nach oben

International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning

Erschienen in:

01.03.2012

Making rounds: The routine work of the teacher during collaborative learning with computers

verfasst von: Christian Greiffenhagen

Erschienen in: International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning | Ausgabe 1/2012

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

This paper provides a detailed analysis of the work of the teacher during collaborative-learning activities. Whilst the importance of the teacher for the success of collaborative learning has frequently been recognized in the CSCL literature, there is nevertheless a curious absence of detailed studies that describe how the teacher intervenes in pupils’ collaborative-learning activities, which may be a reflection of the ambivalent status of teachers within a field that has tried to transfer authority from teachers to pupils. Through a close analysis of different types of teacher interventions into pupils working in pairs with a storyboarding tool, this paper argues, firstly, that concerns of classroom management and pedagogy are typically intertwined and, secondly, that although there may be tensions between the perspectives of teachers and pupils these do not take the form of antagonistic struggles. The paper concludes that it may be time to renew our interest in the work of teachers in the analysis of collaborative-learning activities.

Vorheriger Artikel Ethnomethodologically informed

Nächster Artikel How gamers manage aggression: Situating skills in collaborative computer games

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

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!

Jetzt informieren

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!

Jetzt informieren

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!

Jetzt informieren

There is a long-standing debate on the differences and similarities between ‘collaborative’, ‘cooperative’, or ‘collective’ learning (see, e.g., Pea 1996; Dillenbourg 1999; Koschmann 1999). I am using the term ‘collaborative learning with computers’ not to designate a particular pedagogical approach, but as a way to characterize situations in which the learning is organized through computer-mediated collaborative activities involving pairs or small groups of learners.

In this situation the pupils are working on their own rather than in pairs.

http://www.kar2ouche.com/

In a post-lesson interview the teacher remarked to me that the pupils are “so taken with the pictures which is great (.) but they’re not getting their reasons in”.

Barnes, D., & Todd, F. (1977). Communication and learning in small groups. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Birmingham, P., Davies, C., & Greiffenhagen, C. (2002). Turn to face the Bard: Making sense of three-way interactions between teacher, pupils and technology in the classroom. Education, Communication & Information, 2(2–3), 139–161.CrossRef

Button, G. (Ed.). (1993). Technology in working order: Studies of work, interaction, and technology. London: Routledge.

Button, G., & Sharrock, W. W. (1996). Project work: The organisation of collaborative design and development in software engineering. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 5(4), 369–386.CrossRef

Çakir, M. P., Zemel, A., & Stahl, G. (2009). The joint organization of interaction within a multimodal CSCL medium. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4(2), 115–149.CrossRef

Cazden, C., John, V., & Hymes, D. (Eds.). (1972). Functions of language in the classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.

Chiu, M. M. (2004). Adapting teacher interventions to student needs during cooperative learning: How to improve student problem solving and time on-task. American Educational Research Journal, 41(2), 365–399.CrossRef

Cohen, E. C. (1994 [1986]). Designing groupwork: Strategies for the heterogeneous classroom (2nd Ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.

Colella, V. (2002). Participatory simulations: Building collaborative understanding through immersive dynamic modelling. In T. Koschmann, R. Hall, & N. Miyake (Eds.), CSCL2: Carrying forward the conversation (pp. 357–391). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Coulter, J. (2001). Human practices and the observability of the ‘macro-social’. In T. R. Schatzki, K. Knorr-Cetina, & E. von Savigny (Eds.), The practice turn in contemporary theory (pp. 29–41). London: Routledge.

Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Dekker, R., & Elshout-Mohr, M. (2004). Teacher interventions aimed at mathematical level raising during collaborative learning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 56(1), 39–65.CrossRef

Dillenbourg, P. (1999). Introduction: What do you mean by ‘collaborative learning’? In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Collaborative learning: Cognitive and computational approaches (pp. 1–19). Amsterdam: Pergamon.

Dillenbourg, P. (2008). Integrating technologies into educational ecosystems. Distance Education, 29(2), 127–140.CrossRef

Dillenbourg, P., & Jermann, P. (2010). Technology for classroom orchestration. In M. S. Khine & I. M. Saleh (Eds.), New science of learning: Cognition, computers and collaboration in education (pp. 525–552). New York: Springer.

