Learning and Collaboration in Online Discourses

Regina Jucks, Manuela R. Paechter, & Deborah G. Tatar

117

Learning and Collaboration in Online Discourses Regina Jucks Münster University Manuela R. Paechter University of the Federal Armed Forces, Munich & Deborah G. Tatar SRI International

Introduction Learning and collaboration in online discourse involves at least three components — learning / collaboration, online interaction, and discourse — each of which encompasses a world of thought. In fact, discourse in learning, and online discourse in learning are of interest for several different theoretical and practical reasons, and our reasons for interest help guide what we focus on. In this chapter, we explore recent research related to three kinds of questions. The first two questions focus on the end goal of knowledge exchange and how to best bring it about in online settings. They are: 1. How can we best use peer-to-peer collaboration to aid learning of specific, desirable curriculum online? 2. How can we best promote knowledge exchange between experts and laypersons using online facilities? Regarding the first question we discuss peer-to-peer collaborative Address all correspondence to: Regina Jucks, Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster, Psychologisches Institut III, Fliednerstr. 21, 48149 Münster, Germany. Email: [email protected]. http://wwwpsy.uni-muenster.de/inst3/AEbromme/web/englisch/Personen_e/ jucks_e.htm International Journal of Educational Policy, Research, & Practice, Volume 4, Number 1, Spring 2003 ISSN 1528-3534; Copyright 2003 by Caddo Gap Press; All rights of reproduction reserved.

118

Learning and Collaboration in Online Discourses

learning with respect to different theoretical perspectives on collaborative learning. These different approaches focus on different cognitive or socioemotional perspectives when explaining the reasons for benefits of working together. Before illustrating how communication media can enhance learning, variables influencing the effectiveness of learning discourses are discussed. Empirical findings are presented that analyze specific variables and their influences on the effectiveness of learning discourses. The second question of our paper addresses discourses in which the interlocutors have systematic divergences in their knowledge. Conceptual differences that are the starting points for expert-layperson-communication are discussed with respect to their relevance to mutual understanding. Furthermore typical settings for online exchanges between experts and laypersons are described. The third question, addressed in this paper, does not focus on learning per se, but asks 3. How do other discourse factors work together with or in opposition to the goal of learning to make an online setting a realistic choice for use? In particular, we point out that no matter what the ostensible purpose of an interaction is, it must satisfy many levels of meaning. For a system to function well outside of the laboratory, people must be able to manage the negotiation of four aspects of the situation in each utterance or contribution: maintaining attention, creating meaning, maintaining shared regard and respect, and structuring possible futures for the interaction. We pursue each of the mentioned questions by starting with a summary of relevant theory and then by considering recent progress which can be concluded from our literature review.

PEER Collaborative Learning Through Discourse The question “How can we best use peer-to-peer collaboration to aid learning of a specific, desirable curriculum online?” is at once a theoretical question and a pragmatic one. With respect to theory, it builds on notions of how collaborative learning takes place. With respect to pragmatics, it explores factors which aid or hinder the desired outcomes. In this section, we start with theory of collaborative learning, and move to implications for instructional situations, especially to those that manipulate the formal aspects of discourses. Different learning theories make overlapping predictions for instruction.


119

Knowledge Communication in Collaborative Learning Situations Many different theoretical assumptions as well as instructional techniques are subsumed under the umbrella term “collaborative learning”. The theories distinguish collaborative learning from the “traditional” direct transfer model in which the instructor is assumed to be the only source of knowledge, postulate beneficial effects of learning together, and emphasize the role of interaction and discourse in learning situations (Harasim, Calvert, & Groeneboer, 1997). The different theories offer various reasons for these beneficial effects of learning together and for the instructional design that may promote them. In the following, the numerous approaches to collaborative learning situations are to be categorized into four main directions. Two of these look at the cognitive mechanisms of discourse in learning whereas the other two focus on socio-emotional mechanisms such as motivation or group cohesion.

Two Cognitive Perspectives on Collaborative Learning From a social constructivist point of view knowledge is socially constructed by interactions of individuals within the society (McCarthey & McMahon, 1992). Learning can be regarded as a result of internalization of such social interaction (Vygotsky, 1986). Individuals are guided by other persons, trainers as well as more capable peers, in their development of skills. Collaborative learning and its underlying mechanisms are regarded from the viewpoint of the cognitions rather than of motivation or social cohesion. The Developmental Perspective on peer learning refers to theories and research on childrens’ cognitive development carried out by Vygotsky (1978, 1986) and Piaget (1926). Its fundamental assumption is that the interaction of peers while performing tasks facilitates the learning of concepts. Vygotsky (1978, p. 86, 1986) defines a ‘zone of proximal development’, i.e. the distance between the actual developmental level and the level of potential development which can be reached through problem solving under the guidance of an experienced person or a more capable peer. Learning depends largely on the opportunity for students to discuss, argue, present their own viewpoints, and listen to others’ viewpoints. Through mutual feedback and debate, learners achieve understanding and search for better solutions. Interaction does not only facilitate learning of the respective learning contents but fosters cognitive and social skills beyond the respective subject matter (Damon & Phelps, 1989). In the exploration of different perceptions via discussions,

120


higher order understanding and thinking skills may emerge as students operate within their overlapping zones of proximal development (Slavin, 1992). It is assumed that in the process of supporting each other learners become intrinsically motivated (Damon, 1984). A typical instructional approach based on the assumptions of the Developmental Perspective is the Reciprocal Peer Tutoring (Fantuzzo, Riggio, Connelly, & Dimeff, 1989). This strategy requires participants to assume both tutor and student roles. Pairs of students work throughout a longer period of time. Assuming the role of the tutor, each partner creates a test based on designed readings and lecture material for the other student partner. In the tutoring sessions the tutor administers the test to the student, scores his or her answers, and provides explanations for questions answered incorrectly. Students then switch the roles of tutor and learner. The Cognitive Elaboration Perspective also emphasizes the role of discourse. However, its explanations for the facilitating effects of collaboration focus on individual cognition. If information is to be retained in memory, related to older information of the memory store, and if a new memory structure is to be developed, the learner must engage in some sort of cognitive structuring, restructuring, or elaboration of the learning material (Wittrock, 1978). Communication about the learning material, e.g. explaining it to others, supports (re-)structuring and elaboration. Scripted cooperation (O’Donnell & Dansereau, 1992) is an example of an instructional method based on the assumptions of the Cognitive Elaboration Perspective. A script for cooperation can be described with a look to the role of scripts in theater: As in theater the roles, the nature, and the timing of activities are specified. When working in dyads the learning partners have access to the same material; they read it and put the text aside. Then one learning partner plays the part of the “recaller” who recalls as much information as he or she remembers. The other partner, the “listener”, has to attempt to detect errors or misunderstandings in the recaller’s concepts. Both learners then work together on elaborating the material to make it memorable. Later the learners switch the roles of recaller and listener. Positive effects are of course the understanding and retention of the learned material but also the development of metacognitive activities and skills and the acquisition of learning strategies (O’Donnell & Dansereau, 1992). The two cognitive perspectives, the Developmental and the Cognitive Elaboration Perspective, agree that knowledge acquisition involves active construction processes on part of the participants involved in the


121

learning process. New knowledge is acquired in discourse on the basis of old knowledge structures. Already available knowledge provides the categories, schemata, and skills needed to understand new information and to integrate it into existing knowledge structures (Leseman, Rollenberg, & Gebhardt, 2000).

