, L. D., Scott, C., Rennie, L. J. & Cohen Jones, M. (2006). Investigating
the long-term impact of interactives on visitor learning: An exploratory study.
Proceedings of the annual meeting of the National Association of Research in Science
Teaching, San-Francisco, California.
Gilbert, J. & Priest, M. (1997). Models and discourse: a primary school science class visit to a
museum. Science Education, 81, 749-762.

295
Hong, O. & Song, J. (2006). CoDiLE (Context diagram of learning experience): a case study
of seventh-grade students in science centers. Proceedings of the annual meeting of the
National Association of Research in Science Teaching, San-Francisco, California.
Kendon, Adam. (1990). Conducting Interaction: Patterns of behavior in focused encounters.
Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
Koran, J. J. Jr., Longino, S. J. & Shafer, L. D. (1983). A framework for conceptualizing
research in natural history museums and science centers. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 20(4), 325-339.
Koran, J. J. Jr., Morrison, L., Lehman, J.R., Koran, M.L. & Gandara, L. (1984). Attention and
curiosity in museums. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 21(4), 357-363.
Lebeau, R.B., Gyamfi, P., Wizevich, K. & Koster, E.H. (2001). Supporting and documenting
choice in free-choice science learning environments. In: J. H. Falk (Ed.), Free-choice
science education, how we learn science outside of school. (pp. 133-148). NY: Teachers
College Press.
Leinhardt, G. & Knutson, K. (2004). Listening in on museum conversations. Lanham:
AltaMira press.
Pedretti, E. (2002). T. Kuhn meets T. Rex: critical conversations and new directions in
science centers and science museums. Studies in Science Education, 37, 1-42.
Pedretti, E. (2004). Perspectives on learning through research on critical issues-based science
center exhibitions. Science Education, 88, S34-S47.
Rennie, L. J., Feher, E., Dierking, L. D. & Falk, J. H. (2003). Toward an agenda for
advancing research on science learning in out-of-school settings. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 40(2), 112-120.
Roschelle, J. (1992). Learning by collaborating: convergent conceptual change. Journal of the
learning Sciences, 2(3), 235-276
Rounds, J. (2004). Strategies for the curiosity-driven museum visitor. Curator, 47(4), 389-
412.
Scheflen, A. E. & Ashcroft, N. (1976). Human Territories: how we behave in space-time.
Prentice Hall: Englewood-Cliffs, NJ.
Shepardson, D. P. & Britsch, S. J. (2006). Zones of interaction: Differential access to
elementary science discourse. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43, 443-466
Stacy, E. (1999). Collaborative learning in an online environment. Journal of Distance
Education, 14(2), 14-25.
Tal, T. & Steiner, L. (2006). Patterns of teacher-museum staff relationships: school visits to
the educational center of a science museum. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics
and Technology Education, 6, 25-46.
Tal, R.T., Bamberger, Y. & Morag, O. (2005). Guided school visits to natural history
museums in Israel: Teachers' roles. Science Education, 89(6), 920-935.
Tunnicliffe, S. D., Lucas, A. M. & Osborne, J. F. (1997). School visits to zoos and museums:
a missed educational opportunity? International Journal of Science Education, 19(9),
1039-1056.
Vigotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

APPENDIX A

Significant events: class visit A

Event Duration Place Exhibit Boys Girls Teacher
(T1)
Guide Zone of
interaction
Expression of
curiosity
1 04:09-04:41 Aviation hall Bernoulli effect + Collective Technical
Emotional
2 05:09-05:44 Aviation hall Pitching, yawing and rolling + + + Multiple Technical
Emotional
3 05:49-06:14 Aviation hall Bernoulli effect + + Individual
Collective
Technical
Emotional
4 06:31-06:48 Aviation hall Operating a helicopter + + Collective Technical
5 06:48-07:26 Aviation hall MRPV + + Collective Intellectual
Emotional
Technical
6 07:28-07:49 Aviation hall MRPV + Collective Technical
7 07:49-08:18 Aviation hall Operating a helicopter + Individual
Collective
Technical
8 08:41-08:56 Aviation hall Floating ball + + Individual Technical
9 09:01-09:29 Aviation hall Floating ball + + Collective Technical
Emotional
10 09:31-10:06 Aviation hall Hot-air balloon + + Multiple
Collective
Technical

11 10:29-10:52 Aviation hall MRPV + Multiple
Collective
Individual
Technical
Emotional
Intellectual
12 11:11-11:53 Aviation hall MRPV + + Collective
Individual
Intellectual
Technical
13 12:41-13:03 Aviation hall Hot-air balloon + + + Individual Intellectual
14 21:08-21:30 Dark hall A projected slide - no screen + + Individual
Multiple
Technical
Intellectual

Appendix A (Continued)
(T1)
Guide Zone of
interaction
Expression of
curiosity
15 21:40-21:42 Dark hall Plasma sphere + Collective Emotional
Technical
16 22:02-23:00 Dark hall Plasma sphere + + Collective
Multiple
Technical
Intellectual
17 23:30-23:40 Dark hall Semi-pervious mirror + Collective Emotional
18 25:32-26:15 Dark hall Plasma sphere + + + Collective
Multiple
Technical
19 26:32-26:44 Dark hall Semi-pervious mirror + Collective Technical
20 27:55-28:30 Dark hall Semi-pervious mirror + + Collective
Multiple
Emotional
Technical
21 29:40-30:40 Dark hall Plasma sphere + + + Individual
Multiple
Collective
Intellectual
Emotional
Technical
22 31:34-31:39 Dark hall Hologram + + Individual Technical

APPENDIX B
Significant events: class visit B

(T2)
Guide Zone of interaction Expression of
curiosity
1 07:37-07:42 'Mirror, horror' hall Size and distance + + Individual Technical
2 08:32-08:41 'Mirror, horror' hall Moving image + Individual
Collective
Technical
3 08-51-09:22 'Mirror, horror' hall Two vertical mirrors + + + Individual
Collective
Emotional
Technical
4 10:00-10:19 'Mirror, horror' hall Convex and concave mirrors + + Collective Emotional
5 12:01-12:08 'Mirror, horror' hall Convex and concave mirrors + Collective Emotional

Appendix B (Continued)
(T2)
Guide Zone of interaction Expression of
curiosity
6 12:06-12:16 'Mirror, horror' hall Two parallel mirrors + + + Individual Technical
7 12:23-12:42 'Mirror, horror' hall Perspective picture + + + Multiple Technical
8 13:35-13:56 'Mirror, horror' hall Two parallel mirrors + + Individual Technical
9 14:08-14:18 'Mirror, horror' hall Two parallel mirrors + + Individual Intellectual
10 24:57-25:07 Dark hall Plasma sphere + + Multiple Intellectual
Technical
11 25:28-25:40 Dark hall The blue color of the sky + + Individual Technical
12 27:07-28:23 Dark hall Plasma sphere + + Collective

Technical
Emotional
Intellectual
13 28:56-29:19 Dark hall Air balls in different densities + + Individual Technical
14 30:00-30:30 Dark hall Phosphorescent wall + + Collective Technical
Emotional
15 30:32-31:29 Dark hall Convex and concave lenses + + Individual Intellectual
16 31:35-32:42 Dark hall Convex and concave lenses + + + Individual

Intellectual
17 33:16-34:07 Dark hall Mask + + + Individual

Technical
Emotional
18 37:07-37:55 Dark hall Plasma sphere + + Individual
Collective
Emotional
Technical
19 38:26-39:54 Dark hall Plasma sphere + + T3 + Multiple
Collective
Technical
Emotional
Intellectual
20 39:54-40:24 Dark hall Plasma sphere + + + T3 Multiple Technical
Emotional
21 50:13-51:12 Aviation hall Bernoulli effect + + Individual

Technical
Intellectual
22 51:31-51:57 Aviation hall Floating ball + + Individual
Collective
Technical
Emotional
23 52:45-53:07 Aviation hall Leading edge of the wing + + Individual Intellectual

24 53:07-53:14 Aviation hall Leading edge of the wing + + T3 Individual Technical
25 54:15-54:54 Aviation hall Bernoulli effect + + Individual Intellectual
Emotional
26 01:16:29-
01:16:53
Leonardo exhibition Conversion of motion + + Individual Intellectual
27 01:20:23-
01:20:36
passageway Melody wheel + + Individual Technical

APPENDIX C
Exhibits description

Exhibit Description
A projected slide no screen A picture projected on a wheel. The visitor turns the wheel by means of a handle, as fast as he can. Each spoke of
the wheel is a narrow screen for the projected picture. The fast rotation of the wheel causes a continuous stimulation
of the retina of the eye and an impression of the whole picture is created.
Bernoulli effect Two spheres are located on an orbit. The visitor activates the blower, sends a stream of air in between the spheres
and tries to make them touch. Since the pressure between the spheres decreases as compared to that in the ambient
air, they 'push' towards one another.
Conversion of motion Device to convert linear motion to rotary motion. The visitor moves a linear handle that operate a cog-wheel
Convex and concave lenses A table with parallel rays and set of concave and convex lenses. The visitor places the lenses in the rays and sees
the refraction of light.
Convex and concave mirrors Contains three mirrors on the wall: a concave, a convex and a combined mirror. The visitor stands in front of the
mirrors and sees his reflected images
Floating ball A ball that tends to stay at the center of an air stream, where, according to Bernoulli's law, the pressure is the lowest.
The visitor can try to pull the floating ball out of the air stream, tilt the air stream slowly and see that the ball is still
floating.
Hot-air balloon Hot air ballon floats in the air in the center of the room.
Leading edge of the wing Four objects: sphere, cylinder, conus up and conus down are located in air pipes. The visitor can operate the blowers
and see which object rises faster and higher and hence, has a better aerodynamic structure.

Appendix C (Continued)
Exhibit Description
Mask A concave mask of a clown hangs in the corner of the room. The visitor's brain interprets the image on the basis of
previous knowledge and perceives the exhibit as an ordinary mask.
MRPV Mini Remote Pilot-less Vehicle (MRPV) that films visitors' real-time activities while they are in the hall. The
picture is seen on a screen next to the joysticks that control the camera. The visitor controls the camera with the
joysticks and films other visitors in the hall.
Phosphorescent wall A wall which is coated with phosphorescent material. This material absorbs light and emits it afterwards. The visitor
can see his shadow on the wall few seconds after the flash turns off..
Pitching, yawing and rolling An aircraft in an air pipe. By moving handles, the visitor can pitch, yaw and roll the aircraft.
Plasma sphere This exhibit contains a small amount of gas at low pressure which is ionized by a high voltage applied to the small
bar at the bottom of the sphere. The ionized gas particles move like jet streams in the symmetrical electric field
created by the high voltage. When the visitor slides his fingers along the sphere, the symmetry of the electric field is
distorted and the ion streams move in trajectories outlined by the distorted electric field. The visitor can get a sense
of electrical conductivity by touching the sphere or by touching another visitor who touches the sphere.
Semi-pervious mirror A glass plant that is not fully transparent. As long as the backside of the plate is dark, it acts as a mirror reflecting
the visitor's image. When the lever is pulled, the intensity of the light behind the plate is higher than that in the front
of it, the light quantity passing the plate and penetraiting the visitor's eye is greater than the quantity striking the eye
by reflection. The image created by the reflected light is blurred and the visitor's figure in the mirror disappears,
while the skeleton behind the plate is seen.
Two parallel mirrors Contains two parallel mirror walls, two meter height. The visitor walks between the mirrors and see her images
reflected continually.
Two vertical mirrors Contains two vertical mirror walls, from the flour, two meter height. The visitor can stand in front of the mirrors and
see her reflected images.


Chapter 11

SUPPORTING COLLABORATIVE LEARNING
BY USING WEB 2.0 TOOLS

Qiyun Wang
1
*
and Huay Lit Woo
1

1
Learning Sciences and Technologies Academic Group, National Institute of Education,
Nanyang Technological University, 1 Nanyang Walk, Singapore 637616

ABSTRACT

The ability to collaborate is becoming more and more important in todays world in
which tasks are getting more and more interdisciplinary and complicated to accomplish.
It is therefore essential to prepare students on collaborative tasks while they are in
schools so that they can become competent team workers when they enter the workforce.
This chapter presents a theoretical foundation of Computer Supported Collaborative
Learning (CSCL) and uses related examples to illustrate how various web 2.0 tools can
be used to support collaborative learning. There are three parts in the theoretical
foundation: first, the two important pillars of CSCL (individual accountability and
positive interdependence); second, the three levels of collaboration (coordination,
cooperation and reflective communication) and last, the social constructivist learning
theory. The web 2.0 tools presented in this chapter include Weblog, Wiki, Google Docs,
Yahoo group, and Facebook. The affordances of these tools for collaborative learning
together with examples of using the tools to support teachers and students in
collaborative learning processes are also described.

INTRODUCTION

Collaboration is an essential competency in the current knowledge society. In the new
information age, work becomes more knowledge-based, interdisciplinary and complicated. It
is difficult for an individual to complete a sophisticated task without the help of others. The

*
Corresponding Authors: Tel: +65 6790 3267 Fax: +65 6896 8038, Email: Qiyun.wang@nie.edu.sg,
Huaylit.woo@nie.edu.sg
Qiyun Wang

and Huay Lit Woo

302
ability to work collaboratively hence becomes highly valued in the present workplace
(Barron, 2000). Collaborative learning has the promise of active construction of knowledge,
enhanced problem articulation and promotion for social interaction (cf. Haythornthwaite,
2006). It has also demonstrated better learning outcomes than individual work in numerous
studies (e.g. Barron, 2000; Lipponen, Hakkarainen, & Paavola, 2004; Neo, 2003). With these
advantages, it is therefore crucial to prepare students to work collaboratively while they are in
schools. This chapter presents the concept, the dimensions of collaboration called pillars, the
levels of collaboration and critical issues of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning
(CSCL). This chapter also provides a description of how web 2.0 tools can support
collaborative learning. The web 2.0 tools presented in this chapter include Weblog, Wiki,
Google Docs, Yahoo group and Facebook.

COLLABORATIVE LEARNING

CSCL is an emerging field of research that focuses on how collaborative learning using
technology can enhance peer interaction and group collaboration. It also explains how
technology-based collaboration can help facilitate the sharing and distributing of knowledge
among community members (Lipponen, Hakkarainen, & Paavola, 2004).

Pillars of Collaboration

CSCL consists of two pillars of collaboration: Individual Accountability and Positive
Interdependence. Individual Accountability is the measurement of the contribution of each
member who has helped to achieve the groups overall goals (Johnson, Johnson, & Holubec,
1998). Ideally, each individual is supposed to play a certain role in a group and make equal or
fair contributions to the entire group. The individual is made to be accountable for his or her
own share of the work. Research suggests that individual accountability becomes prominent
only when the performance of individual is assessed and the benefits are returned to the
group. To measure individual accountability, one of the possible ways is to use peer
evaluation (Vuorinen, Tarkka, & Meretoja, 2000).
Positive interdependence refers to how tightly group members can depend on each other
to accomplish a task in a collaborative learning environment. Members interdependence is a
determining factor to the success of the group. In a positively interdependent learning
environment, one cannot succeed unless all members succeed; they either sink or swim
together (Johnson, Johnson, & Holubec, 1998). Research suggests that positive
interdependence can be achieved by fostering good working relationship among group
members and this is usually done through off-task environments rather than during on-task
activities (Kreijns & Kirschner, 2004; Rovai, 2001).
Learning, by itself, is a highly interactive and dynamic process let alone learning in a
collaborative manner. To make collaborative learning effective, one has to monitor closely
how students learn in the process and identify immediately any pitfall that could lead to
potential failures. These pitfalls have to be properly diagnosed and corrected readily. To do
this, a teacher has to have a means of keeping track of the students activities and know
Supporting Collaborative Learning by Using Web 2.0 Tools

303
exactly who has contributed and how much he/she has contributed. Very often, teachers tend
to regard work produced by a group as a net result of the groups concerted effort and fail to
award impartially according to individuals contribution. Such practice will not only
encourage students to become freeloaders but also make those who have contributed feel
like being exploited (Paswan & Gollakota, 2004). Therefore, the need to monitor what
students do in the collaborative process and assess their individual performance and
contribution to the group will become very crucial to the effectiveness of a learning process.
Many ICT tools can be used to help monitor the collaborative learning processes. For
instance, the use of Weblogs which enable students to externalize their thoughts in an
ongoing manner has a tracking mechanism to timestamp the posts published on the Web in
a reverse chronological order. Such mechanism allows the teacher to monitor the students
learning progress over a period of time (Fiedler, 2003). Another useful tool for a similar
purpose is to ask students to maintain e-portfolios. An e-portfolio is a collection of a students
work and learning artifacts over a certain period of time. Its main objective is to evaluate
long-term performance (Van Aalst & Chan, 2007).

Levels of Collaboration

Collaboration can happen at three levels: coordination, cooperation and reflective
communication (Engestrm, 1992). At the level of coordination, group members concentrate
on their own tasks, roles and actions. Placing students in a group and telling them to work
together does not guarantee the happening of collaboration (Johnson & Johnson, 1994). It is
critical that the work is sufficiently coordinated among group members so that they can work
towards the same direction and make fair contribution to make the group work successful.
Otherwise, members could indulge in their own preferences and produce disconnected pieces
of work, which are difficult to integrate by simple means.
A good number of ICT tools can be used at this level. For example, students may use
phones, emails, or short messages to communicate and coordinate with one another. They can
also use web-based supporting tools such as bulletin board, shared workspace or workbook to
coordinate their activities (cf. Barron, 2000).
At the level of cooperation, group members focus on a shared problem, trying to find
mutually acceptable ways to conceptualize and solve a problem. In this process, the group
members often need ICT tools to help them work effectively. For instance, they may need to
share resources like word documents or web sites, and hence they need an online storage
space such as FreeDrive (http://www.freedrive.com/ ) or a shared folder that can provide a
common access to all group members to its stored contents. Sometimes group members may
need to put together various ideas during a brainstorming session in an easy to understand
manner, for this they could use a concept mapping tool like Cmap
(http://cmap.ihmc.us/conceptmap.html ). Alternatively, for group members who need a
discussion that is not restricted by space and time, they may use an Asynchronous Online
Discussion (AOD) forum to share ideas and negotiate for solutions.
At the level of reflective communication, group members focus on re-conceptualizing
their understanding in relation to their shared objects and activities (Lipponen, Hakkarainen,
& Paavola, 2004). They reflect on their own and other members contributions to the shared
problem, what they have learned in the learning process, how they work collaboratively and
Qiyun Wang

and Huay Lit Woo

304
how they could improve further the learning process. Group members may use asynchronous
or synchronous tools to reflect or communicate.

SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIVIST LEARNING THEORY

Effective instructional strategies must be based on sound learning theories (Bednar,
Cunningham, Duff, & Perry, 1995). CSCL is an emerging instructional strategy which is
undergird by constructivist learning theories. The basic belief of constructivism is that
knowledge is actively constructed by learners rather than transmitted from the teacher. In
other words, learners are active knowledge constructors rather than passive receivers of
information. Constructivism can be further divided into cognitive constructivism and social
constructivism. They differ by means of learning paradigm (Hirumi, 2002; Liaw, 2004).
Cognitive constructivists believe that learners construct knowledge individually based on
their prior experience and the new information they receive. Knowledge is the result of
accurate internalization and reconstruction of external reality. Social constructivists, on the
other hand, argue that knowledge is the outcome of collaborative construction in a social-
cultural context mediated by discourse (Bielaczyc & Collins, 1999). In other words, learning
is fostered through interactive processes of information sharing, negotiation, and discussion.
Social interaction and communication hence play an important role in the process of
knowledge co-construction.
CSCL can be designed based on either cognitive or social constructivist learning theory
or both. As cognitive constructivists attempt to make learning more relevant, build on student
prior knowledge, post contradiction, and address misconceptions (Brooks, 1990), the design
of CSCL based on cognitive constructivist learning theory can put students in an authentic
learning setting wherein a wealth of learning resources are available to offer students
significant opportunities to explore personal interests and expand on their prior experiences.
Comparatively, social constructivists emphasize human dialogue, interaction, negotiation and
collaboration and so the design of CSCL based on social constructivist learning theory could
provide a safe and friendly community or environment in which students are willing to
communicate with others so that knowledge can be co-constructed meaningfully.
Based on the constructivist learning theories, students are active knowledge constructors,
as such; teachers are no longer a knowledge transmitter but rather facilitators and sometimes,
co-learners and co-participants. Bonk and Kim (1998) list down the following activities a
teacher can carry out in a constructivist learning environment:

modeling to illustrate performance standards and verbalize invisible processes;
coaching to observe and supervise students;
scaffolding to support what students cannot do and gradually remove the support as
they gain more competence;
questioning to request a verbal response from learners;
encouraging student articulation of their reasoning and problem-solving processes.

In addition, the teacher also needs to provide cognitive task structuring, manage
instruction, and use direct instruction to provide further information.

305
WEB 2.0 TOOLS THAT SUPPORT CSCL

Tools that can be used to support CSCL must fulfill the need to provide affordances that
are conducive to collaborative learning. They must have facilities to engage students in group
activities. Most web 2.0 tools possess the above requirements and are useful for learning.
Web 2.0 is the second-generation of web-based tools that enhance sharing, interaction and
collaboration among its users. The first-generation of web technologies (or called web 1.0) is
primarily meant to deliver information from the web server to users. It mainly supports one-
way information delivery only. The web 2.0 technology, however, enables two-way
communication. The users are not only information consumers, but also information
contributors. They can create and upload new information to the web server. Also, they can
modify information published. Web 2.0 web pages such as iGoogle are more likely to be
multimedia programs, in which users can create new tabs, add new objects, or drag-and-drop
objects to any position on a web page. The advent of web 2.0 technology has made many
web-based applications more interactive than before. Weblog, Wiki, Google Docs, Yahoo
groups, and Facebook are representative examples of Web 2.0 tools. The subsequent sections
present how these web 2.0 tools can be effectively used to support collaborative learning.

Weblog

A Weblog is a platform in cyberspace to allow one to publish diaries or journals. In
education, Weblogs can be used by students to write reflections or share resources with
fellow students. It can also be used by teachers to broadcast course announcements, display
courses resources or collect feedback from students (Wang & Woo, 2008a). Therefore,
Weblogs can provide two types of interaction, the student-to-student and teacher-to-student
interactions.
Sometimes it is necessary to create a learning environment that involves both types of
interaction depending on the needs of leaning. For example, in a guided collaborative learning
environment in which students work in groups to accomplish tasks and at the same time
receive constant guidance from the teacher in the form of scaffolding. This would require a
common working space in which both the teacher and students can interact with one another.
This is made possible by using Weblogs in eBlogger (http://www.blogger.com). The group
of students can collectively own an eBlogger blog space but they must authorize the teacher
as an additional author of their blogs so that both the teacher and students can co-publish the
blogs and communicate freely through the use of the comment function in the blog.
Below uses a real classroom example to illustrate how student-student-teacher interaction
could take place in an environment using Weblog as the interactive tool.

A Classroom Example of Using Weblog

A class of student teachers from an elective course of Multimedia Instructional Design
took part in activities which use eBlogger as a collaborative tool. The student teachers were
Qiyun Wang

and Huay Lit Woo

306
second year university students who were pursuing a Diploma in Education in National
Institute of Education (NIE) of Singapore (Wang & Woo, 2008b).
Two strategies were deployed to provide the collaborative learning, they were: group
collaboration and whole class sharing. First, for group collaboration, the class was divided into
groups of two or three students where each group was to work on a final project that aimed at
developing a multimedia-based learning package for use in a primary school setting. During the
project development stage, the group members used the Weblog to share, negotiate and discuss
design ideas with fellow members as well as with the tutor. It is noted that student teachers
benefit from two affordances provided by the Weblog. First, the Weblog affords group
members the opportunity to share resources and ideas conveniently and a means to
communicate easily with each other. Second, it affords the tutor to track the developmental
progress of the group and the members individual contributions. In other words, a Weblog
allows collaboration to take place within a conducive environment and a permanent record of
the collaboration process. Figure 1 shows a screen shot of the groups Weblog.

Figure 1. A groups Weblog for the final project

Next, for class sharing, the purpose is to extend the interaction from groups to the whole
class. This is done by creating a blog-based bulletin board for members of the entire class
to exchange ideas, ask questions and seek help from each other. Each group was asked to put
up their groups Weblog URL in this shared space so that other members of the class could
find out more about what their peers were doing and how they were progressing. The ability
to obtain up-to-date information helps the class to keep in pace with each other and motivate
any straggler to catch up with the rest. The groups were also required to post their final
project proposal to the class shared corner and to invite others for comments and opinions.
The feedback gathered could help them improve on the quality of their projects and detect

307
any conceptual problems which otherwise were difficult to be noted for an individual. Student
teachers were happy with using Weblog for the group collaboration and whole class sharing,
reporting that the Weblog activities helped and facilitated the completion of their final
projects. Figure 2 below shows how each group used the class shared corner to show their
project proposal and collect feedback from the others.

Wiki

A Wiki is a web page or a collection of web pages designed to enable anyone who has
editing rights to modify or co-write a piece of document in an online environment. The Wiki
used in this chapter is PbWiki (http://pbwiki.com ). Unlike the Weblog whose ownership
belongs to the author, the Wiki believes that the whole is more than the sum of the parts
and as such, it allows all authorized members to co-own the Wiki site. A Wiki has another
advantage; it allows volunteering readers to make contribution to the content by requesting
for co-authorship. A famous Wiki site which makes use of such mechanism to develop a
knowledge base is the Wikipedia (http://www.wikipedia.org). Wikipedia is a product of
many peoples contribution to specific areas. What makes Wikipedia very popular is its
ability to attract experts of all fields to come together to co-write a certain topic. Because of
this, Wikipedia is able to present a topic or subject from different perspectives which is why it
is suffixed with the word pedia - a short form of the term encyclopedia.

Figure 2. Use Weblog to show project proposals and collect feedback
Like any other tools, a Wiki is also limited by its constraints. One of these constraints is
that it cannot automatically screen away untrue or unreliable contributions. To get around
with this, human intervention is often required. Fortunately, in education, a Wiki is normally
incorporated in a closed learning environment with a teacher or tutor as a moderator. This is
because in education, accessing to the right information is as crucial as understanding the
Qiyun Wang

and Huay Lit Woo

308
information. Hence, learning is not entirely unguided but always assisted by the scaffolding
of a teacher or tutor. This reduces the possibility of learning improper information.

A Classroom Example of Using Wiki

Presented below is an example of how the Wiki technology was applied to facilitate
group collaborative activities. The Wiki activities described here were attended by a class of
post-graduate student teachers doing a course on Designing effective learning environment.
As part of the course requirements, the student teachers were formed into groups of four. The
groups were instructed to work collaboratively to see how they could modify and improve on
an existing set of rubrics to make it suitable for assessing learning environments. The existing
rubrics consisted of four criterion categories: usability, content, educational value and
vividness. The rubrics were originally designed for assessing the quality of an educational
website, not for a learning environment. So group members had to put on their thinking caps
to find ways to improve the rubrics using their understanding of what constitute a good ICT-
based learning environment. Figure 3 shows a partial screen shot of a groups members
interactivity recorded by the Wiki page.
It records 23 revisions done over a 4-day period. The Wiki also identifies the contributors
and shows the content which the contributors had modified. Figure 4 shows the changes made
by two of the group members on the same day. To extend the interactivity among the learners,
the student teachers were also required to visit other groups Wikis and provide comments
when necessary.

Figure 3. The history page of a groups Wiki


309

Figure 4. Changes made by two group members shown on the Wiki page
A Wiki is not without pitfalls. This is because pedagogically, a Wiki can provide a useful
means for collaborative work to take place. But technically, a Wiki cannot provide
synchronous interaction within the same time frame. This means that a Wiki can only allow
one person at a time to do the editing, any other members trying to co-edit simultaneously
will be denied of the rights for their contribution. In other words, all co-editors of the same
content will have to take turn to write and the turn-taking process is based on the rule of
first-come-first-serve. This implies that a Wiki will need the collaboration to take place
somewhat linearly, but nonetheless, it gives the co-authors longer time for reflection and
lesser chance to be impulsive in their writing. This suggests that perhaps Wiki is a better tool
for reflective learning when pace of learning is not an issue but quality of work is more
crucial.

GOOGLE DOCS

Google Docs is another web-based tool that works similarly with a Wiki. Its address is
http://docs.google.com/. But unlike the Wikis which limit the editing process to one-at-a-
time, a Google Docs can allow several members to co-edit the same document
simultaneously. This is particularly useful for activities that require students input to be
collected instantly.

A Classroom Example of Using Google Docs

Here is an example of how Google Docs can be used in a class to collect students inputs
in real time. In this class, the 24 year-one university student teachers in NIE were tasked to
learn eight pedagogical approaches that can be used to integrate ICT into teaching and
learning. It is almost impossible to achieve such task by individual effort. Hence group effort
Qiyun Wang

and Huay Lit Woo

310
and a proper tool to facilitate the group work were needed. To do this, the student teachers
were divided into eight groups of three where each group was given only one approach to
discuss and learn. Group members could use Internet search to help gather information and
then collectively and collaboratively they had to provide findings in terms of the following:
the focus of the approach, the theories behind the approach, the characteristics of the
approach, the ways the approach is applied in schools and examples to demonstrate how the
approach is applied.
The essence of the activity was to learn by way of Distributed Cognition where the
learning task is distributed among many learners and the findings from each learner are later
shared among the learners (Bell & Winn, 2000). The aim is to learn efficiently by
maximizing resources.
The tool to facilitate the group activity is Google Docs. To use the tool, the tutor had to
prepare beforehand a word document table that formed a two-dimensional matrix with the
rows containing the pedagogical approaches and the columns containing the findings (see
Figure 5). This table was copied to the Google Docs page for all class members to access.
Each class member was issued editor rights prior to the activity.

Figure 5. A Google Doc file for collaborative editing
During the lesson, each group of student teachers logged in to the Google Docs and
opened the table file. Each group then researched on the approach through discussion and
Internet search. They then fill in their findings on the table. The table entry can be done at any
time simultaneously. At the end of the activity, the table was filled and he tutor projected the
table to the whole class. This provides two prongs of learning: first, the tutor uses the
projection to point out possible mistakes and areas of concern; second, the student teachers

311
can continue to make amendment to their findings and view their peers findings from other
groups. Figure 5 shows a screen shot of the Google Docs completed by the class.
Besides allowing users to co-edit a Google Docs document, a Google Docs shares almost
similar properties as the PbWiki. Therefore, a Google Docs is more suitable for activities that
require the students input immediately whereas a PbWiki is good for activities that require
more time for thinking and reflection.

Yahoo Groups

A Yahoo group is a congregation of people of common interests to perform activities in a
common cyberspace such as sharing of ideas, photos and files. It also provides functions like
group announcement and discussion forum. For example, when one member wants to send a
message to all members, he/she needs only to post the message to the specific Yahoo group
he/she belongs to; and the message will automatically be forwarded either via emails or
message posts to all the members. Recipients of the message can reply by the same means,
either email or message post.
Going by the features of what a Yahoo group can afford, a Yahoo group can also be used
to support collaborative learning effectively. One main difference between a Yahoo group
and the other two co-editing tools, the PbWiki and Google Docs, is that a Yahoo group does
not support co-editing of a document but rather it allows only uploading and downloading of
files and other documents. In other words, it supports only document repository. Therefore, to
fully utilize Yahoo group affordances, the activity must be designed on the basis of sharing
and a provision for discussion in order to learn collaboratively.

A Classroom Example of Using a Yahoo Group

Here is an example of how a Yahoo Group was created to facilitate a group of 24 pre-
service student teachers in NIE who were doing their service learning project for an autism
center in Singapore.
This project lasted for a year. The aim of the project is to have the student teachers learn
what service learning is all about through taking part in community works. Such a project
requires good planning and hence they need to have many meetings. Student teachers found
arranging a common time and place for the meetings were difficult and the meetings were
often not productive because members usually complained that they had other commitments
and the meetings were usually ended abruptly. To resolve this problem, the student teachers
created a Yahoo group in the Internet to allow all members to interact with each other without
having to worry about logistic and time schedule issues.
They even invited the group supervisor to join the group as a member so that they could
receive just-in-time guidance. Their interactions include posting suggestions, taking part in
discussion forums to brainstorm for ideas and using online voting function to make decision.
In the whole process, members altogether posted 97 messages, uploaded 12 files, 1 folder, 1
photo album with 10 photos inside, 1 link and initiated 2 sessions of polling. Just in the first
two months, they already posted 69 (=71%) messages. These data show that the members
Qiyun Wang

and Huay Lit Woo

312
indeed used the Yahoo group quite extensively to get their tasks done. Figure 6 shows a
screen capture of the messages posted in the Yahoo group.

Figure 6. A Yahoo Group for project work

Facebook

Facebook is a social networking platform through which users can keep in touch with old
friends, make new friends, share resources such as photos, videos, news and create group
pages to update others on their latest happenings. Compared with the rest of the tools
discussed above, Facebook works in an open environment with the intention to reach out to as
many people as possible. So an invited friend in a Facebook may bring along his/her own
circle of friends which is called friends of friends. So a Facebook can be easily populated
by this mechanism.
Facebook works by first requiring a potential subscriber to apply for a personal account.
The account holder is then free to publish any information on his/her own Facebook. He/she
then invite others to view his/her Facebook by adding the invitees as friends. Once becomes
friends, the information published by the inviter will be able to be viewed by all the friends as
well as the friends of friends. This is one powerful way that Facebook can reach out to a
large body of users.
Facebook can help to establish and maintain immediacy among students and between the
students and the teacher. Here immediacy refers to the psychological closeness between two
partners. Compared to a face-to-face classroom, interaction in an online learning environment
normally lacks the social cues such as gesture, eye contact, and other emotional expressions.
The lacking of these cues can potentially pose challenges to forming rapport and building
good relationship. Facebook, being a social networking tool, provides an alternative way to
increase social cues. For instance, Facebook allows users to upload photos and videos and

313
invite viewers to share their views. The process is equivalent to asking for opinion in a face-
to-face meeting. Facebook also affords users to record a video through a webcam and upload
the video immediately to a Facebook page. The instant capturing of video images is useful for
education when just-in-time information is crucial in the learning process.
One unique feature of Facebook is for individual to self-disclose his/her life style and the
state of doing called profile in Facebook. Such self-disclosure when administered properly
can act as a motivator to lure students into Facebook to sustain the interactivity within the
Facebook community. This is especially so if the self-disclosure involves the teacher.
Research finds that a teachers self-disclosure can help create positive relationship between
the teacher and the students. This positive relationship will in turn help to maintain supportive
class climate. Similarly the self-disclosure of students in Facebook may also help students to
become close friends or help group members to know each other better which translate into
better team bonding and hence better group output.

Figure 7. A screen shot of a Facebook group for a Master course
Other features in a Facebook include using Wall to update friends on ones own
happenings. Items put on ones wall will not be broadcast outward so it retains the privacy to
Qiyun Wang

and Huay Lit Woo

314
only close friends. On the other hand, if the same item is to be sent using Notes, it will be
broadcast to all friends and the item will appear in the friends Facebook home page which
is the first page that each Facebook will see upon logging in. Because of this provision for
choice of recipient, Facebook can be used to address a selected group of students depending
on the teachers choice. Another very useful function in Facebook is Group. Group allows the
owner to form a special group with a specific purpose such as a focus group or a project
group in a school setting. Members in the Group can take part in a discussion forum meant
only exclusively for the group members. The Group also provides a function for sending out
announcement to inform others about a forthcoming event. Therefore, the Group function is
very suitable for close environment interaction.

A Classroom Example of Using a Facebook

Here is an example of how a Facebook group was used to support a group of Master degree
students in an elective course on designing e-learning tools for teaching and training. Five
students were involved in the course. The students meet once a week and the course lasted for
13 weeks. A Facebook group MID822_Jan09 was created to facilitate the group collaborative
learning. Two discussion forums were created within the group page. See Figure 7.
Participants use the discussion forum to share ideas and obtain feedback on their
assignments, course materials and other issues they face during the course of study. The tutor
used the Event function to make announcement for every session and also the instruction for
their class activities. The instruction also includes all necessary learning materials like photos,
videos and links. Students used the Share function located inside the Event page to make
comment with regard to the learning materials and solicit reply from other group members.
As an illustration, the Group was used as a platform to launch elearning activities for the
fourth week because the fourth face-to-face session was cancelled due to a public holiday.
Therefore, the missed session was replaced by a week of elearning activities. The elearning
activities basically consisted of reading tasks and group learning. Students first read a few
articles given by the tutor and then posted a summary together with a reflection on what they
had read on the Wall inside the Event page. They then wrote comments, critiqued their
friends work and replied to queries if need be. The purpose of the activity was to get students
learn with the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) (Slavin, 1997) so as to maximize their
learning potential with the help of peers.

CONCLUSION

The ability to collaborate in a learning process has become an essential competency for
people in the new information age and knowledge society. People must learn and know how
to work with others so that they can together solve complicated and authentic problems
productively. However, simply by putting people together cannot guarantee desirable output
and work harmony. The environment must be conducive for group interaction and the
communication means must be convenient. Certain internet tools and strategies are useful in
this aspect and are known to have facilitated collaborative learning well.

315
The web 2.0 tools introduced in this chapter, that is, Weblog, Wiki, Google Docs, Yahoo
Groups, and Facebook are derived from emerging technologies that have attracted great
attention in recent years. The strengths of these tools are that they support two-way
communication, facilitate interaction and most importantly, they promote authorship
autonomy and accountability. These are great ingredients for making collaborative learning a
success (Wang, 2009). Besides the theoretical foundation discussed in the chapter, the
literature also elaborates the affordances of the tools and provides examples to show how they
have been used in real situations. In all, although web 2.0 tools offer great promise to support
collaborative learning, the true success of their usage lie on the sound pedagogies that were
behind the design of the activities, hence, the tool alone cannot make wonders but the
designers and the users certainly can make a difference.

REFERENCES

Barron, B. (2000). Achieving coordination in collaborative problem-solving groups. The
Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(4), 403-436.
Bednar, A., Cunningham, D. J., Duffy, T. & Perry, D. (1995). Theory in practice: How do we
link? In G. Anglin (Ed.), Instructional technology: Past, present, and future (2
nd
ed., pp.
100-112). Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.
Bell, P. & Winn, W. (2000). Distributed cognitions, by nature and by design. In D.H.
Jonassen, & S. M. Land (Eds), Theoretical foundations of learning environments
(pp. 123-145). NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bielaczyc, C. & Collins, A. (1999). Learning communities in classrooms: A
reconceptualization of educational practice. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional
design theories and model: Vol. II. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Lawrence Associates.
Bonk, C. J. & Kim, K. A. (1998). Extending sociocultural theory to adult learning. In M. C.
Smith and T. Pourchot (Eds.), Adult learning and development: Perspectives from
educational psychology (pp. 67-88). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Brooks, J. (1990). Teachers and students: Constructivists forging new connections.
Educational Leadership, 47(5), 68-71.
Engestrm, Y. (1992). Interactive expertise: Studies in distributed working intelligence
(Research bulletin 83). Helsinki, Finland: University of Helsinki, Department of
education.
Fiedler, S. (2003). Personal webpublishing as a refective conversational tool for self-
organized learning. In T. Burg (Ed.), BlogTalks (pp. 190-216). Vienna, Austria.
Haythornthwaite, C. (2006). Facilitating collaboration in online learning. JALN, 10(1), 7-24.
Hirumi, A. (2002). Student-centered, technology-rich learning environments (SCenTRLE):
Operatonalizing constructivist approaches to teaching and learning. Journal of
Technology and Teacher Education, 10(4), 497-537.
Johnson, D. & Johnson, R. (1994). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive,
and individualistic learning (4th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Johnson, D., Johnson, R. & Holubec, E. (1998). Cooperation in the classroom. Boston: Allyn
& Bacon.
Qiyun Wang

and Huay Lit Woo

316
Kreijns, K. & Kirschner, P. A. (2004). Designing social CSCL environments: Applying
interaction design principles. In J.W. Strijbos, P.A. Kirschner, & R.L. Martens (Eds.),
What we know about CSCL (pp. 221-243). Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Liaw, S. S. (2004). Considerations for developing constructivist web-based learning.
International Journal of Instructional Media, 31(3), 309-321.
Lipponen, L., Hakkarainen, K. & Paavola, S. (2004). Practices and orientations of CSCL. In
J.W. Strijbos, P.A. Kirschner, & R.L. Martens (Eds.), What we know about CSCL (pp.
31-50). Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Neo, M. (2003). Developing a collaborative learning environment using a web-based design.
Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19(4), 462-473.
Paswan, A.K. & Gollakota, K. (2004), Dimensions of peer evaluation, overall satisfaction and
overall evaluation: An investigation in a group task environment. Journal of Education
for Business, 79(4), 225-32.
Rovai, A. P. (2001). Classroom community at a distance: A comparative analysis of two
ALN-based university programs. Internet and Higher Education, 4(2), 105118.
Slavin, R. (1997). Educational psychology: theory and practice. MA: Allyn & Bacon.
van Aalst, J. & Chan, C. K. K. (2007). Student-directed assessment of knowledge building
using electronic portfolios in Knowledge Forum. The Journal of the Learning Sciences,
16(2), 175-220.
Vuorinen, R., Tarkka, M. & Meretoja, R. (2000). Peer evaluation in nurses professional
development: A pilot study to investigate the issues. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 9,
273-281.
Wang, Q. Y. (2009). Editorial. International Journal of Continuing Engineering Education
and Life-long Learning, 19(2/3), 107-111.
Wang, Q. Y. & Woo, H. L (2008a). The affordances of weblogs and discussion forums for
learning: A comparative analysis. Educational Technology, 48(5), 34-38.
Wang, Q. Y. & Woo, H. L (2008b). Affordances and Innovative Uses of Weblogs for
Teaching and Learning. In Kobayashi, R (Ed.), New Educational Technology (pp. 183-
199). NY: Nova Science Publishers.

Chapter 12

USING COLLABORATIVE LEARNING METHODS
TO ENGAGE AND EMPOWER UNDERGRADUATE
STUDENTS IN SCIENCE CLASSROOMS

Neena Grover
*

Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Colorado College,Colorado Springs, CO 80903

ABSTRACT

Much of the traditional science is taught with the idea that students can only begin to
participate in the intellectual work of science only after years of classroom learning,
primarily through lecture-based methods. Experiential learning is relegated to the
laboratory. Thus, it is not a surprise that students equate learning science with memorizing
and regurgitating factual information. To attract students with diverse talents into our fields
we need to rethink the paradigm of teaching and learning science. Science faculty have
access to various pedagogical tools that can facilitate greater interactions among students
and engage them with the material in a meaningful way. When students get involved in
their own learning, the extent of student and faculty engagement with the material increases
significantly. Collaborative work environment inside and outside the classroom increases
the quality of work produced by the students. When classroom learning is coupled with
dissemination of scientific information to the community, it enhances students
commitment and motivation for the work. Whether these students stay in science or not,
they become good ambassadors of science. In this chapter, I will discuss various aspects of
planning and organization necessary for successful implementation of collaborative
learning and provide some examples from my courses with contain various degrees of
collaborative-learning and community engagement.

INTRODUCTION

*
Corresponding Author: Email: NGrover@ColoradoCollege.edu, Phone 719-389-6433 , Fax: 719-389-6182
Neena Grover

318
My teaching career started at a large research university where the introductory general
chemistry class had hundreds of students in a large lecture hall and examinations were given
in a football stadium to prevent cheating. Professor drew on the overhead projector slides and
talked into the microphone. Even in these large classes teachers were beginning to engage
students via techniques such as minute papers, jigsaw method, and more recently, using the
clicker technology (Angelo & Cross, 1993; Aronson & Patnoe, 1997; Mills & Cottell, 1998;
Barkley et al., 2005; Smith et al., 2009). Now I am at a private liberal arts college, where the
class sizes are small and a greater emphasis is placed on student-faculty interactions. These
small classrooms are ideal places to experiment with various teaching pedagogies.
My initial foray into collaborative learning started with the use of in-class group
exercises. They are an effective method to assess what students know or dont know about
the material. These exercises led me to examine how adults learn new information (Collier,
1980; Cross, 1981; Gardner, 1993). This was a beginning of my training on educational and
psychological research on intellectual deveopment and learning (Bloom & Krathwohl, 1956;
Johnson, 1970; Piaget, 1970; Cronbach & Snow, 1977; Snow et al., 1980; Johnson &
Johnson, 1989; Spiro et al., 1992; Anderson, 1993; Bruner, 1996). To my surprise, even the
early research on student learning was not being used in our teaching. Research had clearly
identified the need to incorporate various stages of students intellectual development in our
teaching (Perry, 1998; Magolda, 2000); yet a majority of us continue to teach as if this
information does not exist and we are learning to teach de novo. One recent study by the
Association of American Colleges and Universities shows that increasing student-student
interaction and student-faculty interactions inside and outside the classroom improves student
learning (Kuh, 2008). Among the ten activities that were identified as having a high impact
on student learning were collaborative learning and service learning.
In this era of abundant information, it is important to teach students to identify relevant
information and teach them to utilize it in a meaningful way. We need to provide
opportunities for students to grapple with the messy and complex problems that one
encounters in the real world. These are likely to be more challenging and will be better at
getting their attention. Active and collaborative learning approaches also provide ways to
engage students in small groups that allow them to learn from each other (Bonwell & Eison,
1991; Hertz-Lazarowitz et al., 1992; Davis, 1993; Kadel & Keehner, 1994; McKeachie, 1994;
Johnson et al., 1998). This is neither easy for the students or the teachers but if done well,
motivates students to think creatively, logically, and independently. It develops their self-
confidence while deepening their content knowledge.
This chapter is organized in two sections: In section I, the components essential for
successful implementation of any new collaborative learning methodology are presented. In
section II, specific courses that utilize various degrees of collaborative learning and
community engagement are briefly discussed.

SECTION I: SETTING UP SUCCESSFUL COLLABORATIVE LEARNING

Implementation of collaborative learning requires significant organization and planning.
In order to use collaborative learning effectively various overlapping ideas need to be thought
Using Collaborative Learning Methods to Engage and Empower

319
through to avoid exchanging one unsuccessful method for another. The information in this
section is neither profound nor unique but is a necessary part of changing how we teach.

The Need to Change Science Teaching

In the sciences we traditionally justify transferring facts from the professor to the students
as a necessity to educate the students on the basic vocabulary of the field. This is often
analogized as being similar to introducing students to a new language. Just as motivation to
learn a new language comes from a desire to communicate, students in sciences need to be
provided with opportunities to engage with the ideas. Students are attracted to science due to
its ability to answer the real life questions and want to participate in this process of
understanding the world around them. Biology students taking organic chemistry classes
complain about the lack of connections between organic reactions they are learning and the
biological concepts. By not utilizing the students inherent interest in the large organic
molecules (biomolecules), we lose a valuable opportunity to engage the students. There are
sufficient numbers of questions that are interesting and appropriately complex to allow
students to learn the necessary concepts. The difficulty lies in identifying the right level of
problem for the students so they can engage in problem solving without being overwhelmed.
Currently a majority of us teach in the way we were taught in our classes, which was by
lecturing students on factual information, sprinkled with anecdotes about the people in the
field. It is high time to start teaching all the students in our classes and not just the few that
are going to follow in our footsteps. It is presumptuous to believe that those who leave
science do so because they are incapable of doing the work necessary or lack the intellectual
talent for being successful. It is about time to require that the professors educate themselves
on research on teaching and learning to become effective in their classrooms.

Should You Change Your Teaching?

Before embarking on an exercise of incorporating collaborative learning in our
classrooms, it is important to ask what is it that we are unsatisfied with and how will the new
approach address this particular issue. The professor needs to ask if expecting a different
outcome in student achievement is reasonable given what they know about their own
teaching. Using collaborative methods in the classroom is not for everyone. Knowledge of
our own personality is paramount in determining how we teach. Those who like to control
the classroom are likely to have a challenging time with letting students struggle with the
material. Students will also push the professor to provide the correct answer. Unless the
professor believes that learning is a process and not about one correct answer, collaborative
learning will primarily lead to frustration on part of both the students and the professor. Those
who are convinced that their students are learning all they can in the current format are not
likely to be open to trying collaborative learning and are likely to give up, under sell, or under
appreciate these new approaches. In addition, if the professor thinks that the material should
be memorized then use of any collaborative-learning approach is probably not necessary.
In collaborative learning approaches, the students need to work and problem solve with
each other. In this model of learning, professors have to talk less and students need to talk
more. First and foremost, the professors have to develop listening skills and have to resist
Neena Grover

320
being the expert. Professor has to learn to rephrase, redirect or ask additional questions a
time consuming and tedious process. The role of the professor becomes that of a director
rather than being the all-knowing-being. Faculty who are not patient or do not work well with
their peers are less likely to have the skills necessary to navigate the challenges that arise in
using collaborative learning approaches.

Providing a Rationale

The professor convincing him- or her-self that collaborative learning is worth trying is
not sufficient to make the new approach work in the classroom. One of the most important
aspects of using any new pedagogy requires preparing students for this new mode of learning.
It should be assumed that students would not like any change that moves away from lectures.
Blind faith that students will appreciate the method once they experience it is not sufficient
preparation for using any new approach. A majority our students come to science classrooms
expecting lectures. We have trained them over the years that the teacher is the primary expert
on the material he or she stands in front of the classroom to provide all the key information
that is necessary for them to learn at this stage. Students primary task is to retain sufficient
amount this information and occasionally apply it to a concept that is relatively similar to the
examples provided in the class. This belief is reinforced by our methods of testing and
grading. Unless we believe that our students can truly learn, there is no reason why they
would it is significantly more work for students to think for themselves when the professor
has been happy doing this work for them.
In trying collaborative learning in our classrooms, we are challenging students to try new
ways to learn the material while judging them for the quality of work they produce, which is
understandably stressful. Students can to be convinced to embrace a new approach if all the
additional work they have to do in this format will be rewarded this includes preparation
and participation in the activities being proposed. It is the professors task to convince the
students that the new approach is worth their effort. If the faculty themselves are not
convinced that the approach they are using will enhance student learning, then they are
unlikely to convince the students either. Faculty need to be clear about their own
expectations about the approach and its value to student learning before changing the entire
course to a new method.

Student Preparation for the New Methods of Learning

Using active learning is difficult and students have to be prepared for the work that is
required from them on a regular basis. Students expectations about their own learning are
based on a primarily lecture-based model they are also likely to consider their ability to
regurgitate information as evidence of learning. Students often do not believe that they have
the skills necessary to learn the material without the expert giving them the key bits of
information. As the professor has years of experience, it is only logical for students to expect
to learn from him or her instead of wasting their time with their peers. Working with other
students who are at the same level as them requires a leap of faith that they will not lead each
other astray. The professor has to demonstrate everyday that he or she is carefully monitoring

321
their learning and will ensure that they learn the content. It is important for the professor to
share the research on learning with the students to provide them with sufficient evidence that
the exercises being proposed are based on well-researched methods and have a clear rationale
for improving their learning. Professor should expect skepticism from the students until they
begin to see some evidence of their own learning, the path for which has to be clearly laid out.

Working in Groups

Most active learning approaches require that students work in small groups. Extensive
literature is available on group work (Johnson & Johnson, 1989; Beckman, 1990; Johnson &
Johnson, 1991; Goodsell et al., 1992; Davis, 1993). Appropriate level of guidance should be
provided to the students for working together. When groups work well, students learn from
each other, motivate each other and can keep each other on task. When groups are
dysfunctional, a small number of students do the work and others are disenfranchised.
Several aspects of group work that are often problematic can be managed early with minimal
additional work. Some of the key areas that faculty needs to consider are: to help students
develop effective group rules, to develop methods of equitable work distribution, and to
assess that work is being done by all members. Effective group work has been shown to
improve students learning significantly and is at the heart of collaborative learning.

Developing and Meeting Learning Goals

The professors have to be clear about their own expectations about what qualifies as
learning in their course. The answer to this question should vary from one course to the next.
In addition, the professors have to determine which particular approach will allow students to
learn the material. The success of any new approach lies in careful planning of the course.
Clear student learning goals and expectations have to be established along with formal and
informal assessment of these goals. Students can only develop confidence in a new approach
when they see themselves succeeding. Therefore, benchmarks for success need to be clearly
established and should be explicitly shared with the students (preferably in writing). The first
trial of any new approach is likely to be bumpy and will require back up options. For
example, when I first started using problem-based learning in the biochemistry courses, I had
learning goals for each days exercise. When those goals were not met, I had additional
workshops scheduled in the syllabus. Certain topics that have repeatedly not worked well
in groups have become formalized mini-lectures in the syllabus.

Finding Appropriate Collaborative Learning Activities

Often the lack of availability of decent teaching materials is a big hurdle in changing how
we teach. Textbooks are popular because the authors have organized the teaching material in
a logical and clear fashion, often including the PowerPoint slides for the lectures, and require
minimum additional work from the professor. Now with development of so many
collaborative teaching methods, materials are already available for many different courses,
Neena Grover

322
albeit not as conveniently as a textbook. Even when the new approach requires investment of
time for creating the needed materials, the ability to tailor these materials for each subsequent
course provides greater flexibility and saves time in the long run; in addition, the satisfaction
derived from improvements in student learning makes the efforts worthwhile. Dissemination
of these materials adds to faculty scholarship and provides these materials for others to use.
The number of collaborative learning activities that are available for different science
courses is increasing rapidly partially due to increased federal funding for improving Science,
Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) education. The easiest way to move
towards collaborative learning is to adapt successful approaches already developed by others.
For example, one of the new methods currently being developed is Process Oriented Guided
Inquiry Learning (POGIL) (www.pogil.org). Most of the federally funded activities are
disseminated at the national level with multiple colleagues experimenting with the new
approach; this provides access to a community that is collectively engaged in this process. A
group of individuals working together can troubleshoot and train each other in an effective
manner a collaborative learning model for the faculty themselves.

Using Multiple, Complementary Approaches

Different approaches are needed for teaching different types of material for example,
introductory organic chemistry and introductory biochemistry courses cannot use the same
strategies for teaching. Thus, those trying the new approaches have to find the appropriate
method, the associated material, and possibly a community of people who have tried this
particular technique already. It takes multiple trials to use any method effectively and to
tweak it to fit ones own style.
A collaborative learning environment can be based on a specific method of teaching, such
as problem-based learning or POGIL or can be a combination of various active learning
activities that involves students in small groups. Although some people may start by
changing their teaching completely from lectures to collaborative learning, it is advisable to
slowly add components of collaborative learning activities into the classroom. It is also
important to try different types of activities to determine if one works better than others for a
particular topic or a group of students. I find that problem-based learning is ideal for the
more thematic (HIV/AIDS to learn nucleic acid chemistry) second biochemistry course and a
combination of multiple different approaches is better suited for a collection of topics covered
in the first biochemistry course (proteins, enzymes and metabolism) (Grover, 2004, 2007).

Value-Centered Grading

Students judge what we value based on what they are tested and graded on, regardless of
we say we value. Any activities that we want students to participate in seriously should have
incentives associated with them grades are the single greatest motivator for students. To get
full commitment from students for collaborative work, grades need to be assigned for
preparing for class and participating in everyday work. Both independent and group learning
activities need to included in assigning final grade if students are to take the collaborative

323
work seriously. Details of what I grade and the associated points are provided in the examples
in Section II.

Providing Clear Guidelines for Success

As faculty we are primarily concerned with covering the course content and pay attention
to the extent of student learning whereas students focus on their grades as a measure of their
success in a course. Even though this is frustrating for the faculty, it is really quite sensible
grades have consequences for students progress toward a degree or affect their ability to get
into professional schools. When we change how we teach, students rightly become
concerned about their ability to succeed in this new format. Students have learned to navigate
the lecture-based format over many years and therefore find it overwhelming to try a new,
unknown path. Thus, one of the key elements to engaging students in the new approach is to
clearly define the paths for their success. Students need to assured that they would learn the
material and the methods for testing and grading them will be fair.

Planning Assessment

Improving our teaching, and hence student learning, requires formal and informal
assessment. During the development stage of a new course, it is important to have conversations
with assessment experts so that assessment (direct and indirect measures) becomes an integral
part of the teaching plan; this also helps to clarify the learning goals. In collaborative-learning
approach students ability to learn to learn is an important learning goal, thus, their ability to ask
appropriate questions and find logical solutions needs to be assessed routinely and should be
part of their formal assessment. However, to improve (to close the loop in assessment lingo)
the course in its future iterations, effectiveness of this approach in meeting the overall learning
goals has to be evaluated. Students can provide useful feedback on their comfort level,
motivation and knowledge of the material while taking the course (formative assessment) and at
the end (summative assessment). One method of assessing the value of group work is to give
individual and group tests on the same material. To compare content learning to prior
traditional courses, use of traditional exams and quizzes is also effective. It is advisable to start
by using small sections of collaborative learning and to assess the effectiveness of these
activities before converting the entire course to a new method. During the early stages of
implementation of any new approach, assessment should be done early and often to determine
what is working and what isnt.

SECTION II: EXAMPLES OF COLLABORATIVE LEARNING

I use collaborative learning in all my classes. The extent of collaborative learning varies
widely among these for different pedagogical and non-pedagogical reasons. Three different
courses are presented below that have collaborative learning and/or community engagement
components.

Neena Grover

324
Organic Chemistry

Course Description. This is a traditional introductory organic chemistry course that is
taught by several faculty, with a majority of them using the lecture-based format. The
textbook and the content of the course are collectively determined to maintain consistency. It
is the first course in a series of three courses and has two general chemistry courses as
prerequisites. Class size is twenty-four students.

Collaborative-Learning Approach. Group worksheets are interspersed with mini-lectures
to teach the basic concepts. Textbook is the primary resource.

Grading. The majority of the course grades are determined by performance on traditional
exams. A small percent of grades (3-5%) are assigned to participate and prepare for the
portion of the class that is taught in the collaborative learning format.
Students are expected to prepare for the class each day by reading the appropriate book
chapter or other assigned materials before coming to the class. Students are divided into
random groups of four students each day. The activity used to divide the students into six
groups is based on some concept that was previously taught. These activities also serve as
assessment tools and are often straightforward and quick exercises such as naming molecules
or identifying different isomers. These activities are sometimes graded as a quiz.
One of the learning goals early in the course involves training students to read the
textbook; students work in groups to generate a list key topics. When students are asked to
limit the number of topics (say, to four), they learn to negotiate whether a topic is the main
topic or a sub-topic. This simple exercise serves to enhance their reading and comprehension
on a daily basis.
Each group works on worksheets provided by the instructor on questions derived from
their reading and some questions that apply these concepts to biological molecules. The
professors role is to move between groups to determine if student discussions are on topic, to
determine the extent to which students read and understood the material, and to discuss the
areas of difficulty within each small group. Often students in different groups ask the same
questions. How these questions are answered is based on the learning goals for the material
questions can be answered by asking further questions, students can be given hints about how
to think about the material and sometimes a mini-lecture can be used to explain a difficult
concept. In general, the material in the course is relatively straightforward and easy to lecture
on and it is tempting to provide the answers instead of letting students struggle with finding
their own answers. The value of students working in small groups are many: students who
dont ask a question in a class are comfortable asking questions in small groups, students
discuss areas of difficulty with each other, students provide multiple perspectives for each
other, students develop confidence in their own ability to answer questions, the professor
observes prior knowledge and its application, professor determines where and when the
students need help, professor interacts with students in small groups and with individual
students, professor can push students to go further with their logic, professor is not the sole
provider of information, and the professor learns multiple ways in which the students process
the same information to enhances his or her own teaching. A major portion of the group work
in this course can fall under cooperative learning category.

325
Students in this class are exposed to both the traditional lectures (by other faculty
members) and collaborative work. Students show a clear preference for working in small
groups even though it requires significantly more work from them on a daily basis. Student
stress levels are clearly lower when they have opportunities to ask questions and discuss
topics with their peers. Students become comfortable asking professors for help with
concepts. Students report that greater the connection to biological world, the greater their
interest in learning about the material. This is confirmed by student interest when they are
asked to discuss real life concepts, such as cis and trans fatty acids, over the abstract concepts
(cis and trans alkenes). Students also bring more thoughtful questions to the class discussion
when they are inherently interested in the material (Splenda versus the haloalkanes). The
group activities demonstrate students willingness to put in the time needed even when the
tasks are difficult. However, students would still prefer that answers be provided to them and
will request more lectures.

Protein Biochemistry

Course Description. This is the first of the two biochemistry courses. Topics include
proteins, enzymes and fundamentals of intermediary metabolism. This class has prerequisite
of two organic chemistry courses. Students work in pairs in the laboratory. The class size is
sixteen students.

Collaborative-Learning Approach. This class is primarily based on discussions on the
material (Grover, 2007). In-class group worksheets are utilized prior to discussion on
complex topics, such as binding of oxygen and other ligands to hemoglobin. Students are
divided into permanent groups of three or four students each for the duration of the course. In
the laboratory, students design their projects for purification of an enzyme. Textbook and
some literature resources are used as course material.

Grading. Students are graded on preparation (10%), class participation (10%), one
traditional exam (20%), two research exams one of these is individual and one a group
exam (35%), poster preparation (5%), and laboratory work (20%).
This class is primarily based on group-led discussions (Grover, 2007). Students are often
skeptical about a discussion-based class. One of the keys issues with discussions in the
science courses is that students and professors often dont understand the components of a
good discussion. Professors expect students to be able to discuss the material without any
guidance whereas students are baffled by the idea of discussing science, as they expect
discussions to be possible only when one has original ideas or opinions on the topics. Hence,
students need to be taught to discuss scientific topics through modeling effective discussions.
Students (and professors) have to understand the difference between presentation and
discussion. Groups have to be taught to lead discussions. The professor has to learn to let
students struggle with a given topic and expect them to provide some explanations before
talking. Professor has to provide the questions that link students background knowledge to
current concepts (such as, derivation of Henderson-Hasselbach equation for pK
a
which is
linked to amino acid properties), provide appropriate materials to prepare students for the
discussions (e.g. group problem sets on difficult concepts), and to make sure that students
Neena Grover

326
stay on topic. This class additionally engages students through research projects for
example, the first examination in this class is based on link between structure and function of
proteins. Students learn to use secondary structure prediction models and are taught to use
protein databases to visualize structures in 3-D this links their class discussion to a protein
of interest. This work and the associate research paper can be an individual or group
assignment. Students often learn more in a group assignment and can be required to submit
multiple drafts of the paper to learn scientific writing as an additional goal. With some help
from the professor, students become quite engaged in the research and discussions that are
required part of the course.
Students in this class report that it is one of the first classes where they learned to read the
textbook thoroughly before coming to class. Students report that class preparation and
participation is challenging. Students like the format of the class, find it to be a difficult
course, and yet do not want the class to change. They would prefer more lectures but dont
remember the three lectures on enzyme kinetics that are already a part of the course. Students
develop greater confidence in their own ability to learn the material. They begin to develop
confidence in the approach quickly, as their understanding of the concepts is deepened upon
participating in the class discussion. The number of activities in this class does not distract
them from learning the material. The depth of student learning is much greater in this format
than when they are lectured on the same material. For example, once students began
developing their own protocols for protein isolation by reading primary literature, their
understanding of each technique improved greatly. Students pay significantly more attention
to the material when they know need the information for some other reason for example,
developing their own laboratory protocols.

Nucleic Acids Biochemistry

Course Description. This is the second of the two biochemistry courses and is focused
primarily on nucleic acids. The laboratory portion of the course is research-based and is
linked to research in my laboratory. The protein biochemistry is a prerequisite for this course.
The class size is limited to sixteen students.

Collaborative-Learning Approach. This course is taught as a Problem-based Service
Learning (PBSL) course where students learn nucleic acid chemistry through learning about
HIV/AIDS biochemistry (Grover, 2004). The class is a based on reading literature articles in
the field of nucleic acid biochemistry and HIV/AIDS research. This class follows a
discussion-based format. Students also work at the Southern Colorado AIDS clinic for one
afternoon per week as part of the Service Learning portion of the course. Students prepare
information for the community and give a public presentation of the viral life cycle, infection,
and associated antiretroviral drug therapy.

Grading. All the exams are oral or written presentations of literature in the field. At
least one exam is individual and two exams are group exams. Student grades are assigned for
course preparation and participation (20%), laboratory (25%), Service Learning (10%), and
examinations (45%).

327
Students are divided into random groups of two or three students and remain in these
groups for the duration of the course. The class starts with group research projects to find
primary literature articles on specified topics. Each group is responsible for certain topics and
its discussions. In the laboratory, students participate in ongoing research on nucleic acid
thermodynamics. Students design their own projects on a particular region of HIV genome. A
single theme of HIV/AIDS connects the readings in this class and allows students to see
connections between basic and applied research. For example, students learn about DNA and
RNA polymerases before they compare these to the retroviral reverse transcriptase. As many
biochemistry students are interested in going into biomedical fields, they are keenly interested
in understanding HIV-1 retrovirus and hence, are willing to put in the time to read and
understand the literature articles. The students connection to the material is strengthened by
interaction with people at Southern Colorado AIDS Project (SCAP). Class discussions
invariably touch on the social impact of the disease. When students begin to discuss science
behind HIV and AIDS with their friends and family, they begin to see their own ability to
make a difference. On the last day of the class students present a workshop to the local
community on HIV-1 infection cycle and biochemistry of treatment. This exercise requires
students to present their work in English without using biochemical jargon. Students reveal
the extent of their true understanding of the material during the preparation for this workshop.
Students report that it is a challenging course, which they consider appropriate for an
upper level course. Students are willing to work hard to learn to read the literature. Students
like the thematic connection to HIV/AIDS and their work with the community and prefer that
these components of the course be maintained. Many students find the experience of this class
to be significant in determining their future career.