Ding, M., Li, X., Piccolo, D., & Kulm, G. (2007). Teacher interventions in cooperative-learning mathematics classes. Journal of Educational Research, 100(3), 162–175.CrossRef

Emerson, R. M., & Pollner, M. (1976). Dirty work designations: Their features and consequences in a psychiatric setting. Social Problems, 23(3), 243–254.CrossRef

Ford, C. E. (1999). Collaborative construction of task activity: Coordinating multiple resources in a high school physics lab. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 32(4), 369–408.CrossRef

Garcia, A. C., & Jacobs, J. B. (1999). The eyes of the beholder: Understanding the turn-taking system in quasi-synchronous computer-mediated communication. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 32(4), 337–367.CrossRef

Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

Garfinkel, H. (2002). Ethnomethodology’s program: Working out Durkheim’s aphorism. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.

Garfinkel, H., & Sacks, H. (1970). On formal structures of practical action. In J. C. McKinney & E. A. Tiryakian (Eds.), Theoretical sociology: Perspectives and developments (pp. 338–366). New York: Appleton.

Gibson, R. (1998). Teaching Shakespeare. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gillies, R. M. (2004). The effects of communication training on teachers’ and students’ verbal behaviours during cooperative learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 41(3), 257–279.CrossRef

Gillies, R. M., Ashman, A. F., & Terwel, J. (Eds.). (2008). The teacher’s role in implementing cooperative learning in the classroom. New York: Springer.

Glenn, P. J., Koschmann, T., & Conlee, M. (1999). Theory presentation and assessment in a problem-based learning group. Discourse Processes, 27(2), 119–133.CrossRef

Greiffenhagen, C. (2008). Unpacking tasks: The fusion of new technology with instructional work. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 17(1), 35–62.CrossRef

Greiffenhagen, C. (forthcoming). Visual grammar in practice: Negotiating the arrangement of speech bubbles in storyboards. Forthcoming in Semiotica.

Greiffenhagen, C., & Sharrock, W. (2008). Where do the limits of experience lie? Abandoning the dualism of objectivity and subjectivity. History of the Human Sciences, 21(3), 70–93.CrossRef

Greiffenhagen, C., & Sharrock, W. (forthcoming). Does mathematics look certain in the front, but fallible in the back? Forthcoming in Social Studies of Science doi:10.1177/0306312711424789.

Greiffenhagen, C., & Watson, R. (2009). Visual repairables: Analysing the work of repair in human-computer interaction. Visual Communication, 8(1), 65–90.CrossRef

Gumperz, J., & Hymes, D. (Eds.). (1972). Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of communication. New York: Hold, Rinehart & Winston.

Hammer, D. (2002). Powerful technology and powerful instruction. In T. Koschmann, R. Hall, & N. Miyake (Eds.), CSCL2: Carrying forward the conversation (pp. 399–403). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Heap, J. L. (1989a). Collaborative practices during word processing in a first grade classroom. In C. Emihovich (Ed.), Locating learning: Ethnographic perspectives on classroom research (pp. 263–288). Norwood: Ablex.

Heap, J. L. (1989b). Sociality and cognition in collaborative computer writing. In D. Bloome (Ed.), Classroom and literacy (pp. 135–157). Norwood: Ablex.

Heath, C., & Luff, P. (1992). Collaboration and control: Crisis management and multimedia technology in London underground line control rooms. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 1(1–2), 69–94.

Heath, C., Jirotka, M., Luff, P., & Hindmarsh, J. (1995). Unpacking collaboration: The interactional organisation of trading in a city dealing room. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 3(2), 147–165.CrossRef

Heath, C., Hindmarsh, J., & Luff, P. (2010). Video in qualitative research: Analysing social interaction in everyday life. London: Sage.

Hertz-Lazarowitz, R., & Shachar, H. (1990). Teachers’ verbal behaviour in cooperative and whole-class instruction. In S. Sharan (Ed.), Cooperative learning: Theory and research (pp. 77–94). New York: Praeger.

