Approaching institutional contexts: systemic versus dialogic research in CSCL

Abstract

The research literature in CSCL has rarely addressed the question of how institutional contexts contribute to constituting the meanings and functions of CSCL applications. The argument that we develop here concerns how the institutional context impacts the use of CSCL applications and how this impact should be conceptualized. In order to structure to our argument, we introduce a distinction between systemic and dialogic approaches to CSCL research. We develop our argument by working through a selection of relevant studies belonging to the two perspectives, and conclude that not enough attention has been given to the emergent characteristics of activities where CSCL tools have been introduced. This is particularly the case in studies belonging to a systemic approach. Our basic argument is that a dialogic stance can provide important insights into how institutional practices shape the meanings and functions of CSCL tools. A dialogic perspective provides opportunities for making sense of learning and knowledge construction at different levels of activity, while at the same time retaining sensitivity to the mutually constitutive relationship between levels.

Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning: Basic Concepts, Multiple Perspectives, and Emerging Trends

“…We have grouped mainstream CSCL research into systemic and dialogical approaches (Arnseth & Ludvigsen, 2006). This distinction gives us the possibility to provide a more aggregated picture of what we know about research in CSCL.…”

“…The systemic approach concerns the generation of models of how specific features of technological systems support or constrain collaboration, reasoning, knowledge representation, and structure of discourse (Dillenbourg, 1999) and to what extent these features will enhance students' capacities to solve problem in different domains (Arnseth & Ludvigsen, 2006). From a systemic approach, the analytic purpose is to identify interdependencies between quantifiable variables.…”

“…Similarly, the term "collaborative learning" does not imply that learning in small groups is better than individual learning. Findings indicate that detailed analyses of interaction are necessary to understand how collaboration is carried out (Arnseth & Ludvigsen, 2006). In other words, it is not a question of an either/or situation, but rather how to identify specific situations that require mastery of new skills and design pedagogical and technological scaffolding for those situations.…”

Analyzing roles of individuals in small-group collaboration processes

“…We have illustrated possible ways of relating multiple levels in our own publications (e.g., Arnseth and Ludvigsen 2006;Cress 2008;Cress and Kimmerle 2008;Law et al 2012;Stahl 2013bStahl , 2015. The papers in this issue take concrete preliminary steps in such directions.…”

Conceptualizing the intersubjective group

“…Subsequently, Koschmann (2002) defined CSCL in terms of "joint meaning making"-the focus of the opening article in this issue. The centrality of intersubjective meaning making to the concerns of CSCL as a research field have been stressed programmatically in scattered proposals and examples, for instance in (Arnseth and Ludvigsen 2006;Çakir et al 2009;Suthers 2006;Suthers et al 2010). Multiple attempts to define new methods corresponding to this agenda of group-level analysis were also proposed, as in several ijCSCL articles (Cress 2008;Cress and Kimmerle 2008;Damsa 2014;Furberg et al 2013;Noroozi et al 2013;Öner 2013;Overdijk et al 2014;Zemel and Koschmann 2013;Zhao and Chan 2014).…”