Two Socio-Motivational Perspectives on Collaborative Learning The Motivational Perspective differs widely from the cognitive perspectives (Slavin, 1983a, 1992). It focuses on rewards and goal structures under which students work together. Cooperative incentives are to create a learning situation in which group members can attain their own personal goals only if the group as a whole is successful. In order to meet their personal goals, students must support each other and work towards a successful group product. Therefore, the motivational perspective has widely investigated the effects of group and individual reward structures. Instructional methods of group work were developed which focus on maximizing engagement in collaborative activities and minimizing social loafing effects, i.e. that group members invest less effort due to the expectation that others will take over the responsibility for the group work. The use of group rewards enhances achievement only if the group rewards are based on individual outcomes. Thus, if team success relies on the successful learning of the individual, team members’ activities should focus on helping each other, explaining concepts to each other, and encouraging each other to achieve. If, on the other hand, group rewards are based on a common single product, rather undesirable social behaviors such as social loafing and free riding are likely to occur. Slavin’s STAD (Student Teams Achievement Divisions, Slavin, 1983b) is a typical instructional technique out of Motivational Perspective. It is mainly based on reward structures for the groups’ work. Rewards are based on individual outcomes as well as on the groups’ performance. The Social Cohesion Perspective also emphasizes that collaborative activity and success is mainly mediated by motivation. However, it regards motivation from the viewpoint of social cohesion. Students will help each other because they care about one another and because they want the group to succeed. Cohen (1986) assumes that when faced with challenging and interesting tasks students will experience the process of group work itself as highly rewarding. Insofar, the Social Cohesion Perspective focuses on intrinsic motivation whereas the Motivational Perspective focuses on extrinsic motivation. Both perspectives, however, give few explanations on how cohesion and motivation are to affect the information processing and interpersonal interaction patterns of the learners.

122


Aronson, Blaney, Sikes, Stephan, and Snapp (1978) developed the jigsaw classroom as an instructional technique in which group members’ work is highly interdependent. According to this method, text material is divided into discrete chunks of information. The number of chunks is equal to the size of the group (approximately four to six members). Each group member works on the allocated material. The group members leave their original group and work with members of other groups who were supposed to learn the same material. Thus, expert groups are formed who work on a chunk of material. Later the experts go back to their original groups and make sure that the other group members get to know their expert information. As in peer tutoring, roles are assigned to each learner. Contrary to peer tutoring, however, roles have a different function. They do not specify certain contributions which indicate a certain type of information processing. Rather they are to ensure a mutual feeling of responsibility and socio-emotional involvement. Therefore, Johnson and Johnson (1992) regard face-to-face interaction as an essential requirement for successful groups.

Variables Influencing the Effectiveness of Learning Discourse We have seen that different methods of structuring interaction, such as giving certain roles to group members and explicitly structuring dialogic possibilities, shape learners’ discourse. However, communication rules and roles prescribed by collaborative learning techniques are not the only sources of influence on the discourse and its success. Learning groups consist of persons with specific characteristics and thus the group composition may have an impact on discourse, too. Learning groups are faced with specific tasks. And, last but not least, collaborative learning can only be successful if learners do actually share their knowledge. In the following, some sources of influence on the effectiveness of learning discourse are discussed. Distribution and amount of contributions. Groups are often faced with tasks which demand complex information processing. Shared information processing is most important for all situations of collaborative learning which have been depicted before. Group members for example search information collaboratively, work on given text material together, or discuss which of their individual information are shared and which are not. In their discourse, group members do not only share information but also elaborate it, combine it, and restructure it. Thus, the group members’ contributions in discourse can reflect different levels of complexity and elaboration. The impact


123

of the amount of contribution has been investigated in several studies. Cohen (1994) and her work group studied discourse in collaborative learning groups who were organizing learning together by Finding Out/ Descrubimento (an instructional technique based on the assignment of roles). In several studies, the frequency of task-related interactions was found to be related to achievement. For example, student groups who interacted more often showed better scores on individual learning tests measuring different cognitive abilities, e.g. computation, conceptualization, application, or quality of writing about results (Cohen, 1984, 1994). The frequency of contributions of the individual learner as well as the percentage of students who were talking and working together were investigated. For both measures the findings suggest that task-related interaction per se would contribute to a group’s success. The mere number of interactional sequences was a successful predictor for learning success. Task demands. Sometimes, however, the mere number of interactions is not a sufficient predictor of achievement (Webb, 1983, 1991). The type of the contributions may have a heavy impact, too. Receiving detailed and elaborated explanations was positively related to the conceptualization of the subject matter in a study of Peterson and Swing (1985). Barnes and Todd (1977) studied behavior in groups that received no instruction on how to cooperate with each other. They found that some of the groups were more successful than others. Successful groups showed behaviors like soliciting opinions, encouraging explicitness, interrelating viewpoints, and pinpointing differences. Certain types of contributions, namely those based on deep-level processing of the task-related information, were able to predict achievement. Which types of contributions may have the greatest impact on achievement depends on different moderating circumstances of a group’s work. The instructional technique may prescribe certain behaviors and shape the individual as well as the group processing of information. Furthermore, instructional techniques are related with certain learning objectives and measures of achievement. For example, in scripted cooperation learners are assessed depending on their individual knowledge (compare Clark, Weinberger, Jucks, Spitunik, & Wallace, sub.). They are to acquire a deep-level understanding of text material as well as metacognitive skills in text processing. Groups may be faced with goals of different complexity and with different demands on cooperative information processing. Hence, group members’ contributions in the discourse have to be appropriate for the desired outcomes. Group composition. The group composition may also influence taskrelated discourse. Webb (1992) investigated help-giving and help-seeking behavior in collaborative learning groups and its impact on achievement.

124


More explaining was found in homogeneous groups of medium-ability than in heterogeneous groups with a wide range of ability. Explanations had positive impacts on achievement if they were suited to the students’ needs. In studies in schools the ratio of girls to boys influenced the incidence of explaining. Girls were more likely to receive explanations when they asked for help in groups with equal numbers of girls and boys than in groups with more boys than girls or vice versa (Webb, 1983). Furthermore, the individual knowledge of the group members concerning the distribution of information in the group has a very powerful impact on the discussion in groups and on achievement. Stasser and his work group (e.g. Stasser & Titus, 1985, 1987) showed that the contributions of group members mostly refer to information that was available to many or all group members before the group discussion. Information that is only known to one group member is less likely to be mentioned in discussion.

Learning Collaboratively Online In comparison with face-to-face learning, learning collaboratively in an online setting brings various changes. Of course, online learning generally enables discourse between remote learners and brings learners together who otherwise would not have had any possibility to interact and to learn with each other. Online discourse may differ from face-to-face discourse with regard to basic communication processes. In computer-mediated communication settings it can be more difficult to ensure a common ground of mutual understanding, as often established communication routines from face-to-face communication are not available. Hence, online discourse may suffer from insufficient group coordination or from deficiencies in the coherence of contributions, e.g., that the chronological sequence of messages does not follow a logical sequence. These problems in learning discourses may pose a serious barrier for successful learning (Pfister & Mühlpfordt, 2002; Herring, 1999). Especially in chat environments it is often difficult to maintain a logical sequence of the speakers’ contributions. Therefore, the interlocutors have to develop strategies of linking contributions to each other, e.g., by referring explicitly to a speaker’s name or to a specific contribution. The lack of coherence in a learning group’s discourse may hinder group performance as well as the development of individual knowledge structures. Yet, the coherence of contributions may be crucial for the group’s success. E.g., in a study on collaborative working and learning in a chat online environment the amount of coherent contributions in the learning discourses proved to be the


