Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Computer-Supported Collaborative Chinese Second Language Learning pp 51–67Cite as

Analytic Framework for Multimedia and Multimodal Collaborative Learning

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 335 Accesses

Part of the book series: Chinese Language Learning Sciences ((CLLS))

Abstract

This chapter presents a review of existing analytic frameworks for investigating interaction in learning sciences and reveals the lack of an analytic framework, which is applicable for analyzing interactions happening in networked language learning classrooms. In the chapter, the strengths and weaknesses of the main analytic approaches to examining interactions are discussed, and microanalysis of interaction is highlighted. On this basis, the concept of “cross-media adjacency events” and “cross-media responses” are proposed to help identify the semantic and temporal relationship among face-to-face and online interactions and explore in which way small-group interaction occurred more effectively. The proposed analytic approach provides insights into investigating multimedia collaborative interactions in a comprehensive way.

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

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   54.99
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

  • Arvaja, M. (2007). Contextual perspective in analyzing collaborative knowledge construction of two small groups in web-based discussion. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2, 133–158.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arvaja, M. (2012). Personal and shared experiences as resources for meaning making in a philosophy of science course. International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 7, 85–108.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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(4), 448–459.

    Google Scholar 

  • Azmitia, M. (1988). Peer Interaction and problem solving: When are two heads better than one? Child Development, 59, 87–96.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker, M. (2003). Computer-mediated argumentative interactions for the co-elaboration of scientific notions. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 47–78). The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker, M., Andriessen, J., Lund, K., van Amelsvoort, M., & Quignard, M. (2007). Rainbow: A framework for analyzing computer-mediated pedagogical debates. International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 2, 315–357.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barron, B. (2000). Achieving coordination in collaborative problem-solving groups. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(4), 403–436.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cakir, M. P., Zemel, A., & Stahl, G. (2009). The joint organization of interaction within a multimodal CSCL medium. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4, 115–149.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chavajay, P., & Rogoff, B. (2002). Schooling and traditional collaborative social organization of problem solving by Mayan mothers and children. Developmental Psychology, 38(1), 55–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, W., & Looi, C. K. (2007). Incorporating online discussion in face to face classroom learning: A new blended learning approach. Australasian Journal of Educational Research, 23(3), 308–327.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, W., Looi, C. K., & Tan, S. (2010). What do students do in a F2F CSCL classroom? The optimization of multiple communications modes. Computers & Education, 55, 1159–1170.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, D. B., & Sampson, V. (2006). Characteristics of students’ argumentation practices when supported by online personally-seeded discussions. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association of Research in Science Teaching, San Francisco, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, D. B., Sampson, V., Weinberger, A., & Erkens, G. (2007). Analytic frameworks for assessing dialogic argumentation in online learning environments. Educational Psychology Review, 19(3), 343–374.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W. (2005). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative approaches to research (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Pearson Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dale, H. (1993). Conflict and engagement: Collaborative writing in one ninth-grade classroom. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta, GA.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Guerrero, M., & Villamil, O. S. (2000). Activating the ZPD: Mutual scaffolding in L2 peer revision. The Modern Language Journal, 84(1), 51–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Vries, E., Lund, K., & Baker, M. (2002). Computer-mediated epistemic dialogue: Explanation and argumentation as vehicles for understanding scientific notions. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(1), 63–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dembo, M. H., & McAuliffe, T. J. (1987). Effects of perceived ability and grade status on social interaction and influence in cooperative groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 415–423.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dillenbourg, P., Baker, M., Blaye, A., & O’Malley, C. (1996). The evolution of research on collaborative learning. In E. Spada & P. Reimen (Eds.), Learning in humans and machine: Towards an interdisciplinary learning science (pp. 189–211). Oxford : Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dillenbourg, P., & Traum, D. (2006). Sharing solutions: Persistence and grounding in multi-modal collaborative problem solving. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(1), 121–151.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dillenbourg, P., Järvelä, S., & Fischer, F. (2009). The evolution of research on computer-supported collaborative learning: From design to orchestration. In N. Balacheff, et al. (Eds.), Technology-enhanced learning (pp. 3–19). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dobao, A. F. (2012). Collaborative writing tasks in the L2 classroom: Comparing group, pair, and individual work. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(1), 40–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erkens, G., & Janssen, J. (2008). Automatic coding of dialogue acts in collaboration protocols. International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 3, 447–470.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garcia, A. C., & Jacobs, J. B. (1999). The eyes of the beholder: Understanding the turn-taking system in quasi-synchronous computer-mediated communication. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 32(4), 337–367.

    Google Scholar 

  • Groisman, B. (n.d.). What is dialectic? Some remarks on popper’s criticism. Retrieved May 17, 2010, from http://philpapers.org/autosense.pl?searchStr=Berry%20Groisman.

  • Gunawardena, C. N., Lowe, C. A., & Anderson, T. (1997). Analysis of a global online debate and the development of an interaction analysis model for examining social construction of knowledge in computer conferencing. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 17, 397–431.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gunawardena, C. N., Carabajal, K., & Lowe, C. A. (2001). Critical analysis of models and methods used to evaluate online learning networks. In American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting. Seattle: American Educational Research Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hȁkkinen, P., Jȁrvelȁ, S., & Mȁkitalo, K. (2003). Sharing perspectives in virtual interaction: Review of methods of analysis. In B. Wasson, S. Ludvigsen, & U. Hoppe (Eds.), Proceedings of CSCL 2003: Designing for Change in Networked Learning Environments (pp. 395–404). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henri, F. (1992). Computer conferencing and content analysis. In A. R. Kaye (Ed.), Collaborative learning through computer conferencing (pp. 117–136). London: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Liu, L., & Jordan, R. (2009). Visual representation of a multidimensional coding scheme for understanding technology-mediated learning about complex natural systems. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 4(3), 253–280.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Jordan, R., Liu, L., & Chernobilsky, E. (2011). 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). New York, NY: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoek, D., Terwel, J., & Van den Eeden, P. (1997). Effects of training in the use of social and cognitive strategies: An intervention study in secondary mathematics in co-operative groups. Educational Research and Evaluation, 3, 364–389.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hogan, K., Nastasi, B., & Pressley, M. (2000). Discourse patterns and collaborative scientific reasoning in peer and teacher-guided discussions. Cognition and Instruction, 17(4), 379–432.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hooper, S., & Hannafin, M. J. (1988). Cooperative CBI: The effects of heterogeneous versus homogeneous grouping on the learning of progressively complex concepts. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 4, 413–424.

    Google Scholar 

  • Janssen, J., Erkens, G., Jaspers, J., & Kanselaar, G. (2006). Visualizing participation to facilitate argumentation. Paper presented at the 7th International Conference of the Learning Sciences, Bloomington, IN.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jeong, A. C. (2003). The sequential analysis of group interaction and critical thinking in online threaded discussions. The American Journal of Distance Education, 17(1), 25–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jeong, A. C. (2005). A guide to analyzing message-response sequences and group interaction patterns in computer-mediated communication. Distance Education, 26(3), 367–383.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jeong, A. C., & Davidson-Shivers, G. V. (2006). The effects of gender interaction patterns on student participation in computer-supported collaborative argumentation. Educational Technology Research and Development, 54(6), 543–568.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Turner, L. A. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed methods research, 1(2), 112–133.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jordan, B., & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(1), 39–103.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Kapur, M. (2011). Temporality matters: Advancing a method for analyzing problem-solving processes in a computer-supported collaborative environment. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6(1), 39–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kitade, K. (2008). The role of offline metalanguage talk in asynchronous computer-mediated communication. Language Learning & Technology, 12(1), 64–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knouzi, I., Swain, M., Lapkin, S., & Brooks, L. (2010). Self-scaffolding mediated by languaging: microgenetic analysis of high and low performers. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 20(1), 23–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koschmann, T., Stahl, G., & Zemel, A. (2007). The video analyst’s manifesto (or the implications of Garfinkel’s policies for the development of a program of video analytic research within the learning sciences). In R. Goldman, R. Pea, B. Barron, & S. Derry (Eds.), Video research in the learning sciences (pp. 133–144). Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leechor, C. (1988). How high and low achieving students differentially benefit from working together in co-operative small groups. Doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, School of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leitão, S. (2000). The potential of argument in knowledge building. Human Development, 43, 332–360.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liao, C. Y., Chen, Z. H., Cheng, N. H., & Chen, T. W. (2012). Unfolding learning behaviors: A sequential analysis approach in a game-based learning environment. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 7(1), 25–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, P. L. (2011). A study on the use of computerized concept mapping to assist ESL learners’ writing. Computers & Education, 57, 2548–2558.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDonough, K., & Sunitham, W. (2009). Collaborative dialogue between Thai EFL learners during self-access computer activities. TESOL Quarterly, 43(2), 231–255.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mercer, N. (2010). The analysis of classroom talk: Methods and methodologies. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(1), 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, K. (2004). Evaluating online discussions: Four different frames of analysis. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 8(2), 101–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Onrubia, J., & Engel, A. (2009). Strategies for collaborative writing and phases of knowledge construction in CSCL environments. Computers & Education, 53, 1256–1265.

    Google Scholar 

  • Onrubia, J., & Engel, A. (2012). The role of teacher assistance on the effects of a macro-script in collaborative writing tasks. International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 7, 161–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orvis, K. L., Wisher, R. A., Bonk, C. J., & Olson, T. M. (2002). Communication patterns during synchronous web-based military training in problem solving. Computers in Human Behavior, 18, 783–795.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pallotti, G., & Wagner, J. (Eds.). (2011). L2 learning as a social practice: Conversation analytic perspectives. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i, National Foreign Language Resource Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perry, N. E., VandeKamp, K. O., Mercer, L. K., & Nordby, C. J. (2002). Investigating student-teacher interactions that foster self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 37, 15–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Puntambekar, S., Erkens, G., & Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2011). Introduction. In S. Puntambekar, G. Erkens, & C. E. Hmelo-Silver (Eds.), Analyzing interactions in CSCL (pp. ix–xiv). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riffe, D., Lacy, S., & Fico, F. (1998). Analyzing media messages: Using quantitative content analysis in research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rintel, E. S., Mulholland, J., & Pittam, J. (2001). First things first: Internet relay chat openings. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 6(3).

    Google Scholar 

  • Roschelle, J. (1994). Designing for cognitive communication: Epistemic fidelity or mediating collaborative inquiry? The Arachnet Electronic Journal of Virtual Culture, 2(2).

