Abstract
“Knowledge Cartography” is concerned with a diversity of notations that all make certain conceptual structures explicit, but may differ from each other and from conceptually implicit notations in what they make salient. This chapter reports on a series of studies that investigated the idea that these differences or representational biases might lead to differences in processes of collaborative inquiry. The studies span face-to-face, synchronous online and asynchronous online media in both classroom and laboratory settings. An understanding of the observed effects can help both designers and practitioners think more deeply about the pedagogical implications of their representational tools and how these tools are embedded in a learning situation; i.e., how to convert representational biases to representational guidance.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Personal communication, Alan Lesgold.
- 2.
Version 4 of Belvedere is available at http://belvedere.sourceforge.net/. It supports multiple views on an evidence model, but does not support networked collaboration or include the prototype coach found in version 2. Version 2 is available from the author, but is based on 1990’s technology.
- 3.
Supporting materials, including science challenge problems and assessment rubrics, are archived at http://lilt.ics.hawaii.edu/belvedere/index.html.
- 4.
Deictic referencing, or deixis, is a reference to an entity in the extra-linguistic context. Deixis can be accomplished verbally with indexical terms such as “this,” “it,” and/or with gestures such as pointing or computer-aided highlighting.
- 5.
The phenomenon discussed here may be independent of what is represented. Other researchers have observed an initial resistance to formalization, even in representations that are intended to map discussion or argumentation rather than evidence. See for example Shipman & McCall (1994).
- 6.
References
Ainsworth, S.E., Bibby, P.A., & Wood, D.J. (1998). Analyzing the costs and benefits of multi-representational learning environments. In M.W. van Someren, P. Reimann, H.P.A. Boshuizen, & T. de Jong (Eds.), Learning with Multiple Representations (pp. 120–134). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Andriessen, J., Baker, M., & Suthers, D.D. (2003). Arguing to Learn: Confronting Cognitions in Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Environments. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Bell, P. (1997). Using argument representations to make thinking visible for individuals and groups. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL’97) (pp. 10–19). Toronto: University of Toronto.
Brna, P., Cox, R., & Good, J. (2001). Learning to think and communicate with diagrams: 14 questions to consider. Artificial Intelligence Review, 15(1–2), 115–134.
Burgoon, J.K., Bonito, J.A., Ramirez Jr., A., Dunbar, N.E., Kam, K., & Fischer, J. (2002). Testing the interactivity principle: Effects of mediation, propinquity, and verbal and nonverbal modalities in interpersonal interaction. Journal of Communication, 52(3), 657–677.
Cavalli-Sforza, V., Weiner, A.W., & Lesgold, A.M. (1994). Software support for students engaging in scientific activity and scientific controversy. Science Education, 78(6), 577– 599.
Cole, M., & Engeström, Y. (1993). A cultural-historical approach to distributed cognition. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed Cognitions: Psychological and Educational Considerations (pp. 1–46). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dennis, A.R. (1996). Information exchange and use in group decision making: You can lead a group to information, but you can’t make it think. MIS Quarterly, 20(4), 433–457.
Doerry, E. (1996). An Empirical Comparison of Copresent and Technologically-Mediated Interaction based on Communicative Breakdown. Oregon: University of Oregon.
Erickson, T., & Kellogg, W.A. (2000). Social translucence: An approach to cesigning systems that support social processes. ACM Transactions on Computer–Human Interaction, 7(1),59–83.
Gergle, D., Kraut, R.E., & Fussell, S.R. (2004). Action as language in a shared visual space. In Proceedings of the 2004 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (pp. 487–496). Chicago, Illinois: ACM Press.
Grosz, B.J., & Sidner, C.L. (1986). Attention, intentions, and the structure of discourse. Computational Linguistics, 12(3), 175–204.
Guzdial, M., Hmelo, C., Hubscher, R., Newstetter, W., Puntambekar, S., Shabo, A. et al. (1997). Integrating and guiding collaboration: Lessons learned in computer-supported collaboration learning research at Georgia Tech. In Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (pp. 91–100).
Hawkes, M., & Romiszowski, A. (2001). Examining the reflective outcomes of asynchronous computer-mediated communication on inservice teacher development. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 9(2), 285–308.
Herring, S.C. (1999). Interactional coherence in CMC. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 4(4).
Hewitt, J. (2001). Beyond threaded discourse. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 7(3), 207–221.
Hewitt, J. (2003). How habitual online practices affect the development of asynchronous discussion threads. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 28(1), 31–45.
Koschmann, T., Zemel, A., Conlee-Stevens, M., Young, N., Robbs, J., & Barnhart, A. (2005). How do people learn: Member’s methods and communicative mediation. In R. Bromme, F.W. Hesse, & H. Spada (Eds.), Barriers and Biases in Computer-Mediated Knowledge Communication (and How They may be Overcome) (pp. 265–294). Amsterdam: Kluwer.
Kotovsky, K., & Simon, H.A. (1990). What makes some problems really hard: Explorations in the problem space of difficulty. Cognitive Psychology, 22, 143–183.
