CSCLearning? : participation, learning, activities and knowledge construction in computer-supported collaborative learning in higher education

Abstract

Background of the researchRecent developments in Information and Communication Technology (ICT) offer many opportunities to reorganise education according to constructivist principles. In contrast to more traditional education, education organised by constructivist principles is not teacher-centred, but student-centred. Students can influence their education and are not only consumers as in traditional education. Students work in collaboration to solve tasks and importance is attached to their own ideas; reproducing facts is becoming less important. Students are expected to be active and independent. They have to search for information by themselves and are expected to process this information critically. The accent is not on testing reproduction of facts but much importance is attached to creating own ideas and theories. Chapter 2 of this PHdissertation outlines the theoretical framework which was based on constructivism and which determined the design and conduction of the research.The assumption is that supporting education by ICT can increase the quality of learning. This PHdissertation studies one specific ICT-application, namely Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL). In CSCL, students learn collaborative by using a CSCL-system. A CSCL-system can be considered to be a discussion forum in which students can contribute messages and can read each other's messages. A computer network connects students and therefore, students can read all messages and react to all the messages contributed to the discussion forum. Synchronous as well as asynchronous systems are available. In synchronous systems, students can work from different places in real time. In asynchronous systems, work is independent of time and place. In the research described in this PHdissertation, only asynchronous systems are used. Students could work in the system at any moment.The central idea of CSCL is that it supports shared knowledge building by the learners (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1994). The principles of shared knowledge building and CSCL are consistent with a constructivist view of learning. From a constructivist point of view, learning is a dynamic process of knowledge construction. In this PHdissertation, collaborative learning is described as a learning situation in which participating learners exchange ideas, experiences and information to negotiate about knowledge in order to construct personal knowledge that serves as a basis for common understanding and a collective solution to a problem. Research shows that collaborative learning can be useful to reach intellectual goals such as critical thinking or debating. People learn by interaction (Erkens, 1997; Gokhale, 1998; Kanselaar & Van der Linden, 1984; Lethinen, Hakkarainen, Lipponen, Rahikainen & Muukkonen, 2001; Newman, Johnson, Webb & Cochrane, 1999). Characteristic to collaboration is the interaction between people and people learn through interaction with each other (Biggs & Collis, 1982). Discussion is important because we will only 'give words to our thoughts' when we use these words to communicate with others, and this in turn may be related to our ability to clarify and remember ideas (Johnston, 1997); understanding is achieved through interaction (Veerman, 2000). Besides, CSCL seems to be an effective tool because students have to write down their ideas. Writing can be seen as the most important tool of thinking, and it has a crucial significance in explication and articulation of one's conceptions (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1987; Rijlaarsdam & Couzijn, 2000; Tynjälä, 1999).Research questionsLiterature shows that there is a reasonable amount of published experiments indicating positive learning effects when CSCL-systems have been used in education (De Laat & De Jong, 2001; Koschmann, Feltovich, Myers & Barrows, 1997; Lethinen et al ., 2001; Lipponen, 1999; Salovaara, 1999; Tynjäla, 1999). Despite developments in research and educational practice, much is still unclear about students' learning processes in CSCL. It is unknown how students use a CSCL-system, which learning activities they use and how CSCL supports students' learning. The aim of this research is to gain insight into students' learning processes in CSCL, focused on both the amount and the quality of knowledge construction. The underlying assumption is that understanding students' learning processes will be helpful to use CSCL effectively in education. Inspired by this research problem the following main research questions were addressed ( chapter 1 ):1) How can students' learning processes in an asynchronous CSCL-system be characterised in terms of participation and interaction?2) How can students' learning processes in an asynchronous CSCL-system be characterised in terms of cognitive, affective and metacognitive learning activities?3) Do students construct knowledge and what is the quality of that knowledge constructed by students in an asynchronous CSCL-system?4) What are the effects of moderating a CSCL-discussion on students' learning?MethodTo find an answer to our research questions, first a review study ( chapter 3 ) was carried out to find out if a method was available to analyse students' activities in a CSCL-system on participation, interaction, types of learning activities and amount and quality of knowledge construction. The reviewed methods supplied many ideas we could use to develop a new method and helped us to clarify our view on analysing CSCL-data. However, studying a number of methods did not result in finding a workable, ready-made method to answer our research questions. Therefore, a new method was developed on the basis of the theoretical framework outlined in chapter 2, on the ideas supplied by the reviewed methods described in chapter 3, and on our experiences with CSCL in pilot projects. Chapter 4 describes the developed method used to analyse students' learning processes in this PHdissertation. The method consist of three steps (see Figure I): 186Figure I: Three steps of the method used to analyse students' contributions in a CSCL-system. The method consists of three steps: (1) Analysing students' participation and interaction, (2) analysing cognitive, affective, and metacognitive learning activities, and (3) assessing the amount and quality of knowledge constructed by students and expressed in written contributions. Students' participation was operationalised as the number of written notes (new notes or build-on notes) and number of different read notes. To indicate interaction, density was calculated twice, based on read notes as well as on linked notes. Density describes the general level of linkage among the students in a discourse. In other words, density refers to the extent of interaction between students.The second step of the method concerns the use of learning activities. The classification of learning activities of Vermunt (1992) was used as a frame to create a coding scheme divided into (1) Cognitive, (2) affective, and (3) metacognitive learning activities. Next, these main categories were divided into several subcategories. The main category 'cognitive learning activities' consists of three subcategories: (a) Debating, (b) using external information and experiences, and (c) linking or repeating internal information. Debating refers to the process of negotiation, critical thinking, asking questions and discussing subjects with other participants in the database. Using external information and experiences was inserted into the scheme because in an asynchronous CSCL-system students have time to search for information to support their ideas with explanations and to elaborate their questions. Information can be used to evaluate contributions thoroughly. Types of information contributed to the CSCL-system are for example articles found on the Internet, notes made in a lecture, a summary of a book chapter, results of running a specific tool, or a summary of another discussion. A third subcategory is Linking or repeating internal information . Internal information concerns information found in the discussion view students are working in. Referring to and linking notes were considered to be important because of increasing coherence in the database. It was assumed that more coherence between notes means more interactions between students. By 'affective learning activities', students' feelings expressed in their notes while working in the learning environment are meant. An affective category was included in the coding scheme to provide information about the kinds of feelings and was expected to be useful in interpreting the nature of the interactions between students. In this coding scheme affective learning activities are not related to content of subject matter, they are non-task-related. The category 'metacognitive learning activities' consists of three subcategories: (a) Planning, (b) keeping clarity, and (c) monitoring. Planning refers to practical issues such as making appointments, subdividing parts of the task, appointing a group member as chairperson or to theoretical issues such as choosing a definition after discussing a concept or deciding to run a specific tool. Characteristic of these content-related approaches is their effect on the process of the task performance. The subcategory Keeping Clarity refers to messages written in order to keep the structure and the content of the notes clear. The last subcategory of metacognitive learning activities is called Monitoring . While conducting the task, students will keep watching the learning process. Next, a number of codes are distinguished within all the subcategories.Because the third main research question could not be answered by means of the first coding scheme, it was necessary to add a step to the process of analysis, step three. Therefore, knowledge construction was first operationalised as adding, elaborating and evaluating ideas, summarising or evaluating external information and linking different

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 116 citations exist upstream.