Top

International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning

Published in:

01-09-2015

Learning to learn together with CSCL tools

Authors: Baruch B. Schwarz, Reuma de Groot, Manolis Mavrikis, Toby Dragon

Published in: International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning | Issue 3/2015

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config

AI-assisted search

Off

Abstract

In this paper, we identify Learning to Learn Together (L2L2) as a new and important educational goal. Our view of L2L2 is a substantial extension of Learning to Learn (L2L): L2L2 consists of learning to collaborate to successfully face L2L challenges. It is inseparable from L2L, as it emerges when individuals face problems that are too difficult for them. The togetherness becomes a necessity then. We describe the first cycle of a design-based research study aimed at promoting L2L2. We rely on previous research to identify collective reflection, mutual engagement and peer assessment as possible directions for desirable L2L2 practices. We describe a CSCL tool: the Metafora system that we designed to provide affordances for L2L2. Through three cases in which Metafora was used in classrooms, we describe the practices and mini-culture that actually developed. In all contexts, groups of students engaged either in mathematical problem solving or in scientific inquiry and argumentation. These cases show that L2L2 is a tangible educational goal, and that it was partially attained. We show how the experiments we undertook refined our view of L2L2 and may help in improving further educational practice.

previous article A Habermasian perspective on joint meaning making online: What does it offer and what are the difficulties?

next article Collaborative group engagement in a computer-supported inquiry learning environment

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Problem solving in mathematics and inquiry-based activities in science are structurally germane, although different traditions have been developed in science and mathematics. The most salient difference is that in science inquiry targets conclusions based on experience and/or on theory and that in mathematics, problem-solving targets proofs mostly relying on deductive steps. Another difference is that, in principle, in inquiry-based activities, the explorer sets his/her question, while in problem solving, the problem is given to the solver.

Barron, B. (2003). When smart groups fail. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 307–359.CrossRef

Bereiter, C. (2002). Education and mind in the knowledge age. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

Claxton, G. (2004). Teaching children to learn: Beyond flat-packs and fine words. Burning Issues in Primary Education No. 11 Birmingham: National Primary Trust.

Cobb, P., & Bauersfeld, H. (Eds.). (1995). The emergence of mathematical meaning: Interaction in classroom culture. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Cobb, P., Stephan, M., McClain, K., & Gravemeijer, K. (2001). Participating in classroom mathematical practices. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10(1&2), 113–164.CrossRef

Collins, A., Joseph, D., & Bielaczyc, K. (2004). Design research: Theoretical and methodological issues. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13, 15–42.CrossRef

de Groot, R., Dragon, T., Mavrikis, M., Harrer, A., Pfahler, K., McLaren, B., Wegerif, R., Kynigos, C., & Schwarz, B. B. (2013). The Metafora tool: Supporting learning to learn together. In N. Rummel, M. Kapur, M. Nathan, and S. Puntambekar (Eds.), See the world at a grain of sand: Learning across levels of space, time and scale (pp. 392–396).

Dochy, F. M. Segers, D. Sluijsmans (1999). The use of self-, peer and co-assessment in higher education: A review. Studies in Higher Education, 24(3).

Dragon, T., McLaren, B. M., Mavrikis, M., & Geraniou, E. (2012). Scaffolding collaborative learning opportunities: Integrating microworld use and argumentation. In L. Ardissono (Ed.), Advances in user modeling: Selected papers from UMAP 2011 workshops (pp. 18–30). Girona: Springer.CrossRef

Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133–156.CrossRef

Fischer, G., Nakakoji, K., Ostwald, J., Stahl, G., & Sumner, T. (1993). Embedding critics in design environments. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 8(4), 285–307.CrossRef

Fredriksson, U., & Hoskins, B. (2007). The development of learning to learn in a European context. Curriculum Journal, 18(2), 127–134.CrossRef

Geraniou, G., Mavrikis, M., Hoyles, C., & Noss, R. (2010). In B. Ubuz (Ed.), Students’ justification strategies on equivalence of quasialgebraic expressions (pp. 393–400). Ankara: Proceedings of the International Conference on Psychology of Mathematics Education.

Higgins, S., Wall, K., Baumfield, V., Hall, E., Leat, D. & Woolner, P. (2006). Learning to learn in schools phase 3 evaluation: Year two report. London: Campaign for Learning. http://www.campaign-for-learning.org.uk/projects/L2L/The%20Project/phase3/year2.htm

Kollar, I., & Fischer, F. (2010). Peer assessment as collaborative learning: A cognitive perspective. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 344–348.CrossRef

Kynigos, C., & Latsi, Μ. (2007). Turtle’s navigation and manipulation of geometrical figures constructed by variable processes in 3D simulated space. Informatics in Education, 6, 359–372.

Lee, E. Y. C., Chan, C. K. K., & van Aalst, J. (2006). Students assessing their own collaborative knowledge building. International Journal for Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1, 277–307.CrossRef

Loll, F., Pinkwart, N., Scheuer, O., McLaren, B.M. (2012). In: How tough should it be? Simplifying the development of argumentation systems using a configurable platform. Bentham Science Publishers.

Mavrikis, M., Noss, R., Hoyles, C., & Geraniou, E. (2011). Sowing the seeds of algebraic generalisation: Designing epistemic affordances for an intelligent microworld. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(1), 68–84.CrossRef

OECD (2004). Education at a glance: OECD indicators. OECD iLibrary.

Pólya, G. (1945). How to solve it: A new aspect of mathematical method (1st ed.). Princeton: Princeton.

Rojano, T. (1996). Developing algebraic aspects of problem solving within a spreadsheet environment. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRef

Rummel, N., & Spada, H. (2005). Learning to collaborate: An instructional approach to promoting collaborative problem solving in computer-mediated settings. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(2), 201–241.CrossRef

Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1999). Schools as knowledge building organizations. In D. Keating & C. Hertzman (Eds.), Today’s children, tomorrow’s society: The development of health and wealth in nations. New York: Guilford.

Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy, and technology. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 97–118). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Schoenfeld, A. H. (1985). Mathematical problem solving. New York: Academic.

Schwarz, B. B. (2007). Escalate: The White Book. www.escalate.org.il

Schwarz, B. B., & Asterhan, C. S. C. (2011). E-moderation of synchronous discussions in educational settings: A nascent practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20(3), 259–282.CrossRef

Schwarz, B. B., Schur, Y., Pensso, H., & Tayer, N. (2011). Perspective taking and argumentation for learning the day/night cycle. The International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 6(1), 113–138.CrossRef

Sluijsmans, D. M. A., Brand-Gruwel, S., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2002). Peer assessment training in teacher education: Effects on performance and perceptions. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 27(5), 443--454.

Stahl, G. (2006). Group cognition: Computer support for building collaborative knowledge. Acting with Technology Series. MIT Press.

Stahl, G. (2013). Translating euclid: Designing a human-centered mathematics. San Rafael, CA: Morgan & Claypool Publishers. Web: http://GerryStahl.net/elibrary/euclid.

Stahl, G. (2016). Constructing dynamic triangles together: The development of mathematical group cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Stahl, G., Koschmann, T., & Suthers, D. (2006). Computer-supported collaborative learning: An historical perspective. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 409–426). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Topping, K. (2003). Self- and peer assessment in school and university: Reliability, validity and utility. In M. Segers, F. Dochy, & E. Cacallar (Eds.), Optimising new modes of assessment: In search of qualities and standards (pp. 55–87). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRef

Topping, K. (2009). Peer assessment. Theory Into Practice, 48, 20–27.CrossRef

Webb, N. M. (2009). The teacher’s role in promoting collaborative dialogue in the classroom. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 1–28.

Wegerif, R. B. (2007). Dialogic, education and technology: Expanding the space of learning. New York: Springer.CrossRef

Wegerif, R. & De Laat, M. F. (2010). Reframing the teaching of higher order thinking for the network society. In S. Ludvigsen, A. Lund & R. Saljo (Eds.), Learning in social practices: ICT and new artefacts transformation of social and cultural practices. Routledge.

Wertsch, J. V. (1998). Mind as action. New York: Oxford University Press.

Yackel, E., & Cobb, P. (1996). Sociomathematical norms, argumentation and autonomy in mathematics. The Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 27, 458–477.CrossRef

Zhang, J., Scardamalia, M., Reeve, M., & Messina, R. (2009). Designs for collective cognitive responsibility in knowledge-building communities. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18, 7–44.CrossRef

Title: Learning to learn together with CSCL tools
Authors: Baruch B. Schwarz
Reuma de Groot
Manolis Mavrikis
Toby Dragon
Publication date: 01-09-2015
Publisher: Springer US
Published in: International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning / Issue 3/2015
Print ISSN: 1556-1607
Electronic ISSN: 1556-1615
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-015-9216-0

Springer Professional

Abstract

Please log in to get access to your license.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Other articles of this Issue 3/2015

Group-level formative feedback and metadiscourse

Naomi Miyake: 1949–2015

Collaborative group engagement in a computer-supported inquiry learning environment

Conceptualizing the intersubjective group

A Habermasian perspective on joint meaning making online: What does it offer and what are the difficulties?

Premium Partner