Kreijns, K., & Kirschner, P.A. (2004). Designing sociable CSCL environments. In J.-W. Strijbos, P.A. Kirschner, & R.L. Martens (Eds.), What We Know about CSCL and Implementing It in Higher Education (pp. 221–243). Berlin Heidelberg New York: Springer.
Larkin, J.H., & Simon, H.A. (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive Science, 11, 65–99.
Lohse, G.L. (1997). Models of graphical perception. In M. Helander, T.K. Landauer, & P. Prabhu (Eds.), Handbook of Human–Computer Interaction (pp. 107–135). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Lund, K., Molinari, G., Séjourné, A., & Baker, M. (2007). How do argumentation diagrams compare when student pairs use them as a means for debate or as a tool for representing debate? International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(2).
Mayadas, F. (1997). Asynchronous learning networks: A Sloan Foundation perspective. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 1, http://www.aln.org/alnweb/journal/jaln_issue1.htm#mayadas.
Mirza, N.M., Tartas, V., Perret-Clermont, A.-N., & de Pietro, J.-F. (2007). Using graphical tools in a phased activity for enhancing dialogical skills: An example with Digalo. International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(2).
Mühlpfordt, M., & Wessner, M. (2005). Explicit referencing in chat supports collaborative learning. In T. Koschmann, D.D. Suthers, & T.-W. Chan (Eds.), Computer Supported Collaborative Learning: The Next 10 Years! (pp. 460–469). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Novick, L.R., & Hmelo, C.E. (1994). Transferring symbolic representations across nonisomorphic problems. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 20(6), 1296–1321.
O’Neill, D.K., & Gomez, L.M. (1994). The collaboratory notebook: A distributed knowledge-building environment for project-enhanced learning. In Proceedings of Ed-Media ’94.Charlottesville, VAAACE.
Olson, G.M., & Olson, J.S. (2000). Distance matters. Human–Computer Interaction, 15(2/3).
Paolucci, M., Suthers, D.D., & Weiner, A. (1996). Automated advice-giving strategies for scientific inquiry. In C. Frasson, G. Gauthier, & A. Lesgold (Eds.), 3rd International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITS’96) (1086 ed., pp. 372–381). Montreal: Berlin Heidelberg New York: Springer.
Puntambekar, S., Nagel, K., Hübscher, R., Guzdial, M., & Kolodner, J. (1997). Intra-group and intergroup: An exploration of learning with complementary collaboration tools. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Computer Supported Collaborativess Learning (CSCL’97) (pp. 207–214). Toronto: University of Toronto.
Ranney, M., Schank, P., & Diehl, C. (1995). Competence versus performance in critical reasoning: Reducing the gap by using Convince Me. Psychological Teaching Review, 4(2), 151–164.
Reyes, P., & Tchounikine, P. (2003). Supporting emergence of threaded learning conversations through augmenting interactional and sequential coherence. In B. Wasson, S. Ludvigsen, & U. Hoppe (Eds.), Designing for Change in Networked Learning Environments-Proceedings of Conference CSCL 2003 (pp. 83–92). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Roschelle, J. (1996). Designing for cognitive communication: Epistemic fidelity or mediating collaborating inquiry. In D.L. Day, & D.K. Kovacs (Eds.), Computers, Communication & Mental Models (pp. 13–25). London: Taylor & Francis.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E.A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735.
Scardamalia, M. (2004). CSILE/Knowledge Forum®. In Education and Technology: An Encyclopedia. (pp. 183–193). Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO.
Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., Brett, C., Burtis, P.J., Calhoun, C., & Smith Lea, N. (1992). Eductional applications of a networked communal database. Interactive Learning Environments, 2(1), 45–71.
Schwarz, B., & De Groot, R. (2007). Argumentation in a changing world. International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(2).
Schwarz, B., Neuman, Y., Gil, Y., & Ilya, M. (2002). Construction of collective and individual knowledge in argumentative activities: An experimental study. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(2).
Shipman, F.M., III, & McCall, R. (1994). Supporting Knowledge-base Evolution with Incremental Formalization, Chi94 (pp. 285–291). Boston, MA: ACM Press.
Smolensky, P., Fox, B., King, R., & Lewis, C. (1987). Computer-aided reasoned discourse, or, how to argue with a computer. In R. Guindon (Ed.), Cognitive Science and Its Implications for Human–Computer Interaction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Stahl, G. (2006). Group Cognition: Computer Support for Collaborative Knowledge Building. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Stenning, K., & Oberlander, J. (1995). A cognitive theory of graphical and linguistic reasoning: logic and implementation. Cognitive Science, 19, 97–140.
Stoyanova, N., & Kommers, P. (2002). Concept mapping as a medium of shared cognition in computer-supported collaborative problem solving. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 13(5), 111–134.
Suthers, D.D. (2001a). Collaborative representations: Supporting gace to face and online knowledge-building discourse. In Proceedings of the 34th Hawaìi International Conference on the System Sciences (HICSS-34), January 3–6, 2001, Maui, Hawaìi (CD-ROM): Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE).
Suthers, D.D. (2001b). Towards a systematic study of representational guidance for collaborative learning discourse. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 7(3).
