Skip to main content

A Complexity-Grounded Model for the Emergence of Convergence in CSCL Groups

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Series ((CULS,volume 12))

Abstract

We advance a complexity−grounded, quantitative method for uncovering temporal patterns in CSCL discussions. We focus on convergence because understanding how complex group discussions converge presents a major challenge in CSCL research. From a complex systems perspective, convergence in group discussions is an emergent behavior arising from the transactional interactions between group members. Leveraging the concepts of emergent simplicity and emergent complexity (Bar-Yam 2003), a set of theoretically-sound yet simple rules was hypothesized: Interactions between group members were conceptualized as goal-seeking adaptations that either help the group move towards or away from its goal, or maintain its status quo. Operationalizing this movement as a Markov walk, we present quantitative and qualitative findings from a study of online problem-solving groups. Findings suggest high (or low) quality contributions have a greater positive (or negative) impact on convergence when they come earlier in a discussion than later. Significantly, convergence analysis was able to predict a group’s performance based on what happened in the first 30–40% of its discussion. Findings and their implications for CSCL theory, methodology, and design are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  • Adami, C., Ofria, C., & Collier, T. C. (2000). Evolution of biological complexity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 97, 4463–4468.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Akhras, F. N., & Self, J. A. (2000). Modeling the process, not the product, of learning. In S. P. Lajoie (Ed.), Computers as cognitive tools (No more walls, Vol. 2, pp. 3–28). Mahwah: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arrow, H., McGrath, J. E., & Berdahl, J. L. (2000). Small groups as complex systems: Formation, coordination, development, and adaptation. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bakeman, R., & Gottman, J. M. (1997). Observing interaction: An introduction to sequential analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Barab, S. A., Hay, K. E., & Yamagata-Lynch, L. C. (2001). Constructing networks of action-relevant episodes: An in-situ research methodology. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10(1&2), 63–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barron, B. (2000). Achieving coordination in collaborative problem-solving groups. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9, 403–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barron, B. (2003). When smart groups fail. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(3), 307–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bar-Yam, Y. (2003). Dynamics of complex systems. New York: Perseus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bransford, J. D., & Nitsch, K. E. (1978). Coming to understand things we could not previously understand. In J. F. Kavanaugh & W. Strange (Eds.), Speech and language in the laboratory, school, and clinic (pp. 267–307). Harvard: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brennan, S. E., & Clark, H. H. (1996). Conceptual pacts and lexical choice in conversation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22(6), 1482–1493.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burtsev, M. S. (2003). Measuring the dynamics of artificial evolution. In W. Banzhaf, T. Christaller, P. Dittrich, J. T. Kim, & J. Ziegler (Eds.), Advances in artificial life. Proceedings of the 7th European conference on artificial life (pp. 580–587). Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T. H. (1997). Quantifying qualitative analyses of verbal data: A practical guide. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6(3), 271–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, H., & Brennan, S. (1991). Grounding in communication. In L. B. Resnick, J. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 127–149). Washington, DC: APA.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, H. H., & Lucy, P. (1975). Understanding what is meant from what is said: A study in conversationally conveyed requests. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 14(1), 56–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, E. G., Lotan, R. A., Abram, P. L., Scarloss, B. A., & Schultz, S. E. (2002). Can groups learn? Teachers College Record, 104(6), 1045–1068.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collazos, C., Guerrero, L., Pino, J., & Ochoa, S. (2002). Evaluating collaborative learning processes. Proceedings of the 8th international workshop on groupware (CRIWG’2002) (pp. 203–221). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, J. M., & Axtell, R. (1996). Growing artificial societies: Social science from the bottom up. Washington, DC/Harvard: Brookings Institution Press/MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erkens, G., Kanselaar, G., Prangsma, M., & Jaspers, J. (2003). Computer support for collaborative and argumentative writing. In E. De Corte, L. Verschaffel, N. Entwistle, & J. van Merrienboer (Eds.), Powerful learning environments: Unravelling basic components and dimensions (pp. 157–176). Amsterdam: Pergamon, Elsevier Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, F., & Mandl, H. (2005). Knowledge convergence in computer-supported collaborative learning: The role of external representation tools. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(3), 405–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gureckis, T. M., & Goldstone, R. L. (2006). Thinking in groups. Pragmatics and Cognition, 14(2), 293–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Jordan, R., Liu, L., & Chernobilsky, E. (this book). Representational tools for understanding complex computer-supported collaborative learning environments. In S. Puntambekar, G. Erkens, & C. Hmelo-Silver (Eds.), Analyzing interactions in CSCL: Methods, approaches and issues (pp. 83–106) Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holmes, M. E. (1997). Optimal matching analysis of negotiation phase sequences in simulated and authentic hostage negotiations. Communication Reports, 10, 1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobson, M. J., & Wilensky, U. (2006). Complex systems in education: Scientific and educational importance and implications for the learning sciences. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(1), 11–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jeong, H., & Chi, M. T. H. (2007). Knowledge convergence during collaborative learning. Instructional Science, 35, 287–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Towards a design theory of problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(4), 63–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kapur, M. (2008). Productive failure. Cognition and Instruction, 26(3), 379–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kapur, M. (2009). Productive failure in mathematical problem solving. Instructional Science. doi:10.1007/s11251-009-9093-x.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kapur, M. (2010). A further study of productive failure in mathematical problem solving: Unpacking the design components. Instructional Science. DOI: 10.1007/s11251-010-9144-3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kapur, M., Hung, D., Jacobson, M., Voiklis, J., Kinzer, C., & Chen, D.-T. (2007). Emergence of learning in computer-supported, large-scale collective dynamics: A research agenda. In C. A. Clark, G. Erkens, & S. Puntambekar (Eds.), Proceedings of the international conference of computer-supported collaborative learning (pp. 323–332). Mahwah: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kapur, M., & Jacobson, M. J. (2009). Learning as an emergent phenomenon: Methodological implications. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American educational research association. San Diego.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kapur, M., & Kinzer, C. (2007). The effect of problem type on interactional activity, inequity, and group performance in a synchronous computer-supported collaborative environment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(5), 439–459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kapur, M., & Kinzer, C. (2009). Productive failure in CSCL groups. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4(1), 21–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kapur, M., Voiklis, J., & Kinzer, C. (2005). Problem solving as a complex, evolutionary activity: A methodological framework for analyzing problem-solving processes in a computer-supported collaborative environment. In Proceedings the computer supported collaborative learning (CSCL) conference. Mahwah: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kapur, M., Voiklis, J., & Kinzer, C. (2008). Sensitivities to early exchange in synchronous computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) groups. Computers & Education, 51, 54–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kapur, M., Voiklis, J., Kinzer, C., & Black, J. (2006). Insights into the emergence of convergence in group discussions. In S. Barab, K. Hay, & D. Hickey (Eds.), Proceedings of the international conference on the learning sciences (pp. 300–306). Mahwah: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kauffman, S. (1995). At home in the universe: The search for the laws of self-organization and complexity. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lemke, J. L. (2000). Across the scales of time: Artifacts, activities, and meanings in ecosocial systems. Mind, Culture and Activity, 7(4), 273–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newell, A., & Simon, H. (1972). Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nowak, A. (2004). Dynamical minimalism: Why less is more in psychology. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8(2), 183–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rabiner, L. R. (1989). A tutorial on hidden markov models and selected applications in speech recognition. Proceedings of the IEEE, 77(2), 257–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reimann, P. (2009). Time is precious: Variable- and event-centred approaches to process analysis in CSCL research. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4(3), 239–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reimann, P., Yacef, K., & Kay, J. (this book). Analyzing collaborative interactions with data mining methods for the benefit of learning. In S. Puntambekar, G. Erkens, & C. Hmelo-Silver (Eds.), Analyzing interactions in CSCL: Methods, approaches and issues (pp. 161–185). Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roschelle, J. (1996). Learning by collaborating: Convergent conceptual change. In T. Koschmann (Ed.), CSCL: Theory and practice of an emerging aradigm (pp. 209–248). Mahwah: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roschelle, J., & Teasley, S. D. (1995). The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving. In C. E. O’Malley (Ed.), Computer-supported collaborative learning (pp. 69–197). Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ross, S. M. (1996). Stochastic processes. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rourke, L., & Anderson, T. (2004). Validity in quantitative content analysis. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(1), 5–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schelling, T. C. (1960). The strategy of conflict. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schultz-Hardt, S., Jochims, M., & Frey, D. (2002). Productive conflict in group decision making: Genuine and contrived dissent as strategies to counteract biased information seeking. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 88, 563–586.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soller, A., Wiebe, J., & Lesgold, A. (2002). A machine learning approach to assessing knowledge sharing during collaborative learning activities. In G. Stahl (Ed.), Proceedings of computer support for collaborative learning (pp. 128–137). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stahl, G. (2005). Group cognition in computer-assisted collaborative learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21, 79–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suthers, D. D. (2006). Technology affordances for intersubjective meaning making: A research agenda for CSCL. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(3), 315–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teasley, S. D., & Roschelle, J. (1993). Constructing a joint problem space: The computer as a tool for sharing knowledge. In S. P. Lajoie & S. D. Derry (Eds.), Computers as Cognitive Tools (pp. 229–258). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Voiklis, J. (2008). A thing is what we say it is: Referential communication and indirect category learning. PhD thesis, Columbia University, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Voiklis, J., Kapur, M., Kinzer, C., & Black, J. (2006). An emergentist account of collective cognition in collaborative problem solving. In R. Sun (Ed.), Proceedings of the 28th annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 858–863). Mahwah: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wampold, B. E. (1992). The intensive examination of social interaction. In T. R. Kratochwill & J. R. Levin (Eds.), Single-case research design and analysis: New directions for psychology and education (pp. 93–131). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watts, D. J., & Strogatz, S. H. (1998). Collective dynamics of “small-world” networks. Nature, 393, 440–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 17, 89–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The work reported herein was funded by a Spencer Dissertation Research Training Grant from Teachers College, Columbia University to the first author. This chapter reports work that has, in parts, been presented at the International Conference of the Learning Sciences in 2006, and the Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Conference in 2007. Our special thanks go to the students and teachers who participated in this project. We also thank June Lee and Lee Huey Woon for their help with editing and formatting.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Manu Kapur .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Kapur, M., Voiklis, J., Kinzer, C.K. (2011). A Complexity-Grounded Model for the Emergence of Convergence in CSCL Groups. In: Puntambekar, S., Erkens, G., Hmelo-Silver, C. (eds) Analyzing Interactions in CSCL. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Series, vol 12. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-7710-6_1

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics