Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-mzp66 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-27T22:34:55.188Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

12 - Analyzing Collaborative Discourse

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

By
R. Keith Sawyer
Edited by
R. Keith Sawyer
R. Keith Sawyer
Affiliation:
Washington University
R. Keith Sawyer
Affiliation:
Washington University, St Louis
Get access

Summary

In traditional instruction, the teacher provides information to students, either through lectures or assigned readings. This information typically consists of single-sentence statements of fact, and step-by-step procedures for solving specific kinds of problems. Students are expected to memorize the information and then demonstrate that they've memorized it by doing well on a test – either by restating the facts correctly, or by applying the memorized procedure to solve a problem. This is known as a transmission and acquisition style of teaching and learning. In contrast, learning sciences research emphasizes a new style of learning – one in which the teacher works with students in a community of learners, providing appropriate scaffolds to student project groups as they build knowledge together. In a classroom based on the scientific principles emerging from the learning sciences, students often talk to each other as they construct knowledge together. The teacher is always present but is not dominating the discussion; the teacher often facilitates or channels the discussion, but if students are working together effectively an experienced teacher may realize that the best thing to do is to stay silent.

In emphasizing peer collaboration, the learning sciences is drawing on over twenty years of educational research that has consistently demonstrated that collaboration helps students learn (e.g., Bossert, 1988–1989; Johnson & Johnson, 1992; Kumpulainen & Mutanen, 2000; Slavin, 1990, 1992; Webb & Palincsar, 1996).

Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences , pp. 187 - 204
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2005

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Antil, L. R., Jenkins, J. R., Wayne, S. K., & Vadasy, P. F. (1998). Cooperative learning: Prevalence, conceptualizations, and the relation between research and practice. American Educational Research Journal, 35(3), 419–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atkinson, J. M., & Heritage, J. (1999). Jefferson's transcript notation. In A. Jaworkski & N. Coupland (Eds.), The discourse reader (pp. 158–166). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Azmitia, M. (1996). Peer interactive minds: Developmental, theoretical, and methodological issues. In Baltes, P. B. & Staudinger, U. M. (Eds.), Interactive minds: Life-span perspectives on the social foundation of cognition (pp. 133–162). New York: Cambridge.Google Scholar
Bargh, J. A., & Schul, Y. (1980). On the cognitive benefits of teaching. Journal of Educational Psychology, 72(5), 593–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bearison, D. J., Magzamen, S., & Filardo, E. K. (1986). Socio-cognitive conflict and cognitive growth in young children. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 32(1), 51–72.Google Scholar
Bellack, A. A., Kliebard, H. M., Hyman, R. T., & , Frank L. Smith J. (1966). The language of the classroom. New York: Teacher's College Press.Google Scholar
Bossert, S. T. (1988–1989). Cooperative activities in the classroom. Review of Research in Education, 15, 225–252.Google Scholar
Chi, M. T. H. (1997). Quantifying qualitative analyses of verbal data: A practical guide. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6(3), 271–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cobb, P. (1995). Mathematical learning and small-group interaction: Four case studies. In Cobb, P. & Bauersfeld, H. (Eds.), The emergence of mathematical meaning: Interaction in classroom cultures (pp. 25–129). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Cobb, P. (2002). Reasoning with tools and inscriptions. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(2–3), 187–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cobb, P., Gravemeijer, K., Yackel, E., McClain, K., & Whitenack, J. (1997). Mathematizing and symbolizing: The emergence of chains of signification in one first-grade classroom. In Kirshner, D. & Whitson, J. A. (Eds.), Situated cognition: Social, semiotic, and psychological perspectives (pp. 151–233). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Daiute, C., & Dalton, B. (1993). Collaboration between children learning to write: Can novices be masters? Cognitive and Instruction, 10, 281–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doise, W., & Mugny, G. (1984). The social development of the intellect. New York: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Durán, R. P., & Szymanski, M. H. (1995). Cooperative learning interaction and construction of activity. Discourse Processes, 19, 149–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finkel, E. A. (1996). Making sense of genetics: Students' knowledge use during problem solving in a high school genetics class. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(4), 345–368.3.0.CO;2-S>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, E. (1993). Distinctive features of pupil-pupil classroom talk and their relationship to learning: How discursive exploration might be encouraged. Language and Education, 7(4), 239–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forman, E. A. (1992). Discourse, intersubjectivity, and the development of peer collaboration: A Vygotskian approach. In Winegar, L. T. & Valsiner, J. (Eds.), Children's development within social context, Volume 1: Metatheory and theory (pp. 143–159). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Forman, E. A. (1996). Learning mathematics as participation in classroom practice: Implications of sociocultural theory for educational reform. In Steffe, L. P., Nesher, P., Cobb, P., Goldin, G. A., & Greer, B. (Eds.), Theories of mathematical learning (pp. 115–130). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Forman, E. A., & Cazden, C. B. (1985). Exploring Vygotskian perspectives in education: The cognitive value of peer interaction. In Wertsch, J. V. (Ed.), Culture, communication, and cognition: Vygotskian perspectives (pp. 323–347). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. L., Phillips, N. B., Karns, K., & Dutka, S. (1997). Enhancing students' helping behavior during peer-mediated instruction with conceptual mathematical explanations. The Elementary School Journal, 97(3), 223–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gee, J. P., & Green, J. L. (1998). Discourse analysis, learning, and social practice: A methodological study. Review of Educational Research, 23, 119–169.Google Scholar
Goodwin, C. (1981). Conversational organization: Interaction between speakers and hearers. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Green, J., & Kelly, G. (Eds.). (1997). Special issue of Journal of Classroom Interaction on “discourse in science classrooms,” Volume 32, Issue 2. Houston, TX: University of Houston.Google Scholar
Hicks, D. (1995). Discourse, learning, and teaching. Review of Research in Education, 21, 49–95.Google Scholar
Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1974). Instructional goal structure: Cooperative, competitive, or individualistic. Review of Educational Research, 44(2), 213–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1979). Conflict in the classroom: Controversy and learning. Review of Educational Research, 49(1), 51–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and research. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.Google Scholar
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1992). Positive interdependence: Key to effective cooperation. In Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. & Miller, N. (Eds.), Interaction in cooperative groups: The theoretical anatomy of group learning (pp. 174–199). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jordan, B., & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(1), 39–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelly, G. J., & Crawford, T. (1996). Students' interaction with computer representations: Analysis of discourse in laboratory groups. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(7), 693–707.3.0.CO;2-I>CrossRef
Kelly, G. J., & Crawford, T. (1997). An ethnographic investigation of the discourse processes of school science. Science Education, 81, 533–559.3.0.CO;2-B>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelly, G., Crawford, T., & Green, J. (2001). Common task and uncommon knowledge: Dissenting voices in the discursive construction of physics across small laboratory groups. Linguistics & Education, 12(2), 135–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kendon, A. (1990). Conducting interaction: Patterns of behavior in focused encounters. New York: Cambridge.Google Scholar
Klaasen, C. W. J. M., & Lijnse, P. L. (1996). Interpreting students' and teachers' discourse in science classes: An underestimated problem? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(2), 115–134.3.0.CO;2-X>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kumpulainen, K., & Mutanen, M. (2000). Mapping the dynamics of peer group interaction: A method of analysis of socially shared learning processes. In Cowie, H. & Aalsvoort, G. v. d. (Eds.), Social interaction in learning and instruction: The meaning of discourse for the construction of knowledge (pp. 144–160). New York: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
