Collaborative knowledge construction during structured tasks in an online course at higher education context

Author(s):

Maarit ArvajaRaija Hämäläinen

Conference:

ECER 2008

Network:

16. ICT in Education and Training

Format:

Paper

Session Information

16 SES 01B, Online Courses and Discussion

Paper Session

Time:

2008-09-10

09:15-10:45

Room:

B4 416

Chair:

Ton Mooij

Contribution

Possibilities of instructional technology for facilitating collaborative learning through computers have been described in a number of studies (e.g. Schellens & Valcke, 2005). However, in the general climate of rather overoptimistic expectations for technology-based learning environments (Fabos & Young 1999), empirical studies have revealed also more pessimistic findings about the quality of interaction and shared knowledge construction on the web (e.g., Arvaja, 2007; Hämäläinen & Arvaja, in press). The problem has been that simply offering online learning environments for students to use does not guarantee that they would interact in a way that promotes learning. It is hence argued that the promotion of collaboration requires approaches that help to structure collaborative learning situations since free-form collaboration does not systematically produce learning (Dillenbourg, 2002). Structures are intended to facilitate collaborative learning processes and guide the learners' activities. At their best, some amount of structuring may help to manage collaborative learning situations and teams to achieve effective collaboration (Kollar, Fischer & Hesse, 2003). This study explored how two different tasks developed for supporting student groups’ collaborative activities in web-based learning environment enhanced students’ collaboration during web-based discussion. Furthermore, the aim was to study what challenges were faced during online interaction from the perspective of collaborative learning.

Method

The subjects of the study consisted of two small groups of teacher education students studying the pedagogy of pre-school and primary education in a web-based learning environment. The data consists of students’ web-based messages. Also all the material that was used in the course (lecture notes, web-based documents and links) was used in interpretating the students’ knowledge construction activity. The students’ knowledge construction activity was analyzed by communicative functions (Kumpulainen & Mutanen, 1999) and contextual resources (Linell, 1998). Communicative functions were adapted from the framework for analyzing language functions developed by Kumpulainen and Mutanen (1999). Linell’s (1998) notion of contextual resources was adapted and used as an analytical tool in studying what resources students used in negotiating their meanings from the knowledge construction point of view.

Expected Outcomes

The results of the study indicate that the educational value of the students’ discussions was not very high. Neither of the groups used such communicative functions as arguments and counterarguments in their discussion. Thus, the knowledge was more cumulatively shared and constructed than critically evaluated. The notion of co-text (Linell, 1998) indicated whether the students were building their discussion on one another’s thoughts. In both of the tasks as regards both of the groups the use of co-text as a resource was quite low. Thus, the students were not very engaged in co-constructing of knowledge. Whereas Group 1 used more theoretical (Task 2) and practical (Task 1) background material as resources in their discussion, Group 2 relied more on their own experiences (Task 2). Participation in Task 2 was more equal as regards both of the groups compared to Task 1. It seemed that the tasks themselves were not able to guarantee participation and engagement in the task. Thus, it was relatively easy for individual participants to ‘free-ride’ in the web-based discussion. Whereas in Task 2 both of the groups were engaged in content-based activity, in Task 1 the discussion of Group 2 was not focused on knowledge sharing and constructing, but more on organizing working and on commenting others’ thoughts. This study demonstrated that the teacher’s role cannot be easily replaced by even the most advanced technology or pedagogical pre-structuring. The students would have needed the teacher’s support in engaging them to participate more equally, in deepening their discussion and in guiding them to use the resources intended to – thus in supporting collaborative knowledge construction.

References

Arvaja, M., Salovaara, H., Häkkinen, P. & Järvelä, S. (2007). Combining individual and group-level perspectives for studying collaborative knowledge construction in context. Learning and Instruction, 17(4), 448-459. Arvaja, M. (2007). Contextual perspective in analysing collaborative knowledge construction of two small groups in web-based discussion. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(2/3), 133-158. Arvaja, M. (2007). Contextual resources in meaning negotiations of a student pair in a web-based history project. International Journal of Educational Research, 46(3/4), 215-228. Arvaja, M., Rasku-Puttonen, H., Häkkinen, P. & Eteläpelto, A. (2003). Constructing knowledge through a role-play in a web-based learning environment. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 28(4), 319-341. Dillenbourg, P. (2002). Over-scripting CSCL: The risks of blending collaborative learning with instructional design. In P. A. Kirschner (Ed), Three worlds of CSCL. Can we support CSCL (pp. 61-91). Heerlen, Open Universiteit Nederland. Fabos, B., & Young, M. (1999). Telecommunication in the classrooms: Rhetoric versus reality. Review of Educational Research 69(3), 217-259. Hämäläinen, R. & Arvaja, M. (In press). Scripted collaboration and group-based variations in a higher education CSCL context. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research. Kollar, I., Fischer, F., & Hesse, F.W. (2003). Cooperation Scripts for Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning. In B. Wasson, R. Baggetun, U. Hoppe & S. Ludvigsen (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning : CSCL 2003 Community Events - Communication and Interaction (pp. 59-61). Bergen: InterMedia. Kumpulainen, K. & Mutanen, M. (1999). The situated dynamics of peer group interaction: An introduction to an analytic framework. Learning and Instruction, 9(5), 449-473. Linell, P. (1998). Approaching dialogue. Talk, interaction and contexts in dialogical perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Schellens, T., Van Keer, H., De Wever, B., & Valcke, M. (2007) Scripting by assigning roles: Does it improve knowledge construction in asynchronous discussion groups? International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2 (2/3), 225-246.

Author Information

Maarit Arvaja

University of Jyväskylä

Institute for Educational Research

Jyväskylä

Raija Hämäläinen

University of Jyväskylä, Finland

Update Modus of this Database

The current conference programme can be browsed in the conference management system (conftool) and, closer to the conference, in the conference app.
This database will be updated with the conference data after ECER.

Search the ECER Programme

Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
Search for authors and in the respective field.
For planning your conference attendance, please use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference and the conference agenda provided in conftool.
If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.