Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Analyzing Productive Interactions in CSCL: Collaborations, Computers and Contradictions

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Analyzing Interactions in CSCL

Part of the book series: Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Series ((CULS,volume 12))

  • 1076 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter reviews a series of case studies taken from research projects conducted in the computers and learning research group at the Open University examining ways to investigate computer supported collaborative learning interactions. The aim of this series of experiments was as part of a research programme directed at developing a better understanding of the way in which technology enables collaborative learning. A range of projects where technology has been used to support collaboration in a variety of settings is reviewed here. These include settings where adults were collaborating on problem solving tasks at a distance (using technologies to support collaboration such as Shared Ark and Kansas), and young people using mobile technologies and collaborating on technology supported science investigations (e.g. in the Personal Inquiry project).

The review presented here will describe and assess findings from this work, and review the methods employed in these studies. Methods of data collection adopted were aimed at generating rich descriptions of the interactions between learners and computers and include the use of video records and content analysis of discussion protocols. A number of analysis frameworks were employed in this work. Those reconsidered here include the Context, Interaction and Outcomes (CIAO) evaluation framework (see Scanlon et al. 1998a) and video and transcript analysis incorporating technical tools such as Transana and the application of Activity Theory and other socio-cultural approaches to the analysis of data collected while investigating complex settings. For each case included in this review this discussion includes some data presented illustrating how the method is used, a detail of the methods used for documenting and analyzing interactions, and a discussion of the theoretical underpinnings of the methods used. The chapter will conclude with a discussion of the implications for this work for the challenges we have in understanding learning (processes and outcomes).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Arvaja, M. this volume. Analyzing the contextual nature of collaborative activity. In S. Puntambekar, G. Erkens, & C.E. Hmelo-Silver (Eds.), Analyzing interactions in CSCL: Methods, approaches and issues (pp. 25–46) Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Avouris, N., Fiotakis, G., Kahrimanis, G., Margaritis, M., & Komis, V. (2007). Beyond logging of fingertip actions: Analysis of collaborative learning using multiple sources of data. Journal of Interactive Learning Research JILR, 18(2), 231–250.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blake, C., Davies, C., Jones, A., Morris, E., & Scanlon, E. (2003). Evaluating complex digital resources. Association for Learning Technology Journal, ALT-J, 11(1), 4–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blake, C., & Scanlon, E. (2003). Enriching accounts of computer supported collaboration by using video data. Association for Learning Technology Journal, ALT-J, 11(2), 5–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buxton, W., & Moran, T. (1990). EuroPARC’s integrated interactive intermedia facility (iiif): Early experiences, In S. Gibbs & A. A. Verrijn-Stuart (Eds.), Multiuser interfaces and applications, Proceedings of the IFIP WG 8.4 conference on multi-user interfaces and applications (pp. 11–34). Heraklion, Crete. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. (North-Holland).

    Google Scholar 

  • Cakir, M., & Stahl, G. (2009). Interaction analysis of dual-interaction CSCL enrolments Proceedings of CSCL 09, volume 1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cox, R. (2007). Technology-enhanced research: educational ICT systems as research instruments. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 16(3), 337–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crook, C. (1994). Computers and the collaborative experience of learning. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dillenbourg, P. (Ed.). (1999). Collaborative learning: Cognitive and computational approaches. Oxford: Elsevier Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dillenbourg, P., Baker, M., Blaye, A., & O’Malley, C. (1996). The evolution of research on computer supported collaborative learning. In P. Reimann & H. Spada (Eds.), Learning in humans and machines,towards an interdisciplinary learning science. Oxford: Elsevier Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dyke, G., Lund, K., & Giradot, J. (2009).Tatiana: An environment to support the CSCL analysis process. In C. O’Malley, D. Suthers, P. Reimann, & A. Dimitracopoulou (Eds.), Computer supported collaborative learning practices, Proceedings of CSCL 2009, Rhodes.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenhow, C., & Belbas, B. (2007). Using activity-oriented design methods to study collaborative knowledge building in e-Learning courses. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2, 363–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heath, C., & Hindmarsh, J. (2002). Analysing interaction: Video ethnography and situated conduct. In T. May (Ed.), Qualitative research in action. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hmelo-Silver, C. (2003). Analyzing collaborative knowledge construction: Multiple methods for integrated understanding. Computers & Education, 41(4), 397–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hmelo-Silver, C., Chernobilsky, E., & Jordan, R. (2008). Understanding collaborative learning processes in new learning environments. Instructional Science, 36(5–6), 409–430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, P. (1998). The man who loved only numbers: The story of Paul Erdos and the search for mathematical truth. New York: Hyperion.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holliman, R., & Scanlon, E. (2006). Investigating co-operation and collaboration in near synchronous computer conferences. Computers & Education, 46, 322–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Issroff, K., & Scanlon, E. (2001). Case studies revisited- what can activity theory offer? In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Proceedings of First Euro-CSCL Conference, Maastricht

    Google Scholar 

  • Issroff, K., & Scanlon, E. (2002). Using technology in higher education: An activity theory perspective. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18, 77–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Issroff, K., Scanlon, E., & Jones, A. (1997). Two empirical studies of computer-supported collaborative learning in science: Methodological and affective implications. In R. Hall, N. Miyake, & N. Enyedy (Eds.), Proceedings of CSCL 97 The Second International Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning (pp. 117–123), Toronto, December 10–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joiner, R., Scanlon, E., O’Shea, T., Smith, R,. & Blake, C. (2002). Evidence from a series of experiments on video-mediated collaboration: Does eye contact matter? In G. Stahl (Ed.), Proceedings of CSCL 2002 (pp. 371–378), Boulder, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joolingen, W. V., deJong, T., & Manlove, S. (2005). Co-Lab: Research and development of an on line learning environment for collaborative science discovery learning environment. Computers in Human Behavior, 21(4), 671–688.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jorrín-Abellán, M., Stake, R., & Martínez-Monés, A. (2009). The Needlework in evaluating a CSCL system: The Evaluand oriented Responsive Evaluation Model, In C. O’Malley, D. Suthers, P. Reiman & A. Dimitracopoulou (Eds.), Computer supported collaborative learning practices, Proceedings of CSCL 2009, Rhodes.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lesh, R., & Lehrer, R. (2000). Iterative refinement cycles for videotape analysis: Conceptual changes. In R. Lesh & A. Kelly (Eds.), Handbook of research design in Mathematics and science education. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Light, P., & Littleton, K. (1999). Social processes in children’s learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Littleton, K., & Light, P. (1998). Learning with computers: Analysing productive interaction. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • McAlister, S., Ravenscroft, A., & Scanlon, E. (2004). Combining interaction and context design to support collaborative argumentation in education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning: Special Issue: Developing dialogue for learning, 20(3), 194–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mercer, N. (2008). The seeds of time: Why classroom dialogue needs a temporal analysis. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17(1), 33–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mercer, N., & Littleton, K. (2007). Dialogue and the development of children’s thinking: A sociocultural approach. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mwanza-Simwami, D. (2009). Using activity oriented design methods (ADOM) in researching mobile learning. In G. Vavoula, N. Pachler, & A. Kukulska-Hulme (Eds.), Researching mobile learning. London: Peter Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Naismith, L., Lonsdale, P., Vavoula, G., & Sharples, M. (2004). Literature review on mobile learning, NESTA Futurelab Report No 11, Bristol.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Malley, C. E. (Ed.) (1995). Computer Supported Collaborative Learning. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Malley, C., Langton, S., Anderson, A., Doherty-Sneddon, G., & Bruce, V. (1996). Comparison of face-to-face and video mediated interaction. Interacting with Computers, 8, 177–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paavola, S., & Hakkarainen, K. (2005). The knowledge creation metaphor – An emergent epistemological approach to learning. Science & Education, 14, 535–557.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reiser, B. J., Spillane, J. P., & Steinmuller, F., Sorsa, D., Carney, K., & Kyza, E. (2000). Investigating the mutual adaptation process in teachers’ design of technology-infused curricula. In B. Fishman & S. O’Conner-Divelbiss (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference of the Learning Sciences (pp. 342–349), Erlbaum, Mahwah.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scanlon, E., Blake, C., Joiner, R., & O’Shea, T. (2005a). Technologically mediated complex problem solving on a statistics task. Learning, Media and Technology, 30(2), 165–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scanlon, E., Colwell, C., Cooper, M., & Di Paolo, T. (2004). Remote experiments, re-versioning and rethinking science learning. Computers & Education, 43(1–2), 153–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scanlon, E., & Issroff, K. (2005b). Activity theory and higher education: Evaluating learning technologies. Journal of Computers Assisted Learning, 20(6), 430–439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scanlon, E., Issroff, K., & Murphy, P. (1998b). Collaborations in a primary classroom: Mediating science activities through new technology. In K. Littleton & P. Light (Eds.), Learning with computers: Analysing productive interaction. Routledge: London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scanlon, E., & Jones, A. (in preparation). Investigating personal inquiry: An activity theory approach.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scanlon, E., Jones, A., Butcher, P., Greenberg, J., Ross, S., Taylor, J., et al. (1998a). Learning with computers: Experiences of evaluation. Computers & Education, 30(1/2), 9–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scanlon, E., Jones, A., & Waycott, J. (2005b). Mobile technologies: Prospects for their use in learning in informal science settings. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 21(5), 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scanlon, E., Murphy, P., Hodgson, B., & Whitelegg, E. (1992). A case study approach to studying collaboration in primary science classrooms. In H. Foot, C. J. Howe, A. Anderson, A. Tolmie, & A. Warden (Eds.), Group and Interactive Learning. Southampton: Computational Mechanics Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scanlon, E., Murphy, P., Issroff, K,. with Hodgson, B., & Whitelegg, E. (1996). Collaboration in primary science classrooms: Learning about evaporation, In G. Cottrell (Ed.), Proceedings of the Eighteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 295–300), July 12–15, University of California, San Diego, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scanlon, E., O’Shea, T., Smith, R., & Joiner, R. (2001). Technological mediation of science: Statistics and synchronous collaboration: Ark, Shark and Kansas. In R. Joiner (Ed.), Rethinking collaborative learning. London: Free Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scanlon, E., O’Shea, T., Smith, R. B., & Li, Y. (1997). Supporting the Distributed Synchronous Learning of Probability: learning from an experiment. In R. Hall, N. Miyake, & N. Enyedy (Eds.), Proceedings of CSCL97 The Second International Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning (pp. 224–230), Toronto, December 10–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scanlon, E., O’Shea, T., Smith, R., O’Malley, C., & Taylor, J. (1993). Running in the rain-can a shared simulation help to decide? Physics Education, 28, 107–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, R. (1992). A prototype futuristic technology for distance education. In T. O’Shea & E. Scanlon (Eds.), New developments in educational technology. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, R., O’Shea, T., O’Malley, C., Scanlon, E., & Taylor, J. (1991). Preliminary experiments with a distributed, multi-media problem solving environment. In J. M. Bowers & S. D. Benford (Eds.), Studies in computer supported cooperative work: theory, practice and design. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suthers, D. (2006). Technology affordances for intersubjective meaning making: A research agenda for CSCL. International Journal of Computer Supported Collaboration, 1(3), 315–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suthers, D., Dwyer, N., Medina, R., & Vatrapu, R. (2007). A framework for eclectic analysis of collaborative interaction. In C. Chinn, G. Erkens, & S. Puntambekar (Eds.), The computer supported collaborative learning (CSCL) conference 2007 (pp. 694–703). New Brunswick: International Society of the Learning Sciences.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, J., O’Shea, T., O’Malley, C., Scanlon, E., & Smith, R. (1991). Discourse and harmony: Preliminary findings in a case study of multi-media problem-solving. Paper presented at the Conference on Problems of Support, Survival and Culture, Amsterdam, April, 15–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). The collected works of L  S Vygotsky. New York: Plenum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waycott, J. (2004). The appropriation of PDAs as learning and workplace tools,’ Open University, unpublished PhD thesis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waycott, J., Jones, A., & Scanlon, E. (2005). PDAs as lifelong learning tools: An activity theory based analysis. Learning, Media and Technology, 30(2), 107–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Thanks are due to the adults and young people involved in our studies of computer supported collaboration. Thanks are also due to colleagues involved in this work over the past 20 years including Tim O’Shea, Randall Smith, Josie Taylor, Richard Joiner, Canan Blake, Kim Issroff and Ann Jones and Jenny Waycott. Thanks are also due to current colleagues at the Open University and University of Nottingham on the Personal Inquiry project. Figures 15.1 and 15.3 are reproduced with permission from Scanlon et al. (2005) Technology Mediated Complex Problem Solving on a Statistics Task, Learning Media and Technology, 30(2) 165–183 http://www.informaworld.com

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Educational Technology, Open University, Milton Keynes, Bucks, MK, 7 6AA, UK

    Eileen Scanlon

Authors
  1. Eileen Scanlon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eileen Scanlon .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Wisconsin Center for Education Research, University of Wisconsin-Madison, W. Johnson Street 1025, Madison, 53706-1796, Wisconsin, USA

    Sadhana Puntambekar

  2. Dept. Educational Sciences, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 2, Utrecht, 3584 CS, Netherlands

    Gijsbert Erkens

  3. Graduate School of Education, Rutgers University, Seminary Place 10, New Brunswick, 08901, New Jersey, USA

    Cindy Hmelo-Silver

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Scanlon, E. (2011). Analyzing Productive Interactions in CSCL: Collaborations, Computers and Contradictions. In: Puntambekar, S., Erkens, G., Hmelo-Silver, C. (eds) Analyzing Interactions in CSCL. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Series, vol 12. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-7710-6_15

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation