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.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsReferences
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.
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.
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.
Azmitia, M. (1988). Peer Interaction and problem solving: When are two heads better than one? Child Development, 59, 87–96.
Bakeman, R., & Gottman, J. (1997). Observing interaction: An introduction to sequential analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press.
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.
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.
Barron, B. (2000). Achieving coordination in collaborative problem-solving groups. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(4), 403–436.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Chi, M. T. H. (1997). Quantifying qualitative analyses of verbal data: A practical guide. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6(3), 271–315.
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.
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.
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
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.
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.
de Guerrero, M., & Villamil, O. S. (2000). Activating the ZPD: Mutual scaffolding in L2 peer revision. The Modern Language Journal, 84(1), 51–68.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Erkens, G., & Janssen, J. (2008). Automatic coding of dialogue acts in collaboration protocols. International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 3, 447–470.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Henri, F. (1992). Computer conferencing and content analysis. In A. R. Kaye (Ed.), Collaborative learning through computer conferencing (pp. 117–136). London: Springer.
Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14–26.
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.
Jordan, B., & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(1), 39–103.
Kapur, M. (2008). Productive failure. Cognition and Instruction, 26, 379–424.
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.
Kitade, K. (2008). The role of offline metalanguage talk in asynchronous computer-mediated communication. Language Learning & Technology, 12(1), 64–84.
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.
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.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
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.
Leitão, S. (2000). The potential of argument in knowledge building. Human Development, 43, 332–360.
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.
Liu, P. L. (2011). A study on the use of computerized concept mapping to assist ESL learners’ writing. Computers & Education, 57, 2548–2558.
McDonough, K., & Sunitham, W. (2009). Collaborative dialogue between Thai EFL learners during self-access computer activities. TESOL Quarterly, 43(2), 231–255.
Mercer, N. (2010). The analysis of classroom talk: Methods and methodologies. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(1), 1–14.
Meyer, K. (2004). Evaluating online discussions: Four different frames of analysis. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 8(2), 101–114.
Onrubia, J., & Engel, A. (2009). Strategies for collaborative writing and phases of knowledge construction in CSCL environments. Computers & Education, 53, 1256–1265.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Riffe, D., Lacy, S., & Fico, F. (1998). Analyzing media messages: Using quantitative content analysis in research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Rintel, E. S., Mulholland, J., & Pittam, J. (2001). First things first: Internet relay chat openings. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 6(3).
Roschelle, J. (1994). Designing for cognitive communication: Epistemic fidelity or mediating collaborative inquiry? The Arachnet Electronic Journal of Virtual Culture, 2(2).
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.
Ross, J. A., & Cousins, J. B. (1995). Impact of explanation seeking on student achievement and attitudes. Journal of Educational Research, 89(2), 109–117.
Sawyer, R. K. (2006). The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Schefloff, E. A., & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closing. Semiotica, 7, 289–327.
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.
Schrire, S. (2006). Knowledge building in asynchronous discourse groups: Going beyond quantitative analysis. Computers & Education, 46, 49–70.
Siegler, R. S. (1995). How does change occur: A microgenetic study of number conservation. Cognitive Psychology, 25, 225–273.
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.
Stahl, G., & Hesse, F. (2010). The CSCL field matures. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5, 1–3.
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.
Strijbos, J. W., & Fisher, F. (2007). Methodological challenges for collaborative learning research. Learning and Instruction, 17, 389–393.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Swain, M., & Deters, P. (2007). “New” mainstream SLA theory: Expanded and enriched. The Modern Language Journal, 91(Focus Issue), 820–836.
Swann, J., Mesthrie, R., Deumert, A., & Leap, W. (2000). Introducing sociolinguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
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.
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.
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.
Valcke, M., & Martens, R. (2005). The problem arena of researching computer supported collaborative learning: Introduction to the special edition. Computers & Education, 46, 1–5.
Webb, N. M. (1982). Group composition, group interaction, and achievement in co-operative small groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 475–482.
Webb, N. M. (1989). Peer interaction and learning in small groups. International Journal of Educational Research, 13, 21–39.
Webb, N. M. (1991). Task-related verbal interaction and mathematics learning in small groups. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 22, 366–389.
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.
Webb, N. M., & Sugrue, B. (1997). Equity issues in collaborative group assessment; Group composition and performance. CSE Technical Report, University of California, Los Angeles.
Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2006). A framework to analyze argumentative knowledge construction in computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers & Education, 46, 71–95.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Zhu, E. (2006). Interaction and cognitive engagement: An analysis of four asynchronous online discussions. Instructional Science, 34, 451–480.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
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)