The situated dynamics of peer group interaction: an introduction to an analytic framework

Abstract

This paper introduces a descriptive system of analysis of peer group interaction. The method takes a dynamic and process-oriented approach to interaction which is seen as socially and situationally developed in students' moment-by-moment interactions. By concentrating on individual and group functioning, the method aims at highlighting the situated dynamics of peer group interaction and learning. The method consists of a three-dimensional analysis of peer group interaction by focusing on the functions of verbal interaction, and the nature of cognitive processing and social processing. These are investigated with the help of micro-analytical maps drawn out from the data based on video recordings, transcriptions, observations, interviews, and questionnaires. In the first part of the paper the theoretical and methodological background of the analysis will be discussed. That is followed by an introduction to the analysis method highlighted with empirical examples. The paper ends with a reflective analysis of the method.

Introduction

The social and contextual nature of human learning has received a great emphasis in recent research on learning and instruction (Anderson, Reder & Simon, 1997; Greeno, 1997). More attention is paid to the practices, processes and conditions leading to the social construction of knowledge in different learning situations (Fisher, 1993; Lemke, 1990; Palincsar, 1986; Tuyay, Jennings & Dixon, 1995). The focus of analysis is being extended from external factors influencing learning processes and achievements to the student's participation and evolving interpretations of the learning activity (Grossen, 1994; Perret-Clermont, Perret & Bell, 1991). In the midst of these changes in emphasis, new methodological questions concerning the analysis of social activity and learning have arisen. Questions to which researchers try to find answers are, for example; How to show qualitative differences within and between interactive activities across learning contexts and arrangements? Upon what criteria should such judgments be made? and How applicable are the methods used? (Westgate & Hughes, 1997).

This paper introduces a descriptive system of analysis for investigating the dynamics of peer group interaction. The analysis framework has emerged as a result of a number of studies we have conducted of primary-aged students' interactions whilst working in peer groups on various educational tasks both in Finland and in Britain (Fourlas & Wray, 1990; Kumpulainen, 1994, Kumpulainen, 1996; Kumpulainen & Mutanen, 1998). The main goal in these studies has been to investigate the nature of students' social activity, particularly verbal interaction in different learning situations. The initial development of the method concentrated on the functions of students' verbal interaction as a basis for investigation of students' roles as communicators and learners in teacher-centered and peer-group centered classrooms (Fourlas & Wray, 1990, Kumpulainen, 1996). The functional analysis method was later piloted, modified and applied by Kumpulainen (1994), Kumpulainen (1996)in a study which investigated students' social activity during the process of collaborative writing with a word processor. Due to its fine-grained categorizations, the functional analysis method was considered to give a structured overview of the nature and quality of students' verbal interaction in this learning context. Despite the potentials of the analysis method, in our recent studies of peer group learning we found the functional analysis inadequate to unravel the complexities of socially shared learning processes. Firstly, there seemed to be a need to develop a descriptive system of analysis which takes a more holistic and multidimensional perspective to interaction. Consequently, the analysis of verbal interaction alone seemed not to serve this goal. Secondly, it seemed important that more attention be paid to the moment-by-moment character of interaction to highlight the situated processes of knowledge construction within peer groups. Thirdly, it seemed important to take the individual and the group as units of analysis in order to investigate the types and forms of participation within peer groups. In addition to methodological developments, there seemed to be a need to develop more efficient models of interaction data presentation.

In the analysis method we have currently been developing, the dynamics of peer group interaction are approached from three analytic dimensions. The first dimension of the analysis, entitled the functional analysis, investigates the character and purpose of student utterances in peer group interaction. It characterizes the communicative strategies used by participants in social activity. The second dimension, cognitive processing, examines the ways in which students approach and process learning tasks in their social activity. It aims at highlighting students' working strategies and situated positions towards learning, knowledge and themselves as problem solvers. The third dimension of the analysis, social processing, focuses on the nature of social relationships that are developed in students' social activity. This includes examining the types and forms of student participation in peer groups. Before highlighting the analytical framework with some empirical examples, we shall firstly discuss the theoretical and methodological background of the method. The paper ends with a reflective analysis of the method and considers its possible research applications.

