Analyzing Collaborative Learning: Multiple Approaches to Understanding Processes and Outcomes

It is important to consider collaborative processes from multiple perspectives because collaborative learning environments are complex, often requiring multiple methodological approaches to understand their different aspects (Hmelo-Silver, 2003). Collaborative learning is the subject of study in a wide variety of disciplines such as developmental psychology (e.g., sociocognitive conflict), social psychology (person perception, motivation, group processes), sociology (status, power and authority), cognitive psychology (how learning occurs, learning outcomes) and sociocultural perspectives (cultural influence on interaction, mediation of learning). These different perspectives suggest that a variety of methodological tools are needed to understand collaborative interactions. Each of the papers in this symposium explores one or more methods for examining the quality of collaborative interactions. The discussion will focus on criteria for good analyses of collaborative work as well as strengths and limitations of various methods.

[1]  Liam Rourke,et al.  Validity in quantitative content analysis , 2004 .

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

[3]  Jeroen Janssen,et al.  Visualizing participation to facilitate argumentation , 2006 .

[4]  M. Cole Cultural psychology: a once and future discipline? , 1996, Nebraska Symposium on Motivation. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation.

[5]  Angela M. O'Donnell,et al.  The Structure of Discourse in Collaborative Learning , 2000 .

[6]  J. Roschelle Learning by Collaborating: Convergent Conceptual Change , 1992 .

[7]  Cindy E. Hmelo-Silver,et al.  Analyzing collaborative knowledge construction: multiple methods for integrated understanding , 2003, Comput. Educ..

[8]  Merrilee H. Salmon,et al.  Reasoning in Conversation , 1993 .

[9]  Cindy E. Hmelo-Silver,et al.  Understanding Collaborative Activity Systems: The Relation of Tools and Discourse in Mediating Learning , 2004, ICLS.

[10]  Sharon J. Derry,et al.  eSTEP AS A CASE OF THEORY-BASED WEB COURSE DESIGN , 2004 .

[11]  Nikol Rummel,et al.  Cracking the nut: but which nutcracker to use? diversity in approaches to analyzing collaborative processes in technology-supported settings , 2004 .

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

[13]  Richard C. Anderson,et al.  The Structure of Discussions that Promote Reasoning , 1998, Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education.

[14]  J. Osborne,et al.  Supporting and Promoting Argumentation Discourse in Science Education , 2002 .

[15]  Jeroen Janssen,et al.  Visualization of participation: Does it contribute to successful computer-supported collaborative learning? , 2007, Comput. Educ..

[16]  Rosemary Luckin,et al.  Narrative Evolution: Learning from Students' Talk about Species Variation , 2001 .

[17]  Timothy Koschmann,et al.  Cscl : Theory and Practice of An Emerging Paradigm , 1996 .

[18]  Gijsbert Erkens,et al.  Coordination processes in computer supported collaborative writing , 2005, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[19]  R. A. Engle,et al.  Guiding Principles for Fostering Productive Disciplinary Engagement: Explaining an Emergent Argument in a Community of Learners Classroom , 2002 .

[20]  C. Leaper,et al.  A meta-analytic review of gender variations in children's language use: talkativeness, affiliative speech, and assertive speech. , 2004, Developmental psychology.

[21]  S. Toulmin The uses of argument , 1960 .

[22]  Richard Andrews,et al.  Learning to argue , 1997 .

[23]  D. Schiffrin Discourse markers: Temporal adverbs: now and then , 1987 .