Learning through online peer discourse: Structural equation modeling points to the role of discourse activities in individual understanding

Although learning through discourse activities seems well-documented, it is unclear which mechanisms and behavioral variables are involved. What exactly contributes to learning when two or more learners interact in online learning environments? To analyze interrelations between central discourse activities and individual learning outcomes at the level of constructs, we applied structural equation modeling to data collected from 160 dyads engaging in written online learning discourses within a series of homogeneous experiments. We analyzed three theory-based indicators of conceptual elaboration activities during online discourse: the number of questions asked to receive information and expand knowledge, the number of explanations formulated to express individual knowledge, and the amount of on-task discourse. Individual conceptual understanding was represented by objective learning parameters that varied in each particular experimental task. These measured general understanding of the topic addressed and particular understanding of conceptual terms, complemented by the gain in individual self-assessed knowledge. Results of structural equation modeling revealed a strong effect of dyadic conceptual elaboration on individual understanding at the construct level, demonstrating that dyadic elaboration fosters the development of an elaborated individual understanding of specialist concepts and general content knowledge. Moreover, conceptual elaboration was best measured by the number of explanations during discourse. Implications regarding which features of collaborative learning settings promote mutual conceptual elaboration are discussed.

[1]  William Damon,et al.  Problem solving with equals: Peer collaboration as a context for learning mathematics and spatial concepts. , 1989 .

[2]  Craig K. Enders,et al.  The Relative Performance of Full Information Maximum Likelihood Estimation for Missing Data in Structural Equation Models , 2001 .

[3]  G. Salomon.  Distributed cognitions : psychological and educational considerations , 1997 .

[4]  Regina Jucks,et al.  Common Ground? How the Encoding of Specialist Vocabulary Affects Peer-to-Peer Online Discourse , 2012 .

[5]  Stephanie D. Teasley,et al.  Perspectives on socially shared cognition , 1991 .

[6]  Allyson Hadwin,et al.  Measurement and assessment in computer-supported collaborative learning , 2010, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[7]  M. Pressley,et al.  Discourse Patterns and Collaborative Scientific Reasoning in Peer and Teacher-Guided Discussions , 1999 .

[8]  M. Chi.  Quantifying Qualitative Analyses of Verbal Data: A Practical Guide , 1997 .

[9]  Christine Chin,et al.  Student-generated questions: A meaningful aspect of learning in science , 2002 .

[10]  N. Webb,et al.  Constructive Activity and Learning in Collaborative Small Groups. , 1995 .

[11]  Leonid Rozenblit,et al.  The misunderstood limits of folk science: an illusion of explanatory depth , 2002, Cogn. Sci..

[12]  G. Stahl,et al.  Methodological issues in developing a multi-dimensional coding procedure for small-group chat communication , 2007 .

[13]  Rex B. Kline,et al.  Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling , 1998 .

[14]  P. Kirschner,et al.  Social and Cognitive Factors Driving Teamwork in Collaborative Learning Environments , 2006 .

[15]  Edwin Hutchins.  How a Cockpit Remembers Its Speeds , 1995 .

[16]  J. Schafer,et al.  Missing data: our view of the state of the art. , 2002, Psychological methods.

[17]  P. Bentler,et al.  Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis : Conventional criteria versus new alternatives , 1999 .

[18]  William Ickes,et al.  "Social" Cognition and Social Cognition , 1994 .

[19]  Matthias Nückles,et al.  Information about a layperson's knowledge supports experts in giving effective and efficient online advice to laypersons. , 2005, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

[20]  J. Kruger,et al.  Unskilled and unaware of it: how difficulties in recognizing one's own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. , 1999, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[21]  Päivi Häkkinen,et al.  Epistemic cooperation scripts in online learning environments: fostering learning by reducing uncertainty in discourse? , 2005, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[22]  Scott Lewis,et al.  Problem-Solving Strategies and Group Processes in Small Groups Learning Computer Programming , 1986 .