Recent views of learning emphasize its social and situated nature regarding the construction of knowledge both as an interpersonal and intrapersonal process. Learning is seen to take place as the result of the individual's active involvement and participation in situated social practices and not as the result of knowledge transmission. Views originating from the Piagetian theory of learning stress the importance of social processes in the individual's knowledge building (Perret-Clermont et al., 1991; Piaget, 1970; Teasley & Roschelle, 1993; Tudge & Rogoff, 1989). Cognitive conflicts created by divergent points of view and their resolution in peer interactions are seen as affecting intrapersonal processes (Doise & Mugny, 1984). Moreover, social learning contexts are found to promote explaining to others and self-explanations often leading to cognitive gains (Schwartz, 1995). Consequently, social modes of working are regarded as creating effective learning situations for students to express, discover and construct their knowledge structures at a more abstract level than whilst working on the same problem alone (Light, Littleton, Messer & Joiner, 1994; Schwartz, 1995).

Sociocultural perspectives, which view learning from the cultural point of view, emphasize the role of social interaction in the movement from interpersonal to intrapersonal functioning (van der Veer & Valsiner, 1994; Vygotsky, 1962, Vygotsky, 1978; Wertsch, 1985). The social construction of knowledge is regarded as taking place by participating in activities guided by adults or more competent peers (Rogoff, 1990). Thus, social processes are seen as giving rise to individual processes, which in turn are both seen as being mediated by tools created by the culture. According to sociocultural perspectives, the development of mind is related to both biological development and to the appropriation of cultural heritage which works as a mediating tool for humans to interact with each other and with the physical world (Cole, 1996; Wertsch, 1991).

In sociocultural perspectives on learning, particular emphasis is put on the mediation of action through tools on the development of the mind (Cole & Wertsch, 1997; Harré & Gillett, 1994; Vygotsky, 1962, Vygotsky, 1978; Wertsch, 1985, Wertsch, 1991). Semiotic artifacts are defined as cultural amplifiers which are central to the appropriation of knowledge through representational activity by the developing individual (John-Steiner & Mahn, 1996). Although language is seen as one of the main sources of mediational means, they also include various other cultural artifacts such as different symbol systems and schemes, maps and works of art (Cole & Wertsch, 1997). By stressing the interdependence of social and individual processes in the co-construction of knowledge, sociocultural approaches view semiotic tools as personal and social resources, and, hence, uniting the link between the social and the individual (Vygotsky, 1962, Vygotsky, 1978).

In the light of sociocultural perspectives and numerous theorists of language and meaning (e.g. Bakhtin, 1981, Bakhtin, 1986; Bruner, 1990; Halliday & Hasan, 1989; Lemke, 1990; Vygotsky, 1962) interaction implies communication, social meaning construction, which is socially situated and which sustains social relations. Therefore, explorations between interaction and learning need to concentrate on the interpretation of meanings and purposes in interaction situations. This interpretation should consider the immediate social situation as well as the sociocultural context of the activity (Bakhtin, 1986; Vygotsky, 1978; Wertsch, 1991).

The importance of considering the interdependency between individual and social environment has been pointed out by a number of researchers working within the socioconstructivist and sociocultural framework (e.g. Grossen, 1994; Light & Perret-Clermont, 1991; Rogoff, 1990; Wertsch, 1985, Wertsch, 1991). According to these views, the nature of individuals' activity and cognitive performance cannot be isolated from its social and cultural contexts. The considerations of the dialogical and dynamic relationship between individual and environment have led to the situative view of learning (Brown, Collins & Duguid, 1989; Greeno, Smith & Moore, 1993; Greeno, 1997; Lave & Wenger, 1991) which focuses on the development of participation in valued social practices and on learner identity rather than on individuals' knowledge and contexts of performance.

The notion of context should not only be limited to the physical environment. Instead a more dynamic approach is necessary. This holds that contexts are actively created in situated interactions: They are continuously shaped by social and interactional meanings as well as by participants perceptions and interpretations of the situation (Edwards & Potter, 1992; Grossen, 1994; Lemke, 1990). Schubauer-Leoni and Grossen (1993)highlight the multidimensional nature of contexts by identifying three different levels: the socio/cultural, institutional and interindividual contexts. They argue for their recognition in the analysis of the complex relationship between an individual's activity and social context, both at theoretical and methodological levels.

The value of peer group learning is widely recognized due to its positive effects on academic achievement as well as affective and social outcomes (Cohen, 1994; Sharan & Shachar, 1988). Peer group activity is seen as giving students opportunities for self-reflection and joint construction of knowledge (Forman, 1989). Despite the potentials of peer group learning, it appears that we are still remarkably ignorant about the dynamics and processes of peer group interaction and how these are related to student learning. The vast majority of studies have focused on the effectiveness of peer group learning methods as compared to other instructional methods and minimal attention is paid to students' interactions within learning groups (Cohen, 1994). Consequently, a greater number of descriptive studies and adequate methodologies are needed in order to shed light onto the “black box” of peer group learning, i.e. the dynamics and mechanisms of socially shared learning activity.

Different dimensions are present in peer group interaction which are linked to the sociocultural context of the activity as well as to the interpretations and meanings created in the immediate context. The dimensions of interaction are also related to the participants' socio-cognitive and emotional processes, including their perceptions of the aims of the activity in question (Grossen, 1994). Vion (1992)when characterizing the complexity of interaction situations introduces the concept of heterogenous interactive space. This refers to the social, cognitive and interactive roles and contexts which interactors have to negotiate in order to achieve a joint understanding (cf. Grossen, 1994).

Although verbal interaction plays an important role in the construction of common understanding between the interactors (Edwards & Mercer, 1987), a shared understanding may in some situations be achieved without verbal communication. Being in the same task situation with others and sharing the task and its tools as well as the whole process of problem solving can create a joint collaboration space for the participants (Teasley & Roschelle, 1993). Studies of young children have shown that they often use non-verbal communication to share meanings and achieve interpersonal co-ordination of actions in social play (cf. Verba, 1994). Also, a study investigating peer interaction during the process of collaborative writing with a word processor showed that the actual computer tool played a role in the construction of joint understanding between primary-aged children (Kumpulainen, 1996). Methodologically there are problems in interpreting non-verbal communication, but some limitations may be overcome by using triangulated research methods to focus on peer interactive dynamics as a whole (Verba, 1994; Westgate & Hughes, 1997). Student interviews, particularly stimulated recall interviews, in addition to observations, and transcriptions of verbal interactions can provide valuable information about the student's cognitive, social and emotional processes, and consequently increase understanding of social activity from a holistic perspective.

Peer group interaction has already been studied quite extensively in different educational contexts. The research objectives and methodological solutions have also been diverse, being linked with the research goals and theoretical perspectives adopted by the researchers (see e.g. Edwards & Westgate, 1994for a review). One large group of studies focusing on peer interaction from the educational perspective is located in the systematic tradition, often called as the process-product-studies of peer interaction (e.g. Joiner, Messer, Light & Littleton, 1995, Barnes and Todd, 1995; Light et al., 1994; King, 1989; Teasley, 1995; Tudge, 1992; Webb, Troper & Fall, 1995). In these studies, peer interaction is analyzed with coding schemes which categorize interaction into pre-defined categories. Variables like student achievement and performance are statistically linked to the frequency of categories as identified in the data. Usually, the development of the actual interaction process or meaning construction in interaction is not the prime interest, but the focus is rather on some specific features of the interaction and their relationship to student learning or achievement. Consequently, the temporal process of interaction is not highlighted by such studies. The situated nature of interaction also often receives only cursory inspection. One advantage of the process-product studies is that they enable the analysis of large amounts of data and use of publicly-verifiable criteria to make the categorizations.

Two of the most well known researchers of peer group talk and learning are Barnes and Todd (1977), Barnes and Todd (1995)who developed an analytic method for studying peer group talk. Their system of analysis was “grounded” in the data, as opposed to having been a pre-existing grid. Consequently, the system tries to take account of the context in which peer talk occurs. In their analysis Barnes and Todd were interested in the actual process of interaction. They were interested in the ways students developed and constructed knowledge without direct teacher presence. In their analysis, a distinction is made between interactive and social aspects of speech events. This was realized by a two-level parallel analysis which at the first level focuses on the coherence of the discourse and at the second level concentrates on the social skills and cognitive strategies employed by the students in their discourse. While conducting their study on peer group talk across a range of discussion tasks, Barnes and Todd realized how difficult it was to identify logical relationships from peer interaction since these are more often left implicit than given a verbal form. The fact that Barnes and Todd had only tape-recordings of peer talk made the analysis even more difficult in terms of logical development. Despite some limitations found in the analytical system and tools used for data collection, Barnes and Todd's work makes an important contribution to the analysis of peer talk since it unites ideas from discourse and conversational analysis with research on learning and instruction. Particularly, with their definitions of content frames and interaction frames it is possible to investigate how students bring their frame of reference to the interaction situation and how these frames are jointly negotiated and developed.

