Weitere Artikel dieser Ausgabe durch Wischen aufrufen
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
This paper reports on a study of teacher support in experimental computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) settings where students engage with graphs in real-time labs within the context of school science. Real-time labs are digital devices and software connected to student-controlled sensors or probes that can measure and visualize data graphically. The empirical setting was a science project about ocean acidification (OA) where lower secondary school students conducted measurements of the pH value of water with increased concentrations of CO2. The analytical focus is on student–teacher interaction during group-work activities where the students carried out, reviewed and reported on the real-time lab experiment. The analyses show that students needed additional support from the teacher in interpreting the real-time graphs and in making connections between the graphic representation, the practical undertakings of the experiment and the underlying scientific phenomena. Most importantly, the study demonstrates the complexity of teacher support in CSCL settings and how this type of support intersects with the support provided by digital resources, peer collaboration and applied instructional design.
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten
Sie möchten Zugang zu diesem Inhalt erhalten? Dann informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:
Adams, D. D., & Shrum, J. W. (1990). The effects of microcomputer-based laboratory exercises on the acquisition of line graph construction and interpretation skills by high school biology students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(8), 777–787. CrossRef
Ainsworth, S. (2006). DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 16(3), 183–198. CrossRef
Ares, N., Stroup, W. M., & Schademan, A. R. (2009). The power of mediating artifacts in group-level development of mathematical discourses. Cognition and Instruction, 27(1), 1–24. CrossRef
Arnseth, H. C., & Krange, I. (2016). What happens when you push the button? Analyzing the functional dynamics of concept development in computer supported science inquiry. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 11(4), 479–502. CrossRef
Bezemer, J., & Kress, G. (2008). Writing in multimodal texts - A social semiotic account of designs for learning. Written Communication, 25(2), 166–195. CrossRef
Derry, S. J., Pea, R. D., Barron, B., Engle, R. A., Erickson, F., Goldman, R., et al. (2010). Conducting video research in the learning sciences: Guidance on selection, analysis, technology, and ethics. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(1), 3–53. CrossRef
Dillenbourg, P. (2013). Design for classroom orchestration. Computers & Education, 69, 485–492. CrossRef
Erkens, M., Bodemer, D., & Hoppe, H. U. (2016). Improving collaborative learning in the classroom: Text mining based grouping and representing. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 11(4), 387–415. CrossRef
Friedler, Y., & McFarlane, A. E. (1997). Data logging with portable computers, a study of the impact on graphing skills in secondary pupils. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 16(4), 527–550.
Furberg, A. (2016). Teacher support in computer-supported lab work: Bridging the gap between lab experiments and students’ conceptual understanding. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 11(1), 89–113. CrossRef
Furberg, A., Kluge, A., & Ludvigsen, S. (2013). Student sensemaking with science diagrams in a computer-based setting. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 8(1), 41–64. CrossRef
Gillen, J., Littleton, K., Twiner, A., Staarman, J. K., & Mercer, N. (2008). Using the interactive whiteboard to resource continuity and support multimodal teaching in a primary science classroom. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24(4), 348–358. CrossRef
Glazer, N. (2011). Challenges with graph interpretation: A review of the literature. Studies in Science Education, 47(2), 183–210. CrossRef
Greiffenhagen, C. (2012). Making rounds: The routine work of teacher during collaborative learning with computers. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 7(1), 11–42. CrossRef
Ivarsson, J., Linderoth, J., & Säljö, R. (2009). Representations in practices: A socio-cultural approach to multimodality in reasoning. In J. Carey (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of multimodal analysis (pp. 201–212). London: Routledge.
Järvelä, S., Kirschner, P. A., Hadwin, A., Järvenoja, H., Malmberg, J., Miller, M., & Laru, J. (2016). Socially shared regulation of learning in CSCL: Understanding and prompting individual- and group-level shared regulatory activities. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 11(3), 263–280. CrossRef
Jefferson, G. (1984). Transcription notation. In J. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social interaction (pp. ix–xvi). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Jordan, B., & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(1), 39–103. CrossRef
Jornet, A., & Roth, W. M. (2015). The joint work of connecting multiple (re)presentations in science classrooms. Science Education, 99(2), 378–403. CrossRef
Kelly, G. J., & Crawford, T. (1997). An ethnographic investigation of the discourse processes of school science. Science Education, 81(5), 533–559. CrossRef
Knain, E. (2015). Scientific literacy for participation - A systemic functional approach to analysis of school science discourses. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Leinhardt, G., Zaslavsky, O., & Stein, M. K. (1990). Functions, graphs, and graphing: Tasks, learning, and teaching. Review of Educational Research, 60(1), 1–64. CrossRef
Lemke, J. L. (1998). Multiplying meaning: Visual and verbal semiotics in scientific text. In J. R. Martin & R. Veel (Eds.), Reading science (pp. 87–113). London: Routledge.
Lindwall, O., & Ivarsson, J. (2011). Difference that make a difference: Contrasting the local enactment of two technologies in a kinematics lab. In S. Ludvigsen, A. Lund, I. Rasmussen, & R. Säljö (Eds.), Learning across sites: New tools, infrastructures and practices (pp. 364–380). London: Routledge.
Lindwall, O., & Lymer, G. (2008). The dark matter of lab work: Illuminating the negotiation of disciplined perception in mechanics. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17, 180–224. CrossRef
Linell, P. (1998). Approaching dialogue: Talk, interaction and contexts in dialogical perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossRef
Linell, P. (2009). Rethinking language, mind and world dialogically: Interactional and contextual theories of human sense-making. Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.
