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
- 9 Design-Based Research
- 10 Analyzing Collaboration
- 11 Microgenetic Methods
- 12 A Learning Sciences Perspective on the Design and Use of Assessment in Education
- 13 Learning Analytics and Educational Data Mining
- Part III Grounding Technology in the Learning Sciences
- Part IV Learning Together
- Part V Learning Disciplinary Knowledge
- Part VI Moving Learning Sciences Research into the Classroom
- Index
- References
10 - Analyzing Collaboration
from Part II - Methodologies
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
- 9 Design-Based Research
- 10 Analyzing Collaboration
- 11 Microgenetic Methods
- 12 A Learning Sciences Perspective on the Design and Use of Assessment in Education
- 13 Learning Analytics and Educational Data Mining
- Part III Grounding Technology in the Learning Sciences
- Part IV Learning Together
- Part V Learning Disciplinary Knowledge
- Part VI Moving Learning Sciences Research into the Classroom
- Index
- References
Summary
Learning sciences researchers study different types of collaboration, study it for different reasons, and use a variety of methods. Many of these methods focus on talk and interaction patterns, often using a methodology called interaction analysis that builds on linguistic anthropology and sociolinguistics. This chapter reviews four broad approaches: collaboration as a window onto individual learning; collaboration as a way to study how to help students learn better; collaboration as a way to study how collaboration changes during learning; and collaboration itself as a form of learning. These approaches differ along four dimensions: the unit of analysis for describing collaborative processes; the unit of analysis for documenting learning outcomes; the degree to which those learning outcomes are identified within the collaboration or outside the collaboration; and the degree to which the researcher considers some forms of collaboration to be more effective.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences , pp. 196 - 216Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2022
References
Anderson, R. C., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., McNurlen, B., et al. (2001). The snowball phenomenon: Spread of ways of talking and ways of thinking across groups of children. Cognition & Instruction, 19(1), 1–46.Google Scholar
Barron, B. (2003). When smart groups fail. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(3), 307–359.Google Scholar
Barron, B., Pea, R., & Engle, R. (2013). Advancing understanding of collaborative learning with data derived from video records. In Hmelo-Silver, C., Chinn, C., Chan, C., & O’Donnell, A. (Eds.), The international handbook of collaborative learning (pp. 203–219). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bell, P., Lewenstein, B., Shouse, A. W., Feder, M. A. (Eds.), & National Research Council. (2009). Learning science in informal environments: People, places, and pursuits [Committee on Learning Science in Informal Environments, Board on Science Education, Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, National Academy of Sciences]. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
Cazden, C. (1986). Classroom discourse. In Wittrock, M. C. (Ed.), Handbook on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 432–460). New York, NY: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Chi, M. T. H. (1997). Quantifying qualitative analyses of verbal data: A practical guide. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6(3), 271–315.Google Scholar
Chin, C., & Osborne, J. (2010). Arguing to learn in science: The role of collaborative, critical discourse. Science, 328, 463–466.Google Scholar
Cress, U., & Hesse, F. (2013). Quantitative methods for studying small groups. In Hmelo-Silver, C., Chinn, C., Chan, C., & O’Donnell, A. (Eds.), The international handbook of collaborative learning (pp. 93–111). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Dillenbourg, P., Baker, M., Blaye, A., & O’Malley, C. (1996). The evolution of research on collaborative learning. In Spada, E. & Reiman, P. (Eds.), Learning in humans and machine: Towards an interdisciplinary learning science (pp. 189–211). Oxford, England: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Duranti, A. (2006). Transcripts, like shadows on a wall. Mind, Culture and Activity, 13(4), 301–310.Google Scholar
Duranti, A., & Goodwin, C. (Eds.). (1992). Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon (Vol. 11). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, A. (2007). A taxonomy for categorizing generalizations: Generalizing actions and reflection generalizations. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16(2), 221–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engle, R. A., & Conant, F. R. (2002). Guiding principles for fostering productive disciplinary engagement: Explaining an emergent argument in a community of learners classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 20(34), 399–483.Google Scholar
Enyedy, N. (2003). Knowledge construction and collective practice: At the intersection of learning, talk, and social configurations in a computer-mediated mathematics classroom. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(3), 361–408.Google Scholar
Enyedy, N. (2005). Inventing mapping: Creating cultural forms to solve collective problems. Cognition and Instruction, 23(4), 427–466.Google Scholar
Enyedy, N., & Mukhopadhyay, S. (2007). They don’t show anything I didn’t know: Emergent tensions between culturally relevant pedagogy and mathematics pedagogy. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16(2), 139–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In Wittrock, M. C. (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 119–161). New York, NY: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Erickson, F. (1999). Appropriation of voice and presentation of self as a fellow physician: Aspects of discourse of apprenticeship in medicine. In Sarangi, S. & Roberts, C. (Eds.), Talk, work, and institutional order: Discourse in medicine, mediation, and management settings. Berlin, Germany; New York, NY: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Erickson, F. (2004). Talk and social theory: Ecologies of speaking and listening in everyday life. Cambridge, England: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Erickson, F. (2006). Definition and analysis of data from videotape: Some research procedures and their rationales. In Green, J., Camilli, G., & Elmore, P. (Eds.), Handbook of complementary methods in educational research (3rd ed., pp. 177–191). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Forman, E. A., Larreamendy-Joerns, J., Stein, M. K., & Brown, C. A. (1998). “You’re going to want to find out which and prove it”: Collective argumentation in a mathematics classroom. Learning and Instruction, 8(6), 527–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garfinkel, H. (1996). Ethnomethodology’s program. Social Psychology Quarterly, 59(1), 5–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, C. (2000). Practices of seeing, visual analysis: An ethnomethodological approach. In van Leeuwen, T. & Jewitt, C. (Eds.), Handbook of visual analysis (pp. 157–187). London, England: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Goodwin, C., & Goodwin, M. (1987). Children’s arguing. In Philips, S., Steele, S., & Tanz, C. (Eds.), Language, gender, and sex in comparative perspective (pp. 200–248). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, C., & Heritage, J. (1990). Conversation Analysis. Annual Review of Anthropology, 19, 283–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gutiérrez, K. D., & Jaramillo, N. E. (2006). Looking for educational equity: The consequences of relying on “Brown.” Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, 105(2), 173–189.Google Scholar
Hall, R. (2000). Video recording as theory. In Kelley, A. & Lesh, R. (Eds.), Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 647–664). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2000). Knowledge recycling: Crisscrossing the landscape of educational psychology in a problem-based learning course for preservice teachers. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 11, 41–56.Google Scholar
Howley, I. Mayfield, E., & Rose, C. (2013). Linguistic analysis methods for studying small groups. In Hmelo-Silver, C., Chinn, C., Chan, C., & O’Donnell, A. (Eds.), The international handbook of collaborative learning (pp. 184–202). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hutchins, E. (1995a). How a cockpit remembers its speeds. Cognitive Science, 19(3), 265–288.Google Scholar
Hutchins, E., & Klausen, T. (1996). Distributed cognition in an airline cockpit. In Engeström, Y. & Middleton, D. (Eds.), Cognition and communication at work (pp. 15–34). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ito, M., Horst, H. J., Finn, M., et al. (2010). Hanging out, messing around and geeking out. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Janssen, J., Erkens, G., & Kirschner, P. A. (2011). Group awareness tools: It’s what you do with it that matters. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(3), 1046–1058.Google Scholar
Jefferson, G. (1984). Transcription notation. In Atkinson, J. & Heritage, J. (Eds.), Structures of social interaction (pp. ix–xvi). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jeong, A. (2005). A guide to analyzing message-response sequences and group interaction patterns in computer mediated communication. Distance Education, 26(3), 367–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, A., & Issroff, K. (2005). Learning technologies: Affective and social issues in computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers & Education, 44(4), 395–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keifert, D., & Stevens, R. (2019). Inquiry as a members’ phenomenon: Young children as competent inquirers. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 28(2), 240–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, J. D., & Pridemore, D. R. (1992). Effects of cooperative learning and need for affiliation on performance, time on task, and satisfaction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 40(4), 39–48.Google Scholar
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lynch, M. (1993). Scientific practice and ordinary action: Ethnomethodology and social studies of science. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ma, J. Y., & Hall, R. (2018). Learning a part together: Ensemble learning and infrastructure in a competitive high school marching band. Instructional Science, 46(4), 507–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDermott, R. P., & Hood, L. (1982). Institutional psychology and the ethnography of schooling. In Gilmore, P. & Glatthorn, A. (Eds.), Children in and out of school: Ethnography and education (pp. 232–249). Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mercer, N. (2008). The seeds of time: Why classroom dialogue needs a temporal analysis. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17(1), 33–59.Google Scholar
Mercer, N., & Hodgkinson, S. (Eds.). (2008). Exploring classroom talk. London, England: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Michaels, S. (2005). Can the intellectual affordances of working-class storytelling be leveraged in school? Human Development, 48(3), 136–145.Google Scholar
Nichols, J. (1996). The effects of cooperative learning on student achievement and motivation in a high school geometry class. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21(4), 467–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ochs, E. (1979). Transcription as theory. In Ochs, E. & Schieffelin, B. B. (Eds.), Developmental pragmatics (pp. 43–72). New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Park, R. E., & Burgess, E. W. (1921). Introduction to the science of sociology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Philip, T., Bang, M., & Jackson, K. (2018). Articulating the “how,” the “for what,” the “for whom,” and the “with whom” in concert: A call to broaden the benchmarks of our scholarship. Cognition and Instruction, 36(2), 83–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pomerantz, A., & Fehr, B. J. (2011). Conversation analysis: An approach to the analysis of social interaction. In van Dijk, T. A. (Ed.), Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary introduction (pp. 165–190). London, England: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Puntambekar, S. (2013). Mixed methods for analyzing collaborative learning. In Hmelo-Silver, C., Chinn, C., Chan, C., & O’Donnell, A. (Eds.), The international handbook of collaborative learning (pp. 220–230). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Roschelle, J. (1992). Learning by collaborating: Convergent conceptual change. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(3), 235–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosebery, A. S., Ogonowski, M., DiSchino, M., & Warren, B. (2010). “The coat traps all your body heat”: Heterogeneity as fundamental to learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(3), 322–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on conversation (Vol. 1). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. (Original [first] lecture given in 1967)Google Scholar
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge-building communities. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(3), 265–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (2006). Interaction: The infrastructure for social institutions, the natural ecological niche for language, and the arena in which culture is enacted. In Enfield, N. J. & Levinson, S. C. (Eds.), Roots of human sociality: Culture, cognition and interaction (pp. 70–96). London, England: Berg.Google Scholar
Simon, H. A. (2001). Learning to research about learning. In Carver, S. M. & Klahr, D. (Eds.), Cognition and instruction: Twenty-five years of progress (pp. 205–226). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Smith, J. P. III, DiSessa, A. A., & Roschelle, J. (1994). Misconceptions reconceived: A constructivist analysis of knowledge in transition. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(2), 115–163.Google Scholar
Stevens, R. (2000). Divisions of labor in school and in the workplace: Comparing computer and paper-supported activities across settings. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(4), 373–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevens, R. (2010). Learning as a members’ phenomenon: Toward an ethnographically adequate science of learning. NSSE 2010 Yearbook: A Human Sciences Approach to Research on Learning, 109(1), 82–97.Google Scholar
Stevens, R., & Hall, R. (1998). Disciplined perception: Learning to see in technoscience. In Lampert, M. & Blunk, M. L. (Eds.), Talking mathematics in school: Studies of teaching and learning (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Stevens, R., Jona, K., Penney, L., et al. (2016). FUSE: An alternative infrastructure for empowering learners in schools. Singapore: International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar
Stevens, R., Wineburg, S., Herrenkohl, L., & Bell, P. (2005). The comparative understanding of school subjects: Past, present and future. Review of Educational Research, 75(2), 125–157.Google Scholar
Strom, D., Kemeny, V., Lehrer, R., & Forman, E. (2001). Visualizing the emergent structure of children’s mathematical argument. Cognitive Science, 25(5), 733–773.Google Scholar
Sun, Y., Zhang, J., & Scardamalia, M. (2010). Knowledge building and vocabulary growth over two years, Grades 3 and 4. Instructional Science, 38(2), 247–271.Google Scholar
Vahey, P., Enyedy, N., & Gifford, B. (2000). Learning probability through the use of a collaborative, inquiry-based simulation environment. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 11(1), 51–84.Google Scholar
Webb, N. M. (1991). Task-related verbal interaction and mathematics learning in small groups. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 22(5), 366–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webb, N. M., & Mastergeorge, A. M. (2003). The development of students’ learning in peer-directed small groups. Cognition and Instruction, 21(4), 361–428.Google Scholar
Wells, G. (1993). Articulation of theories of activity and discourse for the analysis of teaching and learning in the classroom. Linguistics and Education, 5(1), 1–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wertsch, J. V., & Stone, C. A. (1985). The concept of internalization in Vygotsky’s account of the genesis of higher mental functions. In Wertsche, J. V. (Ed.), Culture, communication, and cognition: Vygotskian perspectives (pp. 162–182). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wood, D. (1992). Teaching talk. In Norman, K. (Ed.), Thinking voices: The work of the National Oracy Project (pp. 203–214). London, England: Hodder & Stoughton (for the National Curriculum Council).Google Scholar