Kristine Lund

Promoting reflective interactions in a CSCL environment

Engaging in reflective activities in interaction, such as explaining, justifying and evaluating problem solutions, has been shown to be potentially productive for learning. This paper addresses the problem of how these activities may be promoted in the context of computer-mediated communication during a modelling task in physics. The design principles of two different communication interfaces are presented. The first allows free text to be exchanged, and the second structures the interaction by providing a restricted set of communicative possibilities. Comparative analyses of interaction corpora produced with the two communication interfaces are then described. The analyses show that use of the second structured interface in performing the problem-solving task is feasible for students, and that it promotes a task-focussed and reflective interaction. In conclusion the different resources provided by different media and the relative degrees of effort that their use requires are discussed.

Computer-Mediated Epistemic Dialogue: Explanation and Argumentation as Vehicles for Understanding Scientific Notions

Epistemic dialogues, involving explanation and argumentation, have been recognized as potential vehicles for conceptual understanding. Although the role of dialogue in learning has received much attention, the problem of creating situations in which students engage in epistemic dialogue has only begun to be addressed. This article highlights the set of factors that must be taken into account in designing a computer-supported collaborative learning situation that encourages students to discuss scientific notions. These factors include the choice of the domain issue, the activities proposed to students, and the role of technology. We describe the design of CONNECT, an integrated environment and task sequence for the collaborative confrontation, negotiation, and construction of text. Results are then presented from a study in which students individually wrote an interpretation of a sound phenomenon, were matched in dyads so as to maximize semantic differences between their texts, and then collaboratively discussed and wrote common texts across the network using CONNECT. We show how careful engineering of the CONNECT environment favors the occurrence of epistemic dialogue and creates opportunities for conceptual understanding. The discussion centers on why these opportunities might be missed, as well as on the conditions required for students to exploit them.

Rainbow: A framework for analysing computer-mediated pedagogical debates

In this paper we present a framework for analysing when and how students engage in a specific form of interactive knowledge elaboration in CSCL environments: broadening and deepening understanding of a space of debate. The framework is termed “Rainbow,” as it comprises seven principal analytical categories, to each of which a colour is assigned, thus enabling informal visualisation by the analyst of the extent to which students are engaging in interaction relating to potential achievement of its pedagogical goal. The categories distinguish between activities that are part of the prescribed assignment and activities that are not, and between task-focused and non-task-focused activities. Activities focused on managing the interaction itself are distinguished from argumentative interaction. Notably, an operational definition of what it means to broaden and deepen understanding in this case is also provided here. The functional Rainbow analysis is complemented by an analysis of topics and subtopics that enables identification of one form of conceptual deepening of the question. In comparison with existing analysis techniques, Rainbow synthesises much of what is known into a single framework, with a broad theoretical base. The usability and educational relevance of the framework has been validated experimentally across a variety of collaborative learning tasks and communication media. Possible and actual extensions to the framework are discussed, with respect to additional CSCL tools, domains and tasks.

How do argumentation diagrams compare when student pairs use them as a means for debate or as a tool for representing debate

The objective of the research presented here was to study the influence of two types of instruction for using an argumentation diagram during pedagogical debates over the Internet. In particular, we studied how using an argumentation diagram as a medium of debate compared to using an argumentation diagram as a way of representing a debate. Two groups of students produced an individual argument diagram, then debated in pairs in one of the two conditions, and finally revised their individual diagrams in light of their debate. We developed an original analysis method (ADAM) to evaluate the differences between the argumentation diagrams constructed collaboratively during the interactions that constituted the experimental conditions, as well as those constructed individually before and after debate. The results suggest a complementary relationship between the usage of argumentation diagrams in the framework of conceptual learning. First, students who were instructed to use the argumentation diagram to represent their debate were less inclined to take a position in relation to the same graphical element while collaborating. On the other hand, students who were instructed to use the argumentation diagram alongside a chat expressed more personal opinions while collaborating. Second, the instructions given to the participants regarding the use of the argumentation diagram during the collaborative phase (either for debate or for representing a chat debate) have a significant impact on the post-individual graphs. In the individual graphs revised after the collaborative phase, participants who used the graph to represent their debate added more examples, consequences and causes. It follows that a specific usage for an argumentation diagram can be chosen and instructions given based on pedagogical objectives for a given learning situation.