Suthers, D.D. (2006a). A qualitative analysis of collaborative knowledge construction through shared representations. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 1(2), 1–28.
Suthers, D.D. (2006b). Technology affordances for intersubjective meaning-making: A research agenda for CSCL. International Journal of Computers Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(3), 315–337.
Suthers, D.D., & Weiner, A. (1995, October 17–20). Groupware for Developing Critical Discussion Skills. Paper presented at the 1st International Conference on Computer Support for Cooperative Learning. Bloomington, IN.
Suthers, D.D., & Hundhausen, C. (2003). An experimental study of the effects of representational guidance on collaborative learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(2), 183–219.
Suthers, D.D., Weiner, A., Connelly, J., & Paolucci, M. (1995). Belvedere: Engaging students in critical discussion of science and public policy issues. In J. Greer (Ed.), Proceedings of AI-ED 95 – World Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (pp. 266–273). Washington, D.C.: AACE.
Suthers, D.D., Toth, E.E., & Weiner, A. (1997). An integrated approach to implementing collaborative inquiry in the classroom. In R. Hall, N. Miyake, & N. Enyedy (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning (pp. 272–279). Toronto: University of Toronto.
Suthers, D.D., Connelly, J., Lesgold, A.M., Paolucci, M., Toth, E.E., Toth, J. et al. (2001). Representational and advisory guidance for students learning scientific inquiry. In K.D.F. a.P.J. Feltovich (Ed.), Smart Machines in Education: The Coming Revolution in Educational Technology (pp. 7–35). Cambridge, MA: AAAI Press, MIT Press.
Suthers, D.D., Girardeau, L.E., & Hundhausen, C.D. (2003a). Deictic roles of external representations in face-to-face and online collaboration. In B. Wasson, S. Ludvigsen, & U. Hoppe (Eds.), International Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning 2003 (pp. 173–182). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Suthers, D.D., Hundhausen, C.D., & Girardeau, L.E. (2003b). Comparing the roles of representations in face-to-face and online computer supported collaborative learning. Computers and Education, 41, 335–351.
Suthers, D.D., Dwyer, N., Medina, R., & Vatrapu, R. (2007a). A framework for eclectic analysis of collaborative interaction. In C. Chinn, G. Erkens, & S. Puntambekar (Eds.), The Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) Conference 2007 (pp. 694–703). New Brunswick: International Society of the Learning Sciences.
Suthers, D.D., Medina, R., Vatrapu, R., & Dwyer, N. (2007b). Information sharing is incongruous with collaborative convergence: The case for interaction. In C. Chinn, G. Erkens, & S. Puntambekar (Eds.), The Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) Conference 2007 (pp. 714–716). New Brunswick: International Society of the Learning Sciences.
Suthers, D.D., Vatrapu, R., Medina, R., Joseph, S., & Dwyer, N. (2007c). Conceptual representations enhance knowledge construction in asynchronous collaboration. In C. Chinn, G. Erkens, & S. Puntambekar (Eds.), The Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) Conference 2007 (pp. 704–713). New Brunswick: International Society of the Learning Sciences.
Suthers, D.D., Vatrapu, R., Medina, R., Joseph, S., & Dwyer, N. (2008). Beyond threaded discussion: Representational guidance in asynchronous collaborative learning environments. Computers and Education, doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2006.10.007, 50(4), 1103–1127.
Tabak, I. (2004). Synergy: A complement to emerging patterns of distributed scaffolding. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 205–335.
Toth, E.E., Suthers, D.D., & Lesgold, A.M. (2002). “Mapping to know”: The effects of representational guidance and reflective assessment on scientific inquiry. Science Education, 86(2), 264–286.
Turoff, M., Hiltz, S.R., Bieber, M., Fjermestad, J., & Rana, A. (1999). Collaborative discourse structures in computer mediated group communications. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 4(4), Online: http://jcmc.huji.ac.il/
van der Pol, J., Admiraal, W., & Simons, P.R.J. (2006). The affordance of anchored discussion for the collaborative processing of academic texts. Comptuer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(3), 339–357.
Veerman, A. (2003). Constructive discussions through electronic dialogue. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker, & D.D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to Learn: Confronting Cognitions in Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Environments (pp. 117–143). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Walther, J.B. (1994). Anticipated ongoing interaction versus channel effects on relational communication in computer-mediated interaction. Human Communication Research, 20(4), 473–501.
Wertsch, J.V. (1998). Mind as Action. New York: Oxford University Press.
Zhang, J. (1997). The nature of external representations in problem solving. Cognitive Science, 21(2), 179–217.
Acknowledgment
This work was supported by the National Science Foundation grants #9873516 (Knowledge and Distributed Intelligence) and #0093505 (CAREER), and was conducted in collaboration with numerous individuals acknowledged in the author’s cited publications.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer-Verlag London
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Suthers, D.D. (2014). Empirical Studies of the Value of Conceptually Explicit Notations in Collaborative Learning. In: Okada, A., Buckingham Shum, S., Sherborne, T. (eds) Knowledge Cartography. Advanced Information and Knowledge Processing. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-6470-8_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-6470-8_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-4471-6469-2
Online ISBN: 978-1-4471-6470-8
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)