Lazarowitz, R., & Karsenty, G. (1990). Cooperative learning and students' academic achievement, process skills, learning environment, and self-esteem in tenth-grade biology classrooms. In Sharan, S. (Ed.), Cooperative learning: Theory and research (pp. 123–149). New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Lemke, J. L. (1998). Analyzing verbal data: Principles, methods, and problems. In Fraser, B. J. & Tobin, K. G. (Eds.), International handbook of science education, Part Two (pp. 1175–1189). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mercer, N. (1996). The quality of talk in children's collaborative activity in the classroom. Learning and Instruction, 6, 359–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Middleton, D., & Edwards, D. (1990). Collective remembering. In Middleton, D. & Edwards, D. (Eds.), Collective remembering (pp. 23–45). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Musatti, T. (1993). Meaning between peers: The meaning of the peer. Cognition and Instruction, 11(3/4), 241–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1991). Professional standards for teaching mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Nystrand, M., Gamoran, A., Kachur, R., & Prendergast, C. (1997). Opening dialogue: Understanding the dynamics of language and learning in the English classroom. New York: Teacher's College Press.Google Scholar
O'Connor, M. C., & Michaels, S. (1993). Aligning academic task and participation status through revoicing: Analysis of a classroom discourse strategy. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 24(4), 318–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palincsar, A. S. (1998). Social constructivist perspectives on teaching and learning. In Spence, J. T., Darley, J. M., & Foss, D. J. (Eds.), Annual Review of Psychology (Vol. 49, pp. 345–375). Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews.Google Scholar
Palincsar, A. S., Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1993). First-grade dialogues for knowledge acquisition and use. In Forman, E. A., Minick, N., & Stone, C. A. (Eds.), Contexts for learning: Sociocultural dynamics in children's development (pp. 43–57). New York: Oxford.Google Scholar
Perret-Clermont, A. N. (1980). Social interaction and cognitive development in children. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Rogoff, B. (1998). Cognition as a collaborative process. In Kuhn, D. & Siegler, R. S. (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology, 5th edition, Volume 2: Cognition, perception, and language (pp. 679–744). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Sawyer, R. K. (2001). Creating conversations: Improvisation in everyday discourse. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.Google Scholar
Sawyer, R. K. (2003). Group creativity: Music, theater, collaboration. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Sawyer, R. K., & Berson, S. (2004). Study group discourse: How external representations affect collaborative conversation. Linguistics and Education, 15, 387–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saxe, G. B., & Bermudez, T. (1996). Emergent mathematical environments in children's games. In Steffe, L. P., Nesher, P., Cobb, P., Goldin, G. A., & Greer, B. (Eds.), Theories of mathematical learning (pp. 51–68). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1986). The routine as achievement. Human Studies, 9, 111–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sfard, A. (2002). The interplay of intimations and implementations: Generating new discourse with new symbolic tools. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11 (2–3), 319–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sfard, A., & Kieran, C. (2001). Cognition as communication: Rethinking learning-by-talking through multi-faceted analysis of students' mathematical interactions. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 8(1), 42–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sfard, A., & McClain, K. (Eds.). (2002). Analyzing tools: Perspectives on the role of designed artifacts in mathematics learning (Special issue of The Journal of the Learning Sciences, Volume 11, Numbers 2 and 3). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Sinclair, J. M., & Coulthard, R. M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse: The English used by teachers and pupils. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Slavin, R. E. (1990). Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
Slavin, R. E. (1992). When and why does cooperative learning increase achievement? Theoretical and empirical perspectives. In Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. & Miller, N. (Eds.), Interaction in cooperative groups: The theoretical anatomy of group learning (pp. 145–173). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Swing, S. R., & Peterson, P. L. (1982). The relationship of student ability and small-group interaction to student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 19(2), 259–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tudge, J., & Rogoff, B. (1989). Peer influences on cognitive development: Piagetian and Vygotskian perspectives. In Bornstein, M. & Bruner, J. (Eds.), Interaction in cognitive development (pp. 17–40). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
van Boxtel, C., van der Linden, J., & Kanselaar, G. (2000). Deep processing in a collaborative learning environment. In Cowie, H. & Aalsvoort, G. (Eds.), Social interaction in learning and instruction: The meaning of discourse for the construction of knowledge (pp. 161–178). New York: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
Vedder, P. (1985). Cooperative learning: A study on processes and effects of cooperation between primary school children. Groningen, Netherlands: Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.Google Scholar
Verba, M. (1994). The beginnings of collaboration in peer interaction. Human Development, 37, 125–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Viechnicki, G. B. (1997). An empirical analysis of participant intentions: Discourse in a graduate seminar. Language & Communication, 17(2), 103–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webb, N. M. (1984). Stability of small group interaction and achievement over time. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(2), 211–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webb, N. M. (1991). Task-related verbal interaction and mathematics learning in small groups. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 22(5), 366–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webb, N. M. (1992). Testing a theoretical model of student interaction and learning in small groups. In Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. & Miller, N. (Eds.), Interaction in cooperative groups: The theoretical anatomy of group learning (pp. 102–119). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Webb, N. M. (1995). Group collaboration in assessment: Multiple objectives, processes, and outcomes. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 17(2), 239–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webb, N. M., Ender, P., & Lewis, S. (1986). Problem-solving strategies and group processes in small groups learning computer programming. American Educational Research Journal, 23(2), 243–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webb, N. M., Nemer, K. M., Chizhik, A. W., & Sugrue, B. (1998). Equity issues in collaborative group assessment: Group composition and performance. American Educational Research Journal, 35(4), 607–651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webb, N. M., & Palincsar, A. S. (1996). Group processes in the classroom. In Berliner, D. C. & Calfee, R. C. (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 841–873). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.Google Scholar
Wells, G., & Chang-Wells, G. L. (1992). Constructing knowledge together: Classrooms as centers of inquiry and literacy. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×