Tatiana: an environment to support the CSCL analysis process

The analysis of multimodal computer-mediated human interaction data is difficult: the diverse nature of this data and its sheer quantity is challenging enough, but a further obstacle is introduced by the complex nature of these interactions. In this paper, we describe the kinds of activities performed by researchers wishing to analyze this data. We present a model for analysis based on these activities. We then introduce Tatiana (Trace Analysis Tool for Interaction Analysts) as an environment based on this model and designed to assist researchers in managing, synchronizing, visualizing and analyzing their data by iteratively creating artifacts which further their understanding or exhibit their current understanding of their data. We show how Tatiana can be used to perform analyses and its potential for sharing corpora and analyses within the research community.

Productive Multivocality in the Analysis of Group Interactions

The key idea of the book is that scientific and practical advances can be obtained if researchers working in traditions that have been assumed to be mutually incompatible make a real effort to engage in dialogue with each other, comparing and contrasting their understandings of a given phenomenon and how these different understandings can either complement or mutually elaborate on each other. This key idea applies to many fields, particularly in the social and behavioral sciences, as well as education and computer science. The book shows how we have achieved this by presenting our study of collaborative learning during the course of a four-year project. Through a series of five workshops involving dozens of researchers, the 37 editors and authors involved in this project studied and reported on collaborative learning, technology enhanced learning, and cooperative work. The authors share an interest in understanding group interactions, but approach this topic from a variety of traditional disciplinary homes and theoretical and methodological traditions. This allows the book to be of use to researchers in many different fields and with many different goals and agendas.

Argumentation Skills as Prerequisites for Collaborative Learning among Finnish, French, and English Secondary School Students.

Argumentation skills of secondary school students were evaluated in Finland (n = 290), France (n = 54), and England (n = 41). The data were collected from 4 tasks comprising 7 variables. The results indicated that most of the students had correctly justified arguments and conclusions, and composed clear claims and relevant arguments. However, many students had difficulties in recognising the main claim and arguments for it in an expository text, and in commenting analytically on an argumentative text. Thus the students possessed the prerequisites for argumentative reasoning and writing but need further practice in analytical and critical reading.

An empirical study of engineering knowledge dynamics in a design situation

After presenting our empirical research framework (the COSMOCE Project, which focused on collaborative and synchronous design activities), we explain why knowledge dynamics is a matter of interest for understanding and modelling the product design process and rationale. The assumption is made that an argumentative situation ? typical of product design ? is a good means to study knowledge dynamics with regard to the design problem (requirements definition) and the solution. A theoretical framework incorporating our point of view on the concepts of knowledge, collaborative design and argumentation is presented, to justify the design experiment situation we constructed. The empirical study that was carried out is then presented with a description of the situation through the proposed task, the participants, the tools they used, the steps they took, the instructions given to them, the resources put at their disposal and the deliverables expected from them. The collected data are described and some examples are given. Finally, we describe our analysis method and present some results related to knowledge dynamics.

The importance of gaze and gesture in interactive multimodal explanation

The objective of this research is twofold. Firstly, we argue that gaze and gesture play an essential part in interactive explanation and that it is thus a multimodal phenomenon. Two corpora are analyzed: (1) a group of teacher novices and experts and (2) a student teacher dyad, both of whom construct explanations of students’ reasoning after viewing videos of student dyads who are solving physics problems. We illustrate roles of gaze in explanations constructed within a group and roles of gesture in explanation constructed within a dyad. Secondly, we show how the analysis of such knowledge-rich empirical data pinpoints particular difficulties in designing human–computer interfaces that can support explanation between humans, or a fortiori, that can support explanation between a human and a computer.

GESTALT: a framework for redesign of educational software

Design of educational multimedia rarely starts from scratch, but rather by attempting to reuse existing software. Although redesign has been an issue in research on evaluation and on learning objects, how it should be carried out in a principled way has remained relatively unexplored. Furthermore, understanding how empirical research on information and communication technologies (ICT) should feed back into redesign remains difficult. The present paper addresses these problems from the viewpoint of carrying out pedagogical expert evaluations, in the absence of empirical studies of target learners, in order to generate recommendations for redesign. Firstly, redesign proposals should be based on a coherent reconstruction of pedagogical foundations of educational ICT (software, documentation). Secondly, redesign proposals should result from dialogue between stakeholders, such as future users, pedagogical experts, software designers, and deciders. To these ends, we propose a framework, called GESTALT (Goals, (E) SiTuations, Actions, Learners, Tools), as a ‘boundary object’ for dialogical redesign. Within an activity theory approach, GESTALT is based on analysis of available tools, the actions they support, the characteristics of learners who perform actions, and pedagogical goals that could be achieved in specific situations. An illustrative GESTALT analysis of educational software is provided, principally from the viewpoint of pedagogical experts. Finally, the strengths and limits of GESTALT are discussed.