ICT and Learning: a Dialogic Approach
Author(s):
Rune Herheim
Conference:
ECER 2008
Network:
16. ICT in Education and Training
Format:
Poster

Session Information

MC_Poster, Poster Session; Main Conference

All Poster are presented in the two Poster Sessions of ECER 2008: - 11 September 12.15 - 13.15 and - 12 September 12.15 - 13.15

Time:
2008-09-11
12:15-13:15
Room:
Poster Exhibition Area
Chair:

Contribution

This is a PhD-project attached to the research group Productive Learning Practice at the Department of Education and Health Promotion, University of Bergen. It is a micro study focusing on connections between learning and talking in computer based activities in the school classroom, students’ aged 14-15. A main aim of the project is to investigate what characterizes learning situations conducive for learning and concept development in an ICT-based education, by illuminating communication. In an ICT-rich learning environment (this is the first phase of the project) where students are working in dyads, it will be interesting to learn more about what characterizes • the communication in this learning situation o conditions for this communication  communication patterns: student-student and student(s)-teacher • the student role and the teacher role (the communicative part) An important issue in a technology rich learning environment is to clarify how qualities of communication are related to qualities of learning. This topic is gaining importance as the increasing use of ICT in education influences, challenges and maybe changes traditional teaching and learning processes. The theoretical perspective is based on a dialogic, distributed and situated view on learning, and students’ learning is viewed as interplay between social interaction and students’ own construction. Key aspects assumed conducive for students learning through dialogue are advocating, thinking aloud, reformulating, challenging, and evaluating (Alrø and Skovmose 2002). A corresponding theory (Wegerif and Mercer 1998) developed in a collaborative learning context using ICT, emphasizes the concept explorative talk. Features assumed vital to students learning processes in both of these studies are; students’ ownership with regards to not merely the activity, but the learning goals and to the dialogue it self, to assess other students’ point of views and to “engage critically but constructively with each other’s ideas” (ibid. p. 85). It requires ”… a willingness to wonder, to ask questions, and to seek to understand by collaborating with others in the attempt to make answers…” (Wells 1999, s. 121). The second phase of the project focuses on the potential of the learning situation, an interplay between investigation and development, where students are investigating, enquiring in a subject matter. Through a student-teacher-researcher collaboration, it will be interesting to see • what is possible (and what are the challenges) for the inquiring dialogue regarding students learning through ICT-based education While the research questions in phase one are descriptive, the latter one is, in contrast, an attempt to improve education. Therefore, thoughts of what an ideal learning situation is are emerging together with how to arrange a situation influenced by qualities of the ideal one. Focus is on a special kind of dialogue, and includes significant features of both the teacher-student(s) and the student-student dialogue. A characteristic of this dialogue is the investigation or inquiry process by which students and teachers arrive at an understanding of a method, strategy or a connection in mathematics – together.

Method

The aim is to understand a bounded context in depth, to see how different components and variables interplay and form a whole, which justifies the label Case Study (Smith 1978, Yin 1994). In phase two of the project there is a pronounced objective to improve education by conducting action research. The study will be inductive in the sense that there will be a search for patterns through generation of categories. Merriam (1998) calls this Generic Qualitative Research. The project entails fieldwork in two ninth grade classes. The sample is small and non-random. To acquire a material that can yield answers to the research questions, the sample will be chosen purposefully (Patton 1990). It is not a matter of representativeness, but to achieve a rich material regarding the focus of the project. Data will be collected through observation, “live” and by video camera, where pairs of students are working with an open task in mathematics on a computer. In addition, interviews with students and teachers involved will be implemented. Both the observations and the interviews will be transcribed and analyzed.

Expected Outcomes

The expected outcome of phase one of this project is a description of key communicative aspects where students are collaborating in dyads in an ICT-supported learning environment. From phase two, it is expected that a type of talk is developed in a cooperative productive process prompted by students, teachers and researcher. It is an aim to identify how this talk can be positive for students’ subject matter learning, and their abilities to participate/communicate in such learning communities. This implies critical reflection regarding both promotive and inhibitive factors.