[23]  Angela M. O'Donnell,et al.  Learning from peers: Beyond the rhetoric of positive results , 1994 .

[24]  P. Bentler,et al.  Fit indices in covariance structure modeling : Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification , 1998 .

[25]  Takashi Yamauchi,et al.  Learning from human tutoring , 2001, Cogn. Sci..

[26]  Richard De Lisi,et al.  Implications of Piagetian theory for peer learning. , 1999 .

[27]  E. Cohen.  Restructuring the Classroom: Conditions for Productive Small Groups , 1994 .

[28]  Helge I. Strømsø,et al.  Content and processes in problem-based learning: a comparison of computer-mediated and face-to-face communication , 2007, J. Comput. Assist. Learn..

[29]  Karen Littleton,et al.  Social and communicative processes in computer-based problem solving , 1994 .

[30]  Heinz Mandl,et al.  Scripting Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning , 2007 .

[31]  C. Jewitt.  Classrooms and the Design of Pedagogic Discourse: A Multimodal Approach , 2005 .

[32]  J. Tudge.  Processes and Consequences of Peer Collaboration: A Vygotskian Analysis , 1992 .

[33]  F. Fischer,et al.  A framework to analyze argumentative knowledge construction in computer-supported collaborative learning , 2006, Comput. Educ..

[34]  J. Osborne,et al.  Students' questions: a potential resource for teaching and learning science , 2008 .

[35]  Jöran Lepsien.  Forschungsmethoden und Evaluation [Research Methods and Evaluation] , 2010 .

[36]  A. King.  Verbal Interaction and Problem-Solving within Computer-Assisted Cooperative Learning Groups , 1989 .

[37]  Miyoko Kobayashi,et al.  Cloze Tests Revisited: Exploring Item Characteristics with Special Attention to Scoring Methods , 2002 .

[38]  John N. Dorner,et al.  Supervised Play Practica with Children: A Program for Student Teachers. , 1980 .

[39]  Karen Littleton,et al.  Peer interaction and peer presence in computer-based problem solving: A research note , 1995 .

[40]  A. Glenberg,et al.  The illusion of knowing: Failure in the self-assessment of comprehension , 1982 .

[41]  Herbert H. Clark,et al.  Grounding in communication , 1991, Perspectives on socially shared cognition.

[42]  Doo Hun Lim,et al.  Influence of Trainee Characteristics, Instructional Satisfaction, and Organizational Climate on Perceived Learning and Training Transfer , 2006 .

[43]  G. Kress,et al.  Exploring Learning Through Visual, Actional and Linguistic Communication: The multimodal environment of a science classroom , 2001 .

[44]  Jörg Wittwer,et al.  Why Instructional Explanations Often Do Not Work: A Framework for Understanding the Effectiveness of Instructional Explanations , 2008 .

[45]  A. King.  Discourse patterns for mediating peer learning. , 1999 .

[46]  A. C. Kruger.  Peer collaboration: conflict, cooperation, or both? , 1993 .

[47]  J. Tudge,et al.  Implications of Vygotsky's theory for peer learning. , 1999 .

[48]  David H. Jonassen,et al.  Constructivism: Implications for the Design and Delivery of Instruction , 1996 .

[49]  Jeroen Janssen,et al.  Visualization of agreement and discussion processes during computer-supported collaborative learning , 2007, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[50]  H. Marsh,et al.  In Search of Golden Rules: Comment on Hypothesis-Testing Approaches to Setting Cutoff Values for Fit Indexes and Dangers in Overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler's (1999) Findings , 2004 .

[51]  Jacob Cohen,et al.  A power primer. , 1992, Psychological bulletin.

[52]  Brigid Barron.  When Smart Groups Fail , 2003 .

[53]  K. Yuan.  Fit Indices Versus Test Statistics , 2005, Multivariate behavioral research.

[54]  Kenneth G. Brown,et al.  Self-Assessment of Knowledge: A Cognitive Learning or Affective Measure? , 2010 .

[55]  C. Lebiere,et al.  The Atomic Components of Thought , 1998 .

