Discourse, Tools and Activity in online PBL 1 ... - Semantic Scholar

Discourse, Tools and Activity in online PBL

Collaborative Discourse, Tools, and Activity in Online Problem-Based Learning

Ellina Chernobilsky Cindy E. Hmelo-Silver Rutgers University

Matt DelMarcelle University of Wisconsin

1

Discourse, Tools and Activity in online PBL Abstract Activity theory, a part of socio-cultural perspective on learning, provides a conceptual map of how human cognition is distributed. The theory states that each activity is composed of a subject, an object, mediating tools, community, division of labor and rules. One of the central foci of the activity theory is the mediational role that tools play in an activity. Language, which primary function is the scaffolding of social activities is one of the most important tools people use. Discourse is an essential tool of any collaborative activity – it allows people to share their thinking, refine their understanding and recognize the contributions of others. Looking at activities and discourse through the lenses of the activity theory allows for better understanding of how people think and learn. The goal of the current research was to establish a methodology for examining students learning processes in on-line collaborative environments. The research examined the interaction and the tool use of two groups of pre-service teachers who participated in an on-line video case analysis activity using STEP system – a collaborative environment designed to guide students through on-line problem-based learning tasks. The goal of the activity for both groups was to collaboratively analyze the video case and then individually apply the learning sciences concepts in a lesson design. To examine how tools shape the activity, while the activity shapes collaboration and discourse during the task, two types of analyses were performed: (a) chronological representations of discourse and tool-related activity (CORDTRA) were constructed and (b) qualitative examination of discourse in both groups was conducted.

2

Discourse, Tools and Activity in online PBL The goal of this paper is to present these analyses and to discuss the effects of available tools and discourse that students and tutor engage in while working on the task.

3

Discourse, Tools and Activity in online PBL Collaborative Discourse, Tools, and Activity in Online Problem-Based Learning A sociocultural view of learning posits that interaction among learners, teachers, and mediating tools supports active thinking and promotes learning (Vygotsky, 1978). In this paper, we examine how collaborative discourse and tools mediate knowledge construction in an online problem-based learning activity. Looking at discourse and tools through the lenses of sociocultural perspective and activity theory (Engeström, 1999), we investigate how the tools available (e.g., software tools, hypermedia, and a human facilitator), the norms of the community, and the goals of the activity afford and constrain the learning. Working in groups allows learners to share the ideas and develop new, authentic solutions to problems they are trying to solve, and, while doing so, acquire useful knowledge of theories and concepts (Siegel, Derry, Steinkuehler, Kim & Seymour, 2001). Exchanging information is an important part of learning together as knowledge is constructed socially through joint efforts towards common objectives (Pea, 1993). Through interaction, people utilize their higher order thinking skills and advance their knowledge while actively engaged in learning (Vygotsky, 1986). This view of learning also accounts for the active use of tools, more recently described as activity theory (Engeström, 1999). Activity theory is a part of sociocultural view of learning. Activity theory tries to explain the changes in human practices over time. According to this theory, each activity is composed of a subject (a person or persons directly involved in activity), an object (the goal of an activity), mediating artifacts (tools and artifacts that aid in the achievement of the goal), community (people who are involved indirectly), division of labor and rules (the socially established

4

Discourse, Tools and Activity in online PBL regulations that drive the activity). Internalization and externalization are two basic processes that can be found in every activity. Internalization is a process of transferring material from social to personal domains, while externalization is the process where the material is introduced back to the social environment (Valsiner, 1997, Engeström & Miettinen, 1999). These intertwined processes provide for the transformation of knowledge from social to individual and back. Activity theory provides a conceptual map of how human cognition is distributed. It explains how a community contributes to the activity a subject is engaged in (Cole & Engeström, 1993). It also provides the researchers with the conceptual understanding of how the tools and artifacts are affecting the activity and its outcomes. Vygotsky (1986) believed that the most important tool that people use is language. Bakhtin (1996) who states that all human activity is connected to the usage of language supports this notion. One of the primary functions of language is “to scaffold the performance of social activities” (Gee, 1999, p. 1). Discourse is a backbone of any collaborative activity that allows people to share their thinking, understanding and recognition of others’ contributions. Discourse is closely related to many cognitive processes such as perception, memory and problem solving (Graesser, Millis & Zwaan, 1997). Looking at discourse through the lenses of socio-cultural and cognitive theories allows us to understand how people think and learn. The current research has two goals. First of all, this research is an attempt to develop a methodology that allows us to examine students’ learning process using technology and on-line collaborative environments. Second, this research is an examination of how students learn in an on-line learning environment, the STEP system.