Many other methods of analysis of peer group interaction, either with distinct categories or more interpretative “modes”, have been developed in the past twenty years. To review all of them in one paper would be impossible and not worthwhile. One recent analytic approach which has contributed to our understanding of children's talk during small group learning is the one developed by Fisher (1993), Mercer, 1994, Mercer, 1996, and Phillips (1990)and by the researchers involved in the SLANT project (see Mercer, Phillips & Somekh, 1991). What is interesting in this approach is that it tries to investigate how children use talk to think together, thus, it uses a group as a unit of analysis, not individual children. By taking a socio-cultural approach to children's talk, it tries to show that particular ways of talking permit certain social modes of thinking. The analytic framework was derived from their analyses of children's talk during collaborative peer group learning with computers and it includes three distinct modes of talk which characterize different ways of thinking together. These are (1) Disputational mode, characterized by disagreement and individualized decision making, (2) Cumulative mode, consisting of positive but uncritical decision making, and (3) Exploratory mode, which is seen as the most effective mode of speaking in fostering critical thinking and cognitive development (Mercer, 1996). It is characterized by constructive and critical engagements, including argumentation and hypothesis testing. Theoretically, this analytical framework makes an important contribution towards increasing understanding of the different modes of talk and social thinking in peer group situations. One of the limitations of this method can be found in that the unit of analysis is the group—the method does not take into account individual students' participation in the “social modes of thinking”. Consequently, the method does not highlight how the different types of social thinking are actually constructed within peer groups. Moreover, by concentrating mainly on students' talk, the analysis may not always give a complete picture of the nature of knowledge construction in peer groups. Instead, a more dynamic approach to peer interaction is necessary, which focuses on the whole interactive contexts and their development, including non-verbal communication and the use of different tools, before we can unravel the mechanisms of learning in peer group activity.

In this paper we propose a descriptive system of analysis for investigating the situated dynamics of peer group interaction. Of particular importance are the mechanisms of social and cognitive dimensions of peer group activity. In addition, the forms, patterns and relationship of peer group interaction with problem solving and learning are considered. The theoretical grounding of the analysis framework is informed by the sociocultural and socioconstructivist perspectives to interaction and learning (Cole, 1996, Barnes and Todd, 1995, Mercer, 1994, Mercer, 1996; Resnick, Levine & Teasley, 1991; Wertsch, 1985Wertsch, 1991), whereas the methodological solutions presented are greatly influenced by the work of Barnes and Todd (1977), Barnes and Todd (1995), Mercer (1994, 1996)as well as by interactional ethnographers (Green & Wallat, 1981; Green & Mayer, 1991; Tuyay et al., 1995).

In the method, learning is seen to take place as a result of individuals' active participation in the practices of the social environment. Learning is viewed as an interactional process that requires an understanding of language and other semiotic tools as both personal and social resources (Cole, 1996; Halliday & Hasan, 1989; Wells & Chang-Wells, 1992). Peer interaction is treated as a dynamic process in which language and other semiotic tools are used as instruments of communication and learning. Interaction is seen as a complex social phenomenon which is composed of non-verbal and social properties in addition to its verbal characteristics. Peer discourse itself is not treated as representing a person's inner cognitive world, nor even as descriptive of an outer reality, but rather as a tool-in-action shaped by participants' culturally-based definitions of the situation (Edwards, 1993; Edwards & Potter, 1992).

The application of the method is realized with a microanalysis of evolving peer interactions by focusing on three analytic dimensions, namely the functions of verbal interaction, cognitive processing and social processing. Whereas the functional analysis concentrates on students' verbal language, the analyses of students' cognitive and social processing focus on interactive dynamics as they occur across the participants. Consequently, a group is taken as a unit of analysis. The three dimensions are treated separately for analytic purposes, although it is recognized that they are closely linked together in a complex way.

The functional analysis of students' verbal interaction focuses on the purposes for which verbal language is used in a given context. It investigates and highlights the communicative strategies applied by individual students whilst taking part in interaction (Halliday & Hasan, 1989). Analysis of this nature often concentrates on the illocutionary force of an utterance, i.e. on its functional meaning (Austin, 1962; Edwards & Westgate, 1994). The functions for which students use their oral language are closely linked with the topic of discussion as well as with the individuals' expectations and evolving interpretations of the situation shaped by the sociocultural context of the activity. The functions of language used in the course of interaction serve both intra- and interpersonal purposes: On the one hand, the purposes and intentions carried by means of verbal language serve an ideational, i.e. cognitive function. On the other hand, they serve an interpersonal function relating to the personal and social relationships between the interactors (Halliday & Hasan, 1989).