References

Ausubel, D.P., Novak, J.D. & Hanesian, H. (1978). Educational Psychology, A Cognitive View, second edition. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc. Ausubel, D.P. (1968). Educational Psychology, A Cognitive View. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc. Alrø, H., Skovsmose, O. og Skånstrøm, M. (2003). Læring gennem samtale. I O. Skovmose og M. Blomhøj (red.), Kan det virkelig passe? (s. 25-37). København: L&R Uddannelse. Alrø, H. og Skovsmose, O. (2002). Dialogue and Learning in Mathematics Education. Intention, Reflection and Critique. Dortrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Alrø, H. og Skovsmose, O. (1993). Det var ikke meningen – om kommunikasjon i matematikkundervisningen. NOMAD, 1(2), 6–29. Blomhøj, M. (2001). Vilkor för lärande i en datorbaserad matematikkundervisning. I B. Grevholm (red.), Matematikdidaktik - ett nordiskt perspektiv (s. 185-218). Lund: Studentlitteratur. Bueie, H. (2005). Toergruppers arbeid med dynamisk geometriprogramvare. En dialogisk tilnærming til sosial interaksjon og induktive prosesser. Kristiansand: Institutt for matematiske fag, avdeling for realfag, Høgskolen i Agder. Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and Underused. Computers in the Classroom. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Dysthe, O. (1997). Leiing i eit dialogperspektiv. I O.L. Fuglestad og S. Lillejord (red), Pedagogisk ledelse – et relasjonelt perspektiv (s 77-98). Bergen: Fagbokforlaget. Dysthe, O. (1996). Læring gjennom dialog - kva inneber det i høgare utdanning? I O. Dysthe (red.), Ulike perspektiv på læring og læringsforsking (s. 105-135). Oslo: Cappelen Akademiske Forlag AS. Dysthe, O. (1995). Det flerstemmige klasserommet. Skriving og samtale for å lære. Oslo: Ad Notam Gyldendal. Ernest, P. (1991). The Philosophy of Mathematics Education. London: Falmer. Erstad, O. (2005). Digital kompetanse i skolen – en innføring. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. Erstad, O. (2004). Piloter for skoleutvikling. Samlerapport fra forskningen 2000-2003. Oslo: Forsknings- og kompetansenettverk for IT i utdanning. Fuglestad, A.B. og Jaworski, B. (2005). Læringsfellesskap i matematikk - utvikling og forskning i samarbeid. Tangenten 16(3), 54-59. Fuglestad, A.B. (2003a). IKT-kompetanse i matematikk. I F.N. Vik (red.), IKT som prosjekt i skolen (s. 28-68). Bergen: Fagbokforlaget Vigmostad & Bjørke AS. Fuglestad, A.B. (2003b). Konstruktivistisk perspektiv på datamaskiner i matematikkundervisning. I B. Grevholm (red.), Matematikk for skolen (s. 209-234). Bergen: Fagbokforlaget Vigmostad & Bjørke AS. Fuglestad, A.B. (1996). Computers and the understanding og mathematics. A study og teaching decimal numbers. PhD thesis. Kristiansand: Agder College, Research Series no 6, 1998. Fuglestad, O.T. (1993). Samspel og motspel. Kultur, kommunikasjon og relasjonar i skulen. Oslo: Det Norske Samlaget. Grønmo, S. (1996). Forholdet mellom kvalitative og kvantitative tilnærminger i samfunnsforskningen. I H. Holter og R. Kalleberg (red.), Kvalitative metoder i samfunnsforskningen. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. Guba, E. G. og Lincoln, Y. S. (1981). Effective Evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Herheim, R. (upublisert førebels). Inquiring Dialogue in Matematics Learning. Herheim, R. (2006). ”Det der er ikkje ein trekant!” Omgrepsutvikling i matematikk. I M. Frislid og H. Traavik (red.), Boka om GLSM (s. 188-203) Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. Herheim, R. (2004). Klasseundervising. Dialogisk, sosiokognitiv læring. Hovudfagsoppgåve i matematikkdidaktikk. Bergen: Det matematisk-naturvitenskaplige fakultet, UiB. Holm, M. (2005). IKT og tilpasset opplæring i matematikk. I T. Brøyn og J.H. Schultz (red.), IKT og tilpasset opplæring (s. 36-63). Oslo: Universitetsforlaget AS. Jaworski, B. (2007). Learning communities in mathematics: Research and development in mathematics teaching and learning. I C. Bergsten, B. Grevholm, H.S. Måsøval and F. Rønning (red), Relating Practice and Research in Mathematics Education. Proceedings of NORMA 05, Fourth Nordic Conference of Mathematics Education. (s. 71-96) Trondheim: Tapir Academic Press. Jaworski, B. (2004). Grappling with complexity: Colearning in inquiry communities in mathematics teaching environment. I M. Johnsen Høines og A.B. Fuglestad (red), Proceedings of the 28th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education. (Vol. 1, s. 17-33). Bergen: PME. Johnsen Høines, M. og Lode, B. (2006). Positioning of a subject based and investigative dialogue in practice teaching. I J. Novotná, H. Moraová, M. Krátká & N. Stehlíková (red.), Proceedings 30th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education. Prague: PME. Johnsen Høines, M. (2003). Det skjer i mellomrommet. I Tangenten (14)2, 42-48. Johnsen Høines, M. (1998). Begynneropplæringen. Fagdidaktikk for barnetrinnets matematikkundervisning. Bergen: Caspar. Kelly, A. E. (2003). Research as design. Educational Researcher, (32)1, 3–4. Krumsvik, R. (2006). The digital challenges of school and teacher education – some urgent questions and the search for answers. Education and Information Technologies, (11)3 & 4, 239-256. Kvale, S. (2001). Det kvalitative forskningsintervju. Oslo: ad Notam Gyldendal. Ludvigsen, S. (2005). Læring og IKT. Et perspektiv og en oversikt. I T. Brøyn og J.H. Schultz (red.), IKT og tilpasset opplæring (s. 158-183). Oslo: Universitetsforlaget AS. Løvlie, L. (2003). Teknokulturell danning. I R. Slagstad, O. Korsgaard og L. Løvlie (red.), Dannelsens forvandlinger (s. 347-371). Oslo: Pax Forlag. Malterud, K. (2003). Kvalitative metoder i medisinsk forskning. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. Mercer, N. (1996). The Quality of Talk in Children's Collaborative Activity in the Classroom. Learning and Instruction, 6(4), 359-377. Merriam, S.B. (1998). Qualitative Research and Case Study Application in Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass publishers. Nilssen, T.I. (1993). Konstruktivisme i klasserommet. Teoretiske betraktninger og en empirisk undersøkelse av naturfagsundervisning. Hovedfagsoppgave i realfagsdidaktikk. Oslo: Det matematisk-naturvitenskaplige fakultet, UiO. Nyborg, M & Nyborg, R. (1995). Begynner-opplæring i matematisk språk, særlig for 6-åringer i hjem, barnehage og skole. Asker: INAP-FORLAGET. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative Evaluation Methods, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage. Patton, M. Q. (1985). Quality in Qualitative Research: Methodological Principles and Recent Developments. Chicago: Invited address to Division J of the American Educational Research Association. Rommetveit, R. (1996). Læring gjennom dialog. Ei sosiokulturell og sosiokognitiv tilnærming til kunnskap og læring. I O. Dysthe (red.), Ulike perspektiv på læring og læringsforskning (s. 85-105). Oslo: Cappelen Akademiske Forlag AS. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1996). In Fostering Communities Of Inquiry, Must It Matter That The Teacher Knows “The Answer”? For the learning of mathematics, 16(3), 11-16. Schoenfeld, J. W. (1990). Increasing the generalizability of qualitative research. I E.W. Eisner og A. Peshkin (red.), Qualitative inquiry in education (s. 201-232). New York: Teachers College Press Skjervheim, H. (2000). Objektivismen - og studiet av mennesket. Oslo: Gyldendal akademisk. Skjervheim, H. (1996a). Eit grunnproblem i pedagogisk filosofi. I H. Skjervheim (red.), Deltakar og tilskodar og andre essays, (s. 214-230). Oslo: Aschehoug & Co, Idé og tanke. Skjervheim, H. (1996b). Deltakar og tilskodar. I H. Skjervheim (red.), Deltakar og tilskodar og andre essays, (s. 71-88). Oslo: Aschehoug & Co, Idé og tanke. Skovsmose, O. og Borba, M. (2000). Research Methodology and Critical Mathematics education. Centre for Research in Learning Mathematics, Aalborg University, Roskilde University, Royal Danish School of educational Studies. Pub.nr. 17/2000. Smith, L. M. (1978). An evolving Logic of Participant Observation, Educational Ethnography and Other Case Studies. I L. Shulman (red), Review of Research in Education. Itasca: Peacock Smith, K. og Sela, O. (2005). "Action Research as a bridge between pre-service teacher education and in-service professional development". The European Journal of Teacher Education, 28(3), 293-310. Säljö, R. (2001). Læring i praksis. Et sosiokulturelt perspektiv. Oslo: J.W. Cappelens forlag Tiller, T. (1999). Aksjonslæring. Forskende partnerskap i skolen. Kristiansand: Høyskoleforlaget. Undervisnings- og Forskingsdepartementet, UFD (2005). Kunnskapsløftet. Læreplan for grunnskolen og videregående opplæring. Oslo: Statens Forvaltningsteneste. Vygotsky, L. (2001). Tenkning og tale. Oslo: Gyldendal Norsk forlag AS. Wegerif, R. and Mercer, N. (1998). Is explorative talk productive talk? In P. Light (Ed), Learning with computers: Analysing Productive Interactions. Florence, KY, USA: Routledge. Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic Inquiry: Toward a Sociocultural Practice and Theory of Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Yin, R. K. (1994). Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage.

Author Information

Rune Herheim
University of Bergen
Department of Education and Health Promotion
Bønes
158

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.