Understanding collaborative learning processes in new learning environments

Instructional Science

Volumn 36, Issue 5-6 EFFECTS OF CONSTR, 2008, Pages 409-430

  Hmelo Silver, Cindy E ^a   Chernobilsky, Ellina ^b   Jordan, Rebecca ^a  

^a RUTGERS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b CALDWELL UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Computer supported collaborative learning; Methodology; Problem based learning; Visual representations

Indexed keywords

EID: 51749120526     PISSN: 00204277     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11251-008-9063-8     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. Arrow, H., Henry, K. B., Poole, M. S., Wheelan, S., & Moreland, R. (2005). Traces, trajectories, and timing: The temporal perspective on groups. In M. S. Poole & A. B. Hollingshead (Eds.), Theories of small groups: Interdisciplinary perspectives (pp. 313-367). Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage.
2. Arvaja, M., Salovaara, H., Häkkinen, P., & Järvelä, S. (2007). Combining individual and group-level perspectives for studying collaborative knowledge construction in context. Learning and Instruction, 17, 448-459.
3. Avouris, N., Dimitracopoulou, A., & Komis, V. (2003). On analysis of collaborative problem solving: An object-oriented approach. Computers in Human Behavior, 19, 47-167.
4. Barron, B. J. S. (2003). When smart groups fail. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 307-359.
5. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
6. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (2006). Education for the knowledge age: Design-centered models of teaching and instruction. In P. A. Alexander & P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (2nd ed., pp. 695-713). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
7. Chernobilsky, E., DaCosta, M. C., & Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Learning to talk the educational psychology talk through a problem-based course in educational psychology. Instructional Science, 32, 319-356.
8. Chernobilsky, E., Hmelo-Silver C. E., & DelMarcelle, M. (2003). Collaborative discourse, tools, and activity in online problem-based learning. Paper presented at American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting. Chicago, IL.
9. Chinn, C. A., & Anderson, R. C. (1998). The structure of discussions that promote reasoning. Teachers College Record, 100, 315-368.
10. Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline. Cambridge, MA: Harvard.
11. Cress, U. (2008). The need for considering multilevel analysis in CSCL research-an appeal for the use of more advanced statistical methods. International Journal of Computer-supported Collaborative Learning, 3, 69-84.
12. De Laat, M. F., & Lally, V. (2003). Complexity, theory, and praxis: Researching collaborative learning and tutoring processes in a networked learning community. Instructional Science, 31, 7-39.
13. De Wever, B., Schellens, T., Valcke, M., & Van Keer, H. (2006). Content analysis schemes to analyze transcripts of online asynchronous discussion groups: A review. Computers & Education, 46, 6-28.
14. Derry, S. J. (2006). STEP as a case of theory-based web course design. In A. O'Donnell, C. E. Hmelo-Silver & G. Erkens (Eds.), Collaborative learning, reasoning and technology (pp. 171-196). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
15. Derry, S. J., Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Nagarajan, A., Chernobilsky, E., & Beitzel, B. (2006). Cognitive transfer revisited: Can we exploit new media to solve old problems on a large scale? Journal of Educational Computing Research, 35, 145-162.
16. Engeström, Y. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen & R. Punamaki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 19-38). New York: Cambridge University Press.
17. Engle, R., & Conant, F. (2002). Guiding principles for fostering productive disciplinary engagement: Explaining an emergent argument in a community of learners' classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 20, 399-484.
18. Fischer, F., Bruhn, J., Gräsel, C., & Mandl, H. (2002). Fostering collaborative knowledge construction with visualization tools. Learning and Instruction, 12, 213-232.
19. Gijbels, D., van de Watering, G., Dochy, F., & van den Bossche, P. (2006). New learning environments and constructivism: The students' perspective. Instructional Science, 34, 213-226.
20. Hmelo, C. E., Guzdial, M., & Turns, J. (1998). Computer-support for collaborative learning: Learning to support student engagement. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 9, 107-130.
21. Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2003). Analyzing collaborative knowledge construction: Multiple methods for integrated understanding. Computers & Education, 41, 397-420.
22. Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16, 235-266.
23. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Chernobilsky, E. (2004). Understanding collaborative activity systems: The relation of tools and discourse in mediating learning. In Y. Kafai, W. Sandoval, N. Enyedy, A. Nixon & F. Herrera (Eds.), Proceedings of ICLS 2004 (pp. 254-261). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
24. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Chernobilsky, E., & Nagarajan, A. (2005a). Two sides of the coin: Multiple perspectives on collaborative knowledge construction in online problem-based learning. Paper presented at the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction, Nicosia, Cyprus.
25. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Derry, S. J., Woods, D., DelMarcelle, M., & Chernobilsky, E. (2005b). From parallel play to meshed interaction: The evolution of the eStep system. In D. Suthers & T. Koschmann (Eds.), Proceedings of CSCL 2005. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
26. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007a). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42, 99-107.
27. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Katic, E., Nagarajan, A., & Chernobilsky, E. (2007b). Soft leaders, hard artifacts, and the groups we rarely see: Using video to understand peer learning processes. In R. Goldman, R. Pea, B. Barron & S. Derry (Eds.), Video research in the learning sciences (pp. 255-270). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
28. Janssen, J., Erkens, G., Kanselaar, G., & Jaspers, J. (2007). Visualization of participation: Does it contribute to successful computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers & Education, 49, 1037-1065.
29. Jeong, H., & Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2008). Use of learning resources in a technologically-mediated online PBL environment. In Proceedings International Conference on PBL 2008 [CD-ROM], Colima, Mexico.
30. Jordan, B., & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4, 39-103.
31. Kumpulainen, K., & Mutanen, M. (1999). The situated dynamics of peer group interaction: An introduction to an analytic framework. Learning and Instruction, 9, 449-473.
32. Lai, M., & Law, N. (2006). Peer scaffolding of knowledge building through collaborative groups with differential learning experiences. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 35, 123-144.
33. Lajoie, S. P., Garcia, B., Berdugo, G., Márquez, L., Espíndola, S., & Nakamura, C. (2006). The creation of virtual and face-to-face learning communities: An international collaboration experience. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 35, 163-180.
34. Lantz-Andersson, A., Linderoth, R., & Säljö, R. (in press). What's the problem? Meaning making and learning to do mathematical word problems in the context of digital tools. Instructional Science. doi: 10.1007/s11251-008-9050-0.
35. Larkin, J. H., & Simon, H. A. (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive Science, 11, 65-99.
36. Loyens, S. M. M., Rikers, R. M. J. P., & Schmidt, H. G. (2006). Students' conceptions of constructivist learning: A comparison between a traditional and problem-based learning curriculum. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 11, 365-379.
37. Luckin, R. (2003). Between the lines: Documenting the multiple dimension of computer-supported collaborations. Computers & Education, 41, 379-396.
38. Luckin, R., Plowman, L., Laurillard, D., Stratfold, M., Taylor, J., & Corben, S. (2001). Narrative evolution: Learning from students' talk about species variation. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 12, 100-123.
39. Martinez, A., Dimitriadis, Y., Rubia, B., Gomez, E., & de la Fuente, P. (2003). Combining qualitative evaluation and social network analysis for the study of classroom social interactions. Computers & Education, 41, 353-368.
40. McGrath, J. E., Arrow, H., & Berdahl, J. L. (2000). The study of small groups, past, present, and future. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4, 95-105.
41. Nurmela, K., Lehtinen, E., & Palonen, T. (1999). Evaluating CSCL log files by social network analysis. In C. M. Hoadley & J. Roschelle (Eds.), Proceedings of the 1999 Conference on Computer Support For Collaborative Learning (pp. 54-66). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
42. O'Donnell, A. M. (2004). Shared and unshared knowledge: The collaborative analysis of a classroom case by preservice teachers. In J. van der Linden & P. Renshaw (Eds.), Dialogic learning: Shifting perspectives to learning, instruction, and teaching (pp. 233-250). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Press.
43. Palincsar, A. S. (1998). Social constructivist perspectives on teaching and learning. Annual Review of Psychology, 45, 345-375.
44. Reimann, P. (2007). Time is precious: Why process analysis is essential for CSCL (and can also help bridge between experimental and descriptive methods). In C. Chinn, G. Erkens, & S. Puntambekar (Eds.), Proceedings of CSCL 2007: Mice, minds, and society (pp. 605-614). New Brunswick, NJ: International Society for the Learning Sciences.
45. 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, 201-241.
46. Schümmer, T., Strijbos, J. W., & Berkel, T. (2005). Measuring group interaction during CSCL. In T. Koschmann, D. Suthers & T. W. Chan (Eds.), Computer supported collaborative learning 2005: The next 10 years! (pp. 567-576). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
47. Schwartz, D. L., & Bransford, J. D. (1998). A time for telling. Cognition and Instruction, 16, 475-522.
48. Stahl, G. (2006a). Group cognition: Computer support for building collaborative knowledge. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
49. Stahl, G. (2006b). Supporting group cognition in an online math community: A cognitive tool for small-group referencing in text chat. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 35, 103-122.
50. Strijbos, J. W., Martens, R. L., Prins, F. J., & Jochems, W. M. G. (2006). Content analysis: What are they talking about? Computers & Education, 46, 29-48.
51. Strom, D., Kemeny, V., Lehrer, R., & Forman, E. (2001). Visualizing the emergent structure of children's mathematical argument. Cognitive Science, 25, 733-774.
52. Suthers, D. D. (2006). A qualitative analysis of collaborative knowledge construction through shared representations. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 1(2), 1-28.
53. Suthers, D. D., & Hundhausen, C. D. (2003). An experimental study of the effects of representational guidance on collaborative learning processes. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 183-218.
54. Zemel, A., Xhafa, F., & Cakir, M. (2007). What's in the mix? Combining coding and conversation analysis to investigate chat-based problem-solving. Learning & Instruction, 17, 405-415.