Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences
- The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Preface
- 1 An Introduction to the Learning Sciences
- Part I Foundations
- Part II Methodologies
- Part III Grounding Technology in the Learning Sciences
- Part IV Learning Together
- 19 Knowledge Building and Knowledge Creation
- 20 Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning
- 21 Arguing to Learn
- 22 Informal Learning in Museums
- Part V Learning Disciplinary Knowledge
- Part VI Moving Learning Sciences Research into the Classroom
- Index
- References
20 - Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning
from Part IV - Learning Together
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 14 March 2022
Edited by
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences
- The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Preface
- 1 An Introduction to the Learning Sciences
- Part I Foundations
- Part II Methodologies
- Part III Grounding Technology in the Learning Sciences
- Part IV Learning Together
- 19 Knowledge Building and Knowledge Creation
- 20 Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning
- 21 Arguing to Learn
- 22 Informal Learning in Museums
- Part V Learning Disciplinary Knowledge
- Part VI Moving Learning Sciences Research into the Classroom
- Index
- References
Summary
In its broadest definition, computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) is any learning that involves two or more learners as well as one or more computers. CSCL research studies how collaboration contributes to learning and how computer technology can facilitate collaborative learning. This chapter discusses CSCL in terms of four conceptions: (1) collaborative knowledge building; (2) dialogic interaction; (3) intersubjective meaning making; (4) group cognition. CSCL research demonstrates that collaboration among students – when well-designed to scaffold student interactions – is more effective than teachers delivering information to students through a recorded lecture or a synchronous video meeting. This chapter reviews major themes in CSCL, including: empirical studies of cooperative learning in groups; theoretical explanations of learning as an emergent, collective phenomenon; conceptions of knowledge as interactions between learners, rather than as mental representations in student’s heads; and the use of interaction analysis to study moment-to-moment collaborations.
Keywords
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences , pp. 406 - 427Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2022
References
Bereiter, C. (2002). Education and mind in the knowledge age. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Button, G., Crabtree, A., Rouncefield, M., & Tolmie, P. (2015). Deconstructing ethnography: Towards a social methodology for ubiquitous computing and interactive systems design. New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cakir, M., Xhafa, F., Zhou, N., & Stahl, G. (2005). Thread-based analysis of patterns of collaborative interaction in chat. In Proceedings of the International Conference on AI in Education (AI-Ed 2005). Amsterdam, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Cuban, L. (1986). Teachers and machines: The classroom use of technology since 1920. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
David, M. (2016). The correspondence theory of truth. In Zalta, E. N. (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Retrieved September 10, 2019 from https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2016/entries/truth-correspondenceGoogle Scholar
Dewey, J., & Bentley, A. (1991). Knowing and known. In Boydston, J. A. (Ed.), John Dewey: The later works, 1949–1952 (Vol. 16, pp. 1–294). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
Dillenbourg, P. (1999). What do you mean by “collaborative learning”? In Dillenbourg, P. (Ed.), Collaborative learning: Cognitive and computational approaches (pp. 1–16). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Pergamon, Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
Dillenbourg, P. (2005). Designing biases that augment socio-cognitive interactions. In Bromme, R., Hesse, F., & Spada, H. (Eds.), Barriers and biases in computer-mediated knowledge communication – and how they may be overcome. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Dillenbourg, P., Baker, M., Blaye, A., & O’Malley, C. (1996). The evolution of research on collaborative learning. In Reimann, P. & Spada, H. (Eds.), Learning in humans and machines: Towards an interdisciplinary learning science (pp. 189–211). Oxford, England: Elsevier. http://tecfa.unige.ch/tecfa/publicat/dil-papers-2/Dil.7.1.10.pdfGoogle Scholar
Donmez, P., Rosé, C. P., Stegmann, K., Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2005). Supporting CSCL with automatic corpus analysis technology. In Proceedings of the International Conference of Computer Support for Collaborative Learning (CSCL 2005). Taipei, Taiwan.Google Scholar
Dwyer, N., & Suthers, D. D. (2006). Consistent practices in artifact-mediated collaboration. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(4), 481–511.Google Scholar
Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki, Finland: Orienta-Kosultit Oy.Google Scholar
Fischer, K., & Granoo, N. (1995). Beyond one-dimensional change: Parallel, concurrent, socially distributed processes in learning and development. Human Development, 1995 (38), 302–314.Google Scholar
Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. New York, NY: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge, England: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Hicks, D. (1996). Contextual inquiries: A discourse-oriented study of classroom learning. In Hicks, D. (Ed.), Discourse, learning and schooling (pp. 104–141). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14–26.Google Scholar
Jonçich, G. (1968). The sane positivist: A biography of Edward L. Thorndike. Middleton, CT: Wesleyan University Press.Google Scholar
Koedinger, K., & Corbett, A. (2006). Cognitive tutors: Technology bringing learning science to the classroom. In Sawyer, R. K. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (1st ed., pp. 61–77). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Koschmann, T. (1996). Paradigm shifts and instructional technology. In Koschmann, T. (Ed.), CSCL: Theory and practice of an emerging paradigm (pp. 1–23). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Koschmann, T. (1997). Logo-as-Latin redux: Review of Papert’s “The children’s machine.” Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6(4), 409–415.Google Scholar