    Google Scholar 

  • Roschelle, J., & Teasley, S. D. (1995). The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving. In C. O’Malley (Ed.), Computer supported collaborative learning (pp. 69–96). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross, J. A., & Cousins, J. B. (1995). Impact of explanation seeking on student achievement and attitudes. Journal of Educational Research, 89(2), 109–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sawyer, R. K. (2006). The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schefloff, E. A., & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closing. Semiotica, 7, 289–327.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schellens, T., & Valcke, M. (2005). Collaborative learning in asynchronous discussion groups: What about the impact on cognitive processing? Computers in Human Behavior, 21, 957–975.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schrire, S. (2006). Knowledge building in asynchronous discourse groups: Going beyond quantitative analysis. Computers & Education, 46, 49–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siegler, R. S. (1995). How does change occur: A microgenetic study of number conservation. Cognitive Psychology, 25, 225–273.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stahl, G. (2006). Supporting group cognition in an online math community: A cognitive tool for small-group referencing in text chat. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 35(2), 103–122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stahl, G., & Hesse, F. (2010). The CSCL field matures. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5, 1–3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stahl, G., Koschmann, T., & Suthers, D. (2006). Computer-supported collaborative learning: An historical perspective. In Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 408–426). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strijbos, J. W., & Fisher, F. (2007). Methodological challenges for collaborative learning research. Learning and Instruction, 17, 389–393.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suthers, D. D. (2006). A Qualitative analysis of collaborative knowledge construction through shared representations. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 1(2), 115–142.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suthers, D. D., & Rosen, D. (2011). A unified framework for multi-level analysis of distributed learning. In B. Alberta (Ed.), Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (pp. 64–74). New York, NY, USA: ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suthers, D. D., Dwyer, N., & Medina, R. (2010). A framework for conceptualizing, representing, and analyzing distributed interaction. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5, 5–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suthers, D. D., Dwyer, N., Medina, R., & Vatrapu, R. (2007). A framework for eclectic analysis of collaborative interaction. In Proceedings of the Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) Conference 2007. New Brunswick: International Society of the Learning Sciences.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. The Modern Language Journal, 82(iii), 320–338.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swain, M., & Deters, P. (2007). “New” mainstream SLA theory: Expanded and enriched. The Modern Language Journal, 91(Focus Issue), 820–836.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swann, J., Mesthrie, R., Deumert, A., & Leap, W. (2000). Introducing sociolinguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tan, S. C., & Tan, A. L. (2006). Conversational analysis as an analytical tool for face-to-face and online conversations. Educational Media Interactional, 43(4), 347–361.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tan, S. C., Chai, C. S., & So, H. J. (2011). Methodological considerations for quantitative content analysis of online interactions. In B. Daniel (Ed.), A handbook of research on methods and techniques for studying virtual communities: Paradigms and phenomena (pp. 611–630). Hershey: IGI Global.

    Google Scholar 

  • Terwel, J., Gillies, R. M., Van den Eeden, P., & Hoek, D. (2001). Co-operative learning processes of students: A longitudinal multilevel perspective. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 619–645.

    Google Scholar 

  • Valcke, M., & Martens, R. (2005). The problem arena of researching computer supported collaborative learning: Introduction to the special edition. Computers & Education, 46, 1–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Webb, N. M. (1982). Group composition, group interaction, and achievement in co-operative small groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 475–482.

    Google Scholar 

  • Webb, N. M. (1989). Peer interaction and learning in small groups. International Journal of Educational Research, 13, 21–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Webb, N. M. (1991). Task-related verbal interaction and mathematics learning in small groups. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 22, 366–389.

    Google Scholar 

  • Webb, N. M., & Farivar, S. (1994). Promoting helping behaviour in co-operative small groups in middle school mathematics. American Educational Research Journal, 31(2), 369–395.

    Google Scholar 

  • Webb, N. M., & Sugrue, B. (1997). Equity issues in collaborative group assessment; Group composition and performance. CSE Technical Report, University of California, Los Angeles.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2006). A framework to analyze argumentative knowledge construction in computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers & Education, 46, 71–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wever, B. D., Schellens, T., Valcke, M., & Keer, H. V. (2006). Content analysis schemes to analyze transcripts of online asynchronous discussion groups: A review. Computer & Education, 46, 6–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yeh, S. W., Lo, J. J., & Huang, J. J. (2011). Scaffolding collaborative technical writing with procedural facilitation and synchronous discussion. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6(3), 397–419.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zemel, A., Xhafa, F., & Cakir, M. (2007). What’s in the mix? Combining coding and conversation analysis to investigate chat-based problem solving. Learning and Instruction, 17, 405–415.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, J., Scardamalia, M., Reeve, R., & Messina, R. (2009). Designs for collective cognitive responsibility in knowledge building communities. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18(1), 7–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhu, E. (2006). Interaction and cognitive engagement: An analysis of four asynchronous online discussions. Instructional Science, 34, 451–480.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Nanyang Technological University, National Institute of Education, Singapore, Singapore

    Yun Wen

Authors
  1. Yun Wen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yun Wen .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Wen, Y. (2019). Analytic Framework for Multimedia and Multimodal Collaborative Learning. In: Computer-Supported Collaborative Chinese Second Language Learning. Chinese Language Learning Sciences. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0271-2_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0271-2_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-15-0270-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-15-0271-2

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation