“I agree with you John about the importance of problem defining and framing. It is definitely one of the key points in this kind of problem-based approaches. Another related skill is also the ability to present the kind of questions that evoke elaborated explanations…”
In this excerpt the participants gave supporting feedback to each other, addressed the other person by name to maintain a personal contact, but also lent support to each other's thoughts and asked each other's opinion about the issue. An important thing was also that both participants showed in their replies that they accepted and appreciated the other one’s responses (John message 14 and Carol 13 and 15). In other words, they also showed, e.g. by using questions, that they are eager to continue the interaction. John, the student and also the presenter of this case, showed he was able to challenge the mentor. So, we can assume that in this interaction process both the student and the mentor actually enjoyed the challenging
‘mind storm’ which motivated them to contribute to this particular discussion.
Gelöscht:
6. Discussion
The results show that in terms of feedback and questions students used different interaction patterns at the different levels of discussion. In comparison to progressive level discussions, in deeper level discussions especially the peers gave more support directly by verbal feedback.
This difference was statistically significant (p=0.094<0.1). Mentors used the
agreement/disagreement, notifying and comparing feedback more often in deeper level discussions than in progressive level discussions.
In progressive level discussions agreement feedback was more typical and that might have prevented proceeding to a deeper level. If participants fully agree on something it may soon be the end of discussion, because there is not much to discuss and feedback of this kind does not leave space for elaboration or negotiation about meanings (see Dillenbourg, 1999). It might also be so that the participants are satisfied with the mutual agreement and seemingly harmony and avoid risking it with new points or issues. Mentors used agreement feedback more often in deeper level discussions and it could be meant to serve rather as support.
Agreement can be a sign that a common understanding is reached, but as Dillenbourg (1999) points out, in collaborative learning situations misunderstandings and corrections could offer the space for negotiation, which is a common mechanism of grounding. According to Brennan (1998), in Web-based discourse it is important that the participants provide evidence of their understanding, even when there is no place for misunderstandings. On the basis of these results we can assume that interaction is likely to be more fluent when the participants communicate their understanding, but also provide signals for their willingness to continue the interaction with each other.
In deeper level discussions supporting feedback was more frequent. The results suggest that positive feedback encourages people to participate in discussion and thereby engage in the group actively contributing to the Web-based learning environment (see Hara, Bonk &
Angeli, 2000). In light of these results it seems that supporting feedback has a positive impact on Web-based interaction processes, which is hardly a surprise. According to McMillan (1996), the members of community need support, and they also offer the support in times of need, and feedback of this kind lays on the trust of community. Wegerif (1998) suggests that creating a sympathetic sense of community is a necessary first step for collaborative learning.
The results show that a typical feature of deeper level discussions was constructive communication between the participants. These results imply that in order to establish and maintain common ground it is important to use the kind of feedback and questions that supports constructive Web-based interaction. According to Brennan (1998), in order to reach a deeper level discussion, each participant's need to receive feedback should be recognized not only when there is a problem, but also when there are no evident problems. This is in line with our finding that in deeper level discussions feedback was used more often than in progressive level discussions, giving thus the participants a better understanding of each other's views. Based on the results of this study, it could be possible to specifically instruct the on-line learners to provide feedback to each other so as to reach common ground more effectively in the Web-based community (see Rovai, 2000).
The findings also suggest that participants involved in deeper level interaction also show positive attitudes toward responding the questions concerned. Questions presented in deeper level discussions included theory-based considerations, relationships between different factors
and negotiation more typically than at the progressive level. In other words, the question patterns were intellectually more challenging in deeper level discussions than in progressive level discussions.
As Clark and Schaefer (1989) have noted, contributions take many forms, in some instances discussion arises from single words or phrases, while in other occasions it takes clauses, full sentences, or whole turns. Further studies in this field should focus rather on full postings and the proceeding of whole discussions than on any specific words or phrases. As the results show it is important that participants include in their replies both social and cognitive cues (feedback and questions) to encourage the fellow students to participate in the discussion. For Web-based learning discussions, in particular, the need for such interaction is evident. Thus, the analysis methods used in this study call for further elaboration, because now they focused far too much on single sentences. In fact, exploration of mere textual data does not necessarily capture the whole process of grounding and related mechanisms of common ground in Web-based conferences. This would require consideration of the wider context of social interaction and learning. Participants who share the same classroom during a Web-based conference are also likely to build and maintain common ground face-to-face, and not just within the computer-supported framework (Crook, 1999). Further research is needed to cover also these areas of interaction in connection with Web-based activities.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by Grant No. 37189 from the Academy of Finland.
References
Allwood, J., Nivre, J. & Ahlsén, E. (1991). On the semantics and pragmatics of linguistic feedback (Gothenburg Papers in Theoretical Linguistics No. 64). Sweden: University of Gothenburg, Department of Linguistics.
Baker, M., Hansen, T., Joiner, R. & Traum, D. (1999). The role of grounding in collaborative learning tasks. In: P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Collaborative learning. Cognitive and
computational approaches (pp. 31-63). Advances in Learning and Instruction Series.
Amsterdam: Pergamon.
Brennan, S. E. (1998). The grounding problem in conversations with and through computers.
In: S. R. Fussell & R. J. Kreuz (Eds.), Social and cognitive approaches to interpersonal communication (pp. 201-225). Mahwal, NJ: Erlbaum.
Clark, H. H. & Schaefer, F. S. (1987). Collaborating on contributions to conversation.
Language and Cognitive Processes, 2, 1-23.
Clark, H. H. & Schaefer, F. S. (1989). Contributing to discourse. Cognitive Science, 13, 259-294.
Crook, C. (1994). Computers and the collaborative experience of learning. London:
Routledge.
Crook, C. (1999). Computers in the community of classrooms. In: K. Littleton & P. Light (Eds.), Learning with computers. Analysing productive interaction (pp. 102-117).
London: Routledge.
Cutler, R. H. (1995). Distributed presence and community in cyberspace. Interpersonal Communication and Technology: A Journal for the 21st Century, 3 (2), 12-32.
Dillenbourg, P. (1999). Introduction: What do you mean by “collaborative learning”? In: P.
Dillenbourg (Ed.) Collaborative learning. Cognitive and computational approaches (pp. 1-19). Advances in Learning and Instruction Series. Amsterdam: Pergamon.
Dillenbourg, P. & Traum, D. (1999). Does a shared screen make a shared solution? In: C.
Hoadly & J. Roschelle (Eds.), Proceedings of the third conference on computer supported collaborative learning (pp. 127-135). California: Stanford University.
Hara, N., Bonk, C. J. & Angeli, C. (2000). Content analysis of online discussion in an applied educational psychology course. Instructional Science, 28, 115-152.
Häkkinen, P. & Arvaja, M. (1999). Kollaboratiivinen oppiminen teknologiaympäristöissä.
[Collaborative learning in technology-supported environments]. In: A. Eteläpelto & P.
Tynjälä (Eds.), Oppiminen ja asiantuntijuus. Työelämän ja koulutuksen näkökulmia.
[Learning and expertise. Aspects of work and education] (pp. 206-221). Porvoo:
WSOY.
Järvelä, S., Hakkarainen, K., Lipponen, L. & Lehtinen, E. (2000). Creating computer supported collaborative learning in Finnish schools: Research perspectives on sociocognitive effects. Journal of Continuing Engineering Education and Life-Long Learning, 10 (2), 1-10.
Järvelä, S. & Häkkinen, P. (2002a, in press). The levels of Web-based discussions – using perspective-taking theory as an analysis tool. In: H. Van Oostendorp (Ed.), Cognition in a digital world. Lawrence Erlbaum.
Järvelä, S. & Häkkinen, P. (2002b, in press). Web-based cases in teaching and learning – the quality of discussion and a stage of perspective taking in asynchronous communication.
Interactive Learning Environments, 10 (1), 1-22.
Koschmann, T. (1996). Paradigm shifts and instructional technology: An introduction. In: T.
D. Koschmann (Ed.), CSCL: Theory and practice of an emerging paradigm (pp. 1-24).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
McMillan, D. W. (1996). Sense of community. Journal of Community Psychology, 24 (4), 315-325.
Roschelle, J. & Pea, R. (1999). Trajectories from today’s WWW to a powerful educational infrastructure. Educational Researcher, 28 (5), 22-25.
Rovai, A. P. (2000). Building and sustaining community in asynchronous learning networks.
The Internet and Higher Education, 3 (4), 285-297.
Saarenkunnas, M., Järvelä, S., Häkkinen, P., Kuure, L., Taalas, P. & Kunelius, E. (2000).
NINTER – Networked Interaction: Theory-based cases in teaching and learning.
Learning Environments Research, 3, 35-50.
Schlager, M. S., Fusco, J. & Schank, P. (2000). Evolution of an on-line education community of practice. In: K. A. Renniger & W. Shumar (Eds.), Building virtual communities:
Learning and change in cyberspace. NY: Cambridge University Press.
Stahl, G. (2002). Contributions to a theoretical framework of CSCL. In: G. Stahl (Ed.), Proceedings of computer supported for collaborative learning: Foundations for a CSCL community (CSCL 2002). (pp. 62-71) Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Available at http://www.cscl2002.org/docs/CSCL2002_Proceedings.pdf. Retrieved January 3, 2002.
Säljö, R. (2001). Oppimiskäytännöt. Sosiokulttuurinen näkökulma. [Practices of learning.
Socio-cultural aspect]. Helsinki: WSOY.
Veerman, A. (2000). Computer-supported collaborative learning through argumentation.
Utrecht: Interuniversity Center for Educational Research.
Wegerif, R. (1998). The Social dimension of asynchronous learning networks. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 2 (1), 34-49.
Table 1. The types and amounts of feedback in different level discussions, by participant’s
Table 2. The amount of feedback by students in progressive and deeper level discussions
2. Personal Feedback 17 20.0%
16 17.0%
33 18.4%
3. Notifying Feedback 13 15.3%
21 22.3%
34 19.0%
4. Supporting Feedback*) 4 4.7%
15 16.0%
19 10.6%
5. Comparing Feedback 7 8.2%
7 7.4%
14 7.8%
6. Paraphrasing Feedback 5 5.9% Standardized residuals are statistically significant.
Table 3. Questions presented in progressive and deeper level discussions by students and
of Question Students Mentors Students Mentors
The Total
*) Pearson Chi-Square Value=21.706, df=2, p=0.000 Standardized residuals are statistically significant.
Presence of another Process of diagnosis Feedback
Contact
Perception Web-based discussion;
Understanding Issue Content Attitudinal reaction Quality
COURSE DESIGN AND PEDAGOGY
Figure 1. The mechanisms of common ground in Web-based conferences
2. Ment A 3. KY ---(Sender’s initials; Female) Oulu JKL ---(Place of University) March 15 April 26 ---(Date)
New point Suggestion ----(Type of posting)
Suggestion Comment Suggestion
Discussion continues….
Figure 2. An example of progressive level discussion; Case 6: “Teacher in trouble”
2. Mentor A 4. BU 7. ST
Discussion continues… April 17
Question
Agreement/Disagr. feedback Notifying feedback Supporting feedback Comparing feedback
Figure 3. An example of deeper level discussion; Case 47: “How to improve creativity?”