Koschmann, T. (2001). A third metaphor for learning: Toward a Deweyan form of transactional inquiry. In Carver, S. & Klahr, D. (Eds.), Cognition and instruction: 25 years of progress (pp. 119–132). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Koschmann, T. (2002). Dewey’s contribution to the foundations of CSCL research. In Stahl, G. (Ed.), Computer support for collaborative learning: Foundations for a CSCL community: Proceedings of CSCL 2002 (pp. 17–22). Boulder, CO: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Koschmann, T. (2011). Theorizing practice. In Koschmann, T. (Ed.), Theories of learning and studies of instructional practice (pp. 3–17). New York, NY: Springer Science+Business Media.Google Scholar
Koschmann, T. (2018). Ethnomethodology: Studying the practical achievement of intersubjectivity. In Fischer, F., Hmelo-Silver, C., Goldman, S., & Reimann, P. (Eds.), International handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 465–474). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Koschmann, T., Stahl, G., & Zemel, A. (2007). The video analyst’s manifesto (or the implications of Garfinkel’s policies for studying practice within the design-based research). In Goldman, R., Pea, R., Barron, B., & Derry, S. (Eds.), Video research in the learning sciences (pp. 133–143). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Koschmann, T., Zemel, A., Conlee-Stevens, M., Young, N., Robbs, J., & Barnhart, A. (2003). Problematizing the problem: A single case analysis in a DPBL meeting. In Wasson, B., Ludvigsen, S., & Hoppe, U. (Eds.), Designing for change in networked learning environments: Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning (CSCL ‘03) (pp. 37–46). Bergen, Norway: Kluwer Publishers.Google Scholar
Lave, J. (1991). Situating learning in communities of practice. In Resnick, L., Levine, J., & Teasley, S. (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 63–83). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
LeBaron, C. (2002). Technology does not exist independent of its use. In Koschmann, T., Hall, R., & Miyake, N. (Eds.), CSCL 2: Carrying forward the conversation (pp. 433–439). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Lipponen, L., Hakkarainen, K., & Paavola, S. (2004). Practices and orientations of CSCL. In Strijbos, J.-W., Kirschner, P., & Martens, R. (Eds.), What we know about CSCL: And implementing it in higher education (pp. 31–50). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Medina, R., & Stahl, G. (2021). Analysis of group practices. In Cress, U., Rosé, C., Wise, A., & Oshima, J. (Eds.), International handbook of computer-supported collaborative learning (pp. 199–218). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
Reckwitz, A. (2002). Toward a theory of social practices: A development in culturalist theorizing. European Journal of Social Theory, 5(2), 243–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rommetveit, R. (1974). On message structure: A framework for the study of language and communication. New York, NY: Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Rorty, R. (1974). Philosophy and the mirror of nature. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Roschelle, J. (1996). Learning by collaborating: Convergent conceptual change. In Koschmann, T. (Ed.), CSCL: Theory and practice of an emerging paradigm (pp. 209–248). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Roschelle, J., & Teasley, S. (1995). The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving. In O’Malley, C. (Ed.), Computer-supported collaborative learning (pp. 69–197). Berlin, Germany: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1991). Higher levels of agency in knowledge building: A challenge for the design of new knowledge media. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1(1), 37–68.Google Scholar
Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational Researcher, 27(2), 4–13.Google Scholar
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1982). Mutual knowledge and relevance of theories of comprehension. In Smith, N. V. (Ed.), Mutual knowledge. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Stahl, G. (2002). Rediscovering CSCL. In Koschmann, T., Hall, R., & Miyake, N. (Eds.), CSCL 2: Carrying forward the conversation (pp. 169–181). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. http://GerryStahl.net/cscl/papers/ch01.pdfGoogle Scholar
Stahl, G. (2006). Group cognition: Computer support for building collaborative knowledge. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stahl, G. (2013). Translating Euclid: Designing a human-centered mathematics. San Rafael, CA: Morgan & Claypool Publishers.Google Scholar
Stahl, G. (2016). Constructing dynamic triangles together: The development of mathematical group cognition. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Stahl, G. (2021). Theoretical investigations: Philosophical foundations of group cognition. New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
Stahl, G., & Hakkarainen, K. (2021). Theories of CSCL. In Cress, U., Rosé, C., Wise, A., & Oshima, J. (Eds.), International handbook of computer-supported collaborative learning (pp. 23–43). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
Suthers, D. D. (2006). Technology affordances for intersubjective meaning-making: A research agenda for CSCL. International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(3), 315–337.Google Scholar
Suthers, D. D., Lund, K., Rosé, C. P., Teplovs, C., & Law, N. (Eds.). (2013). Productive multivocality in the analysis of group interactions. New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
Wegerif, R. (2006). A dialogic understanding of the relationship between CSCL and teaching thinking skills. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(1), 143–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, J. (2018). The coherence theory of truth. In Zalta, E. N. (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Retrieved September 10, 2019 from https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2018/entries/truth-coherenceGoogle Scholar
Zemel, A., Xhafa, F., & Stahl, G. (2005). Analyzing the organization of collaborative math problem-solving in online chats using statistics and conversation analysis. In Fuks, H., Lukosch, S., & Salgado, A. C. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Groupware: Design, Implementation, and Use: 11th International Workshop, CRIWG 2005. Porto de Galinhas, Brazil (pp. 271–283). http://GerryStahl.net/pub/criwg2005zemel.pdfGoogle Scholar
- 6
- Cited by