Computer collaborative work in the elementaryscience classroom: The making of monopolization
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.26512/lc.v18i35.3843Keywords:
Technology and education, Collaborative work, Computer-based learning, Science education, Discourse analysisAbstract
In the present study, we articulate how the nature of students’ interactions during computercollaborative work (CCW) is not only mediated by their physical arrangement within thegroup, but it also contributes to the emergence of monopolization. Using a socio-culturaltheoretical approach to learning in conjunction with discourse analysis to investigate theverbal and non-verbal exchanges amongst members of a working group in an elementaryscience classroom, we discuss the negative implications of this unique type of group dynamicto group cohesion and science teaching and learning in such computer-based schoolenvironments.
Downloads
References
AZEVEDO, Roger. Computers environments as metacognitive tools for enhancing learning. Educational Psychologist, 40(4), p. 193-197, 2005.
BLATCHORD Peter; KATNICK, Peter; BAINES, Ed.; GALTON, Maurice. Changes in grouping practicesover primary and secondary school. International Journal of Education Research, 39,p. 9-34, 2003.
BROWN, Annemarie Sullivan; PALINCSAR, Ann. Guided cooperative learning and individual knowledge, acquisition. In: L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction. Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1989, p. 393-451.
CALDERON, Muriel; HERTZ-LAZAROWITZ, Rachel; SLAVIN, Robert. Effects of bilingual cooperative integrated reading and composition on students making the transition from Spanish to Englishreading. Elementary School Journal, 99,p. 153-165, 1998.
EDWARDS, Derek; POTTER, Jonathan. Discursive psychology. London: Sage, 1992.
EGAN, Gerard. The skilled helper: A systematic approach to effective helping. Pacific Grove, CA:Brooks/Cole, 1997.
GOODWIN, Charles. Gestures as a resource for the organization of mutual orientation. Semiotica, 62,p. 29-49, 1986.
HAMMERSLEY, Martin. Conversation analysis and discourse analysis: Methods or paradigms?Discourse & Society, 14(6), p. 751-781, 2003.
De OLIVEIRA”“JAYME, Bruno; REIS, Giuliano; ROTH, Wichael”“Wolff (2011). Egomorphism in simplewords: Discursive pedagogical artefact in/for environmental education. Journal of Education Research,4(4). Disponível em: <https://www.novapublishers.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=24164&osCsid=b17406f46d25c202a8c2998398043182>. Acesso em: 20 ago. 2011.
JOHNSON, David; JOHNSON, Roger; MITCHEL, John; FREDRICKSON, John. The impact of conflict resolution training on middle school students. Journal of Social Psychology, 137, p. 11-21, 1997.
KAPUT, James. Technology and mathematics education. In: D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook for researchon mathematics teaching and learning. New York: Macmillan, p. 515-556, 1992.
KULIK, James. (Meta-analytic studies of findings on computer-based instruction. In: E. L. Baker; H.F. O’Neil Jr. (Eds.), Technology assessment in education and training. Hillsdale, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum, p. 9-34, 1994.
LAVE, Jean; WENGER, Etienne. Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge,England: Cambridge University Press, 1991.
LEONT’EV, Alexei Nikolaevich. The problem of activity in psychology. In: J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), Theconcept of activity in Soviet psychology. Armonk, NY: Sharpe, 1981, p. 37-71.
LINDGREN, Rob; SCHWARTS, Daniel. Spatial learning and computer simulations in science. International Journal of Science Education, 31(3), p. 419-438, 2009.
LOUCAS, Louca; ZACHARIAH, Zachariah. The use of computer-based programming environments ascomputer modeling tools in early science education: the cases of textual and graphical programlanguages. International Journal of Science Education, 30(3), p. 285-321, 2008.
MARBACH-AD, Gili; SOKOLOVE, Phillip. Can undergraduate biology students learn to ask higher level questions? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, p. 854-870, 2000.
MCNEILL, David. Action, thought, and language. In P. Llyod; C. Fernyhough (Eds.), Lev Vygotsky:Critical assessments: Thought and language, Vol. II, p. 23”“30. Florence, KY: Taylor & Francis/Routledge, 1999.
MACNEILL, David. Catchments and contexts: non-modular factors in speech and gesture production.In: D. McNeill (Ed.), Language and gesture. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 2000,p. 312”“328.
MILLER, Judith, TRIMBUR, John.; WILKES, John. Group dynamics: Understanding group success andfailure in collaborative learning. In K. Bosworth; S. Hamilton (Eds.), Collaborative learning: Underlyingprocesses and effective techniques. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1994, p. 56-73.
MOOS, Daniel,; AZEVEDO, Roger. Learning with computer-based learning environments: a literature review of computer self-efficacy. Review of Educational Research, 79(2), p. 576-600, 2009.
NORRIS, Cathleen; SMOLKA, Jennifer; SOLOWAY, Elliot. Extracting value from research: A guide forthe perplexed. Techonology & Learning, 20, p. 45-48, 2000.
PAPADOURIS, Nicos; CONSTANTINOS, Constantinou. A methodology for integrating computer-basedlearning tools in science curricula. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 41(4), p. 521-538, 2009.
REIS, Giuliano. Committing treason to oneself: Neglecting the effectiveness of translated activities inscience and environmental education. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 4(1), p. 133-140, 2009.
ROBERTS, Tim; MCINNERENY, Joanne. Collaborative or cooperative learning? In: T. S. Roberts (Ed.),Online collaborative learning: Theory and practice. Hersey, PA: Information Science Publishing, 2004,p. 203”“241.
ROTH, Michael”“Wolff; WOSZCZYNA, Carolyn; SMITH, Gillian. Affordances and constraints of computersin science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, p. 995-1017, 1996.
SCHMUCK, Richard; SCHMUCK, Patricia. Group process in the classroom.Dubuque, IA: William C.Brown, 1979.
STAARMAN, Judith; AARNOUTSE, Cor; VERHOEVEN, Ludo. Connecting discourses: Intertextuality ina primary school CSCL practice. International Journal of Educational Research, 39,p. 807-816, 2003.
VALANIDES, Nicos; ANGELI, Charoula. Professional development for computer-enhanced learning: acase study with science teachers. Research in Science & Technological Education, 26(1), p. 3-12, 2008.
VAN JOOLINGEN, Wouter; DE JONG, Ton; DIMITRAKOPOULOU, Angelique. Issues in computersupported inquiry learning in science. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23, p. 111-119, 2007.
VAN JOOLINGEN, Wouter; DE JONG, Ton; LAZONDER, Ard; SAVELSBERGH, Elwin; MANLOVE, Sarah.Co-Laboratory: research and development of an online learning environment for collaborativescientific discovery learning. Computers in Human Behavior 21, p. 671-688, 2005.
VYGOTSKY, Lev Semyonovich. Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1978.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2016 Linhas Críticas
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish in this journal agree to the following terms:
-Authors maintains the copyright and grants the journal the right of first publication, the work being simultaneously licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which allows the sharing of the work with recognition of the authorship of the work and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are authorized to enter into additional contracts separately, for non-exclusive distribution of the version of the work published in this journal (eg publish in institutional repository or as a book chapter), with acknowledgment of authorship and initial publication in this journal.
-Authorers are allowed and encouraged to publish and distribute their work online (eg in institutional repositories or on their personal page) at any point before or during the editorial process, as this can generate productive changes as well as increase the impact and the citation of published work (See The Effect of Free Access).
