This article describes a case study of an international collaboration between two classes of fifth grade students through an online discussion platform with one group more experienced in online knowledge building activities than the other. Before the collaboration, the novice class tended to produce isolated notes filled with information and confined their efforts to their own selected topics. When the more experienced class joined in, the discourse of the students in the novice class changed from more information-centered toward meaning negotiations; many more of their notes were linked with one another and they no longer confined their reading and responses to their own study topic. The class more experienced in knowledge building was more ready to express disagreement in their discourse. There was also evidence that the novice class learned from the experienced class to ask more questions in their online discussion. When the joint-collaboration ended, the novice class could still maintain the changed interaction patterns that reflected a stronger knowledge building orientation.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AzevedoR.CromleyJ. G., & SeibertD. (2004). Does adaptive scaffolding facilitate students' ability to regulate their learning with hypermedia?Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 344–370.
2.
AzevedoR.CromleyJ. G.WintersF. I.MoosD. C., & GreeneJ. A. (2005). Adaptive human scaffolding facilitates adolescents' self-regulated learning with hypermedia. Instructional Science, 33, 381–412.
3.
BereiterC. (2002). Education and mind in the knowledge age. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
4.
BrownA. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in evaluating complex interventions in classroom settings. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141–178.
5.
BrushT. A., & SayeJ. W. (2002). A summary of research exploring hard and soft scaffolding for teachers and students using a multimedia supported learning environment. The Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 1(2), 1–12.
6.
BurtisJ. (1998). The analytic toolkit. Toronto: The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, The University of Toronto, Knowledge Building Research Team.
7.
DavisE. A., & LinnM. C. (2000). Scaffolding students' knowledge integration: Prompts for reflection in KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 819–837.
8.
DoiseW., & MugnyG. (1984). The social development of the intellect. Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
9.
EdelsonD. C.GordinD., & PeaR. (1999). Addressing the challenges of inquiry-based learning through technology and curriculum design. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8, 391–450.
10.
GeX., & LandS. M. (2003). Scaffolding students' problem-solving processes in an ill-structured task using question prompts and peer interactions. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 51(1), 21–38.
11.
GunawardenaC. N.LoweC. A., & AndersonT. (1997). Analysis of 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(4), 397–431.
12.
HakkarainenK.LipponenL., & JarvelaS. (2002). Epistemology of inquiry and computer-supported collaborative learning. In MiyakeN.HallR., & KoschmannT. (Eds.), CSCL2: Carrying forward the conversation (pp. 129–156). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
13.
HewittJ. (2002). From a focus on tasks to a focus on understanding: The cultural transformation of a Toronto classroom. In MiyakeN.HallR., & KoschmannT. (Eds.), CSCL2: Carrying forward the conversation (pp. 11–41). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
14.
JarvelaS.HakkinenP.ArvajaM., & LeinonenP. (2004). Instructional support in CSCL. In StrijbosJ. W.KirschnerP. A., & MartensR. L. (Eds.), What we know about CSCL (pp. 115–139). Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
15.
KoschmannT.ZemelA.Conlee-StevensM.YoungN.RobbsJ., & BarnhartA. (2005). How do people learn? Members' methods and communicative mediation. In BrommeR.HesseF. W., & SpadaH. (Eds.), Barriers and biases in computer-mediated knowledge communication—and how they may be overcome (pp. 265–294). New York: Springer.
16.
LaiM., & LawN.When east meets west in collaborative inquiry. A paper under preparation.
17.
LajoieS. P. (2005). Extending the scaffolding metaphor. Instructional Science, 33, 541–557.
LawN. (2005). Assessing learning outcomes in CSCL settings. A paper presented at the CSCL conference May 30-June 4, 2005, Taiwan.
20.
LawN., & WongE. (2003). Developmental trajectory in knowledge building: An investigation. In WassonB.LudvigsenS., & HoppeU. (Eds.), Designing for change in networked learning environments (pp. 47–56). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
21.
LipponenL. (2000). Towards knowledge building: From facts to explanations in primary students' computer mediated discourse. Learning Environments Research, 3, 179–199.
22.
MessinaR.ReeveR., & ScardamaliaM. (2003). Collaborative structures supporting knowledge building: Grade 4. A paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, April 22, 2003, Chicago, Illinois.
23.
NisbettR. E. (2003). The geography of thought: How Asians and Westerners think differently and why. New York: Free Press.
24.
PalincsarA. S., & BrownA. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117–175.
25.
PeaR. (2004). The social and technological dimensions of scaffolding and related theoretical concepts for learning, education, and human activity. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 423–451.
26.
PiagetJ. (1928). The judgment and reasoning in children. London: Routledge and Kegan.
27.
ReiserB. J. (2004). Scaffolding complex learning: The mechanisms of structuring and problematizing student work. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 273–304.
28.
ScardamaliaM. (2002). Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of knowledge. In SmithB. (Ed.), Liberal education in a knowledge society (pp. 67–98). Chicago, IL: Open Court.
29.
ScardamaliaM., & BereiterC. (1991). Higher levels of agency for children in knowledge building: A challenge for the design of new knowledge media. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1(1), 37–68.
30.
ScardamaliaM., & BereiterC. (1992). An architecture for collaborative knowledge building. In De CorteE. (Ed.), Computer-based learning environments and problem solving (Vol. 84, pp. 41–66). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
31.
ScardamaliaM., & BereiterC. (1994). Computer support for knowledge-building communities. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(3), 265–283.
32.
StoneC. A. (1998). The metaphor of scaffolding: Its utility for the field of learning disabilities. The Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31, 344–364.
33.
SuthersD. D. (2005). Technology affordances for intersubjective learning: A thematic agenda for CSCL. A paper presented at the CSCL conference, May 30-June 4, 2005, Taiwan.
34.
TabakI. (2004). Synergy: A complement to emerging patterns of distributed scaffolding. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 305–335.
35.
TudgeJ. R. H., & RogoffB. (1989). Peer influences on cognitive development: Piagetian and Vygotskian perspectives. In BornsteinM. H. & BrunerJ. (Eds.), Interaction in human development (pp. 17–40). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
36.
VygotskyL. S. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher mental processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
37.
WoodD.BrunerJ., & RossG. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 17, 89–100.
38.
ZhangJ.ScardamaliaM.ReeveR., & MessinaR. (2005). Collective cognitive responsibility in knowledge building classes: A focus on social network structures. A paper presented in Summer Institute, Aug. 9–12, 2005, Toronto.