Hughes, E. C. (1971). The sociological eye: Selected papers. Chicago: Aldine.

Ivarsson, J. (2010). Developing the construction sight: Architectural education and technological change. Visual Communication, 9(2), 171–191.CrossRef

Johnson, D. W., & R. T. Johnson (1994 [1975]). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning (4th Ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Karlsson, G. (2010). Animation and grammar in science education: Learners’ construal of animated educational software. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5(2), 167–189.CrossRef

Kelly, G., Crawford, T., & Green, J. L. (2001). Common task and uncommon knowledge: Dissenting voices in the discursive construction of physics across small laboratory groups. Linguistics and Education, 12(2), 135–174.CrossRef

Koschmann, T. (Ed.). (1996). CSCL: Theory and practice of an emerging paradigm. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Koschmann, T. (1999). Computer support for collaboration and learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8(3&4), 495–497.

Koschmann, T., Glenn, P. J., & Conlee, M. (2000). When is a problem-based tutorial not a tutorial? Analyzing the tutor’s role in the emergence of a learning issue. In D. Evensen & C. Hmelo (Eds.), Problem-based learning: A research perspective on learning interaction (pp. 53–74). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Koschmann, T., Hall, R., & Miyake, N. (Eds.). (2002). CSCL 2: Carrying forward the conversation. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Koschmann, T., Stahl, G., & Zemel, A. (2007). The video analyst’s manifesto (or the implications of Garfinkel’s policies for studying instructional practice in design-based research). In R. Goldman, R. Pea, B. Barron, & S. J. Derry (Eds.), Video research in the learning sciences (pp. 133–143). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Lindwall, O., & Lymer, G. (2005). Vulgar competence, ethnomethodological indifference and curricular design. Proceedings of CSCL 2005 (Taipei, Taiwan, May 30–June 4, 2005), pp. 388–397.

Lindwall, O., & Lymer, G. (2008). The dark matter of lab work: Illuminating the negation of disciplined perception in mechanics. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17(2), 180–224.CrossRef

Luff, P., Hindmarsh, J., & Heath, C. (Eds.). (2000). Workplace studies: Recovering work practice and informing system design. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lymer, G., Ivarsson, J., & Lindwall, O. (2009). Contrasting the use of tools for presentation and critique: Some cases from architectural education. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4(4), 423–444.CrossRef

Lynch, M. (1997 [1979]). Preliminary notes on judges’ work: The judge as a constituent of courtroom ‘hearings’. In M. Travers & J. F. Manzo (Eds.), Law in action: Ethnomethodological and conversation analytic approaches to Law (pp. 99–130). Aldershot: Dartmouth.

Macbeth, D. H. (1990). Classroom order as practical action: The making and un-making of a quiet reproach. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 11(2), 189–214.CrossRef

Macbeth, D. H. (1991). Teacher authority as practical action. Linguistics and Education, 3(4), 281–313.CrossRef

Macbeth, D. H. (1992). Classroom ‘floors’: Material organizations as a course of affairs. Qualitative Sociology, 15(2), 123–150.CrossRef

Macbeth, D. H. (2003). Hugh Mehan’s Learning Lessons reconsidered: On the differences between the naturalistic and critical analysis of classroom discourse. American Educational Research Journal, 40(1), 239–280.CrossRef

McDermott, R. P., Gospodinoff, K., & Aron, J. (1978). Criteria for an ethnographically adequate description of concerted activities and their contexts. Semiotica, 24(3/4), 245–275.CrossRef

McHoul, A. W. (1978). The organization of turns at formal talk in the classroom. Language in Society, 7(1), 183–213.CrossRef

Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Mehan, H. (1989). Microcomputers in classrooms: Educational technology or social practice? Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 20(1), 4–22.CrossRef

Mercer, N., & Fisher, E. (1992). How do teachers help children to learn? an analysis of teachers’ interventions in computer-based activities. Learning and Instruction, 2(4), 339–355.CrossRef

O’Connor, M. C., & Michaels, S. (1993). Aligning academic task and participation status through revoicing: Analysis of a classroom discourse strategy. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 24(4), 318–335.CrossRef

Payne, G. C. F. (1976). Making a lesson happen: An ethnomethodological analysis. In M. Hammersley & P. Woods (Eds.), The process of schooling: A sociological reader (pp. 33–40). London: Routledge.

