Moments of collaborative learning in forestry consultation: Towards a discourse analytic evaluation of current practices.

Author(s):

Outi VirkkulaRaili Hokajärvi Teppo Hujala

Conference:

ECER 2009

Network:

21. Emerging Researchers' Group (for presentation at Emerging Researchers' Conference)

Format:

Paper

Session Information

SES B8, Pre Conf Parallel Session

Time:

2009-09-25

11:00-12:30

Room:

HG, HS 16

Chair:

Graham Hallett

Contribution

Studying social interaction has become a special interest of Finnish educational sciences, and also of other research fields (Vehviläinen, Tainio & Penttinen 2008, see e.g. Daniels & Walker 1996, Westberg 2005). In the focus of our multidisciplinary research is changing forestry consultation, where a perspective of collaborative learning is emphasized. In this paper we describe how new knowledge is built collaboratively in semi-formal meetings between forest consultant and private family forest owner(s). The overall research question is: Can we distinguish different kind of discourses within current forest consultation practices that have a specific effect on participants’ learning? The research questions are approached from the theory of socio-cultural learning and from the collaborative learning point-of-views. Learning is defined above all as social interaction. It is a joint activity of collaborative meaning-creation and problem-solving (Vehviläinen et al. 2008), which involves commitment to a shared goal (Littleton & Häkkinen 1999). The quality of that interaction within each learning situation determines how meanings are shared and/or rebuilt, how productive co-operation can be established in between the participants, and whether it is possible to build new and novel knowledge (Hämäläinen 2008, Vanderstraeten & Biesta 2006). In the changing situation of forestry consultation the traditional top-down advising lacks the perspective of genuine collaborative communication (Hujala & Tikkanen 2008), so consequently the shared social practice does not enhance valuable learning of the participants (see Vanderstraeten & Biesta 2006). In the collaborative and cooperative forest planning the participation is equal and learning i) about the goals of the meeting, ii) about the goals of the land owner, and iii) about ideas, principles, operation models and concrete actions fitted for the set goals takes place.

Method

The research is conducted by using the approach of design based research (DBR), which applies well to multidisciplinary projects carried out closely together with practitioners (Bereiter 2002). DBR is defined as progressive refinement, where a well-formulated instructional design is iteratively tested, evaluated and revised so that it responds to questions arisen from the real-life practice, but also advances the theoretical issues. DBR takes the research to authentic environment to find out what works there. (DBR Collective 2003, Collins, Joseph & Bielaczye 2004, Hämäläinen 2008.) The design of the research is the work instruction of forest consultation, and the data comprises video recordings of semi-formal meetings of forest planning and recorded reflective interviews before and after the meetings. The data is being qualitatively analyzed by using method of discourse analysis.

Expected Outcomes

Studies on collaborative learning often involve computational approach within school environment (Dillenbourg 1999). The investigation of collaborative learning within a context of forest planning acknowledges same elements of that learning and is expected result in recognizing good, productive discourse types in current practices that a) have a specific influence on joint learning b) contribute to active forestry and c) should be taken into consideration when developing forestry consultation in changing states. This information may be used further in formulating theory of smooth adult learning in context of non-industrial private forestry, and in training forestry consultants for collaborative communication with family forest owners.

References

Bereiter, C. 2002. Design research for sustained innovation. Cognitive Studies, Bulletin of the Japanese Cognitive Science Society 9; 3, 321-327. Retrieved November 25, 2006, from http://www.ikit.org/fulltext/2002Design_Research.pdf. Collins, A., Joseph, D. & Bielaczye, K. 2004. Design research: Theoretical and methodological issues. The Journal of the Learning Sciences 13; 1, 15-42. Daniels, S. E. & Walker, G. B. Collaborative learning: Improving public deliberation in ecosystem based management. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 16, 71-102. Design-Based Research Collective. 2003. Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher 32; 1, 5-8. Dillenbourg, P. (ed.) 1999. Collaborative learning: cognitive and computational approaches. Oxford: Elsevier Science. Hujala, T. & Tikkanen, J. 2008. Boosters and barriers to smooth communication in family forest owners’ decision making. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 23; 5, 466-477. Hämäläinen, R. 2008. Designing and investigating pedagogical scripts to facilitate computer-supported collaborative learning. Finnish Institute for Educational Research. Research Reports 24. University of Jyväskylä. Retrieved January 5, 2009, from http://ktl.jyu.fi/ktl/english/publications/t024. Littleton, K. & Häkkinen, P. 1999. Learning together: Understanding the process of computer-based collaborative learning. In Dillenbourg, P. (ed.) Collaborative learning: cognitive and computational approaches. Oxford: Elsevier Science, 20-30. Vanderstraeten, R. & Biesta, G. 2006. How is education possible? Pragmatism, communication and the social organisation of education. British Journal of Educational Studies 54; 2, 160-174. Vehviläinen, S., Tainio, L. & Penttinen, L. 2008. Vuorovaikutus ja oppiminen. [Collaboration and learning]. In Kasvatus [Education] 5/2008, 417-421. Westberg, L. 2005. Stakeholder-collaboration in practice. Learning and power in collaborative processess among stakeholders within Swedish agri-food systems. Dissertation. Acta Universitatis agriculturae Sueciae, 2005:96, SLU Sveriges lantbruksuniversitet [SLU – the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences].

Author Information

Outi Virkkula

Oulu university of applied sciences

School of renewable natural resources

OULU

Raili Hokajärvi

Oulu university of applied sciences, Finland

Teppo Hujala

University of Helsinki, Department of Forest Resource Management, 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.