[56]  R. Slavin.  Cooperative Learning: Theory, Research and Practice , 1990 .

[57]  Stephanie D. Teasley.  The role of talk in children's peer collaborations. , 1995 .

[58]  Rainer Bromme,et al.  Supporting Experts’ Written Knowledge Communication Through Reflective Prompts on the Use of Specialist Concepts , 2007 .

[59]  Katiuscia Sacco,et al.  The role of cognitive and socio-cognitive conflict in learning to reason , 2008 .

[60]  Gayle J. Yaverbaum,et al.  Asynchronous Computer-mediated Communication versus Face-to-face Collaboration: Results on Student Learning, Quality and Satisfaction , 1999 .

[61]  F. Fischer,et al.  Epistemic and social scripts in computer–supported collaborative learning , 2005 .

[62]  D. Rubin.  INFERENCE AND MISSING DATA , 1975 .

[63]  S. Wasserman,et al.  Models and Methods in Social Network Analysis , 2005 .

[64]  Annemarie S. Palincsar,et al.  Group processes in the classroom. , 1996 .

[65]  John Scott.  Social Network Analysis , 1988 .

[66]  Judith Kleine Staarman,et al.  Peer Interaction in Three Collaborative Learning Environments , 2005 .

[67]  K. Krippendorff.  Reliability in Content Analysis: Some Common Misconceptions and Recommendations , 2004 .

[68]  N. Webb,et al.  The Development of Students' Helping Behavior and Learning in Peer-Directed Small Groups , 2003 .

[69]  R. Luppicini.  Review of computer mediated communication research for education , 2007 .

[70]  P. Chandler,et al.  Cognitive Load Theory and the Format of Instruction , 1991 .

[71]  Baruch B. Schwarz,et al.  Argumentation and Explanation in Conceptual Change: Indications From Protocol Analyses of Peer-to-Peer Dialog , 2009, Cogn. Sci..

[72]  C. Boxtel,et al.  Collaborative learning tasks and the elaboration of conceptual knowledge. , 2000 .

[73]  M. Browne,et al.  Alternative Ways of Assessing Model Fit , 1992 .

[74]  A. Renkl.  Worked-out examples: instructional explanations support learning by self- explanations , 2002 .

[75]  Jan-Willem Strijbos,et al.  Content analysis: What are they talking about? , 2006, Comput. Educ..

[76]  Frank C Keil,et al.  Journal of Experimental , 2003 .

[77]  Sarah Schrire,et al.  Knowledge building in asynchronous discussion groups: Going beyond quantitative analysis , 2006, Comput. Educ..

[78]  Wilson L. Taylor,et al.  'Cloze' Readability Scores as Indices of Individual Differences in Comprehension and Aptitude: Erratum. , 1957 .

[79]  D. Markland.  The golden rule is that there are no golden rules: A commentary on Paul Barrett’s recommendations for reporting model fit in structural equation modelling , 2007 .

[80]  Arthur M. Glenberg,et al.  Calibration of comprehension. , 1985 .

[81]  N. Webb,et al.  Promoting effective helping behavior in peer-directed groups , 2003 .

[82]  Andrew F. Monk,et al.  Common Ground in Electronically Mediated Communication: Clark's Theory of Language Use , 2003 .

[83]  R. Kline.  Principles and practice of structural equation modeling, 3rd ed. , 2011 .

[84]  Karl G. Jöreskog,et al.  Lisrel 8: User's Reference Guide , 1997 .

[85]  Noreen M. Webb,et al.  Developing productive group interaction in middle school mathematics , 1999 .

[86]  J. Sweller.  Implications of Cognitive Load Theory for Multimedia Learning , 2005, The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning.

[87]  K. VanLehn,et al.  Cognitive skill acquisition. , 1996, Annual review of psychology.

[88]  Tammy Schellens,et al.  Content analysis schemes to analyze transcripts of online asynchronous discussion groups: A review , 2006, Comput. Educ..