125

variable which contributed most to group performance (Paechter, Weidenmann, & Schweizer, 2002). Online learning environments may also change the social relations and expectations learners, co-learners, and tutors impose on each other. In online learning learners meet in an environment in which they are more anonymous and the social status of the participants is less distinctly discernible. Such effects may influence the communication behavior of the group members in various ways. On the one hand, it may lead to a more equal participation rate (Straus, 1996). Learners who in a face-toface setting would not have taken part in the discourse may be induced to participate in a more anonymous setting. On the other hand, learners may neglect the discourse with co-learners and focus on the most prominent person instead, namely the tutor. This happened in an asynchronous online seminar carried out by Nistor and Mandl (1995). Up to now we have focused on certain problems in online learning discourse. Such difficulties can be overcome by structuring the communication and cooperation processes of learning groups. There are two distinct possibilities to structure collaborative learning (Pfister & Mühlpfordt, 2002), namely to provide support for the external representation of knowledge or to provide support for the communication process itself, e.g., by providing rules and schemes for the argumentation. An example of tools which support the external representation of knowledge are concept mapping tools. They offer the possibility to construct a common formalized structure of the acquired knowledge. With concept mapping tools learners form an external representation of a subject matter in which information is presented by structured graphs. In such a map nodes represent concepts and the links between the nodes represent relations between the concepts (e.g., Hoppe & Ploetzner, 1999). When learners construct a map together they have to negotiate on its structure and contents. Therefore, to a certain degree concept maps also structure learners’ dialogue. Supporting the communication process itself is another possible strategy. In particular, metacognitive strategies (Wu, Farrell, & Singley, 2002) monitor the state of the interaction and provide participants with information about exchange patterns or they demand specific types of contributions. Scripted and cued cooperation are techniques that support and structure collaboration: Scripted cooperation in video-conferences: Scripted cooperation (Reiserer, Ertl, & Mandl, 2001) is an instructional technique based on the Developmental Perspective. Participants successively assumed tutor and student roles, namely the role of one explainer and one listener. Both

126


learners receive the same text material. In the role of the explainer, one learner explains the material and supports the listener in elaborating the contents. In the next phase, both learners elaborate the information individually. Finally, they discuss it together. In later learning rounds, the explainer and listener switch roles. The learning system offers several advantages to the learners: When manifested in a videoconference system, it enables a “rich” communication between remote learners (compare Doherty-Sneddon, Anderson, O’Malley, Langton, Garrod, & Bruce, 1997). As in face-to-face-communication the learners can talk to each other and can see each other. The system, however, offers additional support for the learners like a shared workspace for written elaborations. In this example of remote learning the technical system offers two types of tools for the learners, a communication tool and a tool for externalizing knowledge. Learning protocols in a chat environment: Pfister and Mühlpfordt (2002) designed a learning environment which requires learners to structure their discourse as proposed by the method of scripted cooperation as described above but which added to it a new requirement. The learners had to link a word, sentence or previous contribution made by the other to their current contribution. Hence, coherence was established by the sequence of specific types of contributions and by explicit references to previous contributions which were shown on the computer screen. This instructional method had positive effects in specific knowledge domains and contributed to individual learning success. Cued-cooperation scripts in asynchronous computer-conferences: Weinberger, Fischer, and Mandl (2001; compare also Clark, Weinberger, Jucks, Spitulnik, & Wallace, sub.) investigated the effects of cued cooperation scripts (a technique based on the assumptions of the Cognitive Elaboration Perspective) for synchronous net-based communication media. Groups of three learners worked together on the analysis of case studies. Two roles were assigned to each student: for one case he or she obtained the role of an analyzer, for two other cases he or she obtained the role of a constructive criticizer. Group members received cues from the communication system which structured the cooperation, e.g., by indicating the sequence of turns and the type of contributions. The program demanded contributions which refer to certain cognitive operations (e.g. finding critical points). In this example, the learning system assumes the role of a tutor: it structures the communication, it ensures a complex discourse as it demands specific contributions, etc. Besides, the system offers tools for the learners’ communication and for the externalization of their knowledge. The examples show how collaborative learning methods can function


127

for remote learners. Technology brings people together who otherwise would have been unable to learn together. However, technology can do more than merely connect remote learners. Computer-based learning systems may shape learning and discourse processes by indicating the next steps learners are to carry out. Moreover, learning systems may offer tools with which learners may externalize and structure their knowledge.

Knowledge Communication between Experts and Laypersons So far we have described communication situations in which two peers exchange information on certain topics. We asked how that could best be accomplished. In the following section, we ask how we can best promote knowledge exchange between experts and laypersons using online facilities. Our interest shifts to those situations in which two interlocutors have systematic divergences in their knowledge. They differ not only with respect to the relations between the communicating partners but additionally with respect to the objective of the interaction. By definition, in collaborative learning, participants are communication partners who are almost at the same level about the specified curriculum to be learned. Again, by definition, in expert-layperson-communication we find an asymmetrical communication situation. Communication partners have differently elaborated knowledge on the communication topic. Although this is helpful for some type of collaborative peer-to-peer learning as well (compare the section about Vygosky‘s work that illustrates the developmental perspective on peer-to-peer learning) expertlayperson-interactions differ from peer-to-peer interactions with respect to the objective of the interaction. At the center of peer collaboration (e.g. in school or university) is the reciprocal acquisition of knowledge. In expert-layperson-communication, however, not only does one person hold more specific domain knowledge, but more knowledge about the kinds of thought and practices that constitute mastery in the domain more generally. Furthermore, expert-layperson-communication may often serve the purpose of solving real and immediate problems rather than learning of the respective subject matter. Thus, in expert-laypersoncommunication conceptual divergences between the participants are key, and we start by considering what they suggest.

Conceptual Differences as Starting Points for Expert-Layperson Communication Whenever an expert communicates about any content in his/her own domain with another person who has considerably less knowledge than the expert, and if both partners are aware of this fact, the communication

128


is called expert-layperson communication. This definition also comprises interdisciplinary communication which can be conceptualized as reciprocal expert-layperson-communication (Bromme, 2000). Bromme and his collaborators set up a research program to examine the cognitive bases of experts’ behavior relevant for communication, by focusing on structural differences in their perspectives. It is assumed that the asymmetry in knowledge makes communication difficult. The objective of the educational-psychology approach is to discover the difficulties and devise measures for the improvement of expert-layperson communication on the basis of the findings (Bromme, Rambow, & Nückles, 2001). The research done for this purpose does not only provide useful practical information but also gives us some idea as to the transferability of findings from psycholinguistic basic research to expert-layperson-communication. Theoretically this research program is explicitly linked with the cognitive approach of research on expertise (Ericsson, 1996; Ericsson & Smith, 1991), which examines the structure and content of experts’ knowledge as well as their problem-solving strategies independent of communication of this knowledge (see Bromme, 1992). For this reason the main features of this research will be outlined briefly. Expertise research defines ‘experts’ as either top performers who excel in a particular field or persons who “easily achieve a moderate degree of success in their occupation” (Bromme, 1992, p. 39; for this different usage of the term ‘expert’ see also Bromme & Rambow, 2001). Studies which have used expertise in the sense of top performance, the definition mentioned first, have gained valuable insights into the thinking and knowledge-based behavior of these people. Numerous publications have contributed to the analysis of the perception of problem situations (e.g. Chi, Feltovich, & Glaser, 1981), the organization of knowledge (Schmidt & Boshuizen, 1992), and the decision-making of experts within their different domains (Sternberg & Horvath, 1999). Chase and Simon (1973) have proved in their classic chess studies that the intuitive recognition of good moves by chess experts depends on content-specific knowledge of chess positions (and not on general memory performance superior to that of the chess novices). Within the research program expert-layperson communication, the criterion for expertise is usually professionalism rather than outstanding performance. Anyone who has to “deal with occupational tasks which require a lengthy education as well as practical experience and who solves these tasks successfully” is considered to be an ‘expert’ (Bromme, 1992, p. 7-8). As has been briefly illustrated, experts do not just know more than laypersons, they also have a different way of structuring their domain-


129

specific knowledge which, moreover, affects their categorical perception from the outset. Looking at things from an expert’s point of view to determine problems and their causes is precisely the expertise we see being applied in many skilled professions to which the layperson has no access. Accordingly, the concept of knowledge is being used here in a wider sense than is usually the case (see Nickerson, l999). Thus attitudes and experience are integrated into the concept of knowledge along with explicit declarative knowledge (of facts) and procedural knowledge (for a systematization of the concept of knowledge see Alexander, Schallert, & Hare, 1991). Professional knowledge is seen as a certain perspective on a particular domain that might — in the interaction with laypersons – conflict with the perspective of the respective other.