Payne, G. C. F., & Cuff, E. C. (Eds.). (1982). Doing teaching: The practical management of classrooms. London: Batsford.

Pea, R. D. (1996). Seeing what we build together: Distributed multimedia learning environments for transformative communications. In T. Koschmann (Ed.), CSCL: Theory and practice of an emerging paradigm (pp. 171–186). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Pea, R. D. (2004). The social and technological dimensions of scaffolding and related theoretical concepts for learning, education, and human activity. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 423–451.CrossRef

Roschelle, J. (1992). Learning by collaborating: Convergent conceptual change. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(3), 235–276.CrossRef

Roschelle, J., & Teasley, S. D. (1995). The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving. In C. O’Malley (Ed.), Computer supported collaborative learning (pp. 69–97). Berlin: Springer.CrossRef

Roth, W.-M. (1995). Affordances of computers in teacher-student interaction: The case of Interactive Physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(4), 329–347.CrossRef

Sacks, H. (1992). In G. Jefferson (Ed.), Lectures on conversation. Oxford: Blackwell.

Schegloff, E. A. (1996). Confirming allusions: Toward an empirical account of action. American Journal of Sociology, 102(1), 161–216.CrossRef

Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef

Schenkein, J. (1978). Sketch of an analytic mentality for the study of conversational interaction. In J. Schenkein (Ed.), Studies in the organization of conversational interaction (pp. 1–6). New York: Academic.

Sharrock, W. W., & Anderson, R. J. (1994). The user as a scenic feature of the design space. Design Studies, 15(1), 5–18.CrossRef

Sharrock, W. W., & Watson, D. R. (1988). Autonomy among social theories: The incarnation of social structures. In N. G. Fielding (Ed.), Actions and structure: Research methods and social theory (pp. 56–77). London: Sage.

Sørensen, E. (2009). The materiality of learning: Technology and knowledge in educational practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Stahl, G. (2006). Group cognition: Computer support for collaborative knowledge building. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Stahl, G. (Ed.). (2009). Studying virtual math teams. New York: Springer.

Suchman, L. A. (1987). Plans and situated actions: The problem of human-machine communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Urhahne, D., Schanze, S., Bell, T., Mansfield, A., & Holmes, J. (2010). Role of the teacher in computer-supported collaborative inquiry learning. International Journal of Science Education, 32(2), 221–243.CrossRef

Watson, R. (2009). Analysing practical and professional texts: A naturalistic approach. Farnham: Ashgate.

Webb, N. M., Nemer, K. M., & Ing, M. (2006). Small-group reflections: Parallels between teacher discourse and student behaviour in peer-directed groups. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(1), 63–119.CrossRef

Webb, N. M., Franke, M. L., De, T., Chan, A. G., Freund, D., Shein, P., et al. (2009). ‘Explain to your partner’: Teachers’ instructional practices and students’ dialogue in small groups. Cambridge Journal of Education, 39(1), 49–70.CrossRef

Zemel, A., Koschmann, T., LeBaron, C., & Feltovich, P. (2008). ‘What are we missing?’ Usability’s indexical ground. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 17(1), 63–85.CrossRef

Titel: Making rounds: The routine work of the teacher during collaborative learning with computers
verfasst von: Christian Greiffenhagen
Publikationsdatum: 01.03.2012
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning / Ausgabe 1/2012
Print ISSN: 1556-1607
Elektronische ISSN: 1556-1615
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-011-9134-8

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2012

Ethnomethodologically informed

Personal and shared experiences as resources for meaning making in a philosophy of science course

How gamers manage aggression: Situating skills in collaborative computer games

The role of teacher assistance on the effects of a macro-script in collaborative writing tasks

Linking teacher beliefs, practices and student inquiry-based learning in a CSCL environment: A tale of two teachers

The multivoicedness of game play: Exploring the unfolding of a student’s learning trajectory in a gaming context at school