5

Discourse, Tools and Activity in online PBL

The STEP system STEP system is an on-line learning environment, designed to support students as they engage in problem-based learning (Derry & the STEP Team, 2002). The goal of the system is to provide pre-service teachers with an opportunity to study the learning sciences using videocases as contexts to engage in collaborative lesson design. The system contains three parts: an on-line problem-based learning environment (tools that scaffold students’ online individual and group work), an on-line library of video cases and a hypermedia textbook, the Knowledge Web (KW). The KW is a cognitive flexibility hypertext (Spiro et al., 1992), which provides information about learning sciences theories and concepts. The videocases consist of minicases that are indexed to appropriate concepts in the KW. This site has twelve steps that guide students through the activity. Some steps are designed for individual work (e.g. log your initial observations, do research and write research notes), others are designed for group work (e.g. discuss the minicases, develop a conceptual analysis for a minicase). Picture 1 provides a screen shot of this twelve-step system.

Method The subjects of the study were two groups of preservice teachers who engaged in an online video case analysis activity that lasted seven weeks. The videocase showed a student teacher in a social studies classroom using problem-based learning method. One group had five members, another – six members. Both groups had the same tutor to facilitate the learning. The role of the tutor was twofold – the tutor was to assist the

6

Discourse, Tools and Activity in online PBL students with the learning process, guiding them through the steps of the activity, helping them by asking the questions and monitoring their progress and schedule. At the same time, the tutor was to answer all questions about the site and how it functions. The goal of the activity was to apply learning science concepts to the analysis of a videocase, and later on to individually apply those concepts to design their own instruction. The interaction patterns in the two groups were quite different. We examine how the group norms and construed goals differ as well as the role of the facilitator and other tools in supporting the interaction. We also look at the division of labor, the rules that students used and/or established in order to complete their work and how the facilitation fits into these rules and labor division.

Data Sources Upon the completion of the course, we had several data sources – students log files that the STEP system generated, group online discussions, individual student observations and research notes from online journals, tutor notes and class e-mails. The reflection steps at the end of activity provided students’ views on (a) their learning and how successful it was and (b) the activity, its structure and the site that the students used. Finally, the surveys were conducted at the beginning and at the end of the class to assess students’ attitudes and knowledge. The two major sources of data of primary interest to this research were computer generated log files and online student/tutor discourse. The hypothesis that drove the

7

Discourse, Tools and Activity in online PBL research was that tools shape the activity, while activity in turn shapes collaboration and discourse. Thus, our goals for this research can be outlined as follows: 1. to examine the interaction between the group members and the tutor; 2. to examine the usage of technology as a tool in the activity (Engeström, 1999, Tikhomirov, 1999); 3. to examine how the use of technology affects the division of labor in the activity. It, therefore, made sense to consider two major sources of data together rather than separately. The rest of the data were used as secondary, supportive sources. Since the data that we collected were scattered in different databases (e.g. log files, threaded discussion), the first important issue that we faced was to gather and organize the data from these various sources into a manageable and user-friendly manner that would allow for the data analysis. We created a data file for each group. Each file contains three parts. Part one has date and time for each log on to the STEP system, the student id and user name, group number, sites attended during each log-in, online students discourse and the personal journals that students kept while working on the problem. All these data were compiled in the chronological order. Part two contains the group work that the students produced as a result of their research and discussions. Group white boards are placed in this section of the data file. Part three of each file contains analytic coding for each entry in parts one and two. The discourse was parsed into idea units for the purpose of this analysis. Since many of the utterances were more than one sentence long, it was possible that more than one idea was discussed in a single utterance. We looked for multiple ideas in each utterance and then split the utterance if it contained

8

Discourse, Tools and Activity in online PBL more than one idea. This approach resulted in a detailed break-up of everything the students had said and noted in their work. Coding and analysis A large number of concepts mentioned by students during their discussions was identified initially. However, upon a closer examination, we noticed that many concepts were mentioned only once or twice and then dismissed by either the group or the individual members of the groups. To make coding more manageable and to reduce the number of concepts represented, the frequency of concept use was calculated for all concepts and the decision was made to represent only main concepts discussed by each group. The rest of the concepts were collapsed in “other concepts” category. When coding for the concepts researched on the KW, the same principle was applied: major concepts that were researched frequently were noted separately and the rest were collapsed together. Two independent coders, one of whom was not familiar with the course content coded the discourse utterances for both groups and then compared their results. Overall agreement on the coding of utterances was 83.3% for group one, and 82% for group two. Besides the coding of ideas and concepts expressed in each utterance, the discourse of each group was coded for student collaboration, monitoring and speech complexity. Each of these categories was broken into further, more detailed subcategories. Student collaboration included introduction of new ideas, modification of previously stated ideas, agreement or disagreement with other group members, acknowledgement of other group members and summarizing of ideas.

9

Discourse, Tools and Activity in online PBL Monitoring was coded for utterances that involved group or individual monitoring and planning. This category also included the utterances where the students mention their self-directed learning. We identified three types of justifications students used to back up their ideas: belief, personal experience, or scientific evidence justifications. We coded these justifications accordingly. Students used the following on-line tools during the activity: the twelve-step online learning environment, video with the case to be analyzed, hypermedia textbook KW, discussion board, research library, group report tool, lesson plans, notes and help tools. Although some of these tools were not used frequently, all of them were kept for coding to ensure the completeness of examinations. Constructing representations to support data analysis To analyze the data, chronologically ordered representations of discourse and tool-related activity (CORDTRA) were used to analyze the data (Luckin et al., 1998; 2001). This allowed us to examine how the learning processes in the discourse were associated with the use of the various tools in the STEP system. This methodology also allowed us to examine the dynamic tension between the actors and objects within the activity system (Barab, Barnett, Yamagata-Lynch, Squire, Keating; in press) in an attempt to uncover the mediating roles that the facilitator, the STEP system and online problem-based learning environment played. Results The results for each group are presented based on CORDTRA diagrams and based on the qualitative examination of conceptual analyses written by the groups. Group One

10

Discourse, Tools and Activity in online PBL When CORDTRA diagram was constructed for group one (see Figure 1), five phases of the activity were identified (see Table 1). Phase I was the introduction phase. During this phase the tutor tried to set the stage and students met each other in an on-line environment for the first time. What is interesting about this stage is that students talk very little—just introducing themselves and bringing in some ideas about the analysis of the case. They spend much of their on-line time to explore the affordances of the environment. Moreover, they concentrate on STEP system and on the video they are about to analyze. Very few concepts are identified during the discourse and explored on the Knowledge Web (KW) during this phase. Phase II, the initial discussion stage is where the students get involved in the initial video analysis. Many concepts are being discussed and quite a few new ideas and modifications are being introduced. The students continue visiting STEP system and are actively using discussion board tool; however, the usage of video is minimal and KW is not utilized at all. Instead, students concentrate on generating a list of concepts they need to explore in order to analyze the video and solve the given problem. During this phase, the students talk a lot about themselves (code-personal talk), and there are many task related utterances as the students are trying to clarify what they need to do and what is expected of them. CORDTRA diagram reveals that two most active talkers are the facilitator (who, at this state, is establishing the ground rules for work, explains the nature of the task and sets the tone for the work students are expected to do) and one of the students, Sonya (who later on in the activity will assume a role and responsibilities of the group leader). Finally, as the students introduce new ideas and bring in the possible concepts necessary for case analysis, they give justifications of why they think these

11

Discourse, Tools and Activity in online PBL concepts are important. CORDTRA diagram shows that most of justifications given during this phase of the activity are belief-based. CORDTRA representations also indicate that the students discuss the task and tools necessary to solve it as well as many concepts that might be necessary for the case analysis. During this phase, students acknowledge each other’s thoughts and ideas a lot and introduce quite a few new ideas that might contribute to the case analysis. As they do so, they provide numerous explanations why these ideas may be valid or interesting. During this discussion, a number of concepts for research is minimized and some important decisions are made. Students decide for themselves which concepts they would be interested in investigating. Thus, for example, we could see that a couple of students decided to research and learn more about social knowledge construction, while Eva decided to investigate the concept of modeling. In summary, by the end of this phase, new ideas are brought to the table, discussed, refined, and the group has a research plan. Phases III and IV are the phases where the research is conducted, reported on and the ideas are refined. During the research phase (phase III), students had no discourse. Instead, CORDTRA shows an active use of on-line space (all tools are used, some extensively, some not). We could also see that many concepts are researched on KW. However, it is also evident that the number of hits to the concept pages is limited (e.g. questioning page was only visited twice, while the page on Cognitive Flexibility was visited three times). Students also begin working on their own lesson plans and visit each other’s plans quite frequently. Phase IV (reporting phase) is when students report their findings and comment on each other’s lessons. During this phase we see a mixture of activity: there’s some

12

Discourse, Tools and Activity in online PBL discourse (where again students acknowledge each others work, share and modify their ideas, refine their understanding of the task and concepts), and there is an intensive usage of all available on-line tools. It is worth noting that the facilitator is not active during this phase. He only speaks twice and both times briefly. Instead, he is silently monitoring the process and allows the students to go through learning and help each other. The final phase of the activity is the phase where the students refine their knowledge. Virtually no conversation is taking place (at the very end of this phase a student places some comments, but no reply is given to her). Instead, students are busy learning from the KW and the research library. A number of different concepts was visited on KW during this phase. This is the phase when students prepare their individual solutions and provide the learning sciences evidence that their solutions are sound.

Group 2 Figure 2 gives CORDTRA diagram for group 2. It shows that only three phases of the activity are clearly identifiable. Comparing to group 1, the students in group 2 blended the introductory phase with their discussion phase, despite the effort by the tutor to set the stage and to invite the students to get familiar with the on-line space and to get to know each other better. Instead, the students went straight into the discussion phase, where they began bringing new ideas and started generating the concept list they needed to explore. The only tools that students in group 2 use during this phase are the STEP environment, discussion board (used intensively) and video presented for analysis (used moderately). No exploration of other tools and affordances of the system is taking place during this phase. Instead, the students are focused on discussing various concepts. All

13

Discourse, Tools and Activity in online PBL students, as well as the tutor, are active talkers during this phase. Just like the group 1 members, these students bring in a lot of personal talk. At the same time, they remain focused on the discussion of the task and the concepts presented in the video. Most of the questions that students bring in during the discourse were the information seeking questions. During this phase, students bring in a lot of new ideas (with some modifications). They acknowledge each other a lot and agree with each other’s thinking often. Unlike group 1 members, during this phase, students in group 2 voice some disagreements as well. Just like group 1 members, students in group 2 provide justifications of why they think the concepts are important. Most of the justifications students are brining in as a back up to their point of view is based on their beliefs. Very few personal experience justifications and some scientific evidence justification are given during phase I. Finally, a lot of monitoring and planning is happening during this phase for the group 2 members. Group monitoring of the progress is the most frequent during this stage. It appears that throughout this phase, students decide on what the entire group and each individual should do for the rest of the activity. Phase II is the combination of phases III and IV that group 1 went through. This phase could be identified as “research and share phase”. During this phase, students researched concepts, and report on the results of their research and, while discussing, they continue the research on KW. During this phase, students also begin working on creating their final individual solution – lesson plans. They begin looking at each other’s individual work and comment on it. At the same time, we see that the frequency of concept references on KW is low - students look at just a few concepts, mostly once or

14

Discourse, Tools and Activity in online PBL twice per concept. Neither students nor the tutor were active talkers during this phase: instead the students are busy using tools: out of nine tools available, eight are used during this phase (although CORDTRA shows that some tools are used more frequently than others). Again, most of the questions students ask are information seeking questions that students ask when they review each other’s lesson (view other lesson plans tool). During this phase, students discuss fewer concepts, bring in very few new ideas and modifications. However, they continue to acknowledge each other. There are no disagreements during this phase. Phase III in group 2 activity is identical to phase V in the activity that group 1 went through. Just like during the final phase in group 1, no discourse it taking place among group 2 members. Just like group 1, students in group 2 are busy looking into the KW and research library for the concepts they are using in their final lesson plan. Many concepts are visited during this final stage of the activity as students try to refine their solution before the activity is over. Table 2 summarizes the phases of the activity that group 2 went through. Qualitative comparison of two groups The qualitative analysis of two groups indicated that just as the groups differed in their approaches to on-line learning, their final group artifacts were quite different as well. Although both groups seemed to discuss relevant concepts in their conceptual analyses, the quality of writing of two groups was quite different. Group 1 exhibited more professional talk and vocabulary in their writing. Their goal in writing the conceptual analysis appeared to be the application to the problem, not the criticism of the teacher they had seen in the case. Their style of writing was more professional and more

15

Discourse, Tools and Activity in online PBL sophisticated, their ideas were better explained and connected to the problem they tried to solve. Considering some examples of their writing helps to see that the students really engaged in the discussion of the case before they wrote and re-wrote their conceptual analyses. That is what they write on social knowledge construction: “In doing this, the students are participating in Social knowledge construction by taking their diverse individual knowledge and developing it into a shared, group knowledge. When the students shared their personal knowledge with the group they were able to examine their own understanding of the information and find gaps in their knowledge. Students are able to improve their understanding of a topic when they are able to verbalize their opinion and explain their reasoning behind their beliefs, which is what SKC allows them to do. Cognitive Flexibility Theory can apply to SKC, as kids are taking knowledge that they have from one experience and transferring it into a larger context of a group.” They continue with the same topic when writing an analysis of a different minicase: “Social knowledge construction is the claim that by working in groups students can come to a larger, shared knowledge that would not have been possible had they been working individually. In order for social knowledge construction to occur an environment must be created where learned information could e exchanged. We know the information gathering of the whole group was done individually or in parts in the library. For learning to occur for the whole community in an SKC context, the instructor has to provide an environment in which learned information is exchanged. Kyle has created such an environment in his class in the discussion recorded in minicase 8. This final minicase demonstrates well this exchange and the creating of shared knowledge.” From this passage, it is clear that students not only discussed the theoretical underpinnings of the concept, but also tried to see how it applies to the case. Their discussion of modeling and its application to the case includes the following passage: “Closely related to metacognition is modeling. There are several times when Kyle tries to demonstrate metacognition through the modeling process. Kyle overtly models target cognitive behavior asking : What do we know? What do we need to know?” to allow the students who are new to the self monitoring process to see what thinking processes are involved. The internalization of higher –order thought