Linn, M. C., & Eylon, B.-S. (2011). Science Learning and instruction: Taking advantage of technology to promote knowledge integration. New York: Routledge. CrossRef
Linn, M. C., Layman, J. W., & Nachmias, R. (1987). Cognitive consequences of microcomputer-based laboratories: Graphing skills development. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 12(3), 244–253. CrossRef
Ludvigsen, S. (2016). CSCL towards the future: The second decade of ijCSCL. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 11(1), 1–7. CrossRef
Ludvigsen, S., & Arnseth, H. C. (2017). Computer-supported collaborative learning. In E. Duval, M. Sharples, & R. Sutherland (Eds.), Technology enhanced learning (pp. 47–58). Chicago: Springer International Publishing. CrossRef
Mäkitalo-Siegl, K., Kohnle, C., & Fischer, F. (2011). Computer-supported collaborative inquiry learning and classroom scripts: Effects on help seeking processes and learning outcomes. Learning and Instruction, 21(2), 257–266. CrossRef
Mercer, N. (2004). Sociocultural discourse analysis: Analyzing classroom talk as a social mode of thinking. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 137–168. CrossRef
Mercer, N., & Littleton, K. (2007). Dialogue and the development of children's thinking: A sociocultural approach. London: Routledge. CrossRef
Mitnik, R., Recabarren, M., Nussbaum, M., & Soto, A. (2009). Collaborative robotic instruction: A graph teaching experience. Computers & Education, 53(2), 330–342. CrossRef
Mokros, J. R., & Tinker, R. F. (1987). The impact of microcomputer-based labs on children’s ability to interpret graphs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24(4), 369–383. CrossRef
Mortimer, E. F., & Scott, P. H. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Nakhleh, M. B. (1994). A review of microcomputer-based labs: How have they affected science learning? Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 13(4), 368–381.
Nemirovsky, R., Tierney, T., & Wright, T. (1998). Body motion and graphing. Cognition and Instruction, 16(2), 119–172. CrossRef
Nicolaou, C. T., Nicolaidou, I., Zacharia, Z., & Constantinou, C. P. (2007). Enhancing fourth graders’ ability to interpret graphical representations through the use of microcomputer-based labs implemented within an inquiry-based activity sequence. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 26(1), 75–99.
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
Roth, W.-M. (1996). Where is the context in contextual word problems? Mathematical practices and production grade 8 students’ answers to story problems. Cognition and Instruction, 14(4), 487–527. CrossRef
Roth, W.-M., & McGinn, M. K. (1997). Graphing: Cognitive ability or practice? Science Education, 81(1), 91–106. CrossRef
Roth, W.-M., & McGinn, M. K. (1998). Inscriptions: Toward a theory of representing as social practice. Review of Educational Research, 68( 1), 35–59. CrossRef
Roth, W. M., & Tobin, K. (1997). Cascades of inscriptions and the re-presentation of nature: How numbers, tables, graphs, and money come to re-present a rolling ball. International Journal of Science Education, 19(9), 1075–1091. CrossRef
Säljö, R. (2010). Digital tools and challenges to institutional traditions of learning: Technologies, social memory and the performative nature of learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26, 53–64. CrossRef
Säljö, R., & Bergqvist, K. (1997). Seeing the light: Discourse and practice in the optics lab. In L. B. Resnick, R. Säljö, C. Pontecorvo, & B. Burge (Eds.), Discourse, tools and reasoning: Essays on situated cognition (pp. 385–405). Berlin: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. CrossRef
Strømme, T. A., & Furberg, A. (2015). Exploring teacher intervention in the intersection of digital resources, peer collaboration, and instructional design. Science Education, 99(5), 837–862. CrossRef
Testa, I., Monroy, G., & Sassi, E. (2002). Students’ reading images in kinematics: The case of real-time graphs. International Journal of Science Education, 24(3), 235–256. CrossRef
Tytler, R., Prain, V., Hubber, P., & Waldrip, B. E. (2013). Constructing representations to learn in science. In Rotterdam. Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
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
van Joolingen, W. R., de Jong, T., & Dimitrakopoulou, A. (2007). Issues in computer supported inquiry learning in science. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(2), 111–119. CrossRef
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Warwick, P., Mercer, N., & Kershner, R. (2013). “Wait, let’s just think about this”: Using the interactive whiteboard and talk rules to scaffold learning for co-regulation in collaborative science activities. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 2(1), 42–51. CrossRef
Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry. Towards a sociocultural practice and theory of education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRef
Wertsch, J. V. (1998). Mind as action. New York: Oxford University Press.
White, T. (2018). Connecting levels of activity with classroom network technology. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 13(1), 93–122. CrossRef
White, T., & Pea, R. (2011). Distributed by design: On the promises and pitfalls of collaborative learning with multiple representations. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20(3), 489–547. CrossRef
Wu, H.-K., & Krajcik, J. S. (2006). Inscriptional Practices in Two Inquiry-Based Classrooms: A Case Study of Seventh Graders' Use of Data Tables and Graphs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(1), 63–95. CrossRef
- Students’ engagement with real-time graphs in CSCL settings: scrutinizing the role of teacher support
Torunn Aanesland Strømme
- Springer US
International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning
An Official Publication of the International Society of the Learning Sciences
Print ISSN: 1556-1607
Elektronische ISSN: 1556-1615
Neuer Inhalt/© ITandMEDIA, Best Practices für die Mitarbeiter-Partizipation in der Produktentwicklung/© astrosystem | stock.adobe.com