CONCLUSION

Collaborative learning approaches allow professors to treat students as participants in
their own learning, provide them with tools needed for learning new concepts, and give them
opportunities to apply their learning in effective ways. If students have positive and
empowering experiences in their science courses, they will encourage others to participate in
it, and in the future support the endeavor of scientific research. We need to take a greater role
in changing the way our students experience science in our classrooms. Creative ways of
engaging students will keep our classrooms and intellects alive while providing all students
with a quality of education that befits this century.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

This work is funded by the National Science Foundation grant NSF-MCB 0621509 to
NG.

Neena Grover

328
REFERENCES

Anderson, J. (1993). Rules of the mind. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Angelo, T. A. & Cross, K. P. (1993). Classroom assessment techniques: A handbook for
college teachers. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Aronson, E. & Patnoe, S. (1997). The jigsaw classroom: Building cooperation in the
classroom. New York: Addison Wesley Longman.
Barkley, E. F., Cross, K. P. & Major, C. H. (2005). Collaborative learning techniques: A
handbook for college faculty. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Beckman, M. (1990). Collaborative Learning: Preparation for the workplace and democracy.
College Teaching, 38, 128-133.
Bloom, B. S. & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The
classification of education goals, by a committee of college and university examiners,
Handbook I: The Cognitive Domain, New York: Longmans.
Bonwell, C. C. & Eison, J. A. (1991). Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom,
Washington, DC: The George Washington University, School of Education and Human
Development.
Bruner, J. (1996). The culture of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Collier, K. G. (1980). Peer-Group learning in higher education: The Development of Higher-
order skills. Studies in Higher Education, 5, 55-62.
Cronbach, L. & Snow, R. (1977). Aptitudes and instructional methods: A handbook for
research on interaction. New York: W. H. Freeman.
Cross, K. P. (1981). Adult as learners. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Davis, B. G. (1993). Tools for teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences: The Theory in Practice. New York: Basic Books.
Goodsell, A., Maher, M., Tinto, V., Smith, L. & MacGregor, J. (1992). Collaborative
learning: A sourcebook for higher education. University Park: Pennsylvania State
University, National Center on Postsecondary Teaching, learning, and assessment.
Grover, N. (2004). Introductory course based on a single problem: learning nucleic acid
biochemistry from AIDS research. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 32,
367-372.
Grover, N. (2007). How to create successful discussions in science classrooms. Biochemistry
and Molecular Biology Education, 35, 397-403.
Hertz-Lazarowitz, R., Benveniste, K. V. & Miller, N. (1992). Implications of current
research on cooperative interaction on classr oom application. Oxford, Uk: Cambridge
University Press.
Johnson, D. W. (1970). Social psychology of education. Edina, MN: Interaction Book
Company.
Johnson, D. W. & Johnson, F. (1991). Joining together: Group theory and Group skill,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Johnson, D. W. & Johnson, R. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and research,.
Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T. & Smith, K. A. (1998). Active learning: Cooperation in
college classrooms. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.

329
Kadel, S. & Keehner, J. (1994). Collaborative learning: A sourcebook for higher education.
Syracuse, NY: National Center on Postsecondary Teaching, Learning, and Assessment,
Syracuse University.
Kuh, G. (2008). High-Impact educational practices - What they are, who has access to them
and why they matter. Washington D.C: Anerican Association of Colleges and
Universities.
Magolda, M. B. B. (2000). Teaching to promote holistic learning and development. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
McKeachie, W. J. (1994). Teaching tips. Washington D.C: Heath and Company.
Millis, B. J & Cottell, P. G. (1998). Cooperative learning for higher education faculty.
Phoenix: American Council on Education/Oryx Press.
Perry, W. G. (1998). Forms of ethical and intellectual development in the college years: A
Scheme. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Piaget, J. (1970). The science of education and the psychology of the child. New York:
Grossman.
Smith, M. K., Wood, W. B., Adams, W. K., Wieman, C., Knight, J. K, Guild, N. & Su, T. T.
(2009). Why Peer discussion improves student performance on in-class concept
questions. Science, 323, 122-124.
Snow, R. P. F. W. M. (1980). Aptitude, learning, and instruction. 1 and 2.
Spiro, R. J., Feltovich, P. J., Jacobson, M. J. & Coulson, R. L. (1992). Cognitive flexibility,
constructivism and hypertext: Random access instruction for advanced knowledge
acquistion in ill-structured domains. In: Duffy, T. & Jonassen, D. eds. Constructivism and
the Technology of Instruction. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.


Chapter 13

MEDITATIVE DIALOGUE: A METHOD
FOR ENGAGING WITH STUDENTS
IN COLLABORATIVE LEARNING PROCESSES

Susan A. Lord
University of New Hampshire, Durham, New Hampshire

ABSTRACT

This chapter offers an in-depth description of a teaching approach that uses
meditation and postmodern practices to encourage a sense of joint ownership,
collaboration and mutual responsibility for learning in a final Masters in Social Work
(MSW) practice class at the University of New Hampshire (UNH) in Durham, New
Hampshire. It elaborates on practices that have been described elsewhere (Lord, 2007)
and that continue to evolve and expand. It delineates processes through which students
and instructor aim to become equal partners in developing collective knowledges,
participating actively in the collaborative practices that they are learning about as they
move from positions of inexpert learners to expert colleagues in preparation for
graduation and entry into the social work field. Included is a discussion of current
students evaluation of the meditative dialogue method and their views on how it has
impacted their learning experience and professional development.

INTRODUCTION

In recent years, social constructionist theorists and practitioners have challenged the
traditional hierarchical structures that have defined how we operate in psychotherapy,
supervision, consultation and in education (Anderson, 1997; Anderson & Goolishian, 1992;
Bruffee, 1994, 1999; Holzman, 1997; Lowe, 2005; McNamee, 2007; Seikkula & Trimble,
2005). In education there has been a paradigm shift from valuing and encouraging students
to be silent so as to actively listen and learn from a more knowledgeable other (teacher), to
becoming knowledgeable by speaking and elaborating on content knowledge (Remedios,
Clarke & Hawthorne, 2008, p. 201). The paradigm shift includes a collaborative approach
Susan A. Lord

332
that involves mutuality, joint responsibility, and innovative alternatives to traditional methods
of teaching and learning (Anderson, 2007; Bruffee, 1999; Holzman, 1997; McNamee, 2007).
This chapter offers an in-depth description of a teaching approach that uses meditation
and postmodern practices to encourage a sense of joint ownership, collaboration and mutual
responsibility for learning in a final Masters in Social Work (MSW) practice class at the
University of New Hampshire (UNH) in Durham, New Hampshire.

COLLABORATIVE APPROACH

The collaborative approach is a postmodern approach that challenges the assumption that
there are universal knowledges of an objective and fathomable world out there that can be
captured, measured, understood and conveyed. It assumes that knowledge is local and is
linguistically constructed through communal processes. Language is characterized as the
primary vehicle through which we construct and make sense of our world Language is the
vehicle of the process and search through which we try to understand and create meaning -
knowledge about our world and ourselves. Language thus limits and shapes our thoughts and
our expressions (Anderson, 2007, p. 9).
According to Smith (2008), collaborative learning is a process by which small,
heterogeneous, and interdependent learner groups co-construct knowledge (Vygotsky, 1978)
to achieve consensus and share classroom authority (Bruffee, 1999, p. 326). Knowledge is
said to be fluid, ever-evolving, and generative.

Knowledge and Power

Foucault (1980) spoke of the hegemony of knowledge and ways in which education has
traditionally been structured such that knowledge is considered to be a form of power that
"reaches into the very grain of individuals, touches their bodies and inserts itself into their
actions and attitudes, their discourses, learning processes and everyday lives" (p. 39). Those
who hold knowledge in a given society are, according to Foucault, people in positions of
power who then disseminate the particular knowledge that they determine to be important to
those less powerful. Knowledge is said to be transmitted through, and always linked to,
avenues of power in a society.
Questions abound. What constitutes knowledge? Who determines which knowledge is
important to convey? Who decides how knowledge is to be disseminated? What constitutes
teaching? What constitutes learning? How do we know what we know? How do we know
what we need to know?
McNamee (2007) challenges our tendency to fall into what she terms a professional
competency trap - a trap of being the expert who ignores the expertise of those with whom I
am engaged (p. 315). She proposes a relational practice of education in which she
endeavors to engage with her students in collaborative conversations in which the focus is on
the multiple ways in which teaching and learning can occur and on the multiple knowledges
that each individual owns and can share. She has conversations with her students in which
Meditative Dialogue: A Method for Engaging with Students in

333
they discuss what and how they will learn, how their learning will be measured, and what
their grades will be.
Holzman, in her book Schools for Growth: Radical Alternatives to Current Educational
Models (1997) purports that embodied activities in which participants have meaningful
experiences through which they are affected and changed, are potentially more meaningful
mechanisms for teaching and learning than are traditional methods. Based on Vygotskys idea
that students grow and develop by performing beyond themselves (Holzman, 1997, p. ix),
she and her students in the Bronx in New York City have developed a program called the All
Stars Talent Show Network, one of the countrys largest and most effective anti-violence
programs for inner-city youth (p. 77). In this program the students are supported to become
who they are by being who they are not they create new options for who and how they
want to be (p. 78).
Suoranta (2008) goes so far as to argue that we have lost sight of our goals in teaching
and learning and have become caught up in a blind drive for measurement, evaluation and
accountability in academic work (p. 711). She says, We need to replace our current
teaching and assessment methods with more collaborative methods of teaching and
assessment (p. 711). Promotion of dialogue and collaborative work between teachers and
students and between students and students is encouraged.
According to Bruffee (1994, 1999), traditional education has encouraged passivity and
apathy in higher education. Students have become accustomed to being entertained, spoon-
fed, and taught what their teachers determine to be important. Lowe (2005) speaks of the
importance of remaining present and engaged in a process of participatory understanding
(p. 68), in a conversational style of teaching in which information is exchanged in more
creative, improvisational, and living ways (p. 65).
In their Open Dialogue approach, Seikkula and Trimble (2005) use a process that they
describe as embodied and emotional dialogue in their larger systems meetings. In this
method, each question in the conversation is not planned, but is rather generated from the
previous answer and a collaborative interaction ensues.

Dialogue

Dialogue is distinguished from other language activities such as discussions or
arguments or monological interactions, in which the other is dominated or viewed as passive,
and is described as relational and collaborative activity (Anderson, 2007, p. 34) that is both
generative and transformative. According to Bakhtin (1984), truth is not born nor is it to be
found inside the head of an individual person, it is born between people collectively searching
for truth, in the process of their dialogic interaction (p.110). Dialogue includes inner and
outer conversations, conversations between people and, I would add, conversations with the
energy in the space in the middle of the room.

Susan A. Lord

334
WHAT IS MEDITATIVE DIALOGUE ?

Meditative dialogue is a method that involves practices of mindfulness, not knowing
(Anderson & Goolishian, 1992), and deep listening/speaking that offer instructor and students
ways to engage in collaborative learning processes. It offers avenues through which they are
able to deepen their experience so that each participant becomes activated, enlivened and
changed in ways that are meaningful to them, both individually and collectively as a sense of
community and joint ownership of the process develops. The goal is to cultivate beginners
mind, for in the beginners mind there are many possibilities; in the experts mind there are
few (Suzuki, 1973, p. 21).

Description of the Process

The focus of this final MSW practice course is on aspects of therapeutic positioning,
use of self, embodied practice, deepening of listening and facilitation skills, critical
thinking about the evolution of power and knowledge, and integration of prior
coursework. Because this is a course offered by an accredited MSW program, the broad
outlines of what must be taught in the course are predetermined by the Council of Social
Work Education. There is some room for academic freedom, however, and particular
choices, such as particular books and articles to be read and use of the meditative
dialogue method, are at the discretion of the instructor.
The meditative dialogue process works toward altering the hierarchical structures that are
traditional in higher education (Bruffee, 1994, 1999), and that students have become
acculturated to in the MSW program. This is a major paradigm shift for most students and can
precipitate much anxiety and resistance, or what I think of as attempts at stabilizing
themselves, as they work to regain their balance. We use practices of meditation like breath
work, mindfulness and full attention (Germer, Siegal & Fulton, 2005; Hick & Bien, 2008;
Kabat-Zinn, 2003) in each class in preparation for beginning the dialogue process.
Meditation, according to Muktananda (1991) consists of four aspects. The first is a Focus
on a particular object of meditation in this instance the focus is on the assigned readings that
we have prepared for the weeks discussion. Second is Mantra an object of concentration
that is said to harness the minds tendency toward scattered mental energy or streams of
random thoughts or chatter. We might suggest, for example, a specific word signifying the
theme for the weeks discussion. Third is Asana a relaxed posture or bodily position that is
assumed to help with presence and focus. Fourth is Breath which links the body with the
mind and spirit, bringing one into a quiet and steady presence.
Rather than sitting in rows that face the front of the room where the professor conveys
knowledge from behind a podium, chairs are arranged in a circle and each week students and
instructor sit in a different place with people they do not normally sit with. This is an attempt
to intensify our sense of community and constantly alter positions, perhaps perturbing
systems and moving people out of their comfort zones.
All participants commit to a process of interacting with everyone when they participate,
not only with the instructor as a figure of authority, or with familiar people. We move our
chairs forward and back to develop a sense of the space in the middle, using our distance and

335
closeness as parts of a bellows to fan the flame of our collective knowledges. We focus on
how we take up space in the room, on whether we are quiet or talkative, and whether we
speak to demonstrate our knowledge or to move the process along (Lord, 2007, p. 335).

We follow a clearly defined set of guidelines:

1. The focus of each weeks discussion is set by the course syllabus. For example, the
focus of week seven is on trauma, and all participants come to class having read the
assigned readings on the dynamics of trauma and ways of working with trauma.
2. We begin with a brief meditation.
3. Listen deeply.
4. Experience the silence and the space.
5. Reflect, contemplate, pause.
6. Allow the speech to arise from the silence.
7. Say only what needs and wants to be said.
8. Notice assumptions, reactions, and judgments.
9. Observe identities and roles.
10. Give the speech and the speaker full attention.
11. Listen to fully hear.

Using these guidelines we sit together and engage in deep listening and speaking. Each
class begins with a few minutes of silent meditation. The dialogue arises from the space in the
middle of the room, giving voice to inner and outer resonances. Like an improvisational
drumming circle we co-create an integration through diverse contributions, attaining a whole
larger than the sum of its parts. The facilitators role is, paradoxically, to become a
nonfacilitator, to get out of the way as all assume mutual responsibility for the dialogue. As
with meditation, whatever happens is perfect (Lord, 2007, p. 336).
The conversation generally begins with someone discussing their response to one of the
readings. They might talk about a question, a reaction, a particular way in which they
resonated with the reading, or a way that it applied to their practice at their internship. Others
slowly begin to chime in, asking clarifying questions, offering their take on the reading,
expanding on their understanding and particular questions, and folding in a dialogue about
other assigned readings for the week.

STUDENTS EVALUATION OF THE MEDITATIVE DIALOGUE METHOD

Students were asked to participate in a study, approved by the UNH Office for Sponsored
Research, in which they filled out a questionnaire soliciting feedback about their perceptions
of the meditative dialogue process, their sense of the impact of the process on their
professional development, and their sense of its usefulness for their learning processes. They
were told that participation was voluntary and anonymous and would not in any way impact
their grades. The questionnaire asked whether they would recommend using the method in
future practice classes, what they found most rewarding or positive about the method, what
was most difficult or negative, and whether they had any suggestions about the method and its
Susan A. Lord

336
use in the class. Of the 30 students enrolled in the two sections of the course, 26 filled out the
questionnaire which was administered during class. The 4 who did not participate were absent
that day.
The students were quite positive and enthusiastic about the meditative dialogue method.
Although the change from the traditional hierarchical mode of education in which there is an
expert professor imparting wisdom to students in the learning position, to a more
collaborative mode in which all develop agency and take mutual responsibility for what
occurs in the classroom was said to be difficult at first, most reported that they found it to be
empowering and freeing.

REWARDING OR POSITIVE ASPECTS

Mutual Responsibility for Learning

All of the respondents (N=26) said that they would recommend using the method in
future practice classes. Several people commented on the switch from a traditional
hierarchical approach to education that they have become acculturated to in the program and
throughout their prior years of education, to a collaborative learning style in which they must
develop agency and assume mutual responsibility for what happens in the classroom:

It forced me to do all the readings and to pay attention to the material. It has helped
me to look into myself in a new way.
It provides a safe and supportive environment for active participation. I enjoy
having the instructor join our circle as an equal. Our comments are directed to the
group as a whole instead of to the leader. I feel I have been a more active listener
since starting this process.
I love the feeling of learning this way - it takes a lot of trust. I appreciate the respect
given to students to be in charge of learning and the sense of safety that develops in
the room. It has deepened my interest and ability to collaborate and act in partnership
with my clients. I enjoy learning about this material this way instead of being
lectured at. Most rewarding is the rich discussion we tend to have when we get in a
tight circle.
It brings forth really in-depth conversations; it has provided some of the best
learning experiences in the program.
I feel like its the only section of practice in which I feel like I truly learned
something.

Depth of Communication and Sense of Community

Many spoke of the depth of communication engendered through the meditative dialogue
process, and of the safety and sense of community that they felt with their colleagues:


337
Its a great way to wrap up our MSW education. People are able to truly share
thoughts and feelings because the class is so close and comfortable with each other.
It feels safe and creates an environment for rich discussion.
I love the way that meditative dialogue gives open opportunity for participation. The
environment allows for a more comfortable process. I feel that I am able to
comfortably speak my thoughts and that the professor is not there to approve or
disapprove.
Most positive is connecting with everyone in the class.
It allows for the class to control the direction and we are more involved. Most
rewarding were the excellent discussions that arose. I thought more about the
positive aspects of silence.

Applications to Practice

Some spoke of the importance of having an in vivo experience of what they are learning
about, saying that it has helped them in their practice with clients:

Its uncomfortable at first but very useful, and it helps me think about how to engage
my clients individually and in groups. Most rewarding is the idea of really listening
not interrupting and following someone with their thought. Pursuing it fully to
better understand what they mean rather than take it at face value. It has helped me to
engage with the literature more and it has helped me to really consider other
viewpoints and opinions and to consider those opinions as valid.
It is a great way to tie together all the skills we have learned. It has helped me be
more present with clients and in all relationships as I practice active listening. It is
good practice for the work we will do with clients; it brings it all to life.

Mindfulness

Some identified the importance of the practices of mindfulness and presence:
It creates a new dynamic where people are invited to dip their hearts into a
collective experience. I think it pushes us to be as honest as we can be in the
moment.
I think taking time to focus energy and thought gives focus to thought. The process
provides space for a more organic experience. It creates an intention of mindfulness.
It has given me permission to slow down, and do what feels natural in the given
unfolding process connecting body with mind and perhaps soul.

Multiplicity of Voices

Others spoke of the multiplicity of voices and the development of a respect for and
tolerance of difference:

Susan A. Lord

338
It challenges students to step outside their comfort zone and talk about real issues.
Listening and conversing with others gives the student the opportunity to consider
other points of view, helping them grow and expand their knowledge base. It forces
them to challenge their beliefs in search of greater understanding. Its excellent for
working with clients and examining the therapeutic relationship. Helps me appreciate
other points of view and ways of approaching difficult situations. It helps me to learn
how to collaborate with others who may have differing opinions.
I really appreciate the input of my classmates and the diversity of opinions on
various topics. Most positive was the widening scope of comfort with a variety of
opinions. The increased openness to the ideas and feelings of others. I find sitting in
a tight circle symbolic of the desire to see and hear from everyone. If this is
expanded into the world, perhaps there is a better chance for people of varying
viewpoints to hear and understand each other.
We all have unique experiences to share, and unique interpretations of topics.

DIFFICULT/NEGATIVE ASPECTS

When asked to identify difficult or negative aspects of the method, students identified
such things as:

It was hard allowing myself to be vulnerable.
At the beginning it was difficult to figure out what was expected.
I had trouble learning to deal with the silence, feeling pressure to talk. It forced me
to do all of the readings.
It was hard when the conversation moved too quickly people seem to be thinking
about what they want to say and not what others are saying.
Disagreement/confrontation are difficult. It takes courage to speak your mind
knowing it may be challenged.
The actual meditating focusing my mind was challenging for me.
Self-directed learning is difficult. Sometimes I dont feel motivated to direct
myself.
High levels of the emotional content of discussions could be difficult to handle.

Despite these identified negative aspects, all seemed to feel that the method was useful
and said that they would like to continue using it in class.

CONCLUSION

The meditative dialogue method offers an embodied experience of learning in which
students and instructor become activated and engaged in the process. They develop a sense of
community and safety in which each individually and jointly assumes responsibility for what
occurs. In this way they are able to come forward, entering into deep dialogue with one

339
another and gaining a sense of competence and mastery of the material. Although students
say that they are at first uncomfortable with the expectations of a collaborative learning
culture, they grow to appreciate, feel enlivened by, and thrive in this new context. The
meditative dialogue method completely changes the classroom interaction. Rather than
engaging in a hierarchical expert/learner dynamic, we become collaborative participants in
the generation and integration of knowledge.

REFERENCES

Anderson, H. (1997). Conversation, language and possibilities: A postmodern approach to
therapy. New York: Basic Books.
Anderson, H. (2007). A postmodern umbrella: Language and knowledge as relational and
generative, and inherently transforming. In H. Anderson & D. Gehart
(Eds.),Collaborative therapy: Relationships and conversations that make a difference,
(pp.7-19). New York: Routledge.
Anderson, H. & Goolishian, H. (1992). The client is the expert: a not-knowing approach to
therapy. In Gergen, K. & McNamee, S. (Eds.), Therapy as social construction,
(pp. 25-39). London: Sage.
Bakhtin, M. (1984). Problems of Dostoevskys poetics. M. Holquist, (Ed.), and C. Emerson,
and M. Holquist, (Trans.). Austin, Texas: University of Texas Press.
Bruffee, K. A. (1994). Making the most of knowledgeable peers. Change, 26(3), 39-46.
Bruffee, K. A. (1999). Collaborative learning, higher education, independence and the
authority of knowledge. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Foucault, M. (1980) Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings, 1972-1977.
New York: MacMillan.
Germer, C. K., Siegel, R. D. & Fulton, P. R. (Eds.) (2005). Mindfulness and Psychotherapy.
New York: Guilford Press.
Hick, S. & Bien, T., (Eds.). (2008). Mindfulness and the therapeutic relationship. N.Y.:
Guilford Press.
Holzman, L. (1997). Schools for growth: Radical alternatives to current educational
methods. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kabat-Zinn, J. (2003). Mindfulness-based interventions in context: Past, present, and future.
Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 10, 144-156.
Lord, S. (2007). Meditative dialogue: A tool for engaging students in collaborative learning
processes. Journal of Family Therapy, 29(4), 34-337.
Lowe, R. (2005). Structured methods and striking moments: Using question sequences in
living ways. Family Process. 44, 65-75.
McNamee, S. (2007). Relational practices in education: teaching as conversation. In H.
Anderson, & D. Gehart, (Eds.) Collaborative Therapy: Relationships and
Conversations that Make a Difference, (pp. 313335). New York: Routledge.
Muktananda, S. (1991). Meditate. Albany, New York: State University of NY
Press.Remedios, L. Clarke, D. & Hawthorne, L. (2008). The silent participant in small
group collaborative learning contexts. Active Learning in Higher Education, 9(3),
201-216.
Susan A. Lord

340
Seikkula, J. & Trimble, D. (2005). Healing elements of therapeutic conversation: dialogue as
an embodiment of love. Family Process, 44, 461475.
Smith, R. (2008). The paradox of trust in online collaborative groups. Distance Education,
29(3), 325-340.
Suoranta, J. (2008). Teaching sociology: Toward collaborative social relations in educational
situations. Critical Sociology, 34(5), 709-723.
Suzuki, S. (1973). Zen mind, beginners mind. New York: Weatherhill.

Chapter 14

CASE STUDY OF COLLABORATIVE LEARNING
IN TWO CONTEXTS: WHAT DO ENGLISH
LANGUAGE LEARNERS GAIN?

Sally Ashton-Hay
a
*
and Hitendra Pillay
b

a
Language Programs Educator Queensland University of Technology Victoria Park Road
Kelvin Grove 4059 Brisbane, Australia
b
Professor School of Learning and Professional Studies Queensland University of
Technology Victoria Park Road Kelvin Grove 4059 Brisbane Australia

ABSTRACT

This paper describes the use of collaborative learning as an approach to enhance
English language learning by students from non-English speaking backgrounds.
Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) principles were applied to two case studies,
one comprising of undergraduate English as Foreign Language learners in Turkey and the
other involved English as Second Language learners in Australia. Social constructivism
inspired communicative language teaching using collaborative learning activities such as
team work, interactive peer-based learning; and iterative stages of learning matrix were
incorporated to enhance students learning outcomes. Data collected after the CLT
intervention was made up of field notes, reflective logs and focus group interviews which
revealed complementarities, as well as subtle differences between the two cases. The
findings were summarized as learning dispositions; speaking competence, proficiency
and confidence; learning diagnostics and completion deficiencies; task engagement, flow
theory and higher order thinking skills; in addition to self efficacy and development of
student identity. CLT has the potential to provide a more inclusive and dynamic
education experience for diverse learners through vital outcomes and benefits which
resonate with the real world.


342
CASE STUDY OF COLLABORATIVE LEARNING IN TWO CONTEXTS:
WHAT DO ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS GAIN?

INTRODUCTION

In an era of increased globalization, the demand for English language teaching and
learning, as well as the development of creative thinkers, (Bozkurt, 2006; Kalantzis & Cope,
2005; Kinzer, 2001) has accelerated rapidly. Diverse learners globally are filling classrooms
and English language teaching has swiftly become an international enterprise (Kubota & Lin,
2006). Educators are challenged to develop integrated pedagogical practices that improve
learning outcomes, and to provide inclusive education (Keeffe & Carrington, 2006). While an
integrated pedagogical approach may enhance learning outcomes it also reduces redundancy
by eliminating convoluted practices and consequently allows for complementarities to
accelerate learning outcomes.
The case studies reported here were drawn from two contexts where the demand for
English language learning is viewed as a key to the future success of learners in a globalized
economy. Recognition of the importance of collaboration and learner interaction has led to
many new pedagogical practices. One such practice is the use of Communicative Language
Teaching (CLT). CLT was integrated into the existing language learning courses in a Turkish
University where students were studying to become English teachers and in an Australian
university where foreign students came to learn English language to enroll in other programs.
The two cases are analyzed to identify different patterns of learning experience of the
participating students.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) strategies are informed by principles of social
constructivism (Vygotsky, 1962, 1987, 1997). Constructivism argues that learning is a social
process and it is in this sense that constructivism informs learning enterprises. Nunan (1999,
p. 304) defines constructivism as a philosophical approach that argues that knowledge is
socially constructed rather than having its own independent existence and that it places more
emphasis on the cumulative process of learning rather than memorizing discrete language
forms such as grammar. Although the communicative method is common in literature, CLT
is not a monolithic packaged set of procedures but more frequently regarded as a
justification for a process of change taking place (Hall & Hewings, 2001). This change is
from traditional language teaching methods involving grammar translation, memorization and
rote learning to a more active, learner-focused and communicative view of language teaching.
Such dialogic interaction or social constructivism is argued to most likely happen when the
learning is within his/her zone of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1962, 1987, 1997) and
emphasizes the ripening functions of learners rather than the ripe skills (1997, p.188). Thus
the experiential and social interaction qualities of CLT inspired by social constructivism place

*
Corresponding Author: Email: s.ashton-hay@qut.edu.au Or home email: sally.ashton@gmail.com
Collaborative Learning

343
importance on the process of learning, self-inquiry and social and communicative skills,
which have led to current educational reforms calling for more active student engagement
(Aviram, 2000; H. Brown, 2000; T. H. Brown, 2006; Buchberger, 2001; Buchberger,
Campos, Kallos, & Stephenson, 2000; Chimombo, 2001; De Corte, Verschaffel, Entwistle, &
van Merrinboer, 2003; Gerjets & Hesse, 2005; Hart, 2002; Lesgold, 2004; Liao, 2004;
Lowyck, Lehtinen, & Elen, 2004; Niemi, 2002; Palincsar & Herrenkohl, 2002; Salomon,
1998; Satyal, 2005; Van Petegem, De Loght, & Shortridge, 2003).
The influence of social constructivism on educational reform is important for several
reasons. First, the underlying philosophy places emphasis on learner constructed knowledge
through social interaction. The social interaction process in learning facilitates and
encourages the use of new language skills to create meaning and build understanding through
the communicative process. Vygotsky (1997) recognized the connection between thought and
language as a mediated activity and the significance of this mediated process in developing
higher mental functions where thoughts must first pass through meanings and then through
words. In this way, he argues that what a child can do in cooperation today he can do alone
tomorrow (Vygotsky 1997, p.188). The collaboration and dialogic action with others is a key
to developing awareness, experience and opportunities for reflection. Vygotsky argues that
higher mental functions may be more likely to develop as a result of mediated activities such
as the interactive learning process which is central to communicative language teaching.
Furthermore, social constructivism places the learner in the midst of the learning process
because of the recognition that language is more than an external body of grammatical
structures or lexical items to be transferred. The focus on making meaning emphasizes the
notion of communicative competence (Hymes, 1971, 1972), or knowing when and how to say
what to whom. CLT and the related peer interactions encourage the learners to speak, make
meaning, build understanding and thus, may also influence the development of higher order
thinking skills.

COMMUNICATIVE LANGUAGE TEACHING

Communicative language teaching shifted the focus to learner-centered instruction and
created an important influence in the field of language teaching (Nunan, 1999). The
knowledge development processes and outcomes of learners are shaped by the dialogic,
communicative interaction activities in which they are engaged, the context of the activities
and the surrounding culture (J. S. Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989). CLT classrooms
encourage interactive learners, dialogic activities and active participation in knowledge
creation by engaging learners in communicative tasks. Through actively using the language,
learners develop greater proficiency, as well as achieve more profound and purposeful
dialogic meaning-making. Students are encouraged to create, negotiate and practice meaning-
making through the active use of language and activities which encourage communication.
Such strategies reinforce the constructivist approach to teaching and learning that knowledge
is not only transmitted to learners from teachers or books, but that both meaning and
knowledge can be created collectively by learners and teachers (Celce-Murcia, 2001). CLT
places an emphasis on the learner and the learning process as central through the capacity of
communication (Breen, 1984), because the learners use the language to create meaning and

344
practice with the language so that familiarity and proficiency can be developed and
remembered for subsequent applications. Progressively, as learners develop proficiency, the
objective of CLT is that the learner can apply and transfer the language skills to other
contexts of language use such as writing technical reports, making public presentations, etc.
In this way, CLT through its inherent peer interactions can expand the horizon of language
learners, enable them to benefit from collaborative practice, and build on their existing
knowledge to create meaning.
An interesting feature of active, communicative approaches to language learning is its
function as a correction to the perceived shortcomings of other approaches and methods, such
as Grammar Translation and the Direct Method (Mitchell, 1994 in Bax, 2003). Language
educators now view language as much more than a system of rules to be learned because of
the notions of communicative competence (Hymes, 1971). Nunan (2001) argues that
successful communicators in second language distinguish between learning that and
knowing how. Being able to make such distinctions differentiates knowledge of discrete
grammar points and recitation of dialogues, from the ability to interact with other speakers
and to communicate genuinely, spontaneously and meaningfully (H. Brown, 2000). Savignon
(2001) describes the communicative approach as having a collaborative and active nature
where the receptive and productive language skills are combined in interpretation, expression
and negotiation of meaning. Another feature of CLT is the engagement and pleasurable
learning experience it offers for learners to rehearse real meaning making activities. Small
groups can be motivated by friendly competition, challenge and flow experiences
(Csikszentmihalyi, 1996, 1997a, 1997b). Communicative competence is required for
participation, combining both grammatical competence and pragmatic competence. The main
emphasis in CLT is peer interactionon communicating, socially or informationally, through
a variety of real world simulations and problem-solving exercises. Communicative Language
Teaching and Interactive Peer-based Learning thus involve an integrated approach where
active learners negotiate and create meaning in a second language through a range of
activities designed to assist communication in the classroom and informed by social
constructivist theoretical philosophy.
Against the above background, Figure 1 presents an interactive peer-based instructional
iterations matrix synthesizing the theoretical underpinning and linking this theory with
practical CLT inspired learning strategies and learning activities. The matrix provides the
conceptual framework for the research interventions. As noted in the matrix, specific
activities make up the CLT approach, all of which involve peer interaction as the basis for
meaning making and consequently learning the language. Both meaning and knowledge can
be created collectively by learners or by learners and teachers with regards to the problem in
hand and the contextual issues (Celce-Murcia, 2001). The complementarities in this approach
to language teaching have the potential to reduce redundancy and accelerate learning
outcomes.
The Interactive Peer-Based Teaching Iteration matrix demonstrates how social
constructivist theory underpins and informs the learning strategies, learning activities, and
learning outcomes for more collaborative English language learning. Through successive
iterations, students have more opportunities to become involved in learning, reflect on their
previous participation, and build knowledge by adding and linking to previous experience.
The successive iterations enhance basic social skill development and prepare students to
communicate and collaborate on a deeper level. Without sufficient iterations to develop basic

345
social skills, communicative competence may be limited. Once students have become more
skilled at social interaction through listening, responding and negotiating with others,
interdependent teamwork becomes more viable. Subsequent interactive peer-based teaching
repetitions offer more opportunities for students to participate in collaborative activities and
progress interdependent learning strategies. Through active learning, sharing and reflecting,
implementing interpersonal skills and creating meaning in the language, students progress
through zones of proximal development with the assistance of their peers and teachers. By
adapting the matrix to various contexts, educators have a key tool for the provision of more
inclusive, dynamic and accelerated learning outcomes. This chapter will outline several
strategies implemented in the research study and illustrate how these strategies contributed
toward increasing learning outcomes in social skills, collaboration and developing complexity
in learning from the students own voices.

Figure 1. Interactive Peer-Based Teaching Iterations Matrix

METHODOLOGY

Emphasis on student voice as expert witnesses (Rudduck 1999, p. 42), the
consultative wing of student participation and the contemporary educational initiatives
with a social constructivist view call for more active student engagement (Aviram, 2000; H.
Brown, 2000; T. H. Brown, 2006; Buchberger, 2001; Buchberger et al., 2000; Chimombo,
2001; De Corte et al., 2003; Gerjets & Hesse, 2005; Hart, 2002; Lesgold, 2004; Liao, 2004;
Lowyck et al., 2004; Niemi, 2002; Palincsar & Herrenkohl, 2002; Salomon, 1998; Satyal,
2005; Van Petegem et al., 2003). The above researches provide the impetus for this study, as
they recognize and emphasize the significance of student views as an important and critical
source of data for understanding student learning behaviorswhat engages them and what
kinds of support are valued most in a language learning context. In a similar vein, (Cook-
Sather, 2006) argues that in order to reposition students in current educational reform,
educators need to listen to what they have to say and take seriously the difficulties learners
have in coping (Boud, Cohen, & Sampson, 2001). With the increasing importance of
constructivist learning to educational reform, active participation not only involves students in

346
discussions about teaching and learning but also offers an opportunity to include the passive
ESL or EFL learners. In this way, student responses to collaborative and interactive peer-
based learning experiences will provide insight into what students gain from integrated
pedagogical approaches and whether such complementarity actually allows for enhanced or
accelerated learning outcomes.
Communicative Language Teaching approaches encourage students to work together in
activities to solve problems, conduct research, or give a seminar presentation. Students are
encouraged to create, negotiate and practice meaning making through a range of experiential
activities which integrate communication and active use of the language with pragmatic
knowledge of what to say to whom, as well as how and when to say it. For example, students
may work in teams to solve problems, debate issues, develop and perform role plays, or
conduct research and present seminars on a topic. Each member of the team has a
responsibility for contributing and developing ideas. To capture the interactions during the
CLT experience and interpret student cognitive and social behaviors requires an in-depth
qualitative inquiry; hence a case study approach was used to research the learning outcomes
of students from two cases. The insight of what is possible and adequate in these case studies
may enable educators to be more responsive to change in their own situations (Weber, 1970).

Context and Sample

Two cohorts of 167 undergraduates participated in the study. One comprised 79 Turkish
students of which 45 were females and 34 males. These students were generally between 19 -
22 years of age and were from the English Language Teaching (ELT) Department of Foreign
Languages and the English Language and Literature Faculty of Letters in a large Turkish
university. All of these students were generally expected to become English teachers in
Turkey or in their home country after graduation. These students were studying English as a
Foreign Language (EFL). The CLT interventions were implemented in the subject Teaching
English to Children. These Turkish undergraduates formed teams and chose teaching topics
such as reading and created informative seminar presentations for their classmates. Aspects
of the seminars were shared and preparatory research divided among the team to cover
various elements such as: the importance of literacy, beginning reading activities; ways to
improve reading skills; and various types of reading activities. Through such seminars, the
student teams were required to share responsibilities, develop interdependence and integrate
their research into a comprehensive presentation.
In the second case, 88 international students studying English language at a college
affiliated to an Australian university took part. The sample was made up of 39 males and 49
females and was aged between 19 22 years. These students had traveled to Australia from
countries such as Japan, Korea, China, Taiwan, Singapore, United Arab Emirates, Saudi
Arabia, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Vietnam, Thailand, Brunei, India and New Caledonia, in order
to acquire English language proficiency which in turn will help achieve their educational
goals. These students were majoring in various subjects such as International Business, IT,
Economics, Nursing, Engineering or Education but they were enrolled in a core
Communication course as part of the requirements for their chosen faculty. These students
were studying English as a second language (ESL). The CLT intervention was implemented
in the Communication for Business subject. Students in this cohort discussed and created a

347
solution for a business transaction case study with ethical concerns. The discussions centered
on ways to solve the problem in the best interests of the company and society, as each group
reported back to the class with their proposed solution and relevant reasons for that choice.
Since students were from diverse cultures, negotiation and compromise were integral to the
formation of a solution.

Distinction between ESL and EFL

Two case studies are designed to investigate and provide comparative views on the
epistemology of each experience (Denzin & Lincoln, 2003) involving separate yet similar
contexts of language learning. How we learn from particular cases is related to how a case is
like and/or unlike other cases mostly through comparison. The epistemology of the particular
cases under investigation here relates to English as Second Language learners and English as
Foreign Language learners. The distinction between ESL and EFL teaching is important to
highlight in this study since the differences between EFL and ESL are not frequently noted
(Hiep, 2005; Li, 1998). The influence of immersion in an English-speaking environment
where students learn the language at the same time as the culture has been regarded as an
advantage in language learning (Montgomery & Eisenstein, 1985; Schmidt & Frota, 1986).
Researchers have suggested that classroom immersion and naturalistic acquisition studies
indicate that when instruction is meaning focused only, learners do not develop the linguistic
features at target-like levels (Doughty & Williams, 1998). Therefore, in their native country,
EFL students may frequently revert to their mother tongue as soon as they leave the
classroom, offering fewer opportunities for extended second language production. EFL
teaching contexts may also lack English resources and local teachers may teach the second
language by relying on the first language. English-speaking teachers have also been cautioned
against causing discomfort to students who are accustomed to being taught in their mother
tongue because they may not understand every word or be able to respond to questions in a
second language (Savignon, 2001). Whereas ESL provides the opportunity for immersion in
a second language with increased opportunities to use the language, greater availability of
teaching resources and appropriate use of teaching strategies may create beneficial influences
for learners in a language teaching context.

Procedure and Data Collection

As noted above, CLT intervention activities were developed and implemented for
an English language subject at each of the two sites. Students enrolled in the selected
subjects were invited to participate in the study. Recognizing that the interventions will
only help develop the English language proficiency, all students from both sites
willingly volunteered to participate and signed ethical clearances. Data collection was
done from three different sources to allow triangulating the data and improving the
validity of the findings.
The first data source was from each students reflective log (RL). At the beginning of the
semester students were shown how write and maintain a reflective log which was also a
requirement for participating in the study. The student participants responded to weekly focus

348
questions throughout the semester, posed by the researcher, and made entries in their
reflective logs. The journal entries were aligned to the CLT intervention activities, so after
each CLT activity focus questions related to the learning experience were posed by the
researcher and students made entries in their journals. Responding to the focus questions
through log writing occurred during weeks 4-10 of the semester. After experiencing all the
CLT intervention activities the participants submitted their logs two weeks before the end of
the semester. The student entries ranged from a single paragraph to two pages in length.
The second data set was from focus group (FG) interviews. Students volunteered to meet
in focus groups to discuss emerging themes in a recorded discussion at the end of the
semester. Three focus groups were made up of 10 students from Turkey and two groups from
Australia comprised of 6 and 11 in each group. Everyone met at a mutually agreed place after
semester classes had finished but before the final exams. The focus group interviews were
approximately 60-75 minutes long to ensure every participants views were heard. The
stimulus questions for the FG interviews were the emerging issues noted in the student
reflective logs. The focus group discussions were recorded for transcription and analysis.
The third data set was from researcher field notes (RFN). The researcher made
observations and wrote field notes throughout the semester during and after CLT
interventions as well as after informal interviews with students. The CLT interventions
involved a range of collaborative interactive activities and were similar for both case studies
although, as noted above, the curriculum varied. The CLT activities involved brain storming
in groups, sharing ideas, debating and discussing issues while working on set projects,
conducting team research, leading discussions, preparing and presenting seminars, solving
problems in teams, conducting surveys, debating issues, peer editing and participating in role
plays. As students participated in the collaborative and interactive learning activities, students
were encouraged to respond to these research questions in their reflective log books:

Which educational strategies do you prefer and why? (e.g., listening to a lecture,
studying alone, doing group work, working with a partner, etc.)
Describe how working with others makes a difference or not to your learning? How
does working with others help you to understand the subject/topic of the lesson?
Describe how interactive peer-based learning compared with other teaching and
learning strategies helped you in your learning. Which strategies/approaches are
most beneficial for English language learners? Why?
What do you gain from interactive peer-based learning?

THE RESEARCH INTERVENTION

The matrix shown in Figure 1 illustrates the conceptual logic for the
implementation process of interactive peer-based teaching through an iterative design
in which the study results achieved more depth and richness through successive
iterations (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998). Based on the theoretical principles of social
constructivism which link with collaborative learning teamwork strategies, the research
intervention developed learning activities where students conducted research, shared
knowledge and presented seminars in roles for the class. As the participants engaged in

349
this activity they collaborated with their peers to share reading, discuss meaning, listen
to each others pronunciation, fill in gaps in knowledge, develop interdependent task
responsibility, and reflect on their learning experiences. For some ESL and EFL
learners, it was the first time to lead discussion using the English language. This
challenged the participants confidence and speaking fluency as students listened to
each other, created the presentation products and synthesized multidimensional group
ideas. Successive iterations developed depth across levels of basic social skills , then
collaborative skills and finally complexity in thinking. By revisiting teamwork learning
strategies through various learning activities, a broader range of learning outcomes
resulted.
The research intervention took on a real world application in both cases. In the
Turkish case study, student groups chose an aspect of English teaching, such as
developing reading skills, to research as they prepared presentations in role as teachers.
The purpose of the activity was to give a seminar presentation, lead discussion and
demonstrate teaching knowledge in role as teachers. The collaborative process required
basic social skills to share, listen, discuss, solve problems and choose or create the
products to use during the presentation. Some class time was given to discuss and
prepare but students were also required to research and interact outside of class. In the
case of Australian international students, participants researched a topic, prepared
surveys, analyzed the data, wrote reports with graphs to represent findings, and then
conducted group business meeting discussions in role to demonstrate their findings. As
well as demonstrating knowledge and research ability, the group teams took on roles as
business professionals, where the expectation was to lead discussion with some
pragmatic acumen of knowing what to say to whom and when. Again, some class time
was allocated for discussion, sharing research and planning roles. Both cohorts were
challenged by interactive peer-based learning tasks which reflected real world
applications and the next section will discuss the themes emerging from this research
study.

THE EMERGING THEMES FROM THE TWO CASES

The data analysis and synthesis involved identification of emergent themes between the
two cases and synthesizing into the most dominant ones, as shown in Table 1. Clarity and
preciseness is very important at this stage given the overlapping constructs that are usually
found in the education literature. Initially and at a macro level, there were many emergent
themes in both cases that appeared to be similar. However, further probing through detailed
analysis revealed subtle variations in how the two cases experienced the CLT approach. The
dominant emergent themes are presented in Table 1 with the themes listed on the left side of
the table and include learning dispositions that is shaped by contextual and cultural issues;
speaking competency which involves pronunciation and fluency; communicative feedback
which involved skill deficiency diagnostic and practice; engagement and self efficacy
involved confidence and willing to share ideas. Extracts from raw data illustrating the student
peer-interaction voices will be used to support the discussion in this section. In the table each

350
theme is illustrated with a student quotation descriptor from each case to show the subtle
variations.
The next section will discuss each of the themes from the study and substantiated with
extracts from the raw data, will also be linked to current literature.
Learning Dispositions Just like Soap Foam and Duty to Learn

Participants from the two cohorts viewed teaching and learning slightly differently. The
Turkish cohort considered memorization and rote learning as obligatory for learning. This can
be attributed to their exam culture where recalling information was valued despite the
extensive research finding (Biggs, 1998, 2003; Biggs, Burville, & Telfer, 1993; Bozkurt,
2006; Chamot & O'Malley, 1999; Kalantzis & Cope, 2005; Kinzer, 2001; Marton, Hounsell,
& Entwistle, 1984; McWilliam & Jackson, 2008; Pillay, Clarke, & Taylor, 2006; Strong,
Silver, & Perini, 2000) suggesting that this type of learning was not a particularly deep form
of learning. The main objective for them was to pass the examinations. The Turkish
undergraduates claimed that memorization was just like soap foam (1RL 1/6/06) because it
only worked temporarily and was not sustainable. Other undergraduates believed that rote
learning cripples our countrys economic development and students dont understand what
they learn (1RL 1/6/06) and another undergraduate who concurred students are not
encouraged to think, form new ideas, imagine, produce or how to improve themselves;
thinking should be active and education should lead us to be productive (1FG 3/6/06). The
EFL students had noted a difference between passive and active learning outcomes as
illustrated in Figure 1 interactive peer-based instructional iterations matrix.
In comparison, the Australian international group had a more focused purpose with a
definite duty to learn disposition. Consequently, this cohort developed a range of learning
strategies to assist with their learning such as doing prior preparation, checking with the
lecturers to clarify thinking, and putting in longer hours. Students insisted that in Australia
they have to always be prepared because teacher will ask questions every time (2FG 24/9/07)
whereas in other cultures the teachers may not ask questions. This led to strategies where
students usually do homework maybe one or two weeks before, then communicate with
friends and the tutor to clarify my thinking (2FG 24/9/07). The Australian international
students found such strategies helpful because we pay money and we want to study here, we
have to be able to read and understand study information; weve got to improve our
knowledge (2FG24/9/07). Another international student agreed I think because you come
here, you pay your money for studying. If you dont want to study you lose your money, just
waste your money (3FG 5/10/07).
To the Australian cohort, an effective learning disposition required more concentration
than soap foam. The commitment and sacrifice that came with choosing to study overseas,
made them feel compelled to exert a greater effort to succeed and not lose the value of family
investment. As a result, the over dependence on an examination culture did not arise among
the Australia cohort of ESL learners. Instead, these students discussed learning as a duty
and loss of face syndrome (Pillay, 2002) which sharpened the value of success and
motivated them to work harder. Thus, Figure 1 matrix lists several learning outcomes for this
group which were responsibility and challenge.


351
Speaking Competency Cant Speak and Just Hesitating

The second emerging theme related to speaking English as a Foreign Language for the
Turkish students or speaking English as a Second Language for the Australian cohort. Both
cohorts of students expressed similar trepidation for speaking in the English language but for
slightly different reasons. The Turkish cohort expressed an overwhelming lack of confidence
and inability to speak in English while the Australian cohort was fearful of participative
speaking due to power distance (Hofstede, 1980) between lecturers and students as well as
international students and native speakers. Despite years of studying English in the Teacher
Training High Schools, the Turkish group claimed they lacked opportunities to use the
language. The common anecdotes from interaction with students included: no one can speak
in class while others reflected we never spoke in English in high school, just wrote and read,
we were not active in language learning (1RL 1/6/06). Another remarked: Teachers teach all
the grammar structures but in English classes students dont speak and only do exercises
without knowing (1RL 1/6/06). A fourth student believed that there was too much emphasis
on structural rules because when they teach us English, they only teach grammatical rules, but
it isnt enough because our people know all of the structures but they cant speak (1RL
5/6/2006). Another student lamented how can we become English teachers when we cant
even speak? (1FG 3/6/06).
In contrast to the Turkish cohort, the Australian cohort was afraid and self conscious of
participating in discussions and claimed this was one of the main reasons why they remained
silent in class. These students expressed concern about their pronunciation, did not understand
the Australian accent and use of slang, lacked precise vocabulary and consequently had to
guess what was being discussed in lectures and were not able to confidently participate with
native speakers because of the fast pace of the spoken English used by native speakers. One
Korean student noted the different culture of teaching and learning and said:

Even if I know the answer I cannot talk I know it but Im just hesitating, afraid to
speak out in front of all. Although I know exactly what is the answer Im afraid in
front of classmates, in front of the teacher (2FG 24/9/07).

Many students from the Australian cohort mentioned that power distance (Hofstede,
1980) caused them to be afraid of lecturer (2FG 24/9/07). The power distance apparent
between teachers and students is more significant in Asian cultures and was confounded by
lack of supportive nature by some native speakers. One student said: Australian people dont
think that I can speak English properly; they dont really know how to encourage my
speaking (3FG 5/10/07). Thus, power distance played a significant role in causing the
Australian cohort to lack confidence in speaking in class discussions or in front of others, in
addition to speech production concerns.
Despite these specific difficulties, both cohorts concurred that face-to-face interaction
and direct experience was necessary (1FG 3/6/06) and a better way to learn (2FG 24/9/07).
Students commented that speaking in small groups was easy like talking to friends with no
power distance issues and more relaxed (2RL 1/6/06). These comments support a key social
skill in language learning where learners, through peer discussions experience enjoyment,
confidence and develop more fluency in speaking. The interactive peer-based learning builds
on civic skills and the basic pragmatic competence required to use the language effectively

352
(Alexander, Argent, & Spencer, 2008). Students are not confronted with the fear of speaking
in front of others alone or the possible embarrassment and loss of face that an uttered error
might cause. Both cohorts acknowledged that interactive peer-based learning encourages
speaking opportunities in a non-threatening environment, helps expand vocabulary, increase
the speed of English speaking and provided friendly warnings from friends about
mispronunciation. This perhaps is best illustrated by several Turkish students who wrote how
happy, energetic and very creative they felt in speaking lessons because of sharing ideas with
my friends or discussing with a partner and also I want to ask the teacher some questions
(1RL 1/6/06). Similar comments were made by the Australian international cohort after peer
interactive training: the more I talk, the more confidence I feel (3FG 5/10/07) while the
researcher noted how the students speaking was slowly improving along with more abundant
class contributions 2RFN 31/7/07). These comments demonstrate learning outcomes listed in
the Figure 1 matrix which includes social skills, increasing confidence and speaking fluency
as fears of speaking inability and power distance fade from peer-based learning.
Another CLT activity that helped develop speaking confidence and proficiency was
collaboration among student groups and teams in problem solving tasks. Both terms of team
and group are used interchangeably to indicate students working together. The collaboration
encouraged them to work together more intensively. Roles were assigned to group members
such as recorder or reporter. Australian international students discussed case studies at length
to agree on ethical solutions. Turkish students began to plan and conduct research for group
presentations. The collaborative problem solving experience was noted by one Turkish
student as the best aspect was enjoyment and active involvement in the process of learning.
Other Turkish students mentioned how team work helps improve social skills and provides a
more real-life scenario because you taste what you will have to do in the real world. You
learn to express your ideas and concerns and accept others ideas and concerns (both quotes
from 1RL 1/6/06). The collaborative problem solving had generated more fluency in using the
language and enhanced students social skills and confidence collaborating effectively by
discussing in groups. The third CLT activity of leading discussion further developed students
confidence and proficiency. For instance Turkish students in the English Literature class
began to volunteer to lead discussions on poetry. The lecturer listed poets and poems to be
covered in the next session and noted suddenly, students began asking to present those
poems. It surprised me as I was only informing them, not requesting their participation
(20/3/06). New confidence from iterative peer collaboration appeared to motivate students to
volunteer leading discussions in front of the class which demonstrated a more complex
learning outcome than previously encountered. The willingness and aspiration to lead
discussion on English metaphysical poetry indicates the students deepening skills (Vygotsky,
1962, 1987, 1997) in language learning and a more intensive engagement with the content.
Roach (2000) claims an essential part of acquiring fluency in English is speech
production without pauses or gaps between words. As noted above speaking challenges
resulted in increased proficiency and competency from interactive peer-based learning
activities. The inhibiting and enhancing factors noted above have also been developed
through research findings on cooperative learning where students have more opportunities to
speak at any one time in the classroom (Johnson & Johnson, 2002; Kagan, 1994), thus
providing increased communication skills practice and little power distance to provoke fears
of speaking. The budding confidence through small interactive groups was valued by a

353
Turkish student who said: by group work, slowly you see that everyones pronunciation is
improving. They learn better (1FG 3/6/06).

Learning Diagnostic: Correct Deficiencies and Like a Missing Jigsaw

Communicative feedback which involves skill deficiency diagnostic followed with
practice to improve is a key attribute in language learning. Related to this diagnostic are the
constructive effects of interactive peer-based learning and the knack of pinpointing and
complementing gaps in learning such as pronunciation skills without embarrassing the
learner. In this theme, both cohorts discussed how peer learning assisted them to address such
deficiencies and fill in the missing jigsaw pieces in their learning process. The students refer
to jigsaw as a metaphor for completing their understanding of a topic or subject rather than
as a communicative language teaching approach. Similar to a picture puzzle with many
pieces, they gained new ideas to enhance their own understanding of a bigger picture. Using
peer interaction provides a non threatening environment for students to identify gaps in their
peers pronunciation, vocabulary and also meaning making and inform of the gaps. As a
result of this opportunity, students became aware of pronunciation difficulties and vocabulary
because active learning encouraged them to engage and reflect. As a consequence, the
Turkish students became more aware of their speaking strengths and weaknesses. One
undergraduate Turkish student wrote that it was useful to identify and correct my deficiencies
with the help of my friends (1RL 1/6/06) and others said we can notice our deficits on topics
and we can complete them easily before the exams (1FG 3/6/06); while another student wrote
the knowledge I gain from interactive learning remains for a long time in my mind (1RL
1/6/06). In these respects, interactive peer-based learning encouraged a constructive and
reflective quality for the English language learners. This concurs with Vygotskys (1997)
assertion that thought and speech are close to human consciousness. As students dialogued
together, social skills developed along with increasing diagnostic awareness of individual
strengths and weaknesses. Students became more aware of their own merits and deficiencies
through interactive peer-based learning dialogues.
This was apparent as Turkish students began collaborating to plan and research teaching
methodology presentations. Groups had been allocated a topic such as reading or listening
for seminar presentations in the Teaching English to Children class. Some discussion and
preparation time was allowed at the end of class for group members to check progress and
discuss plans. It was noted that group members were correcting each others comprehension
on topics and reorienting understanding in a positive and very productive way (1RFN
24/4/06). A collaboration learning outcome was evident as students were participating
intensively for longer periods and using each other as diagnostic resources to complete gaps
in their language proficiency and understanding. Their final presentations demonstrated
complex higher order thinking as student groups shared responsibilities to create a holistic
seminar and present it in English. The first group member discussed the importance of
reading skills; the second person demonstrated research about reading strategies; the third
showed a range of useful reading activities and the fourth conversed about reading assessment
methods. The presentations developed interdependence, responsibility, and required students
to collaborate on a more complex level using English language skills as an English teacher,
another real world application for language learning.

354
In the context of this theme, the Australian international students claimed that working
with peers could give inspiration like a missing jigsaw piece (2FG 24/9/07). One female
student explained that while engaged in a peer interactive activity, she might have the extra
piece of information that someone else needs to complete the bigger picture or vice versa,
forcing the student to engage in conversation to negotiate a solution. Students praised the
multi-dimensional perspectives of viewing problems and solutions through anothers eyes,
particularly from another cultural dynamic or ideology. One student mentioned a reflective
and dialogic benefit from working with peers because it helps you think, ponder over the thing
you try to explain, talk to other friends, tell your ideas to them; in return, they give the same
to you; this is both enjoyable and useful. (2RL 10/10/07). These comments arose after
students had engaged in collaborative group work to discuss ethical case studies in
Communication for Business classes and endeavored to find solutions. Their comments
illustrate a collaborative learning outcome where group members are working more
intensively, efficiently and productively. Researcher field notes also observed that iterative
peer learning had a collaboration learning outcome when many students automatically began
asking each other questions or offering help. Its good to see them begin to rely on each other
instead of always expecting help/advice/assistance from the teacher only (21/8/07). In this
particular entry, the researcher also noted that pairs of students only asked for assistance after
a lengthy peer-review process and coming to the end of their own resources.
Both case study cohorts agreed that CLT and peer-to peer interactive activities facilitated
more cognitive engagement and brain storming and so this was an advantage to expand ideas.
Students commented that the success potential increases in the group (1FG 3/6/06);
somebody from the group forms an idea and others improve it (1FG 3/6/06); and what one
person will do is limited but when we do something all together, thats more creative (2FG
24/9/07). Even though some structure was provided by the lecturer and through collaborative
group structures, the social and non-threatening nature of interactive peer-based learning was
considered more multi-dimensional learning (1FG 3/6/06) with more dimensions and ideas
from your idea (3FG 5/10/07). A similar notion was discussed by McGee-Cooper (1998) who
asserted that when teams know how to dialogue, collective intelligence rises higher than the
brightest group member. This thesis is also reiterated in the bestseller The Wisdom of Crowds
(Surowiecki, 2004) where diversity of opinions can provide greater insight and perception.
The additive awareness through peer interactive learning offers a diagnostic capacity for
learners which is a much neglected area (Alderson, 2005) in modern language teaching. Other
learning outcomes were collaboration, responsibility, engagement and multidimensional
learning. The multi-dimensional potential of interactive peer-based learning led to the next
theme of group motivation and time passing more quickly.

Engagement: Cherish your Time, Motivation and Peak Challenge

The Turkish cohort claimed that traditional didactic lectures were often boring, causing
them to lose concentration or fall asleep. In contrast, the same cohort recognized and valued
the positive attributes of interactive peer-based learning such as, time passes more quickly;
concentration isnt lost; the lack of boredom; having fun and lessons that were more
enjoyable and memorable with an abundance of ideas (1RL 1/6/06). Students claimed to
learn more effectively and remember better because of jokes, stories or events that happen

355
(1RL 1/6/06). Learners liked the brainstorms that come about because learning this way
increases your creativity and imagination (1RL 1/6/06). Associating learning experiences
with memorable and pleasant events in the class helps students to remember the content by
reflecting on the events. Another Turkish student said that working alone is not enjoyable,
lonely and difficult but that group work is enjoyable because you cherish your time (1FG
3/6/06). Many Turkish students commented about the pleasure and rapid passage of time
when engaged with companions in learning activities.
In comparison, the Australian cohort of international students spoke about the friendly
competition from engagement and learning in group work. Their comments included more
fun compared to self-learning; lectures are too boring but group activities are more
enjoyable, more challenging and learn more; working in groups motivates me to perform
better and be more hard working; and a good chance to upgrade myself (2RL 10/10/07).
Another student from this cohort insisted that collaborative group work had motivated him
because when I see other members work hard, I am influenced by them. I will work harder, I
dont want to be a worse person in my group (3RL 10/9/07).
These student comments could be associated with flow theory which describes a mental
state resulting from peak experiences in which the level of challenge is high but manageable
given a persons skills (Csikszentmihalyi 1996, 1997; Tardy & Snyder, 2004). During flow
experiences, attention is fully focused and devoted which leads to a loss of self-consciousness
and a distorted sense of time. Csikszentmihalyi (1997, p. 33) has likened flow experience to
a magnet for learning because continued realization of flow requires new challenges,
reminiscent of Vygotskys (1997) ripening new skills. Students were aware of increased
engagement, peak challenge, developing new skills and commented on how their identity
changed in response to overcoming the learning challenges. One student explained we have to
get involved, communicate with other people and it changes our personality (2FG 24/9/07).
Thus peer interactive learning lead to learning outcomes of engagement, satisfaction and
enjoyment, creativity and peak challenge. Sometimes students went beyond the class time to
complete the task so as not to let the group fall behind. These student identity changes lead
into discussion of the next theme.

Self Efficacy: Civic Skills, Leadership and Development of Student Identity

The awareness of developing identity through interactive peer-based learning was
apparent in both case study groups. Leadership, self-efficacy and the development of student
identity appeared to be cultivated through communication tasks centered on basic civic skills
arising from learning to work together. This was especially evident with the Turkish cohort.
By learning social skills and collaboration, students listened to diverse viewpoints, solved
problems negotiated solutions and assisted one another which provided a more holistic
purpose for learning English language. A range of comments illustrated the CLT participation
for instance, when students spoke about how working together intensified social skills and
helped transform those into civic skills by helping them to appreciate other views,
cooperating together, as well as negotiating and resolving differences. According to
undergraduates, the benefits include how to study in a more democratic way; discuss
problems in a civilized manner; have respect for diverse viewpoints; listen and help each
other and the importance of unity (1RL 1/6/06). Relationship building was important as

356
students commented on how friendship improves by spending time together (1FG 3/6/06); as
well as the memorable quality of the lesson content mentioned previously. This was a
significant shift for the Turkish cohort who grew up knowing examination was the only
learning need for being successful in life.
The Australian cohort of international students also affirmed learning civic skills from the
cross-cultural dynamic experienced in the English language class. This was interesting but not
surprising given that while these students were in Australia their Asian cultural background
seemed to be changing from the strong focus on examination to more meaningful learning.
They believed that mutual respect developed through listening, sharing, giving and receiving
feedback, while at the same time analyzing and evaluating fostered critical thinking, tolerance
and respect for others. More peer relationships resulted in multi-dimensional problem-solving
approaches, greater cooperation and comparison of cultural ideology. Students commented
that these experiences changed their character. One student explained the personality is
getting changed I mean more active. Now its not very difficult to speak in front of people
(2FG 24/9/07). Similar comments related to the development of assertive skills, negotiation
techniques, and becoming more expressive about their opinions because sometimes in our
country teachers didnt expect us to share our experience, our ideas, so sometimes we change
our personality (2FG 24/9/07. This exploration of identity was enabled through peer
interactive learning which served as a cognitive bridge between the present and the future,
specifying how individuals may change from how they are now to what they will become
(Markus & Nurius 1986, p. 956).
The Australian cohort emphasized their resilience in overcoming the obstacles of
adapting to life in Australia, an English speaking country. Students believed that a greater
sense of self-efficacy developed from peer learning as well as gaining confidence from
speaking with others outside of the learning context. One of the greatest challenges was the
stress caused by having to live in a foreign culture and coping with a new learning
environment alone (Khawaja & Dempsey, 2008). Students admitted that international
students suffer from a lot of stress but believed that they were stronger than domestic because
of the challenges they overcome. One undergraduate claimed this peer learning helps us be
stronger. And if we have difficulty in the future its easy for us to cope with. (2FG 24/9/07).
One of the most interesting contributions to this category came from an international
student who reflected on his new potential for leadership as he explained:

I think I learned how to be a leader. Because we dont have any chance to be a
leader in school but I know how to be a leader and how to encourage my group
members. It helped me to realize that maybe I have more leadership talent.
(3FG 5/10/07)

This students reflection on his future potential as a leader demonstrates Vygotskys
(1997, p. 30) notion that speech is an expression of that process of becoming aware. The
student appeared to become aware of his own developing skills in leading others and was
reflecting on possibilities for those skills in his future. He may envision himself in an
international leadership capacity in the future due to his increased language confidence.
Vygotskys quote What the child can do in cooperation today he can do alone tomorrow (p.
188) illustrates the zone of proximal development for this student and his maturing leadership
skills. International career aspiration became more achievable with increased confidence.

357
Similarly, Bandura (1997) introduced the construct of self-efficacy which refers to a
personal action control or agency. He argues that a person who believes in being able to do
something may conduct a more active and self-determined life course with such can do
cognition. This belief in being able to control challenges has also been likened to a self-
confident view in being able to deal with any life issues. Some researchers explain it as a
triadic reciprocal causation where learning environments have an epistemology of their own
which together with the learners own epistemological beliefs about learning triggers a
reciprocal engagement (Pillay et al., 2006). Other researchers (Tschannen-Moran, Hoy, &
Hoy, 1998) suggest that once efficacy beliefs are established they may be somewhat resistant
to change. These ideas diverge from universal patterns of adult identity stages linked to
chronological age. The learners own efforts to construct a more positive self-perception are
evident through peer learning and could hold great potential for educational programs and
lifelong learners. If English language learners develop greater self-efficacy through
collaborative civic skills, leadership and self-identity, English language learning programs
may consider developing more non-traditional teaching approaches to accelerate learning and
self-efficacy through peer-based strategies. The potential is also promising for remedial
inclusion of students through peer collaboration.

CONCLUSION
The study reported here demonstrates a number of useful insights into teaching English
as Foreign Language learners as well as English as a Second Language learners through
collaborative interactive peer teaching. When peer interactive learning strategies and
activities are repeated in iterative learning cycles (as noted in Figure 1 Interactive Peer-Based
Instructional Iteractions), students are afforded more opportunities to respond. In this study,
five main themes are reported including learning dispositions, speaking competency,
diagnostic feedback, engagement and self efficacy. Student participants discussed the benefits
of peer-based learning in reflective logs and focus group discussions. The learning outcomes
included social skill development, confidence, speaking fluency, diagnostic feedback,
intensified collaboration, engagement, multidimensional learning, fun and enjoyment,
creativity, challenge, responsibility, higher order thinking, civic skills, tolerance, leadership
and greater self efficacy. The majority of seventy-nine Turkish students preferred active
learning in comparison to their traditional style of passive learning and rote memorization.
The eighty-eight international students duty to learn (Pillay, 2002) kept them focused despite
initial difficulties and cultural adjustments including the fear of speaking English in class
which was confounded by power distance (Hofstede, 1980) with regards to their lecturers and
other native speakers. Both groups appreciated the increased opportunities for developing
fluency in speaking English language and minimizing the translation time-lag between
thinking in their own native language and then translating into English. Both groups also
recognized the capacity of social dialogic learning to improve their skills and provide a
diagnostic for individual deficiencies. This increased awareness that collaborative interactive
peer-based learning has the potential to diagnose pronunciation and knowledge deficiencies,
while filling in the missing jigsaw pieces during peak periods of challenge, enjoyment and
rapid passage of time was important and beneficial for the students because engagement

358
increased (Csikszentmihalyi, 1997a, 1997b). One of the key sources of identity formation is
engagement in practice (Wenger, 1998) and offers students opportunities to explore their
future identities, or possible selves, as English language speakers (Markus & Nurius, 1986).
Apart from the language learning, both case study cohorts stated they developed civic and
leadership skills as well as critical thinking processes which are key to effectively making
meaning in a new language. The communicative language skills development and the
empowerment experienced by the Australian international students were instrumental in
transcending their expectations and rising to a new level. They had begun to identify
themselves with their ideal English-speaking future careers and changing themselves as a
person. The complementary social interaction, reflection and knowledge construction in
communicative interactive peer-based learning assisted the development of a range of new
skills through greater self expression and civic leadership which caused positive identity
changes and the formation of self-efficacy.
Towards the end of the semester the international students were committed to success and
thus turned every obstacle into an opportunity through discussing, debating and personal
meaning making with peer interactions in the class and outside of the classrooms (in the case
of the Australian cohorts). The lived experience went beyond the classroom although in
Turkey, the language learning experience did not go beyond the classroom. For the majority
of students, interactive peer-based learning was viewed positively and their gains, elaborated
through the quotes, endorse the conclusion that peer learning is a vital for high quality
teaching and learning environments (Boud et al., 2001). It must be cautioned that it is not the
only approach but an important one in achieving complementary outcomes and benefits for
the learners. The challenge for educators is how to create everyday learning environments that
go beyond the classroom and resonate with the real world.

About the Authors

Sally Ashton-Hay is a Lecturer in English language programs at the International College
of Queensland University of Technology in Australia. While posted as a Senior English
Language Fellow from 2003-2006, she researched one of the case studies reported here at the
largest state university in Turkey. She has been a literacy educator for Aboriginal students,
non-elite English language micro scholarship students and a teacher trainer. Her current
interest is student voice and designing blended technological learning applications.
Hitendra Pillay is a Professor in the School of Learning and Professional Studies at
Queensland University of Technology in Australia. His interest in the nature and development
of knowledge and the systems theory has led to a diverse academic research portfolio that
includes areas such as distributed/social cognition and learning, adult and community
education, industry based training, and technology based learning.


359
APPENDIX A

Table 1. Summary of the significant comparative themes from two case studies

Theme Turkey Australia
1. Learning Dispositions
Responsibility
Collaboration
Higher order
thinking

(Biggs, 1998; Biggs et al.,
1993; Marton et al., 1984;
Pillay et al., 2006; Strong et al.,
2000)

Just like Soap Foam

Rote learning, passive
memorization, superficial

Duty to learn

Sacrifice and cost to study
abroad, more preparation
2. Speaking Fluency
Fluency
Social skills
Confidence

(Hymes, 1972; Li, 2001;
Nunan, 1999; Savignon, 2001)

Not able to speak

Learn only grammar; unable to
speak

Afraid to speak

Power distance; not used to
expressing opinions
3. Learning Diagnostic
Diagnostic
feedback
Challenge
Multi dimensional

(Mitchell 1994 in Bax, 2003)

Complete deficiencies

Awareness of skill gaps from
peers

Just like a jigsaw

Peers fill in missing pieces of
lesson
4. Engagement
Peak challenge
Creativity
Enjoyment

(Csikszentmihalyi, 1996, 1997a,
1997b; Tardy & Snyder, 2004)

Cherish your time

Fun and enjoyable learning

Dont want to be the worst
in the group

Motivates friendly
competition, peak challenge

REFERENCES

Alderson, J. C. (2005). Diagnosing foreign language proficiency: The interface between
learning and assessment. London: Continuum.
Alexander, O., Argent, S., & Spencer, J. (2008). EAP Essentials: A teacher's guide to
principles and practice. Reading: Garnet Publishing Ltd.
Aviram, A. (2000). Beyond Constructivism: Autonomy-Oriented Educaton. Studies in
Philosophy and Education, 19(5 - 6), 465-489.

360
Bandura, A. (1997). Self Efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman.
Biggs, J. (1998). Learning from the Confucian heritage: so size doesn't matter? International
Journal of Educational Research, 29(8), 723-738.
Biggs, J. (2003). Teaching for Quality Learning at University. Maidenhead: The Society for
Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.
Biggs, J., Burville, J., & Telfer, R. (1993). The Process of Learning. New York: Prentice
Hall.
Boud, D., Cohen, R., & Sampson, J. (2001). Peer Learning in Higher Education: learning
from & with each other. London: Kogan Page Limited.
Bozkurt, G. (2006, October 1). Turkey debates free expression of thought. Turkish Daily
News.
Breen, M. P. (1984). Process syllabuses for the language classroom. In C. Brumfit (Ed.),
General English Syllabus Design: Curriculum and Syllabus Design for the General
English Classroom. Oxford: British Council and Pergamon Press.
Brown, H. (2000). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching (Fourth ed.). White Plains:
Pearson Education.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning.
Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42.
Brown, T. H. (2006). Beyond constructivism: navigationism in the knowledge era. On the
Horizon, 14(3), 108.
Buchberger, F. (2001). Active Learning in Powerful Learning Environments. Retrieved
21/1/06, 2006, from http://www.pa-
linz.ac.at/team/homepage/BuchbergerF/01%20FB%20Activec.pdf
Buchberger, F., Campos, B. P., Kallos, D., & Stephenson, J. (2000). Green Paper on Teacher
Education in Europe. Umea, Sweden: Umea University.
Celce-Murcia, M. E. (2001). Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language (3rd ed.).
Singapore: Heinle & Heinle Thomson Learning.
Chamot, A. U., & O'Malley, J. M. (1999). Using Learning Strategies to Develop Skills in
English as a Second Language. In J. Orr (Ed.), Growing Up With English (pp. 131-
143). Washington, D.C.: United States Department of State.
Chimombo, J. (2001). Educational innovations in developing countries: implications and
challenges for policy change in Malawi. Journal of International Cooperation in
Education, 4(2), 39-54.
Cook-Sather, A. (2006). Sound, Presence, and Power: "Student Voice" in Educational
Research and Reform. Curriculum Inquiry, 36(4), 359-390.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Intrinsic Motivation and Effective Teaching. In J. L. Bess (Ed.),
Teaching Well and Liking It: Motivating Faculty to Teach Effectively (pp. 72-92).
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997a). Finding Flow. New York: Basic Books.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997b). Finding flow: the Psychology of Engagement with Everyday
Life. New York: Basic Books.
De Corte, E., Verschaffel, L., Entwistle, N., & van Merrinboer, J. (2003). Powerful Learning
Environments: Unravelling basic components and dimensions. Elsevier Science.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2003). Strategies of Qualitative Inquiry. Thousand Oaks:
Sage Publications.
Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (1998). Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language
Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gerjets, P. H., & Hesse, F. W. (2005). When are powerful learning environments effective?
The role of learner activities and of students' conceptions of educational technology.
International Journal of Educational Research, 41(6), 445-465.

361
Goker, S. D. (2006). Impact of peer coaching on self-efficacy and instructional skills in TEFL
teacher education. System, 34(2), 239-254.
Hall, D., & Hewings, A. (2001). Innovation in English Language Teaching: A Reader. New
York: Routledge.
Hart, N. (2002). Intra-group autonomy and authentic materials: a different approach to ELT in
Japanese colleges and universities. System, 30(1), 33-46.
Hiep, P. H. (2005). "Imported" Communicative Language Teaching: Implications for
Teachers. English Teaching Forum, 43(4), 2-9.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related
Values. Beverly Hills: Sage.
Hymes, D. (1971). Competence and performance in linguistic theory. In R. Huxley & E.
Ingram (Eds.), Language Acquisition: Models and Methods (pp. 3-28). London:
Academic Press.
Hymes, D. (1972). On Communicative Competence. In J. P. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.),
Sociolinguistics: Selected Readings (pp. 269-293). Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2002). Learning together and alone: overview and meta-
analysis. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 22, pp.95-105.
Kagan, S. (1994). Cooperative Learning. San Clemente, CA: Kagan Publications.
Kalantzis, M., & Cope, B. (2005). Learning by Design. Melbourne: Victorian Schools
Innovation Commission.
Keeffe, M., & Carrington, S. (2006). Schools and Diversity. Frenchs Forest: Pearson
SprintPrint.
Khawaja, N., & Dempsey, J. (2008). A Comparison of International and Domestic Tertiary
Students in Australia. Australian Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 18(1), 30-46.
Kinzer, S. (2001). Crescent & Star: Turkey Between Two Worlds. New York: Farrar, Straus
and Giroux.
Kubota, R., & Lin, A. (2006). Race and TESOL: Introduction to Concepts and Theories.
TESOL Quarterly, 40(3), 471-493.
Lesgold, A. (2004). Contextual requirements for constructivist learning. International Journal
of Educational Research, 41(6), 495-502.
Li, D. (1998). "It's always more difficult than you plan and imagine": Teachers' perceived
difficulties in introducing the communicative approach in South Korea. TESOL
Quarterly, 32(4).
Li, D. (2001). Teachers' Perceived Difficulties in Introducing the communicative Approach in
South Korea. In D. Hall & A. Hewings (Eds.), Innovations in English Language
Teaching: A Reader (pp. 149-166). London: Routledge.
Liao, X. (2004). The need for Communicative Language Teaching in China. ELT Journal,
58(3), 270.
Lowyck, J., Lehtinen, E., & Elen, J. (2004). Students' perspectives on learning environments.
International Journal of Educational Research, 41(6), 401-406.
Markus, H., & Nurius, P. (1986). Possible Selves. American Psychologist, 41, 954-969.
Marton, F., Hounsell, D., & Entwistle, N. (1984). The Experience of Learning. Edinburgh:
Scottish Academic Press.
McWilliam, E., & Jackson, N. (2008, July 2). No Longer Tuned in to his Master's Voice. The
Australian, p. 25.
Montgomery, C., & Eisenstein, M. (1985). Real reality revisited; An experimental
communication course in ESL. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 317-334.
Niemi, H. (2002). Active learning--a cultural change needed in teacher education and schools.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(7), 763-780.

362
Nunan, D. (1999). Second Language Teaching & Learning. Boston: Heinle & Heinle
Publishers.
Palincsar, A., & Herrenkohl, L. (2002). Designing Collaborative Learning Contexts. Theory
Into Practice, 41(1), 26.
Pillay, H. (2002). Understanding Learner-centredness: does it consider the diverse needs of
individuals? Studies in Continuing Education, 24(1), 93-102.
Pillay, H., Clarke, J., & Taylor, P. (2006). Learning agency in new learning environments: An
Australian case study of the influence of context. In A. D. Figueiredo & A. P. Afonso
(Eds.), Managing Learning in Virtual Settings: The Role of Context (pp. 333).
Hershey: Information Science Publishing.
Salomon, G. (1998). Novel constructivist learning environments and novel technologies:
some issues to be concerned with. Learning and Instruction, 8(Supplement 1), 3-12.
Satyal, R. (2005). Education system of less developed countries needs fundamental change.
Retrieved August 2, 2005, 2005, from http://www2.unesco.org/wef/Lconf_toc.htm
Savignon, S. J. (2001). Communicative Language Teaching for the Twenty-First Century. In
M. E. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language (3rd
ed.). London: Heinle & Heinle.
Schmidt, R., & Frota, S. (1986). Developing basic conversational ability in a second
language: A case study of an adult learner of Portuguese. In R. Day (Ed.), Talking to
Learn: Conversation in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 237-326). Rowley:
Newbury House.
Strong, R., Silver, H., & Perini, M. (2000). So Each May Learn: integrating learning styles
and multiple intelligences. Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
Surowiecki, J. (2004). The Wisdom of Crowds. New York: Doubleday.
Tardy, C., & Snyder, B. (2004). 'That's why I do it': Flow and EFL teachers' practices. ELT
Journal, 58(2), 118.
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and
quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Tschannen-Moran, M., Hoy, A. W., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher Efficacy: its meaning and
measure. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 202-244.
Van Petegem, P., De Loght, T., & Shortridge, A. M. (2003). Powerful Learning Is
Interactive: A Cross-Cultural Perspective. Retrieved 24/01/06, from
http://www.usq.edu.au/electpub/e-
jist/docs/vol7_no1/FullPapers/Powerful_learning.htm
Vygotsky, L. (1962). Thought and Language. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Vygotsky, L. (1987). Zone of Proximal Development. In M. Cole (Ed.), Mind in Society: The
Development of Higher Psychological Processes (pp. 52-91). Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L. (1997). Thought and Language (A. Kozulin, Trans.). Cambridge: The MIT
Press.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice. Learning, Meaning and Identity. Cambridge:


Chapter 15

THE INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN
OF ONLINE COLLABORATIVE LEARNING

The George Washington University

ABSTRACT

Much has been written about the potential for deep, meaningful learning through
shared problem-solving and joint knowledge construction during online collaborative
learning (OCL). By requiring the integration of diverse perspectives, collaborative
experiences foster critical thinking and can help to move learners beyond what they are
able to achieve independently. With these important educational benefits come
significant challenges related to team building, participation equity, effective facilitation
of critical discourse, student assessment, and the logistical challenges associated with
separation of time and place. Perceived and experienced implementation difficulties often
inhibit instructors adoption of collaborative learning strategies in online courses.
The challenges associated with online collaborative learning can be addressed
through careful instructional design. There is an array of educational research exploring
the effects of instructional variables on the effectiveness and outcomes of OCL. The
prevalence of small, diverse studies focused on specific aspects of collaborative learning
makes it difficult for practitioners to draw conclusions to guide instructional practice. The
literature includes many descriptions of what effective collaboration looks like, but
little specific guidance about how to get there.
To bridge this gap, this chapter translates collaborative learning research into
practical application. It explores key instructional design considerations for the design
and implementation of effective online collaborative learning including technology
selection; activity design; group formation and role assignment; team building;
scaffolding and facilitation; and learner assessment. A synthesis of research findings
related to each of these considerations is presented along with checklists of
recommendations to guide the instructional design of OCL.


364
INTRODUCTION

Designing and facilitating online collaborative learning (OCL) is not without its
challenges. Consider these comments from a survey of graduate students regarding the
educational value of a collaborative assignment within an online course (Posey, 2007):

Working collaboratively online is very difficult due to travel and personal schedules.
My group included many strong personalities; therefore more time was needed for
discussion of varying viewpoints. We felt pressured to pull something together; it
was not our best work.
Most of us are professionals who work in a team setting. I find these assignments to
be completely ineffective learning tools.
One of our team members was unresponsive, difficult to reach and generally had no
contribution to the project.
The timeframe was too short to sort out personalities, strengths, and weaknesses in
addition to understanding, prioritizing and focusing issues.
I felt like I was helping others get an A on the assignment.

Though only a small sample, these student reflections are consistent with recurrent
themes in the collaborative learning literature. As summarized by Roberts and McInnerey
(2007), common problems include student apathy and hostility toward group work;
difficulties with group selection; a lack of essential group-work skills; the free-rider; possible
inequalities in student abilities; and appropriate assessment of individuals within a group.
With so many potential pitfalls, its no wonder many instructors shy away from OCL. There
are, after all, a host of other instructionally sound, learner-motivating strategies to choose
from. Why should they bother?
To be productive members of todays knowledge society, graduates of academic
programs must be able to work on diverse tasks and solve problems collaboratively
(Grabinger & Dunlap, 2002; Mandl & Kraus, 2003). The workforce is in need of graduates
who look beyond their individual needs and limited points of view; who invite dialogue and
debate because they know it will deepen their own understanding; who recognize the value
that others bring to the table; and who are motivated to work together for the greater good. In
short, society needs people who know how to collaborate. And like the development of any
other complex competency, collaboration needs to be taught and its mastery requires practice.
Educators have a responsibility to help students understand, value, and participate effectively
in the collaborative process.
Of course, collaborative learning also provides important educational benefits. The
process of examining situations and problems from multiple perspectives, discussing and
clarifying ideas, and evaluating the ideas of others promotes the development of critical
thinking skills (Gokhale, 1995). The critical dialogue and argumentation that takes place
during collaborative problem-solving creates a dissonance that forces students to evaluate
their own ideas as well as those of others, which is important for deep levels of learning
(Reiser, 2002; Jonnasen & Remidez, 2002). Collaboration can also foster transformative
learning. As participants become more critically aware of their assumptions and expectations,
The Instructional Design of Online Collaborative Learning

365
their way of thinking becomes more inclusive, reflective, open, discriminating, and flexible
(Mezirow, 2000).
Despite the challenges associated with separation of time and space, collaboration is
especially beneficial in online learning environments. By fostering trust, shared values, shared
goals, and interdependence, collaborative learning can reduce feelings of isolation and
contribute to a sense of community (Sitzmann, Ely & Wisher, 2007; Cox & Cox, 2008).
Asynchronous discussion a staple of the online classroom promotes democracy and
equality among learners, and leads to more thoughtful, careful communication (Uribe, Klein,
& Sullivan, 2003; Wegerif, 1998; Wheeler & Nistor, 2003; Meyer, 2003). The online
environment may also help introverted learners express themselves more openly (Hsu, Chou,
Hwang & Chou, 2008). As Garrison (2003) has noted, the ability to move iteratively and
deliberately between critical discourse and personal reflection is enhanced in online forums.
Clearly, OCL is worth the effort. The important question now is how to implement it
most efficiently and effectively. What is it that separates effective collaborative learning
activities from ineffective ones? How can technology support, rather than inhibit,
socialization and communication? How does the selection and design of the learning activity
impact the success of OCL? What is the best way to group students? What makes for a
cohesive, well functioning team? How can instructors best facilitate and support the
collaborative learning process? These are some of the questions that we examine in this
chapter. While our findings may be applicable to teaching learners of all ages, this chapter
focuses on collaboration among adult, online learners.

DEFINITIONS & THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS

Online collaborative learning, as defined for this chapter, refers to activities that
challenge learners in distributed locations to work interdependently to achieve a shared
learning goal. Learners may use a combination of synchronous and asynchronous
technologies to communicate, share knowledge and resources, and/or develop joint projects.
Interdependence is a key component of this definition. Interdependence means that students
rely on one another to solve problems and complete project tasks, and that the result(s) of this
interaction exceed what participants are able to achieve alone. Since every exchange of
understandings enriches the learning of all parties, any activity that engages participants in
critical dialogue or shared problem solving, with or without an end product, can be considered
collaborative learning. The focus is as much on process as it is on outcome(s).
Collaborative learning is sometimes confused with cooperative learning, and several
authors have attempted to distinguish between these constructs. Early researchers of
cooperative learning have defined it as the instructional use of small groups working together
on carefully structured problems or tasks (Johnson & Johnson, 1990; Slavin, 1995). Building
on this definition, Roberts (2005) distinguishes collaborative learning from cooperative group
work by its emphasis on student-to-student interaction. Olivares (2007) concludes that
whereas cooperative learning is highly structured, carefully facilitated, and focused on
developing specific skills, collaborative learning is purposely unstructured to foster open
debate, and is focused on knowledge construction and problem solving. We concur with
Smith and MacGregors (1992) characterization of collaborative learning as an umbrella

366
term for a variety of educational approaches involving joint intellectual effort by students, or
students and teachers together (p. 10). Collaborative learning requires cooperation among
group members, but by definition goes beyond working together on a shared project.
True collaboration involves interdependence a reliance on one another in problem
solving or achieving mutual goals (Heinemann & Zeiss, 2002). Essential collaborative
processes include shared decision making, conflict resolution, reciprocal trust and respect,
shared leadership, and equality of influence (Gardner, 1998). Cognitive diversity, critical
dialogue, negotiation of meaning and the synthesis of perspectives enable collaborative
groups to achieve integrative solutions that exceed the capability of individual members
(Gardner, 2005; Senge, 1990).
The emphasis on student-to-student interaction, interdependence, and critical dialogue
links OCL most closely with a field of study called Computer-Supported Collaborative
Learning (CSCL). CSCL refers to technology-supported problem-solving activities that
challenge learners with different knowledge, skills, and attitudes to negotiate common
understandings, contribute to a common pool of knowledge, and reach common conclusions.
In contrast to cooperative group work, in which learners may simply share responsibility for a
common task, CSCL focuses on the joint construction of knowledge and how technology and
other mediators interact with this process (Koschmann, 2002). CSCL encompasses all kinds
of computer-mediated collaboration, whether in the classroom or online. As such, OCL as
discussed in this chapter may be seen as a subset of CSCL.
Another relevant area of research revolves around the Communities of Inquiry model,
which illustrates the complementary and overlapping relationships among cognitive presence,
social presence, and teaching presence in online learning (Archer, Garrison, Anderson &
Rourke, 2001). In a community of inquiry, learners move iteratively between dialogue (social
presence) and personal reflection (cognitive presence) when solving a problem or completing
a learning task (teaching presence) (Garrison, 2003). Community of inquiry research focuses
on the relationship between these presences which form the basis for interaction in online
learning environments. Through this lens, we can see that OCL is closely related to inquiry-
based facilitated discussions that prompt learners to share perspectives and/or solve problems
collaboratively. OCL is a type of community of inquiry that results in some kind of tangible,
collaboratively-developed outcome. Learners may engage in discussion synchronously or
asynchronously (social presence); and reflect on, research, and create contributions (cognitive
presence). The instructors role is to provide structure and support to enable the collaborative
process (teaching presence).

TECHNOLOGY SELECTION

In online environments, communication technologies are essential to the collaborative
process. To collaborate, students must be able to communicate. The choice of technology can
play a key role in the ease and effectiveness of communication. For this reason, the
characteristics and features of communication technologies must be carefully considered in
the design of OCL.
Kirschner, Strijbos, Kreijns and Beers (2004) emphasize the need for interaction design
in support of collaborative online learning -- the need to take into account not only the

367
usability of the learning environment, but also its utility. As these authors note, a system that
is usable but does not have the functionalities the user needs is worthless (p. 52). In OCL, a
technology is useful if it supports learners needs at any given moment during the
collaborative activity.
A paradox of online communication technologies is that they both enable and inhibit
personal connections. Whether through email, instant messaging, voice over internet
technologies, or social networking, communicating at a distance has never been easier. Why
is it, then, that web-based communication is often viewed as a barrier to socialization and
interaction among online learners? For example, Hishina, Okada and Suzuki (2005) point out
that a lack of verbal cues can inhibit the development of interpersonal relationships.
Similarly, Lee and Kim (2005) note that the relatively few opportunities for face-to-face
problem solving in a web-based environment makes it difficult for groups to develop a shared
understanding of group project tasks.
The success of OCL within LMS-driven online classrooms may depend on using the right
communication tool at the right time. Synchronous communications that provide for natural
language transmission, multiple cues, and immediate feedback may be more appropriate for
tasks that require debate or more immediate, efficient information exchange (Havard, Du, &
Xu, 2008). Based on a review of research comparing the effects of synchronous and
asynchronous environments, Sitzmann et al. (2007) concluded that students learn more
through synchronous technologies, and recommend the use of chat rooms and virtual
classrooms rather than email and discussion boards. As these authors note, the use of
synchronous communications eliminates the frustration associated with waiting to receive an
answer to a question. Immediacy has the added benefit of enhancing social presence, which
facilitates trust-building, information seeking, and conflict resolution (Havard et al., 2008). In
contrast, in their look at several studies, Clark and Mayer (2008) conclude that asynchronous
communication that takes place over a longer period of time is more effective for facilitating
learning outcomes that benefit from reflection and independent research. They emphasize the
importance of matching the technology with the specific desired goal of the learning activity.
Although students who are new to online learning may not always select the most
appropriate technologies for the task at hand (Havard et al., 2008), there is evidence that
learners have the capacity to choose communication vehicles wisely. Thomas and MacGregor
(2005) found that students selected synchronous or asynchronous communication
technologies based on the demands of the task. Students preferred asynchronous systems for
up-front planning and tasks that required more time, reflection, and critical thinking; and
synchronous systems for brainstorming, free-flowing discussion, team building, socialization,
and the development of work products. Similarly, Cawthon and Harris (2007) found that
students used different forms of communication based on the content of the task (i.e., email
when detailed communication was required; discussion boards to receive input/feedback from
the entire group).
To meet the unique needs of diverse participants working on varied tasks, Cawthon and
Harris (2007) provided learners collaborating in an online research lab with multiple
communication formats (i.e., discussion boards, email, chat, and telephone). These authors
noted several important benefits of weekly, synchronous chats, including facilitator
monitoring of student understanding, providing specific feedback, observing and engaging in
live thinking processes, and enhancing social connections. To avoid potential problems
associated with periodic technology failures (e.g., servers down), the authors recommend

368
having back up plans and using alternative communication strategies such as email for the
exchange of essential, time-sensitive information.
Every technology has a unique set of characteristics and features that support learning
and communication in different ways. In online learning settings the features and
functionality of the Learning Management System (LMS), and how the instructor makes use
of it, are the primary drivers of the type and quality of communication that takes place. There
are many different LMSs, each with different features and affordances. Most LMSs used in
higher-education settings enable learners to communicate in a variety of ways: synchronously
through chat or virtual classrooms; and asynchronously through email, discussion forums,
blogs or wikis. Blackboard, one of the most commonly used LMSs in higher education,
enables instructors to create private group areas with chat, asynchronous discussion forums,
file exchange, and email capabilities.
Despite these built-in communication vehicles, Blackboard and LMSs like it may not be
ideal settings for OCL. Payne and Reinhart (2008) analyzed how well the features of
Blackboard support the development of collaborative, learner-centered environments and
concluded that it was more instructor-centered than learner-centered, with inherent
tendencies toward fragmentation, individualization and isolation (p. 35). As these authors
note, student control over the nature of interaction is limited to what the instructor provides
them, and the division of communications into isolated forums can impede the evolution of
natural, integrated conversation. Rollett, Lux, Strohmaier, and Dosinger (2007) also looked at
this issue and noted that traditional LMSs can limit peers from collaborating effectively, and
do not sufficiently address social factors, such as trust and motivation. They found that the
high degree of structure in traditional LMSs hinders creativity and limits learners self-
directed activity.
Online instructors can expand opportunities for collaboration in online environments
through the use of social technologies known as Web 2.0, including wikis, social
bookmarking, social networking, and virtual worlds, all of which may facilitate OCL. Rollet
et al. (2007) point out advantages of social technologies over traditional LMSs, particularly
the conversations, communities, networks, and ideas these technologies facilitate. In an
ethnographic study of the use of blogs, wikis, Second Life, Facebook, and Delicious, Hemmi,
Bayne and Land (2009) noted social medias orientation towards collaborationSocial
technologies enable all of the essential elements of OCL, including student-to-student
interaction; interdependence, (in the form of social creation); open discussion and debate;
joint problem solving; and examination of situations and problems from multiple
perspectives.
Social media technologies are also being used as LMSs. Rienzo and Han (2009)
compared Google Docs and Microsofts Office Live for course management, including rating
the degree of cooperation and collaboration provided by each. They considered groups on a
cooperation-collaboration continuum and found that collaborative groups benefited from the
simultaneous editing capabilities and more versatile organizational possibilities offered in the
Google system, when compared to the more hierarchical structure of the Microsoft system.
Selecting Web 2.0 technologies can be challenging due to the great many options
available. Examples include Blogger, Tumblr, Typepad, and Wordpress for blogging; Flickr,
Vimeo, and YouTube for sharing videos and other media; CiteULike, Connotea, Delicious,
Reddit, and StumbleUpon for sharing and commenting on links/bookmarks; Goodreads and
Librarything for sharing and discussing books; MediaWiki, Wetpaint, and Wikispaces for

369
wikis; and Facebook and Google for group work and online space for groups to do many of
these activities. Given the advantages social technologies have in regard to collaborative
work, instructors may benefit from trying some of these tools. However, it is also important
to note the potential pitfalls of using these relatively new technologies. As Rollett et al.
(2007) noted, caution should be used when relying on services provided by new companies
that may not yet have a viable business model.

OCL Design Checklist: Technology Selection

Provide multiple synchronous and asynchronous communication technology options.
Match the technology to the desired learning outcome.
Provide education and support to ensure that students (a) know how to use available
technologies; and (b) recognize the unique affordances of each as it relates to OCL.
Allow and encourage students to choose the best technology for the task at hand.
Take advantage of evolving Web 2.0 technologies to support collaboration (e.g.,
blogs, wikis, instant messaging, social networking, video chat, virtual worlds, etc.).

ACTIVITY DESIGN

Moving beyond a simple division of effort to foster the joint knowledge construction and
interdependent teamwork that characterizes true collaborative learning requires that
participants (a) welcome alternative perspectives and complementary talents; and (b) integrate
perspectives and use their complementary talents to achieve learning outcomes that exceed
what they can accomplish individually. To achieve this goal, instructors in OCL must push
participants beyond their individual comfort zones. The most effective OCL activities
promote critical thinking through inquiry, critical thinking, or problem-solving; and are
challenging enough to require true collaboration, including significant contribution from all
participants.
Learning domains that are ill-structured provide a natural foundation for OCL. Ill-
structured domains reflect real-world complexities and are characterized by complex
concepts, or combinations of concepts, whose application may vary across case situations
(Spiro, Feltovich, Jacobson, & Coulson, 1992). Cases or problems that are ill-structured can
help to promote interdependence among collaborative learners. Interacting with peers around
ill-structured problems leads to rich problem representation with consideration for a wide
range of factors and constraints (Ge and Land, 2004).
Brooke (2007) recommends using case- or problem-based learning to promote learner-
learner interaction through Socratic dialogue and collaborative learning. By evaluating
alternative opinions, recognizing uncertainties, clarifying ideas, correcting misconceptions,
and seeking new information to resolve conflicts, participants build critical thinking skills
(Gokhale, 1995; Ge and Land, 2004). Dissonance and argumentation prompt collective
knowledge building as informed, divergent opinions converge (Reiser, 2002; Jonassen and
Remidez, 2002).

370
Keeping learners focused on collaboration and moving productively toward a successful
outcome in the context of complex activity requires careful planning. According to Kirschner
et al. (2004), designers of OCL must consider the interactions among educational, social, and
technology processes, as well as the characteristics of the learning task. Their interaction
design model includes six iterative stages that emphasize analyzing, evaluating, and reflecting
upon learners needs and experiences throughout the process. Within this process, the authors
recommend considering three key dimensions of the learning task:

Task ownership, including individual accountability for work products and
interdependence among team members to achieve learning goals.
Task character, including the selection of well or ill-structured tasks and problems.
Task control, which involves providing appropriate technology supports and
flexibility to enable learners to customize the experience according to their unique
needs and interests.