16

Discourse, Tools and Activity in online PBL processes such as analysis, evaluation of arguments, perception, awareness and problem solving provides stronger critical thinking, better performance in specific domain, and greater possibilities of transfer.” Again, theoretical discussion is followed by n application to the case. Finally, in the discussion of discourse and its use in the case, group 1 writes: “His [Kyle’s] questioning technique can be identifies as IRE, or Initiate, Respond and Evaluate. While Kyle’s questions were open ended, he seemed to be fishing for correct and incorrect answers. He did not ask for opinions and elaborations from the students and at times actually elaborated for the students. By using a probing questioning style that encouraged students to tell that they know and what they feel about what they know, Kyle could have moved beyond this. Also in Kyle’s questions he did not ask the student to evaluate the validity of their findings. Kyle could have aligned students statements with sides of the issue and promoted an argumentative environments and critical analysis of this hotly debated issue.” In this passage, the students introduce their understanding of what went on in the video case and the possible improvement that could be advised to the teacher based on the theoretical knowledge the group gained. From the examples given above, it is clear that the students in the group are careful to consider all options available to them, think of how the discussed concepts apply to the case and how might they be used outside of the case given. Their thinking is concise but at the same time their writing is coherent. They are using what is known as knowledge transforming– the highest form of knowledge development (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1987). Looking at how the students applying the concepts it is evident that they have appropriate ontological understandings of many of the concepts they are discussing (DaCosta, Hmelo-Silver & Derry, 2003). Group 2 also used a lot of specialized vocabulary in their conceptual analyses. However, from reading their group artifacts, it was evident that the language the group used was lay. It also seems that although the vocabulary was used, the students did not

17

Discourse, Tools and Activity in online PBL quite appropriated the language of the domain. Their ideas did not seem to be well connected and their description of how the concepts they talked about related to the case were not clear. The qualitative examination also revealed that the group seemed to engage more in the criticism of the case they were analyzing rather then the analysis itself. This technique did not seem to be useful as it did not result in a deeper understanding of the concepts, which is evident in their writing. Some of the excerpts of the group’s writing are given below. That is what the group wrote in their discussion of the discourse: “The classroom discourse in minicase 2 is also teacher-centered. In Kyle’s discourse with the students he is trying to help them formulate their ideas as they present them, especially with the first girl, Kathy. After Kathy talks about what she knows about the vouchers, Kyle tries to help her by summarizing the main points that she made. He continues to do this when other people speak as well, He does not do this in order to repeat the information for the students who were not listening. Instead he does it to help students analyze what was said and pick out what he thought was important. This is a very important part of classroom discourse. Kyle’s discourse was commendable in relation to the concept of zone of proximal development. He helps the student talk and explain why their views clearly, so that eventually they will be able to present clear ideas and arguments on their own.” They pick up on the same topic in their analysis of the second minicase they discussed: “ The majority of discourse was in the from of initial, respond, evaluate (IRE). This form of discourse does not facilitate very much learning and does not facilitate student-student discourse. An open participating structure, reciprocal teacher or small group discussion would have been more fitting for a studentcentered lesson. These formats would have placed more responsibility on the students for their learning and would have facilitated greater learning.” It seems that in the first passage, the group describes what happened in class, while in the second passage, they try to give and advice. However, there is no explanation of why

18

Discourse, Tools and Activity in online PBL other forms of discourse may be more appropriate in the lesson and the group does not provide any clear description of what these other forms of discourse are about. Their discussion on modeling includes the following passage: “Kyle does provide a model of how to develop an argument when he links school vouchers with private schools, religion and the first amendment. He’s making a claim that school vouchers can potentially violate someone’s first amendment right and then supports that claim with evidence from the private school example. But it is difficult to determine whether students are observing how to formulate an argument from this one example. ... As a collective group we feel that Kyle would have been more effective if he had been able to foster more students involvement in the lesson. Throughout this analysis we offered a few examples on how he could have done this. Again, in this passage the description of what was happening in the case is given without a clear coherent explanation of conceptual base and application to the problem at hand. In the discussion of the social knowledge construction, the group members are clearly engaging in telling, the lowest level on the scale of knowledge development (Bereiter and Scardamalia, 1987): “Social knowledge construction could have helped Kyle in the sense that the discussions may have been more meaningful had he placed the students in groups in order to foster deeper thinking in terms of vouchers.” “In order to set classroom norms and allow for social knowledge construction to be effective for each of the members of the class, he would have had to make known ahead of time the rules for participation in the group and how the group members would be evaluated.” “Classroom management, collaborative learning, and social knowledge construction are critical classroom issues.” The passages above also serve as indication that at the end of this activity, students did not yet have the clear ontological understanding of the concepts they were discussing (DaCosta, Hmelo-Silver & Derry, 2003).

19

Discourse, Tools and Activity in online PBL Discussion Despite the fact that two groups went through different number of phases in their activity, both groups went though some key stages: discussion, research and final solution refinement. The fact that group 1 was more elaborate in its activity process can be explained though the lenses of the activity theory. Figure 3 shows how the activity theory can be applied to the STEP system. According to the figure, the subjects of the activity are dependent on the tools they are using, community they are participating in, rules the community creates, division of labor the group decides on while working on an activity. All these various components contribute to the object of an activity (or its outcome). Although both groups had the same object (final outcome was to create individual lesson designs) of the activity and the tools available for their use, they utilized those tools differently. Group 1 took their time for the exploration of tools at the beginning of the activity and thus seemed to be more efficient in using them later on in order to achieve the object of their assignment. The groups also used tutor’s help quite differently: group 1 was more responsive to tutor’s input than group 2 was and it appears to have affected the activity as well. At the same time, Group 1 treated the tutor not only as a tool, but also as a member of its community: he was active at the initial stages of the activity and as the qualitative examination of the data shows, his contributions to the case analysis were welcomed and valued. The relations between the tutor and the group 1 members allowed for better communication between the group and the tutor and in turn created a better place for knowledge within this community. In the case of group 1, the tutor acted not just as a supporter and a mentor during the activity, but also as a part of the community – as a group member, a participant in knowledge construction.

20

Discourse, Tools and Activity in online PBL In contrast, Group 2 appeared to have treated the tutor only as a source of information. Despite the tutor being active during the initial phase, his involvement did not result in his being a part of the learning community of group 2 like it resulted in the group 1 activity. Students in group 2 were less responsive to tutor’s ideas and input and only addressed him when the need arose. Thus the tutor was treated more like a tool and was excluded from the group 2 community of learners. Different labor division in the groups also contributed to the differences in activity. In group 1, a student took on a leadership role fairly early in the activity. This resulted in a close monitoring by this student of all group and individual work that the group members were involved in. As a result, group 1 members were monitored closer and frequently had clear summaries of where the group and its individual members were in the activity, as well as the directions on what the next step should be and how to proceed. Group 2, on the other hand, did not have such a leader. All members of the group were involved in some planning and monitoring (mostly individual). No clear summaries and directions were provided by any of the group members. This resulted in a different approach to the object of the activity; students appeared to be mostly concerned about their individual work and did not appear to concentrate as much on another aspect of their activity: writing group analysis of the case. Both groups used technology as a tool to learning (the nature of their activity demanded that they do so). However, group 1 members began the activity by exploring the affordances of such tools while group 2 members did not take such opportunity. Exploring the tools in the initial phases of the activity allowed group 1 members to (1)

21

Discourse, Tools and Activity in online PBL use the available tools more effectively and (2) to be able to decide individually which tools are more appropriate for the successful completion of the task. As for group 2 members, they decided to take a different route and thus just used “on-line help” tool at the later stages of the activity. To restate, the hypothesis for this research project was that tools shape the activity, while activity shapes collaboration and discourse. The results indicate that although both groups had exactly the same tools to complete the same activity, the different usage of the tools resulted in a slightly different way that the groups took in their collaborative work. Although both ways were appropriate, it seems that the path that group one chose was more effective if not for the completion of the activity, then for learning. The discourse that the groups engaged in also was affected: the group 1 members engaged in more discussion of the tools and how they are supposed to work, than group 2 members, who preferred to deal with the various tools when the time to use them came. The study has three major limitations. First of all, only one problem was discussed on-line in the course of the semester. It is quite possible that both groups would have adjusted and employed different strategies if they had an opportunity to repeat the activity with the different case later on. Second, for the purposes of such analysis it would have been useful to examine Emails that the students exchanged with each other and the tutor while doing the activity. This examination of the “back channel of information” might have provided the additional information of how the students felt about the activity, tools and time frame

22

Discourse, Tools and Activity in online PBL they were given. It might have also provided the information about their research and how certain group decisions were made. Third, this research only examined two groups doing one problem. This may not be enough to come up with some definite conclusions on the structure of the activity and its usefulness in learning. Since this research was a pilot study, this limitation will be addressed in the future research with more groups and more problems examined. Conclusions and implications Looking at the CORDTRA diagrams through the lenses of the activity theory allowed us to see that various group dynamics that emerged during the activity led to creation of two different group norms. In turn, these group norms influenced the usage of tools, labor division and, probably, ultimately the object of the activity. At the same time, despite the different norms, labor division decisions and the different tool use, both groups went through discussion, research and solution refinement stages during the activity. It is unclear whether these stages were outlined by the STEP system and the tools that STEP provided or if such stages were logical steps any group would have used in any activity. CORDTRA examination helped us to delineate these key stages in this pilot study. Now the question is: will the results be consistent in the different groups involved in online problem-solving activities? Now, that the methodology has been established, we can try to answer this question by looking at more data. It is also useful to combine the qualitative analysis of the artifacts with CORDTRA representations for better understanding of (a) the role language and discourse play in online learning

23

Discourse, Tools and Activity in online PBL (b) the rules and norms that are being established during the activity and (c) the examination of outcomes of the activity. This research is useful for a number of reasons. First of all, the methodology that is developed for this research may be used to study a variety of on-line environments. Second, the data analysis will provide a view into how effective this type of activity is for students and whether the activity needs to be modified in any way to become more effective. Third, this research expands the theoretical framework and practical applications of activity theory, allowing for its further elaboration and refinement. Finally, this research provides us with the better understanding of tools in general and discourse in particular and their role in online learning activities.