Expert-Layperson Communication in Online Contexts The problems concerning the imparting of expert knowledge to laypersons and the appropriate communicational requirements which result from the specialized and proceduralized nature of expert knowledge have received far less attention than research into expert knowledge itself. On the other hand it is clear that experts from a great variety of domains are increasingly under pressure to communicate their knowledge in a way that laypersons can understand. The necessity for the transmission of specialized knowledge arises in many fields of application, and, as Bromme and Rambow (2001) state, can furthermore be seen as an integral part of professional task managing. However, specialists are only experts in their own field. They often lack the specific skills necessary for imparting knowledge. On the other hand, many laypersons’ decisions require informed judgment and they are, therefore, dependent on explanations which are easy to grasp (Stehr, 1994; Hitzler, Honer, & Maeder, 1994). A patient must, for example, give his permission for an operation and should know to some extent the alternatives and the risks involved. The buyer of a new computer should know whether and which technical innovations justify a higher price. In this connection it seems that laypersons are mainly interested in expert assistance when it is to their advantage, or when some kind of problemsolving or decision-making is involved. Expert information has increasingly been provided via the Internet in domains such as business management/investment, ecology, and medicine/health (Bromme & Jucks, 2001). In the online setting, expertlayperson communication takes place mainly in text-based, asynchronous form. The presentation of information available to layperson on the

130


Internet is very differently adapted to laypersons needs. On the one hand, some information available in electronic versions of scientific journals are, strictly speaking, only intended for scientific discourse between experts. But laypersons also access these journals via the Internet, as when they search sites as www.thelancet.com. On the other hand, there is information that is explicitly intended for laypersons, though not tailored to the requirements of specific individuals. For example FAQs (Frequently Asked Questions) answer in some way probable questions but not exactly the questions one layperson has. Furthermore, there are also personalized expert answers to specific user inquiries, that are later on, either put on the Internet for general use or are not (and remain individual as a kind of private correspondence). In none of the above cases is it possible for the expert to find out what the recipient of his advice already knows on the subject. A number of explorative interaction sequences would allow the expert to assess recipient’s background knowledge, ensuring that he or she can actually grasp the expert explanation which follows. As it is, the expert has to rely on his basic assumptions about laypersons’ knowledge as such, and try to adapt his explanations accordingly. Therefore, correct assumptions about the comprehensibility of expert information are vital if adequate explanations are to be given to laypersons (Clark, Weinberger, Jucks, Spitulnik, & Wallace, sub.; Jucks, 2001). Jucks, Bromme, & Runde (in press) analyzed the role of heuristics used to tailor contributions to the partners’ expertise status in the domain of health-related knowledge. Experts in pharmacology had to explain health-related issues. They responded to (fictitious) laypersons’ and medical doctors’ requests via email. Content analysis of experts’ explanations showed differences with regard to experts’ audience design. Moreover, compared with peer-to-peer learning situations outlined above, expert-layperson interactions are often less formalized and prestructured. Interactions are less frequently supported by means of specific instruction techniques (like scripts or scaffolds). Communicative success instead depends largely on experts themselves and their didactic skills, as well as the persistence of the layperson. To support online-communication between experts and laypersons for example web-forms might be helpful. Laypersons can put in some objective data (e.g., about the specification of one’s computer in connection with computer-based questions or about one’s state of health). These data enable experts to tailor their information more precisely to the needs of the addressees.


131

Online Learning and Discourse as Joint Action Creating conditions which promote beneficial activity is important for learning in both peer-to-peer and expert-layperson learning situations. However, for systems to have beneficial outcomes and real impact in practice, adherents must be willing to work with the system under real world learning conditions. Sometimes users, especially students, may employ a system because they have to; in contrast, sometimes, users may employ a system only because they want to. In either case, their willingness to engage with the system is crucial. Furthermore, this willingness to engage is a fluid variable; over the course of time a person may become more committed to or more alienated from the process. Therefore, we pose a third question: “How do other discourse factors work together with or in opposition to the goal of learning to make an online setting a realistic choice for use?” This question is obviously not independent of the other two questions we have asked, but focusing on it leads us in different directions. As with the other questions we have posed, we answer this question with both a theoretical and a pragmatic component. The theoretical component is drawn from the work of the sociolinguists, anthropologists and interaction analysts that began the study of focused encounters and their mechanisms (Heritage, 1984; Goodwin & Heritage, 1990; Sacks, Schegloff, & Jefferson, 1974; Kendon, 1967; Goffman, 1967). The form it takes here is as developed in psychology by Herbert H. Clark and his collaborators (for an overview, see Clark, 1996). The theory suggests factors that should be considered in evaluating the success and generalizability of online systems for learning. Theory suggests that multiple goals need to be satisfied during interaction and that, therefore, we need nuanced evaluation of system success. The pragmatic component summarizes research that draws on this theoretical framework to describe a particular environment for online learning, in fact for teacher professional development.

Language as Action The fundamental insight in the language-as-action school of thought is that people use each linguistic act to influence the state of the world around them (Austin, 1962; Clark, 1992, 1996; Grice, 1989; Searle, 1969). This influence includes both changing and finding out about other people’s states. This view of language emphasizes that language use is contingent on its immediate surroundings and continually negotiated, not unlike a jazz performance. While some aspects can be scripted, other

132


aspects remain spontaneous. In some sense, this is an implicit theory of learning: for learning to take place, not only must utterances be made which contain the information, but the information must be taken up by the learner. This line of thought suggests that no matter what the ostensible purpose of an interaction is, it must function on many levels. That is, a learning system may choose to employ a strategy such as scripted cooperation, and may show that it works under certain circumstances. However, to work in general it must, for example, keep people’s attention long enough for them to actually finish the learning episode. Four aspects of the situation are particularly important in considering the larger context of whether the system is likely to receive use outside a small circle of adherents: maintaining attention, creating meaning, maintaining shared regard and respect, and structuring possible futures for the interaction (Clark, 1996; Tatar, 1998; Tatar & Gray, 2002). The names of each of these aspects of the situation (shown in Table 1) are glosses for processes that must be resolved in each moment to a satisfactory level for interaction to continue. These aspects may also be thought of as challenges or even problems if that discourse takes on its structure in large measure in order to avert potentially serious breakdowns with respect to them (Brennan, 1998; Clark, 1992, 1996; Clark & Brennan, 1991, Goodwin & Heritage, 1990; Kendon, 1967; Levelt, 1989; Sacks, Schegloff, & Jefferson, 1974). Our human expertise with discourse means that these problems rarely erupt into noticeable difficulty in face-to-face situations. We don’t notice how much we do to avert difficulties in understanding. Indeed, the primary evidence for the importance of these problems comes from breakdowns and the omnipresent existence of aspects of language use which are otherwise unmotivated. For example, cross-culturally, people use indirection in demanding favors. For example, in American English, we say “Do you have the time?” rather than “What’s the time?” and “May I have a glass of water?” rather than “Please give me a glass of water.” The particular form and occasions of use may vary across cultures and Aspects of Interaction Creating Shared Meaning Maintaining Shared Attention Maintaining Shared Regard Structuring Possible Futures

Gloss on Meaning monitor and maintain enough mutual understanding direct, keep and monitor shared focus on interaction maintain nuanced relationships take up or drop proposed courses of discussion

Table 1. Four aspects of interactions that are important for the negotiation of utterances.


133

languages, but the fact of indirection does not (Brown & Levinson, 1987; Blum-Kulka & House, 1989). The omnipresence of indirect speech has to do with the need to establish shared regard (Brown & Levinson, 1987). However, the omnipresence of these behaviors does not render them easily perceived. On the contrary, they are quite hard to notice, and early computer-supported cooperative work systems, though promising in theory and in small trials, failed in practice because the creators emphasized planned interaction at the expense of support for deep structure (Tatar, Foster, Bobrow, 1991). When studying the creation of shared meaning there is a tendency to focus on the question of what meaning comes from what source. For example, Nickerson (1999) does this when he describes his three step model of other people’s knowledge, starting with prior supposition (step 1) that is modified by knowledge about specifics on the other person (step 2), and then again modified through interactions (step 3). Unfortunately, this model describes states rather than processes and therefore downplays an important and subtle aspect of the process. The process of creating shared meaning through interaction is not only one of building up knowledge, but also one of constantly being able to call any piece of shared understanding into question. Conversation consists of a process of grounding the meaning of particular utterances in which one partner presents an utterance and others accept or modify it (Clark & Schaefer, 1989). At any point in any conversation any bit of meaning may be made negotiable. Thus, I may use the word “good” to mean “bad,” or may coin a word (or a whole set of words as in the Jaberwocky poem) and expect you to infer their meaning. The example of the Jaberwocky (“Twas brillig and the slithy tove did gyre and gimble in the wabe”) illustrates that, at the same time that people are attempting to understand one another, they are also deciding what depth of understanding the current purpose requires (Clark & Wilkes-Gibbs, 1986; Clark, 1996). Thus, if my neighbor on a plane is talking about factors affecting the sale of recycled plastics, I am only required to understand enough to keep the conversation going as desired. If I expect to be examined on the subject, I probably need to understand a lot more. Thus, in learning, factors such as group composition and external structure that we talked about earlier may be seen as influencing the depth of shared meaning required by current purposes. Scaffolding may be seen as a means to encourage or reinforce the expectation that there will be enough discussion to achieve a deep level of discourse. The presence of external structure can reinforce goals that are not (yet) embodied in the interactants. Yet to attend to the call for increased shared meaning, other aspects of the system must work as well.

134


In addition to creating shared meaning, interlocutors help one another to pay appropriate interpersonal attention to one another. Tatar (1998) advanced a theory of interpersonal attention which points out that attention is by its nature wandering. However, during discourse, listeners give cues about their attentional state. When the amount of attention is insufficient, speakers engage in actions to elicit more attention and more signs of attention. When listeners fail to give such signs of attention, speakers change their actions further. Shared meaning cannot be attained unless there is sufficient shared attention. In an online environment, the processing of words may be interrupted by any number of events in the real world and, while the words may remain for examination, the mental context that ties the overall meaning of the interaction together must be reconstructed, with attendant work, to ensure that full meaning is attained. The fact that shared meaning can be obtained from words does not mean that it will be shared. Attention greatly increases the odds. There are many sources of evidence of shared attention, direct response, changes in behavior, and memory for the event being the most important ones. At another level, participants must be able to give and receive evidence about the nature of their shared regard for one another. To use Goffman’s terminology (1967), all communications “take a line” with respect to the face or regard given by and expected by the communicant. That is, the way people express themselves asserts how they think about the person they are talking with and their expectations for how that person should treat them. Cultures differ with respect to what kinds of expressions are appropriate (Blum-Kulka & House, 1989). So too do genres (Brennan & Ohaeri, 1999). For example, face-to-face interactions may differ in their politeness requirements from online interactions. However, in spite of these differences, there are important commonalities (Brown & Levinson, 1987). For example, there is a base level commonality that, cross-culturally, if persons believe themselves to have been slighted, there may be little room for learning. As with shared attention and shared meaning, shared regard is made manifest at the micro-level in every communication. Thus, when a speaker or writer attends to what the other can comprehend, they are at once helping to ensure mutual attention, building shared meaning and expressing regard for their interlocutor. While there are many signs of shared regard, it is difficult to know what constitutes an appropriate degree of shared regard in a particular case. It can be as damaging to an interaction to be overly friendly with someone as to be overly aloof. Responses to miscues and misunderstandings provide some evidence about how well the display of regard has been handled, as well as retrospective accounts.


135

The fourth issue that must be resolved in every communication is structuring possible futures for the interaction. People are negotiating what’s going to happen next in the interaction. For example, if one person says “I heard a really good joke” that person is projecting a possible future in which he/she takes a few minutes to tell a joke with all attendant behaviors of joke telling. This person has not determined the future, but rather opened up a possible future. The other person can comply with the projected joint project by acceding to this request “Oh yeah?” or else he/ she might demur “You know, I’d love to hear it another time, but I’ve just got to run.” Alternatively, something may happen to distract both parties from the joke telling project (like screams from outside) or one party might withdraw from the project unilaterally (by walking away or changing the subject). Projections of the joint project that the participants are engaged in, can stretch out different lengths of time from the present. Thus, when an American says “How are you?,” they may frequently be projecting simply the anticipated next line, “Fine.” One way of understanding the scaffolding on interaction that has been so useful in peer collaboration and expert-layperson-communication is that external structure and reminders help participants know what futures to project. However, they do not vitiate the problem of structuring possible futures, which must remain contingent on events at the microstructure and must include a range of possibilities not anticipated by system designers (such as anyone leaving the system) (Suchman, 1987). Shared possible futures can be studied by looking at bids for possible futures and whether they are taken up or ignored. In online communication as well as offline, people must be able to understand and agree to the current project. These issues in communication differ in kind from the factors discussed earlier in the paper in their relationship to system design and use. How do these factors work in practice? What indicators can we glean?

Online Systems, Language as Action, and the Choice To Use People who advocate online systems in education must be concerned not only with the benefits of the system, but also with the utilization of the system affordances. Depending on the setting, individual learners may have the option of using a collaborative system or may be forced to engage with it. In one case, the question is who is able to make the choice to use the system. In the other case, the question is who, if anyone, resists, dawdles and perhaps drops out. In answering these questions, an important underlying issue is how the factors discussed above — shared attention, shared meaning, shared regard and the structure of possible

136


futures — work together with or in opposition to learning goals that make an online system a realistic choice for use. How can people manipulate the online system to achieve sensible and satisfying interaction? Over the past year, investigation has begun of whether and how participants are able to enter into the discourse in a particular online community for teacher professional development. One important characteristic of the community was that teachers were not told to participate, but rather participated because they elected to do so. There is therefore a strong presumption that the conditions we describe were satisfactory for the participants. Anyone could join the community, and at the time the data were gathered, 11,000 teachers had done so. In 1999, those members of the community who logged in participated an average of 11 times for an average session length of 51 minutes. In a world in which Web site developers consider 2-3 minutes at a site as a long time, this represents a high degree of commitment. Tatar, Gray, and Fusco (2002; Gray & Tatar, 2002) studied session transcripts and then took something analogous to a geologic core sample of this community by recording behavior during a seminal focused encounter (Kendon, 1967). Specific events were used as a starting point for open-ended, in-depth interviews of participants. The interviews focused on teacher knowledge, values and attitudes, identity, understanding of the events, interaction with the technology and attitudes towards community. Within the community, the primary source of data came from seminars held in a nearly synchronous chat-room-like forum in which people contributed written comments of any length which were displayed in the order received. Discussions in the chat room were led by a teacher and helped by a facilitator. In addition to sharing the chat room window, participants also could “project” web sites, that is, cause them to appear on one another’s desktops, thus enabling everyone to talk about the same shared object. Maintaining Shared Attention. Within this forum, Tatar and her colleagues discovered breakdowns in attention and the development of interactional strategies that appeared to minimize the expression of breakdowns. In particular, while leaders and facilitators initially assumed the burden of asking for attentional feedback (“Is anyone there?”), over time, they shifted the burden of displaying attention to the listener (Tatar & Gray, 2002). Nonetheless, most seminar attendees claimed to recognize or remember key remarks made both by leaders and participants (Tatar, Gray, & Fusco, 2002; Tatar & Gray, 2002). Creating Shared Meaning. Participants interacted as though they had sufficient shared meaning to proceed. When asked about the


137

meaning of particular interactions, participants disagreed about the meaning of some remarks and agreed about the meaning of others. In one case, the teacher’s explanation of a student’s misunderstanding corresponded well with the student’s explanation of his intended meaning, although his fellow students did not understand the force of the remark. At the same time, the teacher tended to underestimate how much underlying dissension there was about the values expressed via the category system he attempted to introduce. Students had displayed enough understanding for him to believe that they were learning the meaning of his categories, but their doubts about how useful the categories would be in practice remained unexplored. The authors interpreted these evidences of imperfect understanding as similar to those in face-to-face seminars that attempt to talk about controversial matters in the education. Maintaining Shared Regard. Regard is expressed in multifarious ways, all of which denote attention to the expectations of the other in some fashion. In the seminars observed, affiliation was expressed through greetings and recognition, the use of names, references to shared culture, and to some extent by disclosures about the situation of the person in the real world (“I’m here, coffee in hand”). Status relations were created through register shifts and by the display of an attitude of readiness to engage on the part of students. Both, regard and status relationships were created and maintained by the teacher’s direct judgments about discourse and students, as well as the students’ more tentative and less sustained judgments. Although there were markers of the teacher’s status, these did not result in domination of the discourse by the teacher. Indeed, in the seminar studied in most depth, an inexperienced web-user contributed the highest number of substantive comments. Long time participants in the seminar and the system also contributed nearly as many substantive comments as the teacher. As in any human interaction, there were miscues and misunderstandings. Some people had high hopes or expectations of responsiveness (“Everybody hopes the teacher will respond to what they say!”) and insisted more than others on gaining a response. People also differed in their expectations for when an apology was required. Most people considered themselves to be older and more experienced than the others. Highly relevant for education as well as for the functioning of the system is the degree to which participants thought surfacing contrasting views was an appropriate part of the discourse, especially when the views disagreed with the teacher. In all cases, people were talking about their own professional practice as teachers which is something that they cared

138


deeply about and which rests on complex theories, assumptions and experiences. Therefore, as with most discourse that cuts close to the bone, there was the risk of genuine anger and hurt. One person’s “practical reality” is another person’s “low expectations for students.” Most dangerous was the tendency for people who felt a real animus to fall silent because they did not feel it was appropriate to press on an issue. Often the people who were silent in this way were newcomers to the system with a poor understanding of the intent of the other. However, even these people were engaged enough in the online forum to have and maintain feelings and commitments. The observed behaviors and their interpretations by the participants suggest that the online situation addressed their need for shared regard enough to involve both newcomers and more established contributors. It suggests that they were able to engage in discourse about matters that were of importance to them. The amount of dissension in this process raises questions about familiarity with face-to-face discourse. Shared Possible Futures. Are people in this system able to orient appropriately to what is going on? Are participants able to coordinate well enough to have a feeling of progress? Are individual participants able to gain sufficient attention to their plans to be able to proceed in a useful and interesting way? Teachers and facilitators in this system travel a long way towards solving these problems by scaffolding the larger structure of the interaction in ways similar to that found in peer-to-peer collaboration and expert-layperson collaborations, we looked at earlier in this paper. They create patterns of progress which are repeated from session to session and which demarcate appropriate focus. The general plan of the seminars studied involved criticism of web sites used in instruction. During the body of the discussion, a particular web site or extended comment from the teacher is always in focus. As in some but not all systems, the scaffolding is not presented at once, but unfolds over time. At any given time, participants have to make judgments about what comments, questions or directions will be welcome and which ones are out of place. Teacher cues play an important role in this, effecting both when discussions are considered over and what kind of discussion is considered appropriate. For example, the teacher typically starts the process of bringing discussions to an end by asking or stating that it’s time to move on. Usually there are several minutes of wind-up dialog after this. Attempts to raise substantive issues appear to be less memorable if they are related to a discussion that is seen as ending compared to one raised during the main part of the discussion. But as this is a flexible system, aided by the teacher, participants were


139

able to make major switches in their mode of operation in order to accommodate the interpersonal needs of a participant. In one example, a participant wanted to share a web site that she had made. The teacher agreed to this and announced several times that the group was going to look at a web site made by someone actually present for the discussion (“Be gentle, because she’s here”). All participants, without exception, attended to this injunction. Consequently, the discussion differed significantly from other discussions during the same forum. There was a longer lag of time before responding, people conducted fewer “side” or irrelevant conversations, and people’s criticism was more moderate. The likelihood of everyone in the group attending to the web site was increased by other displays of shared regard by the participants. When they addressed the discussion to the creator by asking her questions and addressing her by name, participants were at once acknowledging her and reminding other people that she was there. However, when the teacher did not notice an issue or was not favorably disposed to discussing it, participants were not able to introduce it in such a way that it was taken up for discussion. Several incidents are reported in which participants made multiple attempts to introduce an idea and would have liked to have discussed it further but received minimal response. Thus the needs for a known and predictable possible future for the interaction and to maintain shared regard may sometimes conflict with the desire to promote higher criteria for shared meaning. This discussion summarized the findings of an analysis of discourse in one online system for learning. This system was distinguished because it was nearly synchronous, because participation was voluntary and because it involved adult learners. However, the discussion serves to illustrate that the systematic analysis of discourse and discourse goals may be used to unearth levels at which online systems work or fail in practice. Considerations of maintaining shared attention, shared regard and steering towards possible futures can effect the creation and maintenance of shared meaning and the crucial question of how much understanding is required for current purposes. Creating shared meaning is an ongoing process which must be experienced in the moment as well as in more global measurements. Hence, to orchestrate beneficial situations for online discourse, we must not only consider the type of information that needs to be shared, but also the people involved and the situation in which the information is presented. Researchers of discourse in collaborative learning systems must consider both what to offer people and how that can best come to have value in real-life circumstances.

140


Concluding Remarks In our paper we discussed discourses in learning with respect to three emerging questions. 1. How can we best use peer-to-peer collaboration to aid learning of specific, desirable curriculum online? 2. How can we best promote knowledge exchange between experts and laypersons using online facilities? 3. How do other discourse factors work together with or in opposition to the goal of learning to make an online setting a realistic choice for use? Elaborating on the first question we described four approaches to learning that differ in the prescription of roles, the importance of discussions for learning, the role of rewards and the relevance of social cohesion for learning. Other factors that influence peer-to-peer learning include group size and gender distribution. Online settings change the role of the mentioned variables. For example, coherence and coordination, which are very important for improving learning in some theories, can be much harder to attain. Discrete signals that provide information in face-to-face interactions have to be strengthened to assure that they are working. Furthermore, expectations regarding communicative aims and the social status of the group members are not that obvious. To illustrate how learning environments might support learning processes online, we used three examples: Scripted cooperation, learning protocols, and cued cooperation scripts. Those methods provide helpful suggestions about how to design online learning environments. With regard to our second question, we pointed out that differences in knowledge between experts and laypersons are systematic and include attitudinal differences. Referring to online discourses, we illustrated that exchanges are mainly done via written text using asynchronous forms (e.g., email conversations). Those two features (systematic knowledge divergence and written communication situations) compared to face-toface interactions hold the potential for an increase in misunderstandings. For example, heuristics used to tailor messages might mislead and wrong assumptions about recipients’ knowledge are not easily identified because of the lack of inconspicuous feedback. Besides, in contrast to peerto-peer communication, expert-layperson-interactions usually occur outside the classroom in natural situations and therefore tend not to be scaffolded by supporting features such as prompts and scripts.


141

In considering the third question, we started with a process model of conversation that includes the idea that there are at least four components to the goals that people have in making and receiving particular utterances: shared meaning, shared attention, shared regard and shared possible futures. We suggested that online discourses might lack some of the cues that in face-to-face communication minimize difficulties in understanding. For example, it may be more difficult to become aware of the degree of attention being paid by different participants and to identify the amount of shared meaning. Furthermore, text-based (online) interactions might require more effort towards the display of regard compared to face-to-face interactions. Last but not least, while structuring possible futures for the interaction: in written communication it is more difficult to signal changes in topic, extenuating circumstances and asides than in face-to-face interactions. We provided an example of an online community that illustrates that people have more than one communicative goal even while learning. Therefore, systems for learning should be evaluated in terms of their effect on multiple goals. This call has two ramifications: (1) the success or failure of systems in experimental situation may rest on the satisfaction of non-learning goals as latent variables, and (2) the success of systems in controlled and experimental circumstances should be evaluated according to how those experiments effect non-learning as well as learning goals systematically. Scripted encounters, for example, may work because they allow students to push for deeper understanding without implying that one of them has been less than adequate. Expert-layperson interaction may take on some of its characteristics because of the status differential between the participants. If so, then reassuring experts about their importance may be as effective in changing their dialog as suggesting some of the cognitive biases to which they are subjected. In all three questions, the essential points under debate are the qualities and possibilities for the structuring agent. In the case of collaborative systems, an external structuring or scripting process has been created. In the case of expert-layperson relationships, a set of criteria or practices to be inculcated in the communicators have been suggested. In the case of synchronous discussion groups, the role of a teacher or moderator of the discussion turns out to be quite important. In all cases, to provide learners — especially in large groups — with a transparent structure during their online learning process occurs is essential. This also allows newcomers to participate in an open system. Over the next few years, the challenge will be to see how static but reliable computational structures weigh in compared to flexible but

142


failable human structures. Users will vote with their feet when allowed to, and when not allowed will vote with their degree of resistance versus enthusiasm. Opt-in rates, non-participation rates and attitude measurements will be crucial to monitor.

Note The authors are thankful to Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) and to U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) for setting up the Early Career Research Exchange Program.

References Alexander, P. A., Schallert, D. L., & Hare, V. C. (1991). Coming to terms: How researchers in learning and literacy talk about knowledge. Review of Educational Research, 61, 315–343. Aronson, E., Blaney, N., Sikes, J., Stephan, G., & Snapp, M. (1978). The Jigsaw Classroom. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Barnes, D., & Todd, F. (1977). Communication and learning in small groups. London, UK: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Blum-Kulka, S., & House, J. (1989). Cross-Cultural and situational variation in requesting behavior. In S. Blum-Kulka (Ed.) Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies. Norwood, NJ, Ablex Publishing: 123-153. Brennan, S. E. (1998). The grounding problem in conversations with and through computers. In S. R. Fussell & R. J. Kreuz (Eds.), Social and cognitive approaches to interpersonal communication (pp. 201–225). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Brennan, S. E., & Ohaeri, J. O. (1999). Why do electronic conversations seem less polite? The costs and benefits of hedging. Proceedings, International Joint Conference on Work Activities, Coordination and Collaboration (WACC ‘99), 227-235. San Francisco, CA. Bromme, R. (1992). Der Lehrer als Experte: Zur Psychologie des professionellen Wissens. [Teacher as experts: The psychology of professional knowledge] Bern: Huber. Bromme, R. (2000). Beyond one’s own perspective: The psychology of cognitive interdisciplinarity. In P. Weingart & N. Stehr (Eds.), Practising interdisciplinarity (pp. 115–133). Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Bromme, R., & Jucks, R. (2001). Wissensdivergenz und Kommunikation. Lernen zwischen Experten und Laien im Netz. [Structural differences in knowledge and communication: Learning between experts and laypersons in netbased situations] In F. W. Hesse & H. F. Friedrich (Eds.), Partizipation und Interaktion im virtuellen Seminar (pp. 81-103). Münster: Waxmann. Bromme, R., & Rambow, R. (2001). Experten-Laien-Kommunikation als


143

Gegenstand der Expertiseforschung: Für die Erweiterung des psychologischen Bildes vom Experten. [Expert-layperson-communication as part of research in expertise]. In R. K. Silbereisen (Ed.) Bericht über den 42. Kongress der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Psychologie in Jena (pp. 541-550). Lengerich: Pabst. Bromme, R., Rambow, R., & Nückles, M. (2001). Expertise and estimating what other people know: The influence of professional experience and type of knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 7 (4), 317-330. Brown, P. E., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language use. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Chase, W. G., & Simon, H. A. (1973). Perception in chess. Cognitive Psychology, 4, 55–81. Chi, M. T. H., Feltovich, P. J., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5, 121-152. Clark, D., Weinberger, A., Jucks, R., Spitulnik, M., & Wallace, R. (submitted). Designing effective science inquiry in text-based computer supported collaborative learning Environments. International Journal of Educational Policy, Research, and Practice, 4(1), 55-82. Clark, H. H. (1992). Arenas of language use. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Clark, H. H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Clark, H. H., & Brennan, S. E. (1991). Grounding in communication. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 127–149). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Clark, H. H., & Schaefer, E. F. (1989). Contributing to discourse. Cognitive Science, 13, 259-294. Clark, H. H., & Wilkes-Gibbs, D. (1986). Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition, 22, 1-39. Cohen, E. G. (1984). Talking and working together: Status interaction and learning. In P. Peterson, L. C. Wilkinson, & M. Hallinan (Eds.), Instructional groups in the classroom: Organization and processes (pp. 171-188). Orlando,FL: Academic. Cohen, E. G. (1986). Designing group work: Strategies for heterogeneous classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press. Cohen, E. G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64, 1-35. Damon, W. (1984). Peer education: The untapped potential. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 5, 331-343. Damon, W., & Phelps, E. (1989). Critical distinction among three approaches to peer education. International Journal of Educational Research, 58, 9-19. Doherty-Sneddon, G., Anderson, A., O’Malley, C., Langton, S., Garrod, S., & Bruce, V. (1997). Face-to-face and video-mediated communication: A comparison of dialogue structure and task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 3, 105–125. Ericsson, K. A. (1996). The road to excellence. The acquisition of expert performance in the arts and sciences, sports and games. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Ericsson, K. A., & Smith, J. (Eds.). (1991). Toward a general theory of expertise.

144


Prospects and limits. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Fantuzzo, J. W., Riggio, R. E., Connelly, S., & Dimeff, L. A. (1989). Effects of Reciprocal peer tutoring on achievement and psychological adjustment: A component analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 173-177. Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction Ritual. New York: Pantheon Books. Goodwin, C., & J. Heritage (1990). “Conversation Analysis.” Annual Review of Anthropology 19, 283-307. Gray, J., & Tatar, D. (2002). Sociocultural analysis of online professional development: A case study of personal, interpersonal, community, and technical aspects. In Barab, S. A., Kling, R., & Gray, J. H. (Eds.). Designing for virtual communities in the service of learning. New York: Cambridge University Press. Grice, H. P. (1989). Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Harasim, L., Calvert, T., & Groeneboer, C. (1997). Virtual U: A web based system to support collaborative learning. In B.H. Khan (Ed.), Web-based instruction (pp. 149-158). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications. Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Herring, S. (1999). Interactional coherence in CMC. Program in Linguistics, 25. Hitzler, R., Honer, A., & Maeder, C. (Eds.). (1994). Expertenwissen [expert knowledge]. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. Hoppe, H. U., & Ploetzner, R. (1999). Can analytic models support learning in groups? In P. Dillenbourg, P. (Ed.). Collaborative learning. Cognitive and computational approaches (S. 147-168). Amsterdam: Pergamon. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1992). Positive interdependence: Key to effective cooperation. In R. Hertz-Lazarowitz & N. Miller (Eds.), Interaction in cooperative learning groups. The theoretical anatomy of group learning (pp. 174199). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Jucks, R. (2001). Was verstehen Laien? Die Verständlichkeit von Fachtexten aus der Sicht von Computer-Experten [What do laypersons understand? The comprehensibility of scientific texts from the perspective of computerexperts]. Münster: Waxmann. Jucks, R., Bromme, R., & Runde, A. (in press). Audience Design von Experten in der netzgestützten Kommunikation: Die Rolle von Heuristiken zur Wissensabschätzung. [Experts’ audience design in net based communication: The role of heuristics for knowledge estimation]. Zeitschrift für Psychologie. Kendon, A. (1967). Some functions of gaze-direction in social interaction. Acta Psychologica, 26, 22-63. Leseman, P. P. M., Rollenberg, L., & Gebhardt, E. (2000). Co-construction in kindergartners’ free play: Effects of social, individual and didactic factors. In H. Cowie & G. M. Van der Aalsvoort (Eds.). Social interaction in learning and instruction (104-128). Amsterdam: Pergamon. Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. McCarthey, S. J., & McMahon, S. (1992). From convention to invention: Three approaches to peer interaction during writing. In R. Hertz-Lazarowitz & N. Miller (Eds.), Interaction in cooperative learning groups. The theoretical anatomy


145

of group learning (15-35). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. McGrath, J. E., & Kelly, J. R. (1986). Time and human interaction: Toward a Social Psychology of time. New York: Guilford. Nickerson, R. S. (1999). How we know - and sometimes misjudge - what others know: Imputing one´s own knowledge to others. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 737-759. Nistor, N., & Mandl, H. (1995). Lernen in Computernetzwerken: Erfahrungen in einem virtuellen Seminar. Unterrichtswissenschaft, 25, 19-33. [Learning in computer-networks: Experiences from a virtual seminar] O’Donnell, A. M., & Dansereau, D. F. (1992). Scripted dyadic cooperation. In R. Hertz-Lazarowitz & N. Miller (Eds.), Interaction in cooperative learning groups. The theoretical anatomy of group learning (pp. 120-141). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Paechter, Weidenmann, & Schweizer. (2002). Synchron oder asynchron. Wann wird Wissen effektiver kommuniziert? In E. van der Meer, H. Hagendorf, R. Beyer, F. Krüger, A. Nuthmann & S. Schulz (Hrsg.), Abstractband des 43. Kongresses der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Psychologie, Berlin. Lengerich: Pabst. [Synchronously or asynchronously. How is knowledge communicated more effectively?] Peterson, P., & Swing, S. (1985). Students’ cognition as mediators of the effectiveness of small-group learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 299-312. Pfister, H.R., & Mühlpfordt, M. (2002). Supporting discourse in a synchronous learning environment: The learning protocol approach. In G. Stahl (Ed.), Proceedings of the Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) 2002, (pp. 581-589). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Piaget, J. (1926). The language and thought of the child. New York: Harcourt Brace. Reiserer, M., Ertl, B., & Mandl, H. (2001). Fostering collaborative knowledge construction in desktop videoconferencing. Effects of content schemes and cooperation scripts in peer teaching settings. Unpublished research report from the Institute for Empirical Pedagogy and Pedagogical Psychology. Munich, Ludwig-Maximilians-University. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696–735. Schmidt, H. G., & Boshuizen, H. P. A. (1992). Encapsulation of biomedical knowledge. In D. Evans & V. Patel (Eds.), Advanced models of cognition for medical training and practice (pp. 265-282). Berlin: Springer. Searle, J. (1969) Speech Acts: an essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Slavin, R.E. (1983a). Cooperative learning. New York: Longman. Slavin, R.E. (1983b). When does cooperative learning increase student achievement? Psychological Bulletin, 94, 429-445. Slavin, R.E. (1992). When and why does cooperative learning increase academic achievement? Theoretical and empirical perspectives. In R. Hertz-Lazarowitz & N. Miller (Eds.), Interaction in cooperative learning groups. The theoretical anatomy of group learning (pp. 145-173). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Uni-

146


versity Press. Stasser, G., & Titus, W. (1985). Pooling of unshared information in group decision making: Biased information sampling during discussion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 67-78. Stasser, G., & Titus, W. (1987). Effects of information load and percentage shared information in the dissemination on unshared information during discussion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 81-93. Stehr, N. (1994). Arbeit, Eigentum und Wissen: Zur Theorie von Wissensgesellschaften [Work, ownership, and knowledge: Towards a theory of knowledge societes]. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp. Sternberg, R., & Horvath, J. A. (Eds.). (1999). Tacit knowledge in professional practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Straus, S.G. (1996). Getting a clue: The effects of communication media and information distribution on participation and performance in computermediated and face-to-face groups. Small Group Research, 27, 115-142. Suchman, L. A. (1987). Plans and situated actions. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Tatar, D. (1998). Social and Personal Consequences of a Preoccupied Listener. Doctoral Thesis. Department of Psychology. Stanford University. Tatar, D., Foster, G., & Bobrow, D. (1991). Designs for Conversation: Lessons from Cognoter. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 34, 185-209. Tatar, D., & Gray, J. (2002) Studying online communities for learning. Manuscript prepared for submission. Tatar, D., Gray, J., & Fusco, J. (2002). Rich social interaction in an online community for learning, Proceedings of the Conference on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning. Boulder, CO; January 2002. Vygotsky, L.A. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Vygotsky, L.A. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Webb, N. (1983). Predicting learning from student interaction: Defining the interaction variable. Educational Psychologist, 18, 33-41. Webb, N. (1991). Task-related verbal interaction and mathematics learning in small groups. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 22, 366-389. Webb, N. (1992). A model of student interaction. In R. Hertz-Lazarowitz & N. Miller (Eds.), Interaction in cooperative learning groups. The theoretical anatomy of group learning (pp. 102-119). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Weinberger, A., Fischer, F., & Mandl, H. (2001). Scripts and scaffolds in problembased computer supported collaborative learning environments: Fostering participation and transfer. Unpublished research report from the Institute for Empirical Pedagogy and Pedagogical Psychology. Munich, LudwigMaximilians-University. Wittrock, M.C. (1978). The cognitive movement in instruction. Educational Psychologist, 13, 15-29. Wu, A.S., Farrell, R. & Singley, M.K. (2002). Scaffolding group learning in a collaborative networked environment. Proceedings of the Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) 2002, http:// newmedia.colorado.edu/cscl/ index.html.