Having planned an appropriate activity along with the tasks, processes, and supports
needed to foster good collaboration, instructors must effectively communicate OCL
requirements and logistics to their students. Clear, unambiguous goals and guidelines are a
prerequisite to effective OCL. Providing advance instructions to prepare students for OCL
can contribute to a more successful collaborative process (Ge, Yamashiro, & Lee, 2000).
Summarizing research in both face-to-face and online collaborative learning, Clark and
Mayer (2008) state that outcomes are influenced by the instructions given to the team as well
as by specific roles assigned within the team and emphasize that structured assignments are
critical to maximizing the benefits from collaborative work. Clark and Mayer discourage
giving generalized assignments such as discuss these issues and assert that clear guidance
and objectives help learners avoid extraneous mental processing. They offer structured
controversy and problem-based learning as two examples of providing structure in
collaborative settings.

OCL Design Checklist: Activity Design

Provide clear, unambiguous goals and guidelines for success.
Make the process of collaboration an explicit learning goal.
Use complex, inquiry or problem-based activities to promote interdependence.
Carefully structure activities to facilitate the collaborative process and keep learners
moving productively toward a successful outcome.

GROUP FORMATION

When grouping students into OCL teams, instructors must decide whether to assign
students to groups, or to allow them to choose their groups based on previous relationships or
common interests. As Roberts and McInnerney (2007) observe, when given a choice, students
are likely to team with friends from similar backgrounds; and instructors purposeful
grouping of students with a goal of mixing students by age, gender, and cultural background

371
can help to improve collaborative skills. It makes intuitive sense that mixed groups of
students learn more from each other, however, findings related to the impacts of
heterogeneous vs. homogenous grouping on OCL are mixed. In addition, the construct
heterogeneous is ambiguous, as every learner embodies a variety of characteristics that can
be mixed and matched in the hopes of fostering better collaboration.
Several authors have examined the impact of grouping students by learning style on team
performance. Alfonseca et al. (2006) investigated the effects of grouping students by learning
styles on collaborative work outcomes. Students were grouped into homogenous and
heterogeneous pairs based on five learning style dimensions (sensing-intuitive, visual-verbal,
inductive-deductive, active-reflective, and sequential-global). Learning style did appear to
affect the composition of students self-selected groups. Although the sample size was too
small to demonstrate statistically significant differences in performance, heterogeneous pairs
(active-reflective and sensing-intuitive) achieved the highest average score. Notably, all
groups performed well, regardless of learning style composition. In a related study, Jeong and
Lee (2008) examined critical discourse interactions among groups composed of active
learners only, reflective learners only, activereflective learners and reflective-active learners
and found that groups with higher ratios of reflective to active learners engaged in more
critical discourse than more homogenous groups. The authors suggest that online instructors
strive to create groups with a balanced mix of active and reflective learners to promote
discourse across learning styles.
Hsu, et al. (2008) studied the impacts of personality-based grouping (introvert, extrovert,
and hybrid groups) on team dynamics and performance. They observed the highest task
conflict and lowest workload sharing among hybrid groups, moderate task conflict and
workload sharing among introvert groups, and the lowest task conflict and highest workload
sharing among extrovert groups. However, there were no notable differences in team
performance. While this research may infer that grouping students with diverse personalities
together can lead to increased conflict within collaborative teams, it is also important to note
that a certain degree of conflict among team members can have a positive impact on the depth
and quality of critical discussion and decision-making. Diversity within teams creates a
tension which can either support or inhibit the collaborative process (Posey, 2007).
Williams, Duray and Reddy (2006) examined the impacts of group size and participant
disposition toward teamwork on cohesiveness and learning success. In this study, smaller
teams were more cohesive (i.e., the number of team members was negatively correlated with
cohesiveness); and participant disposition toward teamwork was related to group
cohesiveness and learning success. These authors suggest grouping those who value
teamwork together, and increasing instructor facilitation of team process for groups of
individuals with negative attitudes toward teamwork. This research also supports the use of
smaller group sizes for improved team cohesion.
Based on student surveys and experimentation with different group sizes over several
semesters, Colwell and Jenks (2004) found three to be an optimal group size. They assert that
groups of three promote a well-rounded discussion without the opportunity for some
individuals to opt out of the process. Students also indicated a preference for groups of three.
The larger the group, the more difficult it may be to coordinate schedules, gain consensus,
and ensure equitable participation among team members (Yuselturk & Cagiltay, 2007).
Similarly, Clark and Mayer (2008) recommend heterogeneous groups of three to five
members. They particularly recommend this group size for learning what they refer to as far-

372
transfer problems. Far-transfer refers to strategies, such as customer service, as opposed to
near-transfer procedures, such as filling out a form.
Several researchers have explored the potential for automated, technology-based
grouping based on learner models. Muehlenbrock (2006) identified a range of support
functions that could be integrated into a system to support group formation and facilitation of
collaboration, including: intelligently mediated peer help (matching learners based on
complementary skills/knowledge or competition); intelligently mediated expert tutoring;
teacher/tutor support for supervising exercises; group formation around given problems; and
selection of adequate problems for a given group. Student information needed for the
development of such a model would be elicited through explicit questions, initial testing, or
anticipated learner characterizations. Alfonseca et al., (2006) have also explored the benefits
of developing a user model based on learning styles to provide automated grouping rules to
guide the formation of more productive collaborative groups within an adaptive online
course. Notably, our research did not reveal any conclusive evidence regarding the efficacy of
these kinds of systems.

OCL Design Checklist: Group Formation

Promote natural heterogeneity, motivation, and cohesion within groups by allowing
choice of topics or projects, rather than choice of teammates.
Encourage learners to become aware of and reflect on the personality and/or learning
style make-up of group members and its influence on group process.
Use small group sizes (3-4 students per group).

TEAM BUILDING

Establishing appropriate conditions to foster the development of effective teams is one of
the most important, and challenging, aspects of OCL. Diverse team processes including
communication, coordination, and monitoring of project tasks; identity and role development;
and a feeling of belonging and community affect the quality and success of OCL (De Laat
and Lally, 2004). Group cohesiveness, characterized by trust and cooperation among group
members, is prerequisite to these processes, and thus a primary team building goal.
Developing cohesive, interdependent, productive teams is especially difficult online, where
opportunities for socialization and community-building are more limited and time-consuming
than in face-to-face environments. As Orvis and Lassiter (2007) observe, separation of time
and space can create barriers to interaction, which can impede the development of trust,
belonging, efficacy, and shared cognition among team members. Groups that communicate
regularly develop higher levels of trust than those with more irregular communication
patterns (Bulu & Yildirim, 2008). Sustained interaction is especially important when teams
are just getting to know one another, resolving conflicts, and working on difficult problem-
solving tasks (Havard et al., 2008). Real-time communication technologies that support the
immediate exchange of rich information increase social presence and can contribute to team
cohesion (Havard et al., 2008).

373
Not surprisingly, there is a clear relationship between the level of interaction among team
members and group performance. Thomas and MacGregor (2005) observed that the highest
achieving collaborative teams start early, communicate regularly, organize and coordinate
tasks effectively, and engage in productive, thought-provoking discussions. In contrast, low
achieving groups tend to start late, communicate erratically, do not form bonds, are not
effective task organizers, and engage in shallow discussions. Thomas and MacGregor (2005)
also examined team member interactions during different phases of the project. Interactions
were generally positive during the planning phase, characterized by humor, acceptance, and
relationship building, with some minor conflict. During design, teams grew closer and
relationships evolved, with team members helping, praising, and showing empathy to one
another. Conflict increased during development, primarily due to students failure to meet
task commitments.
It is important to note that conflict among collaborators is not always a bad thing. The
tension that arises from diversity of perspectives is an important aspect of collaborative
problem-solving. Brooke (2007) highlights an important distinction between destructive
conflict, such as personality disputes, and constructive conflict, such as disagreement about
ideas or project-related issues. Levi (2001) studied the relationships among diversity of
personal attributes (i.e., personality, values, attitudes, demographics) and functional attributes
(i.e., knowledge, abilities and skills) and their impacts on different types of group tasks (i.e.,
performance, intellective, and creativity/judgment) and group process (i.e., cohesion and
conflict); and concluded that both personal and functional diversity have a positive impact on
group creativity and judgment, while personal diversity can cause conflict and cohesion
problems.
Inequitable workload and slacking within collaborative teams is a commonly reported
problem in OCL (Ashcraft & Treadwell, 2007). The authors recommend a number of
strategies to reduce this problem, including:

Making team member contributions identifiable (e.g., color coding of individual
contributions to a collaborative document).
Using small groups so that participants cannot become anonymous.
Encouraging members to share leadership responsibility.
Requiring team members, rather than instructors, to resolve their own problems.
Encouraging extensive communications to ensure that team members remain aware
of what other members are doing.
Encouraging groups to develop a team identity (e.g., selecting a name, logo and
motto).

Team member participation appears to be a key factor in the development of team
cohesion and trust (Posey, 2007). Bulu and Yildirim (2008) observed high levels of trust in
groups with whose members all took initiative and had a role to play. Cawthon and Harris
(2007) noted that non-participation by some students had a negative impact on the sense of
community. Doubts regarding team member abilities and work ethic may cause a lack of trust
that may persist throughout a project, or be overcome when teams share a mutual definition of
collaboration and common sense of purpose (Havard, et al,, 2008). Providing team members

374
with pre-defined, functional roles can contributes to individual accountability and positive
interdependence within collaborative teams (Kirschner et al., 2004).

OCL Design Checklist: Team Building

Build time and a process for team socialization into the collaborative activity.
Provide education and guidance related to team process and role development.
Emphasize the importance of frequent, regular interaction among team members.
Specify a process for mediation and resolution of interpersonal/teamwork problems
(e.g., personality conflicts, lack of participation).
Require evidence of participation and specify consequences for non-participation.

FACILITATION & SCAFFOLDING

In addition to providing activities and conditions that foster team building and effective
collaboration, it is important for instructors to actively support these processes. Although the
terms facilitation and scaffolding are sometimes used interchangeably, they are distinct
concepts. Facilitation refers to the instructors role in guiding the learning activity. Effective
facilitators of OCL provide appropriate prompts and feedback to stimulate a constructive,
meaningful shared learning experience without impeding or controlling the collaborative
process. Scaffolding refers to more formal, pre-planned instructional supports designed to
assist students with challenging tasks, which are gradually withdrawn as students gain the
knowledge and skills needed to work independently. Instructional scaffolds may consist of
prompts and questions that guide students through a collaborative problem solving process.
Scaffolds may also be built into software that has been specially designed to support
collaboration.
Ge and Land (2004) propose that scaffolding is needed to facilitate the cognitive and
metacognitive processes required for ill-structured problem solving (i.e., problem
representation, generating solutions, making justifications, and monitoring and evaluation).
They identify two types of scaffolds: question prompts, including procedural, elaboration, and
reflection questions; and peer interactions, such as providing and receiving explanations, co-
constructing ideas, resolving conflicts, and negotiating meaning. They note that the
educational benefits of collaborative problem-solving may be stifled by students lack of
training in the process of critical discourse, and that the teacher can play a key role in
monitoring and guiding peer interactions. As Murphy (2004) points out, instructors must
understand what good collaboration looks like if they are to facilitate it effectively. She has
defined six key phases that can be used to guide the collaborative process including
establishing social presence; articulating individual perspectives; accommodating or
reflecting the perspectives of others, co-constructing shared perspectives and meanings,
building shared goals and purposes, and producing shared artifacts.
It is common for teams to get stuck in the early phases of collaboration, and instructors
can play an important role in helping students reach deeper levels of collaboration. Murphy
(2004) found that students participating in online collaboration engaged in substantial
socialization presence and sharing of perspectives, but evidence of accommodating the

375
perspectives and co-construction of meaning was limited. Similarly, Littleton and Whitelock
(2005) observed that OCL students primarily engaged in a cumulative social mode of
thinking (i.e., pooling ideas and resources). While this played an important role in
establishing common ground among students, critical engagement (i.e., challenges and
counter-challenges) were rare. The authors recommend providing specific support for the
development of critical evaluation and argumentation skills.
In addition to scaffolding collaborative problem-solving, it is important to provide
support for the development of group process skills (Resta & Lafierrire, 2007). As Brooke
(2007) notes, students who are new to online learning may need guidance in communicating
effectively in the absence of body language and interpersonal cues; and in the development of
group interaction skills such as brainstorming, conflict management, and positive team
decision-making. The ability to use communication technologies efficiently and effectively is
essential for socialization and the development of trust among team members, and so an
orientation to these technologies may be required and particularly helpful for new students
(Bulu & Yildirim, 2008).
Instructors may also need to devise ways to overcome preconceptions and help students
develop more positive attitudes toward online collaboration (Nel & Wilkinson, 2006). To
overcome resistance to collaboration and help students reflect on and develop their
collaborative skills, Roberts and McInnerney (2007) recommend pointing out the benefits of
developing collaboration skills. Skills such as communication, leadership, cooperative work,
organization, delegation, and negotiation can all be improved through OCL.
There is evidence to suggest that students can learn to collaborate more effectively, and
that up-front education and practice can improve OCL outcomes. Cawthon and Harris (2007)
used instruction and feedback cycles to model work tasks and allow for peer to peer feedback,
and observed that communication strategies modeled by instructors in early cycles were later
integrated by students. Rummel and Spada (2005) studied the impacts of two types of pre-
work (observational learning from a collaboration example, and learning from a scripted
collaborative problem-solving) on subsequent collaborative learning. Teams that learned by
observing a collaboration example produced significantly better elaborated and justified
diagnoses than teams in the scripted and two control conditions (unscripted problem-solving
and no pre-work) conditions. Both instructional conditions resulted in better teamwork (i.e.,
well-balanced proportion of individual and joint work) and outcomes (therapy treatment
plans) than teams in the control conditions.
One approach to facilitation and scaffolding in online group discussions is to have
students think critically about their discussion contributions by classifying or otherwise
analyzing each one. A number of investigators have developed technology-based support for
critical dialog and argumentation, with mixed results. Jeong and Juong (2007) used message
constraints - requiring students to categorize their posts within a critical discussion as
argument, challenge, supporting evidence, or explanation - and found no differences in
knowledge gains, or the ability to apply learned content to the group problem-solving process.
In fact, the use of message constraints reduced the number of challenges to arguments. In
contrast, Lee and Kim (2005) tested the Collaborative Representation Supporting Tool
(CRST), which provides nodes and links aligned with the six phases of problem-based
learning. The CRST had statistically positive effects on both process and outcomes for
collaborative teams involved in a Problem-based Learning (PBL) activity. Similarly,
Kirschner, et al., (2004) examined the use of formalism, implemented as a negotiation

376
widget that defined specific message types in an online discussion (i.e., contribution,
clarification, verification, and elaboration) and rules about when participants could post
certain types of messages. The authors found that formalism groups spent more time on
negotiation and varied discussion topics more than groups without formalism, and concluded
that the process of making contributions explicit had a positive impact on collaborative
processes.

OCL Design Checklist: Facilitation and Scaffolding

Understand the collaborative process and make it explicit to students.
Provide teams with a structured set of prompts and questions designed to stimulate
elaboration and critical thinking and guide collaborative problem-solving.
Provide opportunities for students to learn about and practice collaboration in
advance of more formal OCL.
Be a guide on the side; monitor team processes and intercede only when input is
needed to help move students toward deeper levels of collaboration.
Integrate structured checkpoints and feedback into the OCL process.
Be an advocate for collaboration; emphasize its educational benefits.

LEARNER ASSESSMENT

Appropriate and fair assessment of individuals on a collaborative project is an important
and challenging consideration in the design of OCL. Group members are likely to differ in
ability and level of effort. It is difficult for instructors to discern individual contributions to
collaborative projects, and those who excel or contribute more than others may feel cheated
when all members receive the same grade. Careful design can help to overcome these
challenges. For example, Macdonald (2003) found that requiring students to submit their
contributions for individual evaluation promoted greater levels of participation.
Palloff, Pratt and Palloff (2007) believe that collaborative assignments should be
assessed collaboratively (p. 214). These authors suggest a 360-degree feedback approach in
which self-perception is compared to feedback from the instructor and peers. Similarly, Nel
and Wilkinson (2006) recommend peer evaluation of group members contributions; and
instructor review of online discussions to assess group process individual contributions
toward the final product. This viewpoint has been supported by Colwell and Jenks (2004),
who studied peer evaluation of individual contributions to a collaborative project. They found
a peer grading system, in which ratings are sent directly to the instructor via email, to be
effective in motivating all participants to complete their share of the work. They also found
that peer evaluations allowed students to learn from each other and engage in higher level
critical thinking, analysis, and evaluation; and prompted students to think about how to judge
work and how their work might be judged. Notably, when students evaluated other group
members written assignments, Colwell and Jenks found it necessary to provide guidelines for
student comments. They state that without appropriate guidelines, student comments tend to
be unstructured and of little value to their peers (p. T1C-8).

377
Increasingly, assessment is regarded as an important part of the learning process. New
assessment approaches based on constructivism propose that learners actually construct
knowledge through assessment. To provide evidence for this premise, Shen, Hiltz and Bieber
(2006) studied whether a collaborative online exam, which involved student participation in
various phases through small group activities, would further enhance student interaction,
learning, and satisfaction. They compared this collaborative exam to a participatory exam, in
which students were actively but individually involved in the exam process, and a traditional
exam. The experiment involved 485 students at an American university and used the threaded
discussion forums in BlackBoard and WebCT for the participatory and collaborative groups.
In this study, students in the collaborative exam condition exhibited significantly higher
levels of interaction and perceived learning than those taking the traditional exam. The
collaborative exam also contributed to a sense of a learning community that was lacking in
both the participatory and traditional exam groups.
Van Aalst and Chan (2007) encourage educators to take advantage of the scaffolding
opportunities provided through formative assessment, particularly in computer-supported
learning environments where the collaborative learning process is captured electronically and
available for student reflection to improve learning outcomes. They studied the use of
electronic portfolios as formal course assessments in both the graduate and secondary school
levels. Students were asked to analyze the collective discussion as a way of reconstructing
their own knowledge and understanding. Their portfolio approach was designed capture both
individual and collective aspects of knowledge building (p. 211). Van Aalst and Chan found
that the portfolio approach was effective in fostering collaborative inquiry and domain
understanding (p. 209).

OCL Design Checklist: Learner Assessment

Use formative assessment to reveal opportunities for facilitation and scaffolding.
Take a 360 degree approach to collaborative learning assessment, integrating
individual, peer and instructor evaluations.
Consider using collaborative assessments as a teaching and learning activity, rather
than just for evaluation.
Use tiered rubrics to guide and measure student achievement of expectations.

CONCLUSION

Many of the challenges associated with OCL can be overcome through careful
instructional design. In this chapter, we have summarized and synthesized research related to
OCL with the goal of translating it into tangible guidelines for educational practice. Notably,
these studies vary widely in setting, purpose, learner type, and effect size, and these variations
limit generalizability. Our review is consistent with others that have highlighted a lack of
empirical evidence and a need for additional, focused research (Resta & Laferriere, 2007;
Clark & Mayer, 2008). Notably, the practice of collaborative learning has a well established,
successful history, in and outside of the classroom, with and without technology support.

378
Many important questions have been investigated and this work has revealed important
insights. As you have seen in this chapter, OCL research is evolving rapidly and there is a
substantial base of lessons learned to guide educational practice.
We have presented our research and recommendations in the context of six key areas to
consider when designing online collaborative learning: activity design and goal setting;
technology selection; group formation and role assignment; team building; scaffolding and
facilitation; and learner assessment. It is important to note that these categories are not
mutually exclusive. For example, the complexities associated with communicating through
technology necessitate increased attention to activity design (e.g., instructions/provisions to
facilitate seamless, consistent interactions among collaborators); group formation (e.g.,
considering time zones when establishing partnerships); and team building (e.g., allowing
sufficient time and mechanisms for groups to establish common ground and build trust before
tackling complex tasks).
Finally, we have provided recommendations, not rules. Our suggestions may not work
perfectly in all settings. We encourage you to think carefully about your unique educational
goals and context, and to continually evolve your approaches to OCL through experience and
reflective practice. Our hope is that this chapter will help you transcend a few hurdles, reduce
your prep time, increase the positive and reduce the negative feedback from students, and
encourage you to explore opportunities to integrate collaborative learning in your online
classrooms.

REFERENCES

Alfonseca, E., Carro, R. M., Martn, E., Ortigosa, A. & Paredes, P. (2006). The impact of
learning styles on student grouping for collaborative learning: A case study. User
Modeling and User - Adapted Interaction, 16(3-4), 377.
Archer, W., Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T. & Rourke, L. (2001). A framework for analyzing
critical thinking in computer conferences. Paper presented at EURO-CSCL 2001,
Maastricht, Netherlands.
Ashcraft & Treadwell (2007). The Social Psychology of Online Collaborative Learning: The
Good, the Bad, and the Awkward. In K. L. Orvis, & A. L. R. Lassiter (Eds.), Computer-
supported collaborative learning: Best practices and principles for instructors (pp. 141-
161). Hershey, PA: IGI.
Brooke, S. L. (2007). The case method and collaborative learning. In K. L. Orvis, & A. L. R.
Lassiter (Eds.), Computer-supported collaborative learning: Best practices and
principles for instructors (pp. 66-88). Hershey, PA: IGI.
Bulu, S. T. & Yildirim, Z. (2008). Communication behaviors and trust in collaborative online
teams. Educational Technology & Society, 11(1), 132-147.
Cawthon, S. W. & Harris, A. L. (2007). Developing a community of practice in an online
research lab. In K. L. Orvis, & A. L. R. Lassiter (Eds.), Computer-supported
collaborative learning: Best practices and principles for instructors (pp. 41-65).
Hershey, PA: IGI.

379
Clark, R. C. & Mayer, R. E. (2008). E-learning and the science of instruction: Proven
guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning. San Francisco, CA:
Pfeiffer.
Colwell, J. L. & Jenks, C. F. (2004). Using peer evaluations and teams in online classes.
Paper presented at the, 1 T1C-5-T1C-9.
Cox, B. & Cox, B. (2008). Developing interpersonal and group dynamics through
asynchronous threaded discussions: The use of discussion board in collaborative learning.
Education, 128(4), 553.
De Laat, M. & Lally, V. (2004). It's not so easy: Researching the complexity of emergent
participant roles and awareness in asynchronous networked learning discussions. Journal
of Computer Assisted Learning, 20(3), 165-171.
Gardner, D. B. (1998). Effects of conflict types and power use among health professionals in
interdisciplinary team collaboration. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, George Mason
University.
Gardner, D. B. (2005). Ten lessons in collaboration. Online Journal of Issues in Nursing.
10(1). Retrieved July 10, 2005, from http://www.nursingworld.org/ojin/topic26/
tpc26_1.htm.
Garrison, D. R. (2003). Cognitive presence for effective asynchronous online learning: The
role of reflective inquiry, self-direction and metacognition. In J. Bourne & J. C. Moore
(Eds.), Elements of quality in online education: Practice and direction (pp. 47-58),
Needham, MA: The Sloan Consortium.
Ge, X. & Land, S. M. (2004). A conceptual framework for scaffolding ill-structured problem-
solving processes using question prompts and peer interactions. Educational Technology
Research and Development, 52(2), 5-22.
Ge, X., Yamashiro, K. A., & Lee, J. (2000). Pre-class planning to scaffold students for online
collaborative learning activities. Educational Technology & Society 3(3). Retrieved
September 16, 2006, from http://ifets.ieee.org/periodical/vol_3_2000/b02 .html
Gokhale, A. A. (1995). Collaborative learning enhances critical thinking. Journal of
Technology Education, 7(1), 1-8. Retrieved June 15, 2005, from http://scholar
.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JTE/jte-v7n1/gokhale.jte-v7n1.html
Grabinger, S. & Dunlap, J. (2002). Applying the REAL model to web-based instruction: An
overview. In P. Barker, & S. Rebelsky (Eds.), Proceedings of world conference on
educational multimedia, hypermedia and telecommunications 2002 (pp. 447-452).
Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
Havard, B., Du, J. & Xu, J. (2008). Online collaborative learning and communication media.
Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 19(1), 37.
Heinemann, G. D. & Zeiss, A. M. (2002). Team performance in health care : Assessment and
development. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
Hemmi, A., Bayne, S., & Land, R. (2009). The appropriation and repurposing of social
technologies in higher education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25(1), 19-30.
Hishina, M., Okada, R. & Suzuki, K. (2005). Group formation for web-based collaborative
learning with personality information. International Journal on ELearning, 4(3), 351.
Hsu, J. L., Chou, H.W., Hwang, W.Y., & Chou, S.B. (2008). A two-dimension process in
explaining learners collaborative behaviors in CSCL. Educational Technology and
Society, 11(4), 66-80.

380
Jeong, A. & Joung, S. (2007). Scaffolding collaborative argumentation in asynchronous
discussions with message constraints and message labels. Computers and Education,
48(3), 427-445.
Jeong, A. & Lee, J. (2008). The effects of active versus reflective learning style on the
processes of critical discourse in computer-supported collaborative argumentation.
British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(4), 651-665.
Heinemann, G. D. & Zeiss, A. M. (Eds.). (2002). Team performance in health care:
Assessment and development. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
Johnson, D.W. and Johnson, R.T., 1990. Cooperative learning and achievement. In: Sharan,
S. (Ed.), Cooperative Learning: Theory and Research (pp. 2337). NY: Praeger.
Jonassen, D. H. & Remidez, R. (2002). Mapping alternative discourse structures onto
computer conferences. In G. Stahl (Ed.), Computer support for collaborative learning:
Foundations for a CSCL Community. Proceedings of CSCL 2002 (pp. 237-244).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kirschner, P., Strijbos, J. W., Kreijns, K. & Beers, P. J. (2004). Designing electronic
collaborative learning environments. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 52(3), 47-66.
Koschmann, T. (2002). Deweys contribution to the foundations of CSCL research. In G.
Stahl (Ed.), Computer support for collaborative learning: Foundations for a CSCL
community. proceedings of CSCL 2002 (pp. 17-22). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Lee, M. & Kim, D. (2005). The effects of the collaborative representation supporting tool on
problem-solving processes and outcomes in web-based collaborative problem-based
learning (PBL) environments. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 16(3), 273.
Levi, D. (2001). Group dynamics for teams. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Littleton, K. & Whitelock, D. (2005). The negotiation and co-construction of meaning and
understanding within a postgraduate online learning community. Learning, Media and
Technology, 30(2), 147-164.
Macdonald, J. (2003). Assessing online collaborative learning: Process and product.
Computers and Education, 40(4), 377-391.
Mandle, H. & Kraus, U. (2003). Learning competence for the knowledge society. In N.
Nistor, S. English, S. Wheeler & M. Jalabeanu (Eds.), Toward the virtual university:
International online perspectives (pp. 65-86). Greenwich, CT: Information Age
Publishing.
Meyer, K. A. (2003). Face-to-face versus threaded discussions: The role of time and higher-
order thinking. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(3), 55-65. Retrieved July
20, 2005, from http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/jaln/v7n3/pdf/v7n3_meyer.pdf
Mezirow, J. (2000). Learning to think like an adult: Core concepts of transformation theory.
Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress (pp. 3-34). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Moving From Theory to Practice in the Design of Web-Based Learning From the Perspective
of Constructivism. (2003). Murphy, E. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 2009
(April 10) Retrieved from http://www.ncolr.org/jiol/issues/PDF/1.4.4.pdf
Muehlenbrock, M. (2006). Learning group formation based on learner profile and context.
International Journal on ELearning, 5(1), 19.

381
Murphy, E. (2004). Recognising and promoting collaboration in an online asynchronous
discussion. British Journal of Educational Technology, 35(4), 421-431.
Nel, L. & Wilkinson, A. (2006). Enhancing collaborative learning in a blended learning
environment: Applying a process planning model. Systemic Practice and Action
Research, 19(6), 553-576.
Orvis, K. L. & Lassiter, A. L. R. (2008). Computer-supported collaborative learning: Best
practices and principles for instructors. Hershey, PA: Information Science Publishing.
Palloff, R. M. & Pratt, K. (2007). Building online learning communities: Effective strategies
for the virtual classroom (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Payne, C. R. & Reinhart, C. J. (2008). Can we talk? course management software and the
construction of knowledge. On the Horizon, 16(1), 34.
Posey, L, (2007). Critical thinking and collaboration in online health professional education.
Applied Dissertation, Fischler School of Human Resources and Education, Nova
Southeastern University.
Reiser, B. J. (2002). Why scaffolding should sometimes make tasks more difficult for
learners. In G. Stahl (Ed.), Computer support for collaborative learning: Foundations for
a CSCL community. Proceedings of CSCL 2002 (pp. 255-264). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Resta, P. & Laferrire, T. (2007). Technology in support of collaborative learning.
Educational Psychology Review, 19(1), 65-83.
Rienzo, T. & Han, B. (2009). Microsoft or Google Web 2.0 Tools for Course Management.
Journal of Information Systems Education, 20(2) 123-127.
Roberts, T. S. (2005). Computer-supported collaborative learning in higher education.
Information Management, 18(1/2), 11.
Roberts, T. S. & McInnerney, J. M. (2007). Seven problems of online group learning (and
their solutions). Educational Technology & Society, 10(4), 257-268.
Rollett, H., Lux, M., Strohmaier, M., & Dosinger, G. (2007). The web 2.0 way of learning
with technologies. International Journal of Learning Technology, 3(1), 87-107.
Rummel, N. & Spada, H. (2005). Learning to collaborate: An instructional approach to
promoting collaborative problem solving in computer-mediated settings. Journal of the
Learning Sciences, 14(2), 201-241.
Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline the art and practice of the learning organization.
Burnsville, Minn.: ChartHouse International Learning Corporation.
Shen, J., Hiltz, S. R. & Bieber, M. (2006). Collaborative online examinations: Impacts on
interaction, learning, and student satisfaction. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and
Cybernetics Part A:Systems and Humans, 36(6), 1045-1053.
Sitzmann, T., Ely, K. & Wisher, R. (2007). Designing web-based training courses to
maximize learning. In K. L. Orvis, & A. L. R. Lassiter (Eds.), Computer-supported
collaborative learning: Best practices and principles for instructors (pp. 1-18). Hershey,
PA: Information Science Reference.
Smith, B. L. & MacGregor, J. T. (1997). What is collaborative learning? In A. Goodsell, M.
Maher & V. Tinto (Eds.), Collaborative learning: A sourcebook for higher education (pp.
9-22). University Park, PA: National Center on Postsecondary Teaching, Learning, and
Assessment.
Spiro, R.J., Coulson, R. L., Feltovich, P. J., & Anderson, D. K. (1988). Cognitive flexibility
theory: Advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains (Technical Report No.
441). Champaign: University of Illinois, Center for the Study of Reading.

382
Strijbos, J. W., Martens, R. L. & Jochems, W. M. G. (2004). Designing for interaction: Six
steps to designing computer-supported group-based learning. Computers and Education,
42(4), 403-424.
Thomas, W. R. & MacGregor, S. K. (2005). Online project-based learning: How
collaborative strategies and problem solving processes impact performance. Journal of
Interactive Learning Research, 16(1), 83-107.
Uribe, D., Klein, J. D. & Sullivan, H. (2003). The effect of computer-mediated collaborative
learning on solving ill-defined problems. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 51(1), 5-19.
Van Aalst, J. & Chan, C. K. K. (2007). Student-directed assessment of knowledge building
using electronic portfolios. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16(2), 175-220.
Wegerif, R. (1998). The social dimension of asynchronous learning networks. Journal of
Asynchronous Learning Networks, 2(1), 34-49.
Wheeler, S. & Nistor, N., (2003). Human behavior in the online subculture. In N. Nistor, S.
English, S. Wheeler, & M. Jalobeanu (Eds.), Toward the virtual university: International
online perspectives (pp. 119-130). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
Williams, E. A., Duray, R. & Reddy, V. (2006). Teamwork orientation, group cohesiveness,
and student learning: A study of the use of teams in online distance education. Journal of
Management Education, 30(4), 592.
Yuselturk, E. & Cagiltay, C. (2007). Collaborative work in online learning environments:
critical issues, dynamics, and challenges. In K. L. Orvis, & A. L. R. Lassiter (Eds.),
Computer-supported collaborative learning: Best practices and principles for instructors
(pp. 66-88). Hershey, PA: IGI.

INDEX

A
academic performance, 80
acceleration, 175
accessibility, 90
accountability, xvi, 301, 302, 315, 333, 370, 374
accounting, 2
accuracy, 167, 172
achievement, 19, 50, 55, 68, 70, 80, 253, 258, 259,
276, 278, 380
acid, 252, 322, 325, 326, 327, 328
ACM, 133, 252, 253
action research, 231
activation, 5, 6, 7, 8, 194
adaptation, 42, 228
adolescence, 92, 94
adolescents, 163
adult, xvi, 139, 145, 171, 281, 282, 285, 286, 287,
292, 315, 357, 358, 362, 365, 380
adult learning, 315
adulthood, 92, 94
adults, 65, 93, 139, 159, 160, 171, 282, 287, 293, 318
AEP, 4
African American, 44
afternoon, 107, 108, 147, 326
age, 43, 62, 93, 94, 131, 137, 154, 301, 314, 339,
346, 357, 370
agent, 46, 97, 100, 101, 181, 187, 188
agents, 80, 181, 187, 191, 260
aggregation, 39, 200, 212, 219
aggression, 146, 151, 154, 155, 160, 162
aid, xiii, 96, 131, 176, 249
aiding, 180
AIDS, 326, 327, 328
air, 69, 173, 284, 286, 296, 299, 300
algorithm, 185
alkenes, 325
alpha, 27, 200, 219
alternative, xiv, 3, 9, 10, 11, 18, 58, 73, 87, 118, 120,
165, 178, 183, 252, 276, 312, 368, 369, 380
aluminum, 214
ambassadors, xvii, 317
ambient air, 299
ambulance, 142, 143
American Council on Education, 329
American Educational Research Association, 44, 77,
188
American Psychological Association, 192
amino, 325
amino acid, 325
Amsterdam, 45, 46, 196, 197
analog, 61
analysis of variance, 27
anatomy, 173
animals, 92, 141, 149, 152, 154, 158
animations, 235, 238, 241, 247, 254
antagonism, 201
antecedent variables, 215, 217
antecedents, 13, 198, 215, 216
anxiety, 245, 334
APA, 193
apathy, 333, 364
appendix, 286, 287, 292
applied research, 327
appropriate technology, 229, 370
Arabia, 346
argument, xiv, 15, 101, 107, 165, 170, 176, 177, 178,
181, 182, 183, 185, 188, 192, 196, 226, 251, 271,
279, 364, 369, 375, 380
articulation, 189, 302, 304
artificial intelligence, 166, 188
artistic, 236
Asia, 361
Asian, 351, 356
Asian cultures, 351
aspiration, 352, 356
Index

384
assessment, xiii, xviii, 2, 3, 38, 90, 95, 99, 107, 113,
114, 115, 116, 119, 121, 122, 123, 124, 126, 127,
128, 129, 130, 191, 193, 220, 316, 321, 323, 324,
328, 333, 353, 359, 363, 364, 376, 377, 378, 382
assessment techniques, 328
assessment tools, 324
assets, 100
assignment, xviii, 86, 88, 199, 203, 206, 218, 247,
326, 363, 364, 378
assumptions, 10, 99, 185, 226, 335, 364
asynchronous, xv, 119, 133, 177, 178, 188, 199, 220,
225, 228, 229, 234, 235, 237, 246, 247, 250, 254,
304, 365, 367, 368, 369, 379, 380, 381, 382
asynchronous communication, 177, 178, 229, 235,
237, 247, 367, 369
attitudes, xiii, 12, 80, 95, 112, 113, 116, 156, 168,
332, 366, 373
attractors, 35
Australia, xvii, 189, 193, 195, 341, 346, 348, 350,
356, 358, 359, 361
Austria, 133, 315
authority, 52, 65, 104, 332, 334, 339
autism, 311
automation, 234
autonomy, 53, 64, 66, 92, 181, 279, 315, 361
availability, 18, 21, 33, 107, 321, 347
aviation, 283, 284, 287, 292
awareness, 105, 173, 179, 184, 185, 253, 343, 353,
354, 355, 357, 379
B
Baars, 54, 77
babies, 139
back, 34, 49, 75, 140, 141, 142, 144, 147, 148, 150,
156, 199, 213, 276, 321, 334, 347, 368
baggage, 57
barrier, 97, 98, 114, 115, 367
barriers, 99, 112, 114, 116, 176, 372
base rate, 27
batteries, 213
Bax, 344, 359
behavior, xvi, 34, 45, 92, 167, 181, 186, 202, 203,
205, 217, 218, 220, 224, 257, 259, 260, 262, 263,
264, 267, 268, 270, 271, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277,
295, 382
behaviorism, 91
beliefs, 10, 46, 65, 71, 168, 170, 212, 221, 235, 258,
338, 357
belongingness, 218
benchmarks, 321
beneficial effect, 3
benefits, xiv, xviii, 3, 39, 40, 96, 106, 109, 111, 115,
116, 119, 126, 135, 158, 202, 212, 221, 302, 341,
355, 357, 358, 363, 364, 367, 370, 372, 374, 375,
376
benign, 148
bias, 10, 50, 51, 70, 215, 221
binding, 146, 325
biochemistry, 173, 321, 322, 325, 326, 327, 328
biomolecules, 319
birth, 92, 93
bleeding, 143
blocks, 6, 7, 138, 149, 150, 154, 158, 159
blog, 68, 73, 76, 124, 305, 306
blogger, 305
blogs, xiii, 47, 48, 53, 58, 65, 67, 71, 73, 75, 305,
368, 369
blood, 143
body language, 375
bonding, 49, 313
bonds, 65, 373
borderline, 22
boredom, 61, 354
Boston, 78, 132, 163, 189, 191, 253, 255, 315, 362
bottom-up, 5, 7
boys, 137, 138, 139, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148,
150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 156, 157, 158, 160, 163
brain, 43, 93, 300, 348, 354
brain damage, 43
brainstorming, 303, 367, 375
branching, 229
breathing, 185
broadband, 122, 193
Bronfenbrenner, 84, 89, 91, 94
Bronx, 333
budding, 352
Buenos Aires, 77
building blocks, 6
business environment, 98, 99, 104, 113, 131
business model, 369
business organisation, 96, 112, 115, 119, 125, 129
buttons, 285
C
Calculators, 279
calculus, 278
calibration, 73, 242
Canada, 1, 187, 195, 196
caps, 308
cardboard, 149, 158
cardiology, 172
CAS, 277
Index

385
case study, xi, xii, xiii, 2, 34, 44, 95, 104, 106, 107,
110, 114, 120, 121, 122, 133, 136, 181, 211, 295,
346, 347, 349, 354, 355, 358, 362, 378
casting, 126
categorization, 201, 215, 221
category a, 22, 26
catholic, 58
causality, 91
causation, 357
changing environment, 96, 132
cheating, 318
cheese, 162
chemicals, 230
chest, 142
child development, xiii, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87,
88, 91, 139
childhood, xiii, xiv, 81, 82, 83, 86, 90, 91, 92, 94,
135, 137, 139, 154, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161,
162, 163
children, 82, 86, 87, 89, 93, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139,
140, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 151, 152,
153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162,
163, 170, 171, 177
China, 165, 346, 361
cis, 325
class size, 318, 325, 326
classes, xiii, 48, 50, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 62,
63, 64, 67, 68, 69, 71, 72, 75, 88, 89, 95, 107,
109, 134, 235, 261, 262, 263, 278, 283, 318, 319,
323, 326, 335, 336, 348, 351, 354, 379
classical, 13, 59
classification, 251, 286, 328
classroom culture, 260
classroom environment, 234, 259
classroom events, 19, 45
classroom settings, 99, 234
classroom teachers, 2, 259
classrooms, xvi, 90, 104, 126, 161, 220, 257, 260,
262, 268, 277, 315, 318, 319, 320, 327, 328, 342,
343, 358, 367, 368, 378
clients, 336, 337, 338
clouds, 89
CMC, xv, 198, 206
coaches, 277
codes, 27
coding, xv, 23, 38, 84, 165, 185, 200, 201, 202, 203,
204, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 221, 223,
373
cognition, xi, xii, 1, 2, 4, 5, 11, 17, 39, 41, 42, 43, 44,
167, 168, 169, 175, 176, 185, 188, 190, 192, 193,
194, 195, 223, 243, 279, 357, 360, 372
cognitive ability, 217, 279
cognitive activity, 11
cognitive capacities, 270
cognitive development, 89, 93, 224
cognitive level, 158
cognitive load, 19, 35, 168, 169, 181, 196, 227
cognitive performance, 4, 5, 20, 21
cognitive perspective, 4, 166, 171, 196
cognitive process, xi, xii, 1, 3, 5, 8, 11, 17, 19, 22,
40, 43, 44, 93, 166, 167, 168, 169, 171, 172, 173,
174, 176, 231
cognitive tool, xiv, 39, 44, 165, 176, 191, 195
coherence, 5, 15, 120, 136, 178
cohesion, 166, 211, 216, 371, 372, 373
cohesiveness, 221, 371, 372, 382
cohort, 346, 350, 351, 352, 354, 355, 356
Collaboration, xv, 42, 43, 45, 46, 50, 64, 104, 120,
134, 180, 225, 227, 251, 301, 302, 303, 359, 364
collaborative approaches, 50
Collaborative learning, 49, 50, 64, 70, 104, 133, 168,
176, 182, 187, 195, 196, 223, 236, 282, 295, 302,
327, 328, 329, 339, 365, 379, 381
Collaborative Therapy, 339
colleges, 104, 361
collisions, 252
Colorado, 253, 317, 326, 327
colors, 176, 284
comfort zone, 334, 338, 369
communication processes, 61, 62, 77, 98
communication skills, 98, 105, 166, 230, 240, 352
communication strategies, 138, 153, 368, 375
communication systems, 169
communication technologies, 234, 235, 366, 367,
372, 375
communities, 45, 161, 167, 178, 192, 194, 227, 235,
255, 283, 315, 368, 381
community, xvii, 50, 67, 132, 139, 145, 167, 178,
221, 236, 251, 302, 304, 311, 313, 316, 317, 318,
322, 323, 326, 327, 334, 336, 338, 358, 365, 366,
372, 373, 377, 378, 380, 381
compatibility, 21
compensation, 21
competence, xiii, xvii, 44, 47, 48, 53, 54, 68, 70, 71,
93, 120, 304, 339, 341, 343, 344, 345, 351, 380
competency, 126, 301, 314, 332, 349, 352, 357, 364
competition, 88, 148, 191, 328, 344, 355, 359, 372
compilation, 173
complementarity, 39, 346
complex systems, 14, 42
complexity, xi, xii, 2, 16, 19, 22, 27, 33, 35, 37, 64,
66, 69, 157, 158, 160, 176, 181, 186, 215, 217,
218, 258, 345, 349, 379
components, 4, 7, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 23, 25, 26, 41,
61, 168, 175, 233, 241, 243, 250, 255, 318, 322,
323, 325, 327, 360
Index

386
composition, 71, 80, 137, 174, 212, 371
comprehension, xi, xii, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 18, 19,
21, 25, 30, 32, 33, 35, 36, 40, 42, 43, 46, 136,
163, 235, 324, 353
computation, 263
computer conferencing, 46, 132
Computer simulation, 252
computer simulations, 166, 175, 223, 252
computer software, 105
computer technology, xv, 166, 168, 225
computer-based exercises, 234
computer-mediated communication (CMC), xv, 198,
206
computing, 20, 131, 193, 213
concentrates, 109
concentration, 239, 252, 334, 350, 354
concept map, 176, 177, 181, 195, 303
conception, 49, 52, 53, 59, 76, 91
conceptual model, 112
conceptualization, 88, 220, 258
conceptualizations, xiii, 3, 81, 88, 90
concrete, 9, 18, 50, 52, 59, 64, 70, 93, 156
conditioning, 75, 92
conductivity, 284, 288, 300
confidence, xvii, 119, 259, 321, 324, 326, 341, 349,
351, 352, 356, 357
configuration, 14
confirmation bias, 10
conflict, xiii, 3, 62, 66, 67, 95, 114, 116, 136, 142,
145, 147, 148, 149, 150, 152, 161, 175, 177, 201,
211, 212, 213, 221, 223, 288, 366, 367, 371, 373,
375, 379
conflict resolution, 145, 366, 367
confrontation, 338
confusion, 92, 131
conjecture, 263, 264, 271
consciousness, 43, 53, 64, 66, 77, 353
consensus, 11, 104, 152, 175, 201, 226, 332, 371
consent, 138
conservation, 89
constraints, 4, 13, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 156, 159, 229,
307, 369, 375, 380
constructionist, 52, 77, 331
constructive conflict, 373
constructivist, xvii, 53, 61, 169, 194, 254, 279, 301,
304, 315, 316, 343, 344, 345, 361, 362
constructivist learning, 304, 345, 361, 362
consulting, 269
consumers, 305, 379
contact time, 235
content analysis, xiii, 81, 82, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 92,
207, 221, 222
contingency, 12, 22
control, xiii, xv, 3, 8, 15, 18, 23, 24, 25, 26, 30, 32,
36, 40, 47, 55, 131, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150,
152, 159, 200, 208, 209, 210, 212, 222, 225, 232,
233, 244, 252, 263, 264, 265, 266, 268, 274, 292,
300, 319, 337, 357, 360, 368, 370, 375
control condition, 375
convergence, 189, 220
conversion, 15, 16, 120
convex, 284, 299
cooking, 150, 151
cooperative learning, 42, 48, 49, 50, 53, 63, 64, 67,
80, 90, 104, 114, 199, 201, 222, 324, 352, 365
correlation, 215
correlations, 200, 212, 213, 223
costs, 3
counseling, 90
course content, 178, 234, 323
covering, 237, 323
CPD, 129
CPS, 166, 167, 169, 170, 171, 174, 175, 176
creative thinking, 9
creativity, 70, 72, 149, 355, 357, 368, 373
credit, 105
critical analysis, 231
critical thinking, xviii, 166, 170, 191, 334, 356, 358,
363, 364, 367, 369, 376, 378, 379
critical thinking skills, 364, 369
cross-cultural, 356
crying, 89
crystals, 71
CSILE, 178
cues, 172, 312, 367, 375
cultural practices, 186
culture, xiii, 95, 97, 98, 100, 101, 103, 104, 111, 112,
113, 114, 115, 116, 131, 134, 153, 159, 162, 188,
282, 328, 343, 347, 350, 351, 356, 360
curiosity, xvi, 55, 56, 60, 281, 285, 286, 287, 288,
289, 290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298
curriculum, xiv, 3, 41, 65, 96, 125, 135, 160, 162,
173, 174, 249, 251, 258, 279, 284, 286, 287, 348
Cybernetics, 381
cyberspace, 305, 311
cycles, 17, 38, 46, 181, 263, 274, 357, 375
cyclical process, 6
D
danger, 154, 213, 288
data analysis, 39, 169, 262, 275, 349
data collection, 39, 145, 185, 202, 247
data set, 39, 177, 275, 348
database, 84, 180
de novo, 318
Index

387
death, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 160, 162, 163
debates, 58, 360
decision making, 3, 39, 42, 70, 114, 136, 171, 185,
186, 188, 192, 220, 366
decision trees, 180
decision-making process, 172
decisions, 3, 10, 45, 66, 99, 154, 182, 229
declarative knowledge, 173
decomposition, 13, 15, 16, 17
deduction, 9, 10, 34
deductive reasoning, 9
defense, 209
deficiency, 349, 353
deficits, 353
definition, 49, 79, 104, 105, 112, 120, 125, 169, 199,
212, 218, 365, 373
dehydrate, 214
delivery, xiv, 96, 119, 125, 305
democracy, 226, 328, 365
demographics, 373
density, 284
dentist, 150
Department of Education, 197, 220
Department of State, 360
dependent variable, 219
desert, 211, 213, 214, 215
designers, 91, 315, 370, 379
developing countries, 360
developmental change, 76
developmental theories, 82
differential diagnosis, 172
differentiation, 12
diffusion, 51
directionality, 172
disabilities, 57
disappointment, 98
discipline, 72, 74, 131, 381
disclosure, 313
discomfort, 20, 347
discourse comprehension, xi, xii, 1, 5
Discovery, 208, 210, 252
diseases, 172, 173
disposition, 350, 371
disputes, 150, 155, 373
dissatisfaction, 168, 236
disseminate, 100, 332
distance education, 132, 227, 234, 254, 382
distance learning, 126, 228
distress, 68
distribution, 17, 51, 97, 169, 194, 287, 321
divergence, 217
diversity, 70, 97, 137, 211, 212, 215, 216, 217, 221,
223, 224, 226, 338, 354, 366, 373
division, 157, 193, 216, 227, 243, 368, 369
DNA, 327
doctors, 139, 141, 142, 143, 144, 152, 173
dominance, 162
downsizing, 99
drug therapy, 326
duration, 25, 121, 122, 127, 128, 240, 274, 325, 327
dynamic environment, 10
E
eating, 156
ecology, xvi, 91, 167, 257, 258, 259, 274, 275, 276,
277
economic development, 350
educational institutions, 112, 115, 116, 131
educational objective, 328
educational practices, 329
educational programs, 357
educational psychology, xv, 44, 93, 174, 189, 192,
198, 315
educational research, xviii, 126, 166, 167, 363
educational settings, 206
educational software, 237, 255
educators, 2, 82, 90, 135, 154, 157, 159, 160, 282,
293, 344, 345, 346, 358, 377
ego, 91, 92
egocentrism, 62
elaboration, xi, xii, xiii, 2, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 19, 20,
21, 25, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 38, 40, 41, 47, 59,
62, 63, 136, 153, 170, 177, 187, 189, 196, 212,
213, 214, 215, 221, 374, 376
e-learning, 104, 122, 126, 234, 235, 254, 314
E-learning, 253, 379
electric field, 288, 300
electrical conductivity, 284, 300
electricity, 177, 288, 289
electronic portfolios, 316, 377, 382
elementary school, 44
elephants, 149
email, 187, 311, 342, 367, 368, 376
e-mail, xv, 103, 105, 107, 108, 109, 110, 178, 198.
206, 235
emerging issues, 348
emotional, xvi, 13, 65, 135, 145, 186, 281, 285, 287,
292, 293, 312, 333, 338
emotional experience, 293
emotional well-being, 145
emotions, 69, 287, 292
empathy, 373
employees, 98, 99, 101, 103, 115, 116, 129, 283
employers, 105, 116
employment, xiii, 82, 83, 84, 87, 96, 113, 115
Index

388
empowerment, 358
energy, 283, 333, 337
engagement, xvii, 226, 293, 317, 318, 323, 341, 343,
344, 345, 349, 352, 354, 355, 357, 375
England, 43, 46, 140, 192, 254
English Language, x, 341, 342, 346, 358, 361
English language proficiency, 346, 347
English language program, 358
enterprise, 342
enthusiasm, 119
environmental influences, xiv, 135
enzymes, 322, 325
epistemological, 357
epistemology, 347, 357
equality, 49, 365, 366
equating, 34
equity, xviii, 363
ERIC, 255, 278
error management, 211
ESL, 43, 346, 347, 349, 350, 361
ethical concerns, 347
ethical issues, 138
ethnic background, 222
ethnic diversity, 223
ethnicity, 138, 222
Euro, 188
Europe, 70, 360
evening, 284
evolution, 334, 368
examinations, 124, 318, 326, 350, 381
exchange relationship, 223
exclusion, 138, 146, 147
excuse, 56, 72
execution, 17, 32, 34, 36, 40, 41
executive processes, 3, 17
exercise, 74, 98, 231, 270, 319, 321, 324, 327, 360
exosystem, 94
expected probability, 27
experimental condition, 213
experimental design, 22, 39, 40, 174, 209, 219, 231
Expert System, 187
expert teacher, 19
expertise, xi, xii, xiv, 1, 2, 5, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25,
26, 29, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 41, 42, 43,
45, 46, 100, 150, 165, 169, 171, 172, 173, 182,
183, 185, 189, 192, 193, 194, 199, 217, 219, 236,
315, 332
exponential functions, 260, 267
exposure, 106, 173
externalization, 170, 177
extinction, 89
extrovert, 371
eye, 299, 300, 312
eye contact, 312
eyes, 75, 148, 150, 354
F
Facebook, xvii, 301, 302, 305, 312, 313, 314, 315,
368, 369
face-to-face interaction, 119, 191, 229, 250, 351
facilitators, 304, 374
failure, 10, 32, 52, 99, 103, 113, 373
faith, 320
false statement, 89
familial, 21
family, 54, 83, 91, 139, 140, 143, 144, 148, 149, 150,
151, 152, 155, 282, 294, 327, 350
family relationships, 155
fatty acids, 325
fear, 61, 288, 289, 352, 357
fears, 352
February, 134
feedback, 18, 55, 60, 66, 73, 74, 137, 167, 169, 174,
178, 180, 181, 190, 203, 212, 229, 235, 237, 240,
249, 261, 262, 263, 268, 269, 271, 274, 275, 305,
306, 307, 314, 323, 335, 349, 353, 356, 357, 359,
367, 374, 375, 376, 378
feelings, 61, 62, 68, 119, 229, 230, 337, 338, 365
feet, 141, 143
females, 94, 107, 212, 346
feminist, 94
films, 73, 292, 300
filters, 10
Finland, 315
fire, 139, 151, 154
firms, 98
first language, 347
flame, 335
flexibility, xiv, 62, 70, 96, 125, 177, 217, 235, 322,
329, 370, 381
floating, 299
flow, xvii, 49, 157, 229, 234, 341, 344, 355, 360
flow experience, 344, 355
fluid, 332
focus group, xvii, 134, 314, 341, 348, 357
focusing, xvi, 49, 63, 106, 168, 171, 181, 270, 281,
338, 364
folding, 335
food, 155, 158
football, 318
Ford, 3, 46
foreign language, 359
formal education, 198, 287
Foucault, 332, 339
fractals, 71
Index

389
fragmentation, 368
free recall, 21
freedom, 153, 181, 185, 217, 334
free-ride, 364
Freud, 84, 91, 92
friction, 211
friendship, 61, 104, 138, 140, 145, 146, 147, 150,
151, 153, 154, 155, 161, 174, 356
frustration, 132, 146, 319, 367
fuel, 82
functional analysis, xv, 197, 201, 202, 204, 207
funding, 106, 129, 322
funds, 139
G
games, 15, 78, 143, 146, 149
gas, 288, 300
gender, xiv, 135, 138, 144, 145, 146, 151, 152, 153,
154, 155, 157, 158, 160, 161, 174, 211, 212, 217,
283, 370
gender differences, 152, 153, 154, 155, 157, 161
gene, 38
general education, 54
general knowledge, 10
generalizability, 39, 40, 160, 377
generalization, 38, 171, 219
generation, 7, 8, 10, 13, 56, 73, 171, 174, 187, 191,
219, 305, 339
generativity, 92
Geneva, 190
genital stage, 92
genome, 327
Georgia, 163
Germany, 189
Gibbs, 252
girls, 137, 138, 139, 140, 142, 143, 144, 145, 148,
149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 157, 162
glass, 300
globalization, 342
goal setting, 34, 378
goal-directed, 9
goals, xi, xii, 2, 3, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 16, 18, 19, 24, 25,
32, 34, 35, 41, 52, 56, 59, 65, 74, 75, 136, 166,
167, 173, 184, 186, 206, 207, 226, 229, 236, 249,
250, 251, 259, 275, 276, 302, 321, 323, 324, 328,
333, 346, 365, 366, 370, 374, 378
google, 309
government, 96, 106, 113, 115, 194
grades, 54, 322, 323, 324, 326, 333, 335
grading, 320, 323, 376
graduate students, 91, 364
grain, 22, 332
graph, 39, 41, 85, 86, 264, 266, 267, 272, 273, 274
Greece, 225
grounding, 187, 189, 227, 288
group activities, 73, 114, 226, 305, 325, 355, 377
group characteristics, 215, 224
group climate, 218
group identity, 51
group interactions, 50, 196, 228, 263
group membership, 201, 212
group processes, xv, 3, 198, 200, 209, 211, 218
group size, 201, 230, 371, 372
group variance, 218
group work, xiii, xiv, 3, 67, 88, 95, 96, 97, 98, 101,
103, 104, 105, 107, 109, 110, 112, 113, 114, 115,
116, 121, 131, 174, 175, 215, 227, 261, 262, 263,
268, 269, 270, 271, 274, 275, 276, 303, 310, 321,
323, 324, 348, 353, 354, 355, 364, 365, 366, 369
grouping, 370, 371, 372, 378
groupthink, 114, 216
growth, 45, 80, 82, 126, 258, 267, 339
guidance, xiii, xviii, 93, 96, 99, 114, 115, 170, 177,
178, 179, 180, 195, 232, 257, 305, 311, 321, 325,
363, 370, 374, 375
guidelines, 84, 101, 112, 259, 335, 370, 376, 377,
379
guilt, 89, 92
guns, 139, 151, 154, 161
H
handling, 168, 230, 271
hands, 149, 150, 234, 249, 251, 283, 284, 293
harm, 157, 314
harmony, 157, 314
Harvard, 43, 44, 78, 91, 133, 162, 189, 196, 223,
295, 328, 362
Hawaii, 187, 190, 254
headache, 57
health, 193, 194, 196, 379, 380, 381
health care, 379, 380
heart, 99, 171, 321
heat, 213, 214
hegemony, 332
height, 300
helping behavior, 202, 218, 224
hemoglobin, 325
heterogeneity, 51, 69, 212, 215, 372
heterogeneous, xii, 2, 19, 37, 86, 134, 212, 332, 371
heuristic, 9, 14, 16
hidden curriculum, 65, 160
high school, 44, 46, 175, 176, 351
higher education, 103, 104, 105, 120, 125, 134, 251,
328, 329, 333, 334, 339, 368, 379, 381
Index

390
higher-order thinking, xiii, 81, 90, 166, 380
high-level, 15, 18
hip, 140, 149, 250
HIV/AIDS, 322, 326, 327
HIV-1, 327
holistic, 131, 329, 353, 355
holistic approach, 131
Holland, 45, 133, 154, 161
homework, 88, 202, 240, 350
homogeneity, 212
homogenous, 371
Hong Kong, 165, 346
horizon, 344
hospital, 141, 142, 143, 149, 182, 185
hospitalized, xiv, 165, 181
host, 235, 364
hostility, 364
House, 134, 362
households, 161
HSP, 174
human, 4, 5, 12, 17, 34, 61, 79, 83, 90, 91, 92, 93,
133, 166, 167, 168, 174, 181, 188, 191, 192, 195,
229, 236, 250, 293, 304, 307, 353
human activity, 250
human agency, 90, 93
human behavior, 92, 181
human cognition, 17, 34
human development, 79, 83, 91
hybrid, 371
hypermedia, 188, 379
hypertext, 329
hypothesis, 10, 11, 13, 19, 24, 35, 171, 172, 174,
191, 201, 212, 233, 236, 247, 250
hypothesis test, 10, 201
hypothetico-deductive, 19
I
ICC, 200, 212
ICT, 98, 99, 101, 103, 106, 133, 278, 303, 308, 309
id, 91, 92
identification, 13, 18, 20, 41, 349
identity, xvii, 51, 62, 64, 66, 71, 80, 92, 120, 221,
341, 355, 356, 357, 358, 372, 373
ideology, 354, 356
idiosyncratic, 14
ill-defined problems, 382
Illinois, 381
illusions, 284
images, 133, 176, 238, 244, 247, 284, 299, 300, 313
imagination, 161, 355
imitation, 93
immersion, 347
immigrants, 57, 80
implementation, xvi, xvii, xviii, 3, 13, 16, 33, 90, 97,
99, 101, 103, 107, 112, 113, 115, 121, 134, 258,
281, 293, 317, 318, 323, 348, 363
impulsive, 309
in vivo, 337
incentive, 33, 93, 230
incentives, 322
incidence, 139, 155, 157
inclusion, 2, 49, 112, 357
independence, 22, 36, 219, 339
India, 346
indication, 33, 34, 35
indicators, 12
indices, 34
indirect measure, 323
individual action, 188
individual differences, 3, 22, 39
individual students, 268, 269, 271, 272, 274, 287,
293, 324
individualization, 368
individualized instruction, 80
induction, 9, 10, 34
industry, xiii, 92, 95, 98, 101, 103, 112, 113, 116,
194, 358
inertia, 54
infants, 156
infection, 326, 327
inferences, 5, 7, 10, 13, 14, 20, 24, 34, 43, 172, 268
inferiority, 92
Information Age, 301, 314, 380, 382
information and communication technologies, (ICT),
2, 99, 234, 235
information exchange, 18, 37, 212, 250, 367
information processing, xv, 45, 93, 188, 216, 220
information retrieval, 18, 37
information seeking, 367
information sharing, 222, 304
Information System, 133, 251, 381
Information Technology, 104, 119, 174, 222, 240,
249, 257
informed consent, 138
infrastructure, 120, 193
initial state, 13
initiation, 135
innovation, 20
Innovation, 95, 361
insight, 82, 160, 169, 207, 219, 258, 276, 346, 354
inspection, 277
inspiration, 354
instinct, 120, 126
institutions, 65, 66, 104, 106, 110, 112, 115, 116,
131, 294
Index

391
instruction, xi, xii, xiii, 1, 12, 19, 21, 34, 37, 42, 45,
81, 120, 125, 171, 187, 191, 222, 231, 261, 262,
263, 264, 268, 270, 275, 278, 304, 314, 329, 343,
347, 375, 379
instructional activities, 41, 258, 260, 261, 262, 271
instructional design, xviii, 193, 363, 377
instructional materials, 41
instructional methods, 120, 126, 328
instructional planning, 5
instructional practice, xviii, 259, 363
instructional skills, 361
instructors, xiii, 81, 86, 90, 119, 179, 234, 235, 364,
365, 368, 369, 370, 371, 373, 374, 375, 376, 378,
381, 382
instruments, 129, 230, 233, 238, 240, 241, 242, 243,
244, 245, 251, 278
integration, xiii, xv, xviii, 3, 5, 6, 7, 47, 158, 190,
213, 215, 225, 231, 249, 252, 253, 263, 271, 334,
335, 339, 363
integrity, 71, 92
intellect, 189
intellectual development, 318, 329
intelligence, 44, 46, 63, 91, 193, 315, 354
intentions, 16, 18, 62, 115, 136
interaction process, 196, 207, 260, 264, 343
interactivity, 226, 250, 252, 308, 313
interdependence, xvi, 51, 52, 134, 226, 301, 302,
346, 353, 365, 366, 368, 369, 370, 374
interdisciplinary, xiii, xvi, 42, 47, 48, 53, 58, 59, 67,
71, 301, 379
interest groups, 104
interface, 179, 217, 241, 245, 261, 263, 264, 359
interference, 293
internalization, 304
international students, 346, 349, 350, 351, 352, 354,
355, 356, 357, 358
Internet, 103, 105, 123, 133, 229, 233, 248, 251, 252,
253, 255, 310, 311, 316
internship, 335
interpersonal relations, 250, 367
interpersonal relationships, 367
interpersonal skills, 345
intervention, xi, xii, xvi, xvii, 2, 10, 11, 13, 24, 25,
28, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 40, 64, 70, 136,
151, 158, 159, 162, 171, 257, 259, 261, 275, 276,
287, 307, 341, 346, 347, 348, 349
interview, 129
interviews, xiii, xvii, 71, 95, 186, 262, 286, 339, 348
intimacy, 92
intimidation, 146
intrinsic, 32, 55, 70, 88
introvert, 371
investigative, xvi, 257, 259, 261, 262, 271, 274, 276
investment, 98, 322, 350
iron, 131
isolation, 40, 90, 92, 119, 186, 209, 229, 365, 368
isomers, 324
Israel, 283, 293, 295
Italy, 294
J
Japan, 189, 346
Japanese, 361
job satisfaction, 97
jobs, 66
joining, 52, 152
Jordan, 154, 162, 190
judge, 58, 180, 250, 322, 376
judgment, 220, 373
jumping, 140
jury, 58
justice, 94
justification, 15, 177, 342
K
kappa, 200, 209
kindergarten, 137, 138, 139, 140, 145, 146, 147, 148,
149, 151, 152, 153, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160,
162
kindergarten children, 153, 157, 162
kinesthetic, 287
kinetics, 326
King, 141, 143, 152, 158, 175, 188, 191
knowledge acquisition, 43, 381
knowledge construction, xviii, 42, 177, 178, 182,
189, 190, 207, 224, 249, 282, 358, 363, 365, 369
knowledge transfer, 284
Kobe, 189
Korea, 346
Korean, 351
L
labour, 226, 227
lack of confidence, 113, 351
Lafayette, 220
LAN, xv, 225, 237, 238, 239, 240, 243, 244, 245,
246, 250
language, xvii, 7, 27, 43, 45, 46, 82, 91, 144, 153,
155, 157, 158, 161, 163, 176, 319, 333, 339, 341,
342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349, 351, 352,
353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359, 360, 362, 367,
375
Index

392
language development, 158
language proficiency, 353
language skills, 343, 344, 353, 358
latency, 92
laughing, 285, 289, 291
law, 15, 58, 299
lawyers, 58
leadership, xiii, xiv, 47, 51, 60, 62, 63, 70, 73, 80,
87, 135, 138, 142, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149,
150, 151, 152, 153, 155, 160, 162, 215, 216, 217,
220, 221, 223, 224, 356, 357, 358, 366, 373, 375
leadership style, 145, 150, 152, 155
learning activity, 181, 182, 186, 365, 367, 374, 377
learning behavior, 218, 220, 345
learning culture, 339
learning difficulties, 45, 231
learning disabilities, 57
learning outcomes, xvi, xvii, 12, 48, 225, 229, 233,
251, 258, 302, 341, 342, 344, 346, 349, 350, 352,
354, 355, 357, 367, 369, 377
learning process, xvii, 59, 64, 67, 73, 74, 93, 101,
107, 116, 170, 190, 195, 208, 209, 215, 217, 218,
219, 227, 228, 232, 235, 250, 254, 260, 301, 303,
313, 314, 332, 334, 335, 339, 343, 353, 365, 377
learning styles, 90, 362, 371, 372, 378
learning task, 3, 49, 52, 65, 72, 135, 167, 187, 195,
196, 223, 227, 251, 310, 349, 366, 370
lens, 87, 366
lenses, 87, 284, 286, 298, 299
lesson plan, 11, 19, 21, 22, 37
liberal, 318
life course, 357
life cycle, 326
life style, 313
lifespan, 94
lift, 243
ligands, 325
likelihood, 22, 285
limitation, 66, 206, 292
limitations, 37, 38, 39, 75, 124, 200, 259
Lincoln, 347, 360
linear, 22, 27, 40, 72, 260, 299
linear function, 260
linguistic, 347, 361
linguistically, 332
links, 3, 8, 9, 38, 39, 58, 99, 128, 314, 326, 334, 366,
368, 375
listening, 54, 61, 75, 272, 319, 334, 335, 337, 345,
348, 356
literacy, 98, 145, 148, 161, 162, 346, 358
local area network (LAN), 241
local community, 327
location, 87, 109, 123, 125, 155, 230, 234
logging, 314
logistics, 370
London, 43, 78, 91, 131, 134, 161, 188, 221, 253,
254, 339, 359, 360, 361, 362
longitudinal study, 218
long-term impact, 294
long-term memory, 6, 7, 231
love, 336, 337, 340
low-level, 18
loyalty, 98
lying, 141
M
M1, 214
machines, 167, 195
macrosystem, 94
magazines, 269
magnet, 355
maintenance, 51, 171, 180, 232
Malaysia, 346
males, 94, 107, 153, 212, 346
mammogram, 187
mammography, 172, 187
management, 15, 97, 99, 104, 115, 119, 122, 127,
131, 136, 176, 178, 179, 181, 185, 196, 211, 223,
235, 250, 368, 375, 381
manipulation, 9, 154, 230, 233, 240, 244, 282
manners, 11
manufacturing, 254
mapping, 177, 195, 303
Markov process, 27, 34, 40
Marx, 12, 45
mask, 300
mass media, 58
Massachusetts, 189
mastery, 339, 364
maternal, 154
mathematical knowledge, 260
mathematical thinking, 46, 220
mathematics, 45, 46, 80, 171, 176, 187, 191, 220,
224, 257, 258, 260, 276, 277, 278, 279
mathematics education, 257, 258, 276, 278, 279
matrix, xvii, 310, 341, 344, 348, 350, 352
maturation, 93
meals, 139
meaningful tasks, 90, 251
meanings, 53, 55, 59, 61, 71, 126, 166, 168, 169,
217, 343, 374
measurement, 198, 209, 211, 244, 245, 254, 302, 333
measures, xv, 198, 200, 211, 212, 323
media, 58, 126, 155, 218, 251, 368, 379
mediation, 93, 236, 374
Index

393
mediators, 150, 230, 366
medical care, 185
medical expertise, 43, 45, 171, 193
medical student, xiv, 165, 181
medications, 182
meditation, xvii, 331, 332, 334, 335
membership, 145, 146, 153
memorizing, xvii, 230, 317, 342
memory, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 33, 42, 166, 169, 171, 175,
231, 293
men, 57, 77, 213
mental energy, 334
mental life, 92
mental model, xv, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 16, 169,
173, 180, 188, 198, 211, 216, 217, 220
mental processes, 93
mental representation, 5, 6, 9, 168
mental state, 355
mentor, 19, 181
mesosystem, 94
messages, 174, 177, 180, 229, 303, 311, 376
meta-analysis, 278, 361
metabolism, 322, 325
metacognition, 180, 181, 252, 379
metacognitive skills, 173
metaphor, 49, 61, 76, 259, 353
methodological implications, 198
methodological procedures, 230, 237, 249, 250
Microsoft, 84, 87, 88, 368, 381
microstructure, 5, 6, 7
microsystem, 94
middle-class families, 138
military, 194
minerals, 71
Ministry of Education, 135, 162
minorities, 221
minority, 12, 109, 121
mirror, 82, 90, 213, 214, 284, 286, 297, 299, 300
misconception, 264
misconceptions, 221, 231, 232, 237, 241, 247, 263,
274, 304, 369
misleading, 34
misunderstanding, 113, 115
MIT, 91, 190, 223, 362
mixing, 74, 370
mobile phone, 123
modalities, 51, 61
modality, 254
modeling, xi, xii, 1, 17, 22, 23, 37, 39, 42, 46, 88, 93,
167, 175, 180, 304, 325
models, xi, xii, xiii, xiv, xv, 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 14, 16,
34, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 46, 79, 93, 96, 112,
126, 169, 171, 173, 176, 179, 180, 181, 185, 188,
194, 198, 211, 216, 217, 220, 221, 229, 231, 279,
326, 372
modulation, 23
modules, xi, xii, xiii, 1, 95, 109, 125, 233, 235
molecular structure, 176
molecules, 319, 324
money, 89, 350
Monsters, 139
moral development, 94
morale, 97
morning, 107, 108, 137, 138, 146, 147, 150, 151, 158
morphemes, 7
mother tongue, 347
mothers, 171
motion, 66, 176, 234, 286, 299
motivation, xvii, 54, 57, 61, 69, 70, 105, 166, 179,
193, 222, 229, 236, 250, 294, 317, 319, 323, 354,
368, 372
motives, 63
motor skills, 149
mouse, 233, 245
movement, 89, 136, 146
MSW, xvii, 331, 332, 334, 337
multicultural, 226
multidimensional, 69, 208, 349, 354, 357
multimedia, 177, 229, 305, 306, 379
multiplicity, 40, 69, 337
multivariate, 27
music, 71, 76, 89
mutual respect, 356
mutuality, 49, 332
MySpace, 123
N
NAEYC, 162
naming, 324
Nanyang Technological University, 301
narratives, 67, 69, 71, 145, 159, 162
National Science Foundation, 277, 327
natural, 51, 58, 74, 93, 294, 337, 367, 368, 369, 372
negative attitudes, 371
negotiating, 166, 169, 345, 355, 374
negotiation, 21, 51, 131, 145, 154, 170, 177, 178,
185, 220, 250, 304, 344, 347, 356, 366, 375, 380
nervousness, 69
Netherlands, 45, 46, 187, 190, 191, 195, 196, 197,
220, 222, 223, 257, 260, 278, 378
network, 6, 193, 229, 237, 241
networking, 127
neurologist, 92
New Jersey, 79, 161, 188, 339
New Orleans, 188, 193
Index

394
New York, 43, 44, 45, 46, 77, 78, 79, 80, 91, 134,
161, 188, 189, 190, 192, 193, 194, 196, 219, 254,
279, 328, 329, 333, 339, 340, 360, 361, 362, 379,
380
New Zealand, xiv, 135, 138, 160, 162, 163
newspapers, 269
NIE, 306, 309, 311
nodes, 6, 375
noise, 143, 158, 160
non-English speaking, xvii, 341
non-linearity, 72
nonverbal, 203
normal, 145, 156, 269
norms, 55, 258, 259, 276, 279
Norway, 140
novel stimuli, 285
nucleic acid, 322, 326, 327, 328
nurse, 182, 184, 185
nursery school, 163
nurses, 149
O
object-oriented design, 180
obligation, 63, 82
obligations, 263, 268, 277
observational learning, 93, 375
observations, xv, 22, 144, 225, 232, 241, 244, 247,
260, 261, 262, 263, 270, 271, 273, 277, 284, 348
omnibus, 27, 30
online, xviii, 114, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 126,
127, 128, 132, 133, 134, 176, 180, 183, 190, 195,
220, 223, 234, 235, 246, 252, 295, 303, 307, 311,
312, 315, 340, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369,
370, 371, 372, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379, 380,
381, 382
online communication, 367
online learning, 119, 120, 123, 126, 235, 312, 315,
365, 366, 367, 368, 375, 379, 380, 381, 382
open spaces, 154
openness, 70, 338
operator, 14, 177
opposition, 19, 152
optical, 243, 284
optics, 283, 284, 287
oral, 70, 92, 155, 326
orbit, 299
organic, 319, 322, 324, 325, 337
organizational behavior, 224
orientation, 58, 62, 66, 94, 178, 208, 368, 375, 382
overload, 35
ownership, xvii, 72, 307, 331, 332, 334, 370
oxygen, 325
P
Pacific, 361
packets, 158
pain, 288
paradigm shift, 191, 331, 334
paradox, 340, 367
parameter, 239
parental consent, 138
parents, 71, 141, 154
particles, 288, 300
partnership, 336, 378
partnerships, 378
passive, 55, 63, 231, 304, 333, 346, 350, 357, 359
patient management, 185
patients, 149, 171, 173, 181, 185
patterning, 71
PBL, 171, 174, 175, 182, 186, 375, 380
PCs, 237, 245
PCT, 132
peak experience, 355
pedagogies, 315, 318
pedagogy, 41, 48, 49, 58, 67, 114, 127, 153, 279, 320
peer group, 222
peer relationship, 356
peer tutoring, 220
peers, xv, 153, 154, 156, 163, 166, 170, 177, 180,
185, 198, 217, 227, 232, 235, 239, 240, 244, 245,
246, 247, 248, 250, 251, 258, 263, 264, 274, 282,
284, 287, 293, 306, 314, 320, 325, 339, 345, 349,
354, 359, 368, 369, 376
Pennsylvania, 328
perception, 5, 284, 354, 357, 376
perceptions, 161, 222, 335
performers, 217
periodic, 367
periodicity, 71
Peripheral, 77
permit, 40, 119
personal computers, 244
personal learning, 294
personal life, 69, 104
personal responsibility, 236
personality, 211, 212, 213, 221, 319, 355, 356, 371,
372, 373, 374, 379
personality type, 212, 213
persuasion, 153, 177
pets, 139, 152
pH, 252, 254
Philadelphia, 161
philosophical, 51, 342
philosophy, 104, 123, 160, 343, 344
Phoenix, 79, 329
Index

395
phone, 143, 151
photographs, 137, 138
physical force, 146, 153
physicians, 10, 171, 185
physics, 41, 176, 177, 195, 223, 252
physiology, 173
pilot study, 316
pitch, 300
planning, xi, xii, xvii, 1, 3, 4, 5, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15,
16, 18, 19, 21, 25, 32, 33, 37, 38, 39, 41, 42, 44,
45, 46, 64, 70, 114, 158, 160, 175, 185, 201, 251,
262, 311, 317, 321, 349, 367, 370, 373, 379, 381
plants, 267
plasma, 284, 287, 288, 289, 293
plastic, 158
platforms, 48, 73, 127, 235, 250
plausibility, 10, 11, 24
play, xiv, 14, 89, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141,
142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151,
152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161,
162, 163, 167, 169, 183, 185, 186, 218, 258, 282,
302, 304, 366, 373, 374
play activity, 154, 163
pleasure, 92, 355
pleasure principle, 92
poison, 142, 148
police, 146, 147, 154
politics, 15
polling, 311
pond, 267
poor, 105, 200, 218
population, xiv, 96, 125
portfolio, 51, 53, 303, 358, 377
Portugal, 133
positive attitudes, 166, 375
positive reinforcement, 89
positive relation, xv, 197, 217, 313
positive relationship, 217, 313
posture, 152, 334
power, 22, 61, 62, 63, 97, 145, 147, 149, 152, 154,
155, 159, 162, 188, 235, 260, 264, 265, 266, 269,
270, 272, 273, 332, 334, 351, 352, 357, 379
praxis, 104
prediction, 27, 326
prediction models, 326
preference, 154, 157, 234, 325, 371
prejudice, 215, 216
preoperational stage, 93
preschool, 89, 153, 156, 161, 162
preschool children, 156, 161
preschoolers, 162
preservice teachers, xiii, 81, 82, 86
press, 180, 186, 190, 191, 193, 223, 240, 294, 295
pressure, 75, 105, 288, 299, 300, 338
primacy, 146
primary school, 294, 306
primitives, 12, 39
prior knowledge, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 13, 15, 24, 87, 114,
167, 169, 194, 222, 237, 241, 247, 288, 304, 324
privacy, 313
probability, 16, 27, 28, 32, 36
problem space, 13, 14, 16, 41, 169, 175, 182, 184,
185, 195
problem-based learning, 175, 187, 189, 190, 196,
321, 322, 369, 370, 375, 380
problem-solving, xviii, 2, 5, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20,
24, 28, 30, 33, 34, 35, 79, 105, 161, 172, 182,
183, 188, 190, 192, 196, 199, 201, 203, 204, 218,
261, 304, 315, 344, 356, 363, 364, 366, 369, 372,
373, 374, 375, 376, 379, 380
problem-solving task, 17, 20, 372
procedural knowledge, 19, 173
producers, 76
production, xi, xii, 1, 3, 5, 38, 127, 347, 351, 352
productivity, 65, 97, 99, 105, 217
professional development, xvii, 2, 42, 43, 67, 316,
331, 335
program, xi, xii, xv, 2, 22, 37, 56, 58, 59, 71, 175,
188, 203, 208, 225, 239, 241, 333, 334, 336
programming, 179, 196
projector, 88, 244, 245, 318
proliferation, 98, 120, 125
pronunciation, 349, 351, 353, 357
proposition, 6, 10
prosthetics, 191
protection, 159, 214
proteins, 322, 325, 326
protocols, 22, 38, 171, 183, 185, 200, 208, 209, 260,
267, 268, 269, 271, 326
prototype, 125, 127, 128, 129, 131
proxy, 93
psychiatrist, 92
psychic energy, 285
psychoanalysis, 92
Psychoanalysis, 82, 84, 92
psychological processes, 91, 223, 295
psychologist, 60, 92, 93, 94
psychology, 43, 44, 45, 46, 53, 79, 91, 192, 193, 194,
209, 221, 316, 328, 329
psychotherapy, 331
puberty, 92, 94
public, 58, 101, 119, 137, 282, 283, 314, 326, 344
public sector, 101
punishment, 89, 92
pupil, 10, 34
pupils, 53
Index

396
purification, 325
PVA, 22
Q
qualifications, 137, 160
qualitative research, 278
quality improvement, 97
Quebec, 187
questioning, 264, 284, 304
questionnaire, xiii, 95, 99, 101, 107, 109, 117, 121,
122, 125, 127, 128, 212, 218, 241, 335
questionnaires, 101, 129, 200, 209, 212, 218
quizzes, 235, 250, 252, 323
R
race, 78
radiologists, 172
random, 201, 324, 327, 334
range, 9, 39, 49, 85, 105, 139, 153, 157, 158, 159,
160, 175, 177, 186, 200, 284, 344, 346, 348, 349,
350, 353, 355, 358, 369, 372
ratings, 215, 376
rats, 92
readership, 83
reading, xi, xii, 1, 7, 8, 21, 34, 45, 57, 80, 86, 91,
246, 248, 314, 324, 326, 335, 346, 349, 353
reading assessment, 353
reading skills, 346, 349, 353
real time, 106, 182, 228, 233, 244, 245, 246, 309
reality, 8, 44, 66, 80, 90, 92, 233, 245, 250, 304, 361
reasoning skills, 20, 41
recall, 19, 21, 56, 89
recalling, 350
recession, 94
reciprocal relationships, 135
reciprocity, 199
recognition, 41, 49, 104, 171, 175, 230, 343
reconstruction, 170, 304
redundancy, 342, 344
reflection, 3, 21, 51, 60, 67, 76, 177, 184, 189, 201,
235, 249, 259, 262, 266, 268, 271, 277, 300, 309,
311, 314, 343, 356, 358, 365, 366, 367, 374, 377
reflective practice, 378
reflexivity, 211
reforms, 4, 343
regular, 106, 120, 122, 123, 144, 145, 147, 157, 320,
374
regulation, xii, 2, 17, 37, 42, 135, 180, 190, 222, 235
regulations, 251
Reimann, 179, 193
reinforcement, 88, 89, 92
rejection, 10
relationship, 3, 5, 6, 17, 43, 48, 52, 54, 55, 57, 61,
62, 63, 65, 66, 71, 72, 76, 93, 149, 151, 155, 160,
180, 211, 212, 213, 217, 223, 249, 250, 258, 259,
276, 292, 302, 312, 313, 338, 339, 366, 373
relationships, 48, 49, 54, 61, 62, 64, 65, 66, 68, 70,
73, 135, 144, 146, 155, 160, 168, 176, 177, 178,
186, 215, 223, 224, 239, 286, 295, 337, 356, 366,
370, 373
relativity, 53
relevance, xiv, 10, 57, 96, 249, 262
reliability, 105, 170, 200, 203, 209, 212, 213, 215,
219, 220, 221, 223, 244
Reliability, 221
repetitions, 345
Research and Development, 379, 380, 382
research design, 219
resilience, 356
resistance, 99, 101, 103, 113, 275, 277, 334, 375
resolution, 15, 19, 20, 145, 150, 366, 367, 374
resources, xiv, 16, 65, 70, 78, 84, 106, 119, 126, 129,
136, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 165, 167, 168, 205,
230, 234, 237, 243, 249, 250, 303, 304, 305, 306,
310, 312, 325, 347, 353, 354, 365, 375
responsibilities, 3, 49, 51, 139, 275, 276, 346, 353
responsibility for learning, xvii, 331, 332
restructuring, 7
retention, 166
retina, 299
retrovirus, 327
returns, 140
reverse transcriptase, 327
rhythm, 69, 75
rigidity, 62
risk, 67
RNA, 327
role playing, 64, 136
role-playing, 149, 182, 254
rolling, 286, 296, 300
rote learning, 342, 350
routines, 103, 160
rubrics, 38, 308, 377
Russian, 93, 94
S
sabotage, 99
safety, 143, 159, 220, 230, 336, 338
sample, xi, xii, 1, 21, 28, 32, 34, 38, 39, 84, 91, 107,
194, 203, 346, 364, 371
sampling, 39, 262
sand, 147
Index

397
SAS, 22, 23
satisfaction, 5, 6, 68, 97, 212, 316, 322, 377, 381
Saudi Arabia, 346
scaffold, 177, 178, 182, 183, 185, 379
scaffolding, xiv, xviii, 45, 93, 165, 171, 178, 179,
183, 184, 185, 186, 193, 222, 271, 304, 305, 308,
363, 374, 375, 377, 378, 379, 381
scarcity, 33
scheduling, 233
schema, 7, 11, 12, 15, 20, 172
schemas, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, 14, 16, 19, 33
scholarship, 282, 322, 358
schooling, 82
science department, 287
science education, 189, 230, 232, 233, 237, 243, 249,
250, 295
scientific community, 236
scientific knowledge, 251
scores, 27, 200, 212, 213
scripts, 3, 11, 18, 41, 54, 65, 77
search, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 52, 55, 59, 72, 81,
84, 107, 127, 171, 172, 175, 196, 221, 223, 310,
332, 338
searches, 169
searching, 172, 174, 248, 290, 333
Seattle, 253
second language, 70, 344, 346, 347, 362
secondary education, 278
secondary school students, 135
secret, 77
security, 55
selecting, 41, 87, 373
Self, 65, 120, 181, 188, 211, 227, 338, 355, 360
self-assessment, 247
self-confidence, 154, 318
self-consciousness, 355
self-definition, 161
self-efficacy, 355, 356, 357, 358, 361
self-esteem, 154
self-evaluations, 67
self-identity, 357
self-management, 131
self-monitoring, 136
self-paced learning, 126
self-reflection, 51, 52
self-regulation, xii, 2, 17, 42, 180, 222, 235
self-reports, 211, 216, 218
semantic, 9, 43, 186
sensation, 69, 75
sensing, 371
sensitivity, 7
sensory experience, 233
sensory modality, 254
sentences, 6, 153
separateness, 65
separation, xviii, 178, 227, 363, 365, 372
sequencing, 12, 20, 25, 29, 36, 38
series, xiv, 2, 3, 11, 21, 22, 37, 42, 44, 96, 101, 112,
115, 127, 166, 174, 251, 260, 324
services, 83, 161, 369
SES, 133
sex, 78, 153, 154
shade, 214, 215
shame, 92
shape, 54, 92, 175, 178
shaping, 89
shares, 10, 49, 245, 311
sharing, 53, 59, 67, 75, 90, 98, 100, 126, 136, 145,
160, 170, 180, 195, 205, 222, 231, 236, 237, 250,
292, 302, 304, 305, 306, 311, 345, 348, 349, 352,
356, 368, 371, 374
Shell, 129, 134
shoot, 142, 144
short period, 230, 249
short supply, 98
shortages, 98
short-term, 12, 18, 19, 150, 166, 171
short-term memory, 171
shoulders, 91
shy, 136, 364
sibling, 161
signaling, 214, 215
signals, 213
signs, xiv, 159, 165, 181, 182, 184, 185
similarity, 199
simulations, xiv, xv, 64, 165, 166, 175, 185, 223,
225, 229, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 240, 249, 250,
252, 254, 344
Singapore, 134, 301, 306, 311, 346, 360
siphon, 99
sites, 303, 347
situation awareness, 173, 184, 185
skeleton, 300
skill shortages, 98
Skinner box, 92
Skinner, B. F., 91
Slovenia, 133
sociability, 191, 253
social behavior, 346
social behaviour, 161
social change, 134
social cognition, 17, 39, 358
social construct, xvii, 77, 90, 166, 167, 226, 229,
301, 304, 331, 339, 342, 343, 344, 345, 348
social constructivism, 304, 342, 343, 348
social context, 62, 258, 292
Index

398
social contract, 162
social environment, 119, 126
social factors, 98, 368
social group, 145
social identity, 221
social learning, 88, 183
social network, 121, 126, 127, 312, 367, 368, 369
social norms, 258
social order, 94
social presence, 366, 367, 372, 374
social problems, 120
social psychology, xv, 197, 198, 209, 221
social regulation, 216
social relations, 48, 340
social relationships, 48
social roles, 179
social sciences, 16
social skills, xiii, 47, 51, 52, 57, 58, 60, 61, 62, 63,
70, 72, 158, 161, 251, 345, 349, 352, 353, 355
social structure, 104
social support, 3
social systems, 169
social work, xvii, 331
socialisation, 114, 115, 119, 126
socialization, 91, 365, 367, 372, 374, 375
sociocultural, 93, 163, 315
sociology, 90, 223, 340
software, 100, 106, 107, 119, 121, 122, 124, 126,
127, 128, 129, 193, 196, 203, 217, 222, 231, 233,
249, 252, 374, 381
sounds, 214
South Korea, 361
space-time, 295
Spain, 48
spatial, 177, 284
special education, xi, xii, 1, 21
specialization, 172
species, 120, 126
specific knowledge, 70, 174
specificity, 181
spectroscopy, 253
spectrum, 254
speech, 39, 146, 153, 180, 217, 335, 351, 352, 353,
356
speed, 352
spheres, 299
spreadsheets, 247
SPSS, 200, 203, 208
stabilize, xiv, 165, 185, 186
stages, xvii, 6, 9, 53, 62, 70, 92, 93, 94, 115, 173,
184, 237, 318, 323, 341, 357, 370
stakeholders, 103, 112, 119, 125
standards, 65, 94, 304
statistical analysis, 27, 208, 239
statistics, 25, 27, 30, 34, 41, 180, 185, 200
STEM, 322
stimulus, 144, 348
storage, 18, 37, 159, 303
strategy use, 38, 40
streams, 288, 300, 334
strength, 149, 249
stress, 49, 50, 61, 65, 173, 184, 207, 213, 325, 356
stress level, 325
structuring, 178, 190, 193, 230, 304
student achievement, xvi, 80, 252, 257, 258, 319,
377
student behavior, 224
student group, xiii, xiv, 95, 96, 109, 110, 112, 113,
114, 115, 116, 179, 216, 349, 352, 353, 378
student teacher, xi, xii, 1, 2, 3, 4, 19, 21, 25, 29, 30,
35, 305, 306, 308, 309, 310, 311
students understanding, 19
subgroups, 182, 211, 216
subjective, 54, 55, 63, 70, 217, 229
substances, 143
subtasks, 17
subtraction, 44
summer, 125
Sun, 17, 37, 46
superego, 92
supervision, 73, 331
supervisor, 53, 311
surface structure, 6
surprise, xvii, 120, 125, 317, 318
surveillance, 160
survival, 94, 211, 215
Sweden, 360
symbols, xvi, 7, 177, 281, 282
symmetry, 49, 226, 288, 300
symptoms, 20, 172
synchronous, xv, 119, 169, 177, 178, 199, 225, 228,
229, 234, 235, 237, 250, 253, 255, 304, 309, 365,
367, 369
syndrome, 350
synthesis, xviii, 34, 112, 349, 363, 366
T
Taiwan, 189, 346
talent, 53, 319, 356
tangible, 366, 377
targets, 35
task demands, xv, 225
task difficulty, 193, 217
task performance, 227
taste, 352
Index

399
taxonomic, 163
taxonomy, 136
tea, 247
teacher instruction, 19, 243
teacher preparation, 90
teacher thinking, 41
teacher training, 82
teaching effectiveness, 32
teaching experience, 137, 160
teaching process, 3, 45, 51
teaching strategies, 41, 160, 347
teaching/learning process, 104
team members, 87, 104, 173, 364, 370, 371, 372,
373, 374, 375
technicians, 50
technological advancement, 113
teenagers, 62
telecommunication, 237
telecommunications, 379
telephone, 284, 367
temperature, 239
temporal, 7, 178, 284
tension, 268, 371, 373
Texas, 81, 339
textbooks, 135, 173, 260, 263
Thailand, 346
therapeutic relationship, 338, 339
therapy, 52, 162, 163, 339, 375
thermodynamics, 327
Thessaloniki, 225
think critically, 375
thinking, xvii, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 53, 59, 64, 68,
69, 77, 78, 82, 89, 90, 110, 120, 125, 132, 168,
170, 174, 178, 220, 231, 232, 235, 238, 255, 258,
266, 308, 311, 338, 341, 343, 349, 350, 353, 357,
359, 365, 367, 369, 375, 381
Thomson, 360
threat, 83
threatened, 147
threatening, xiv, 96, 125, 352, 353, 354
threats, 153
three-dimensional, 176
threshold, 27
time frame, 309
timing, 94
title, 77, 84, 284
titration, 252
toddlers, 156
tolerance, 70, 337, 356, 357
top management, 223
top-down, 6, 7, 18
toys, 154, 163
tracking, 179, 188, 303
trade, 181
trade-off, 181
tradition, 4
traditional model, 41
traffic, 159, 180
training, xi, xii, xiii, 1, 20, 23, 37, 50, 54, 60, 63, 65,
67, 82, 96, 99, 101, 103, 104, 106, 107, 109, 110,
112, 114, 115, 119, 125, 129, 131, 166, 173, 194,
247, 248, 249, 250, 314, 318, 324, 352, 358, 374,
381
traits, 63
trajectory, 279
trans, xviii, 325, 363
transcript, 23
transcriptase, 327
transcription, 21, 348
transcripts, 23, 160, 220, 278
transfer, 39, 53, 64, 70, 100, 174, 241, 271, 344, 372
transformation, 7, 9, 10, 13, 35, 52, 53, 64, 66, 67,
80, 96, 103, 169, 380
transition, 20, 27, 34, 35, 36, 48, 67
transitions, xi, xii, 2, 16, 27, 28, 29, 32, 35, 36, 38,
39, 40
translation, 342, 357
transmission, 49, 50, 52, 61, 100, 226, 234, 236, 250,
251, 367
transparency, 278
transparent, 155, 300
transportation, 94, 154
trauma, 335
travel, 89, 106, 364
trees, 180
trial, 275, 276, 321
triangulation, 223
triggers, 11, 169, 357
trust, 52, 61, 65, 68, 69, 75, 92, 211, 223, 336, 340,
365, 366, 367, 368, 372, 373, 375, 378
trusts, 52, 76
Turkey, xvii, 341, 346, 348, 358, 359, 360, 361
turnover, 153
tutoring, 12, 37, 45, 46, 92, 133, 178, 188, 191, 193,
196, 199, 203, 372
two-dimensional, 310
two-way, 305, 315
U
ultraviolet, 254
uncertainty, 18, 173
undergraduate, xiii, xvii, 95, 99, 104, 121, 125, 127,
283, 341, 350, 353, 356
undergraduates, 120, 125, 129, 346, 350, 355
uniform, 158
Index

400
United Arab Emirates, 346
United States, 140, 360
units of analysis, 39
universities, xiii, 96, 104, 105, 119, 235, 250, 361
university education, 70
university students, xiii, 95, 112, 129, 306
updating, 8, 16, 45, 184
upload, 305, 312
V
Valencia, 47
validation, 9, 10, 38, 235
validity, 347
values, 18, 27, 34, 49, 55, 63, 65, 66, 82, 98, 212,
229, 232, 265, 266, 268, 365, 373
variables, xviii, 49, 63, 174, 180, 207, 208, 209, 210,
215, 228, 232, 236, 247, 363
variance, 27, 201, 218
variation, 5, 72, 199, 217
vegetation, 213
vehicles, 127, 155, 367, 368
vein, 19, 345
velocity, 175, 210
Victoria, 78, 341
videoconferencing, 105, 193, 206, 254
video-recording, 261
videotape, 137
Vietnam, 346
violence, 333
violent, 139
virtual university, 380, 382
virtual world, 368, 369
viscosity, 253
visible, 40, 209, 245, 254
vision, 63, 66, 234, 249, 284
visualization, 176, 177, 181, 182, 189, 193
VLS, 234, 235
vocabulary, 136, 319, 351, 352, 353
vocalizations, 136
vocational, xvi, 257, 260, 261
vocational education, xvi, 257, 260, 261
voice, 53, 68, 91, 106, 146, 152, 158, 217, 335, 345,
358, 367
voting, 311
Vygotsky, 84, 91, 93, 170, 196, 201, 223, 282, 293,
332, 342, 343, 352, 362
W
waking, 140
Wales, 254
walking, 152
war, 154
water, 147, 148, 151, 155, 157, 158, 214, 215
wealth, 153, 194, 304
wear, 139
web, xvi, 48, 53, 67, 68, 73, 120, 126, 127, 129, 132,
188, 190, 229, 234, 254, 255, 301, 302, 303, 305,
307, 309, 315, 316, 367, 379, 380, 381
Web 2.0, x, xiv, 96, 119, 125, 126, 127, 128, 131,
132, 301, 305, 368, 369, 381
web pages, 305, 307
web sites, 303
web-based, 120, 126, 188, 190, 229, 234, 254, 303,
305, 309, 316, 367, 379, 380, 381
web-based instruction, 379
Weblog, xvii, 301, 302, 305, 306, 307, 315
websites, 122, 128
well-being, 145
winning, 89
wires, 243
wisdom, 133, 336
withdrawal, 150
witnesses, 58, 345
women, 77, 213
wood, 142
work environment, xvii, 317
work ethic, 373
workers, xvi, 151, 158, 301
workforce, xvi, 301, 364
workload, 371, 373
workplace, 94, 100, 103, 302, 328
workspace, 180, 253, 303
World Wide Web, 174
worry, 311
writing, 79, 80, 155, 159, 178, 205, 251, 252, 279,
309, 321, 326, 344, 348
written plans, 19
WWW, 133, 193
Y
yes/no, 109, 127
yield, 14
younger children, 156
Z
Zen, 340

(Edda Luzzatto, Giordano Dimarco) Collaborative Le

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

(Edda Luzzatto, Giordano Dimarco) Collaborative Le

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

EDUCATION IN A COMPETITIVE AND GLOBALIZING WORLD SERIES

are educational platforms that

support communication components that enable information exchange and on-line

). At the start of the observed lesson, the

Potrebbero piacerti anche