Pupil communication during electronic collaborative projects:Integrating communication tools with communication scenarios

  • Chronis Kynigos
  • Evangelia V. Dimaraki
  • Evie Trouki
Part of the Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning book series (CULS, volume 9)

Abstract: The rapid expansion of computer-mediated communication (CMC) into classrooms has nurtured expectations that Communication Technology (CT) will support pupils’ construction of shared knowledge by articulating their thoughts and reflecting on their activity. In this paper we argue that the connection between CMC and such learning experiences is far from selfevident. The paper investigates how the coupling of CMC tools with educational ‘scenarios’ can structure communication learning activities in the classroom. We describe the design aspects of two different scenarios, such as activities, communication need, roles, layers and channels. We also provide qualitative empirical evidence on educational potential for information handling, reflection and communicative awareness. Implications for whether a communication setting ensures meaningful communication are discussed.


Collaborative Learning Communicative Awareness Social Mode Communication Goal Communication Scenario 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Cobb, P. (1995). Mathematical learning and small-group interaction: Four case studies. In P. C. H. Bauersfeld (Ed. ), The emergence of mathematical meaning: Interaction in classroom cultures (pp. 25-129). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  2. Cobb, P., & Yackel, E. (1996). Constructivist, emergent, and sociocultural perspectives in the context of developmental research, Educational Psychologist, Vol. 31(3-4), 175-190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Edwards, D., & Mercer, N. (1987). Common Knowledge: The development of understanding in the classroom. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
  4. Garcia, A., & Jacobs, J. B. (1998). The interactional organization of computer mediated communication in the college classroom. Qualitative Sociology, 21(3), 299-317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Goetz, J., & LeCompte, M. D. (1984). Ethnography and Qualitative Design in Educational Research. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  6. Guzdial, M. (1997). Information ecology of collaborations in educational settings: influence of tool. In R. Hall, N. Miyake, N. Enyedy (Eds. ), Proceedings of the CSCL Conference (83-90).Google Scholar
  7. Hoyles, C., Healy, L., Sutherland, R. (1991). Patterns of discussion between pupil pairs in computer and non-computer environments, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 7, 210-228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kupperman, J., Wallace, R., Bos, N. (1997). Ninth Graders’ use of a shared database in an Internet research project: issues of collaboration and knowledge-building. In C. Hoadley and J. Roschelle (Eds. ), Proceedings of the CSCL Conference (157-163).Google Scholar
  9. Kynigos C. (1999). Perspectives in analyzing classroom interaction data on colalborative computer based mathematical projects. In C. Hoadley and J. Roschelle (Eds. ), Proceedings of the CSCL Conference (333-341).Google Scholar
  10. Kynigos, C., and Theodosopoulou, V. (2001). Synthesizing Personal, Interactionist and Social Norms Perspectives to Analyze Student Communication in a Computer –Based Mathematical Activity in the Classroom. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 36. 2., 63-73.Google Scholar
  11. Light, P. H., & Mevarech, Z. R. (1992). Peer-based interaction at the computer: Looking backward, looking forward, Learning and Instruction, 2, 275-280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lipponen, L., & Hakkarainen, K. (1997). Developing culture of inquiry in computer-supported collaborative learning. In R. Hall, N. Miyake, N. Enyedy (Eds. ), Proceedings of the CSCL Conference (164-168).Google Scholar
  13. Mercer, N. (1995). The Guided Construction of Knowledge: Talk amongst teachers and Learners. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.Google Scholar
  14. Papert, S., & Harel, I. (1991). Constructionism. US: Ablex Publishing Corporation.Google Scholar
  15. Resnick, M. (1996). Distributed Constuctionism. Proceedings of the International Conference on the Learning Sciences. Association for the advancement of Computing in Education. Northwestern University.Google Scholar
  16. Salomon, G. (1994). Distributed Cognition. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1996). Computer Support for Knowledge-Building Communities. In T. Koschman (Ed. ), CSCL: theory and practice of an emerging paradigm. USA: Lawerence Erlbaum, NJ, 249-268.Google Scholar
  18. Sfard, A. (2002). There is more to discourse than meets the ears: Looking at thinking as communicating to learn more about mathematical learning. In C. Kieran, E. Forman & A. Sfard (Eds. ), Learning discourse: Discursive approaches to research in mathematics education (pp. 13-57). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  19. Shaw, A. (1996). Social Constructionism and the Inner City: Designing Environments for Social Development and Urban Renewal. In Y. Kafai and M. Resnick (Eds. ), Constructionism in Practice: Designing, Thinking and Learning in a Digital World. NJ USA: Lawerence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  20. Songer, N. B. (1996). Exploring Learning opportunities in Coordinated Network-Enhanced Classrooms: A case of Kids and Global Scientists, The Journal of The Learning Sciences, 5 (4), 297-327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society. London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the Mind: a Socioculutral Approach to Mediated Action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chronis Kynigos
    • 1
  • Evangelia V. Dimaraki
    • 1
  • Evie Trouki
    • 2
  1. 1.Educational Technology Lab, School of Philosophy & CTIUniversity of AthensAthensGreece
  2. 2.Educational Technology Lab, School of PhilosophyUniversity of AthensAthensGreece

Personalised recommendations