The identification of language functions in peer interaction takes place on the basis of implicature, i.e. what a speaker can imply, suggest or mean may be different to what the speaker literally says. Consequently, the functions are not identified on the basis of linguistic form. Rather, they are identified in context in terms of their retrospective and prospective effects on the actual discourse both in terms of content and form. Data gathered by means of observations and student interviews also give understanding to the functions for which students use their verbal language in interaction. The functions of peer interaction are the minimum units analyzed in the system. They are identified on an utterance basis and defined in terms of source, purpose and situated conversational meaning. An utterance is viewed as a meaningful unit of speech, i.e. a message unit. The boundary between each utterance is linguistically marked by contextualization cues. Given that an utterance may serve multiple functions, more than one function can be recorded for each utterance.

Examples of language functions we have often identified in peer group interaction across learning situations are the Informative, Expositional, Reasoning, Evaluative, Interrogative, Responsive, Organizational, Judgmental (agrees/disagrees), Argumentational, Compositional, Revision, Dictation, Reading aloud, Repetition, Experiential, and Affectional functions. Some of these functions describe the nature of interaction more from the activity point of view (e.g. dictation, reading aloud), whereas others take a more interpretative/cognitive (e.g. informative, reasoning, evaluative) or social perspective (e.g. affectional, responsive, judgmental) on the analysis of verbal interaction. However, none of the functions could be clearly seen as only reflecting one of these dimensions. Consequently, each function in the framework is regarded as reflecting the social-cognitive-discursive actions of the participants as they verbally interact in their social activity. The functions in the system are defined further in Table 1. The language functions used in the course of joint problem solving often differ across situations and contexts, thus these functions presented in the analytic framework should not be understood as fixed, pre-defined categories. Instead, the functions must be situationally defined for each interaction situation on a post hoc basis.

The analysis of cognitive processing examines the ways in which students' approach and process learning tasks in their social activity. It aims at highlighting students' working strategies and situated positions towards knowledge, learning and themselves as problem solvers. In the method, cognitive processes are seen as dynamic and contextual in nature, being socially constructed in students' evolving interactions in the sociocultural context of activity.

In the analytical framework we have distinguished three broad modes to characterize the nature of students' cognitive processing in peer group activity: Procedural processing refers to the routine execution of tasks without thorough planning or thinking. Ideas are not developed, rather they are cumulated or disputed without constructive judgments or criticism. The students' activity is often product-oriented and concentrates on procedural handling of information. Interpretative or exploratory processing, on the other hand, refers to a situation during which thinking is made visible through language or other tools and the whole activity is focused on strategies, planning, and hypothesis testing. The students' activity reflects their deep engagement and interest in the problem solving task. Off-task activity refers to a situation during which the students' activity does not focus on the task, e.g. playing around, discussing break time activities, “absent minded” activity. It is important to recognize that these three broad analytical modes are used as heuristic devices rather than distinct categories in which students' cognitive processing can be easily coded. Rather, the modes are reflected in different ways in different contexts and situations and, hence, require situational definitions.

The analysis of social processing aims at characterizing the social relationship and types of participation in peer groups. The different modes in which social processing is often constructed in peer group interaction are collaborative, tutoring, argumentative, individualistic, dominative, conflict, and confusion modes. The latter characterizes interaction during which there is an obvious misunderstanding or lack of shared understanding between the children. The conflict mode reflects disagreement, usually at a social level. The dominative mode reflects the distribution of power and status in the peer group. The individualistic and dominative modes are contrasts to collaborative interaction. The individualistic mode implies that students are not developing their ideas together but rather working individually in the group. The dominative reflects imbalance in students' social status and power. The argumentative and tutoring modes of interaction characterize the nature of collaboration between the participants. In this sense they can be regarded as sub-modes of collaborative activity. The argumentative mode implies constructive interaction in which students negotiate their differing understandings in a rational way by giving judgments and justifications. This often leads to a shared understanding of the situation. The tutoring mode shows students helping and explaining for the purpose of assisting the other to understand the matter at hand. In addition, collaboration includes interaction in which participants attempt to achieve a mutual understanding of the situation, ideas are jointly negotiated, and discourse is coherent. In collaborative interaction participants often create bi-directional zones of proximal development assisting one another (Forman, 1989).

It must be noted that, apart from the functional analysis of peer group interaction, the unit of analysis for the different modes of cognitive and social processing is not defined by distinct rules, such as an utterance basis. Instead the units of analysis for the modes of cognitive and social processing are based on their development in peer interaction on a moment-by-moment basis (see Table 2, Table 3). In other respects the three dimensions on which the analytical framework concentrates, all emerge from the data as the result of the researchers' and, when possible, also the interactors' interpretations of the situation. The analysis method is summarized in Table 1.