24

Discourse, Tools and Activity in online PBL References Barab, S.A., Barnett, M., Yamagata-Lynch, L., Squire, K., Keating, T. (in press). Using activity theory to understand the contradictions characterizing a technology-rich introductory course. Mind, Culture and Activity. Bakhtin, M. M. (1996) Problema rechevyh zhanrov (On a problem of speech genre). In Bakhtin, M.M. Collection of works,v.5. (p.p. 159-206) Moscow: Russkie Slovari. (original work published in 1978). Bereiter, C. & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The Psychology of Written Composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Cole, M., Engeström, Y. (1993). A cultural-historical approach to distributed cognition. In Salomon, G. (Ed.), Distributed Cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 1 – 46). New York: Cambridge University Press. DaCosta, M.C., Hmelo-Silver, C.E. & Derry S.J. (2003). Towards an assessment methodology for pre-service teacher thinking in an online problem-based learning environment. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. April 21-26, 2003. Derry, S. J. and the STEP team (2002) The STEP system for collaborative case-based teacher education: Design, evaluation and future directions. In G. Stall (Ed.) Proceedings of 2002 Computer Support for Collaborative Learning conference. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Engeström, Y., Miettinen, R. (1999). Introduction. In Engeström, Y., Miettinen, R., Punamäki, R-L. (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 1 - 16). New York: Cambridge University Press.

25

Discourse, Tools and Activity in online PBL Engeström, Y., Miettinen, R., Punamäki, R-L. (Eds.). (1999). Perspectives on activity theory. New York: Cambridge University Press. Gee, J.P. (1999). An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and method. London: Rutledge. Graesser, A.C., Millis, K.K., Zwaan, R.A. (1997). Discourse comprehension. Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 469-189. Luckin, R., Plowman, L., Gjedde, L., Laurillard, D., Stratfold, M., & Taylor, J. (1998). An Evaluator's Toolkit for Tracking Interactivity and Learning. In M. Oliver (Ed.), Innovation in the Evaluation of Learning technology (pp. 42 - 64). London: University of North London. Luckin, R., Plowman, L., Laurillard, D., Stratfold, M., Taylor, J., & Corben, S. (2001). Narrative evolution: learning from students' talk about species variation. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 12, 100-123. Pea, R.D. (1993). Practices of distributed intelligence and designs for education. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed Cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations. (pp. 47 – 87). New York: Cambridge University Press. Siegel, M.A., Derry, S.J., Steinkuehler, C.A., Kim, J-B., Seymour, J. (2001). What and how preservice teachers learn: Designing a course that fosters development of useful theoretical knowledge and the assessment methods to capture it. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA. April 10-14, 2001. Spiro, R. J., Feltovich, P. J., Jacobson, M. J., & Coulson, R. L. (1992). Cognitive

26

Discourse, Tools and Activity in online PBL flexibility, constructivism, and hypertext: Random access instruction for advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains. In T. M. Duffy & D. H. Jonassen (Eds.), Constructivism and the technology of instruction: A conversation. (pp. 5775). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Tikhomirov, O.K. (1999). The theory of activity changed by information technology. In Engeström, Y., Miettinen, R., Punamäki, R-L. (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 347-359). New York: Cambridge University Press. Valsiner, J. (1997). Magical phrases, human development and psychological ontology. In Cox B. D., Lightfoot, C. (Eds.), Sociogenetic perspectives on internalization. (pp. 237-256). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in Society: The development of higher mental processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and Language. (Kozulin, A., Trans.). Cambridge: MIT Press. (Original work published 1934).

27

Discourse, Tools and Activity in online PBL Picture 1 Step system

Figure 1

28

Discourse, Tools and Activity in online PBL

29

CORDTRA diagram for group 1

KW: Other concepts KW: Hands on Learning

Group 1: Discourse, tools and facilitation

KW: Tutoring KW: Collaborative learning KW: Learning communities KW: Cognitive apprenticeship

Phase I - Setting the stage

Phase II - Initial Discussion

Phase III - Research Phase IV - Report and discuss

Phase V - Refine knowledge

90

KW: Transfer KW: Modeling KW: Motivation KW: Assessment KW: CFT

KW : Concepts researched

KW: Teacher Beliefs KW: Metacognition KW: Questioning KW: Discourse

80

KW: Prior Knowledge Use KW: Authentic Instruction KW: PBL

Tools used

KW: Argumentation KW: SKC RESEARCH LIBRARY

70

HELP LESSON PLANS E-MAIL

Codes of discourse and tools

DISCUSSION BOARD

Concepts discussed during discourse

60

GROUP REPORT KW NOTES VIDEO STEP OTHER CONCEPTS TRANSFER QUESTIONING TEACHER BELIEFS

50

ASSESSMENT DISCOURSE COLLABORATIVE LEARNING MODELING SKC HANDS ON LEARNING

40

METACOGNITION PRIOR KNOWLEDGE MP MSDL MGM MIM

30

Jevid JB JPE Elab Expl SA C-Ack

20

C-Sum C-Agree C-Mod C-Idea

Collaboration

Q-Prompt Q-meta

10

Q-Info Personal Concept Tool Task ClaireK

0

BillyJoeB

0

500

Speakers

Figure 2

1000

1500

2000

2500

EvaB JacobA SonyaP

Line numbers

Facilitator

Discourse, Tools and Activity in online PBL

30

CORDTRA diagram for group 2

Group 2: Discourse, tools and facilitation Phase I - Initial discussion

Phase II - Research KW: Concepts researched

Concepts discussed during discourse

60

Phase III - Refine knowledge

50

Codes

40

Tools used 30

20

Collaboration 10

0 0

Figure 3

Speakers

500

1000

1500 Lines

2000

2500

KW: Other concepts KW: Instructional Strategies KW: Metacognition KW: Cognitive Apprenticeshio KW: Transfer KW: Collaborative Learning KW: Assessment KW: Authentic Instruction KW: Learning Communities KW: Prior Knowledge Use Research library Help Lesson plans Discussion Board Group Report KW Notes VIDEO 40 STEP Other concepts Collaborative Learning Teacher-Centered Instruction Student-Centered Instruction Classroom Management Argumentation Discourse Prior Knowledge MP MSDL MGM MIM Jevid JB JPE Elab Expl SA C-Ack C-Sum C-Dis C-Agree C-Mod C-Idea Q-Prompt Q-meta Q-Info Personal Concept Tool Task EugeneS DanielleR HanaR SusanH LauraF KikiA Facilitator

Discourse, Tools and Activity in online PBL STEP system as described by the activity theory

Table 1 Phases of the activity for group 1

31

Phase

Tutor

I – Setting the stage

Active

II – Initial Discussion

Active

III – Research

Passive

IV – Reporting and more discussion

Passive

V– Refining Knowledge

Passive

Discourse, Tools and Activity in online PBL 32 Students Discourse Extensive: ƒ Explore affordances ƒ Little ƒ STEP on-line ƒ Ask questions discourse is environment taking place ƒ Video with the ƒ Few case concepts are identified ƒ Continue exploration of Very active, all ƒ STEP on-line affordances students are environment ƒ Start the initial discussion involved and ƒ Discussion board ƒ Brainstorm ideas contributing ƒ Generate list of concepts ƒ No research is taking place. Researching concepts None ƒ STEP on-line environment ƒ Knowledge Web ƒ Video with the case ƒ Report research findings Moderate ƒ STEP on-line ƒ Discuss the reports environment ƒ Refine ideas ƒ Discussion board ƒ A student is acting as a ƒ Tool to view leader lesson plans Preparation and refinement of individual solutions

Table 2 Phases of the activity for Group 2

Limited

ƒ ƒ

Knowledge Web Research library

Tool Use Moderate: ƒ Knowledge Web ƒ Video with the case

Limited: Discussion board

Video with the case

ƒ Personal journals ƒ Discussion board ƒ On-line help ƒ Personal journals ƒ Knowledge Web

Tool to view lesson plans

ƒ Tool to view lesson plans ƒ Research library

ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ

Research library Video with the case Group report On-line help

Phase

Tutor

Students

Discourse, Tools and Activity in online PBL Discourse

I – Initial discussion

Active

ƒ Start the initial discussion. ƒ Ask questions ƒ Brainstorm ideas ƒ Generate list of concepts

II Research

Passive

ƒ Continue ideas refinement ƒ Choose and research concepts ƒ Report research findings ƒ Visit each other's lesson plans

III – Refining knowledge

Passive

Preparation and refinement of individual solutions

Extensive: ƒ Very active, all ƒ STEP on-line students are involved environment and contributing. ƒ Video with the ƒ Students case acknowledge each ƒ Discussion other, but not the tutor. board ƒ Some students criticize the activity and set the negative tone. Moderate ƒ STEP on-line environment ƒ Discussion Board

None

ƒ STEP on-line environment ƒ Knowledge Web ƒ Research library

33 Tool Use Moderate:

Limited: Knowledge Web

ƒ Discussion board ƒ Knowledge Web ƒ Tool to view lesson plans

ƒ Personal journals ƒ Video with the case ƒ On-line help ƒ Research Library

ƒ Video with the case ƒ Discussion board ƒ On-line help

ƒ Personal journals ƒ Research library ƒ Group report ƒ Tool to view lesson plans