Multivocality as a Tool for Design-Based Research

Part of the Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Series book series (CULS, volume 15)


This chapter provides an integrated perspective of the discussions and analyses related to the Design-Based Research process enacted in a multivocal way in this 9th Grade Biology section of the book. The focus of the work is iterative development of what are referred to as accountable talk agents to support collaborative learning in an urban high school science laboratory. This discussant chapter provides an interpretation of the multivocal process, how it sometimes worked and sometimes did not, and what lessons were learned along the way. This early stage in a design-based research (DBR) program is timely for understanding how a complex sociotechnical intervention affected collaboration.


Software Agent Group Cognition Initial Enactment Agent Move Pivotal Moment 
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.


  1. Bielaczyc, K. (2006). Designing social infrastructure: Critical issues in creating learning environments with technology. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15, 301–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2, 141–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Clarke, S. N., Chen, G., Stainton, C., Katz, S., Greeno, J. G., Resnick, L. B., Dyke, G., Howley, I., Adamson, D., & Rosé, C. P. (2013). The impact of CSCL beyond the online environment. In N. Rummel, M. Kapur, M. J. Nathan & S. Puntambekar (Eds.), To See the World and a Grain of Sand: Learning across Levels of Space, Time, and Scale: CSCL 2013 Conference Proceedings Volume 1 — Full Papers & Symposia (pp. 105-112). June 15-19, 2013, Madison, Wisconsin: International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar
  4. Cobb, P., Confrey, J., DiSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in educational research. Educational Researcher, 32, 9–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cobb, P., & Gravemeijer, K. (2008). Experimenting to support and understand learning processes. In A. E. Kelly, R. A. Lesh, & J. Y. Baek (Eds.), Handbook of design research methods in education (pp. 68–95). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Cress, U., & Kimmerle, J. (this volume). Successful knowledge building needs group awareness: Interaction analysis of a 9th grade CSCL biology lesson. In D. D. Suthers, K. Lund, C. P. Rosé, C. Teplovs & N. Law (Eds.), Productive multivocality in the analysis of group interactions, Chapter 27. New York: SpringerGoogle Scholar
  7. Dillenbourg, P. (2002). Over-scripting CSCL: The risks of blending collaborative learning with instructional design. In P. A. Kirschner (Ed.), Three worlds of CSCL (pp. 61–91). Heerlen, Netherlands: Open Universitat Nederland.Google Scholar
  8. Dyke, G., Howley, I. K., Kumar, R., & Rosé, C. P. (this volume). Towards academically productive talk supported by conversational agents. In D. D. Suthers, K. Lund, C. P. Rosé, C. Teplovs & N. Law (Eds.), Productive multivocality in the analysis of group interactions, Chapter 25. New York: SpringerGoogle Scholar
  9. Dyke, G., Lund, K., & Girardot, J. (2009). Tatiana: An environment to support the CSCL analysis process. In C. O’Malley, D. Suthers, P. Reimann, & A. Dimitracopoulou (Eds.), Computer supported collaborative learning practices: CSCL 2009 (pp. 58–67). Rhodes, Greece: International Society for the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar
  10. Goggins, S. P., & Dyke, G. (this volume). Network analytic techniques for online chat. In D. D. Suthers, K. Lund, C. P. Rosé, C. Teplovs & N. Law (Eds.), Productive multivocality in the analysis of group interactions, Chapter 29. New York: SpringerGoogle Scholar
  11. Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2003). Analyzing collaborative knowledge construction: Multiple methods for integrated understanding. Computers and Education, 41, 397–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16, 235–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2012, March). Une Approche de Recherche Basée sur la Conception afin de Comprendre l’apprentissage Complexe: A Design-Based Research Approach to Understanding Complex Learning. Invited presentation. Seminaire sciences de la’apprendre. Institute Français de L’Education. Lyon, France.Google Scholar
  14. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Barrows, H. S. (2008). Facilitating collaborative knowledge building. Cognition and Instruction, 26, 48–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Liu, L., Gray, S., Finkelstein, H., & Schwartz, R. (2007). Enacting things differently: Using NetLogo models to learn about complex systems. Paper presented at the Biennial meeting of European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction, Budapest, HungaryGoogle Scholar
  16. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Nagarajan, A., & Chernobilsky, E. (2009). Two sides of the coin: Multiple perspectives on collaborative knowledge construction in online problem-based learning. In K. Kumpulainen, C. E. Hmelo-Silver, & M. César (Eds.), Investigating classroom interaction: Methodologies in action (pp. 73–98). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  17. Howley, I. K., Kumar, R., Mayfield, E., Dyke, G., & Rosé, C. P. (this volume). Gaining insights from sociolinguistic style analysis for redesign of conversational agent based support for collaborative learning. In D. D. Suthers, K. Lund, C. P. Rosé, C. Teplovs & N. Law (Eds.), Productive multivocality in the analysis of group interactions, Chapter 26. New York: SpringerGoogle Scholar
  18. 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, 11–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Resnick, L. B., Michaels, S., & O’Connor, M. (2010). How (well-structured) talk builds the mind. In D. Preiss & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Innovations in educational psychology: Perspectives on learning, teaching, and human development (pp. 163–194). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  20. Sandoval, W. A. (2004). Developing learning theory by refining conjectures embodied in educational designs. Educational Psychologist, 39, 213–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Sandoval, W. A. (2013). Conjecture Mapping: An Approach to Systematic Educational Design Research. Journal of the Learning Sciences. DOI: 10.1080.10508406.2013.778204.Google Scholar
  22. Shavelson, R. J., Phillips, D. C., Towne, L., & Feuer, M. J. (2003). On the science of education design studies. Educational Researcher, 32, 25–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Stahl, G. (this volume). Interaction analysis of a biology chat. In D. D. Suthers, K. Lund, C. P. Rosé, C. Teplovs & N. Law (Eds.), Productive multivocality in the analysis of group interactions, Chapter 28. New York: SpringerGoogle Scholar
  24. Suthers, D. (this volume). Multivocal analysis: Objectives and origins. In D. Suthers, K. Lund, C. P. Rosé, C. Teplovs & N. Law (Eds.), Productive multivocality in the analysis of group interactions, Chapter 1. New York: SpringerGoogle Scholar
  25. Suthers, D. D., Lund, K., Rosé, C. P., Dyke, G., Law, N., Teplovs, C., Chen, W., Chiu, M. M., Jeong, H., Looi, C.-K., Medina, R., Oshima, J., Sawyer, R. K., Shirozou, H., Strijbos, J.-W., Trausan-Matu, S., & van Aalst, J. (2011). Towards productive multivocality in the analysis of collaborative learning. In H. Spada, G. Stahl, N. Miyake & N. Law (Eds.), Connecting Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning to Policy and Practice: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL 2011) (Vol. III, pp. 1015-1022). Hong Kong: International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Indiana UniversityBloomingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations