Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Toward a dialectic relation between the results in CSCL: Three critical methodological aspects of content analysis schemes

  • Published:
International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The research field of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) includes a large variety of approaches which present significant theoretical and methodological differences. This diversity complicates the articulation of the knowledge that is produced within this investigative framework. The paper addresses this problem from a dialectic view. We propose that the main reason for this problem is not the theoretical and methodological diversity itself, but rather the difficulty of situating one specific result within this diversity in a way that makes dialectic relations between results visible and mutual transformation of the approaches possible. In the present paper, we propose a set of indicators, applicable to content analysis approaches, aimed to facilitate this reciprocal positioning of the results in the field. These indicators come from what we term “critical methodological aspects”: those aspects of the methodological infrastructure that are directly related to theoretical positions. We consider three critical methodological aspects in content analysis schemes: the units of analysis, the relations to be established, and the dimensions of analysis. Indicators regarding these aspects are proposed and defined, and their use for facilitating dialectical relations between results is exemplified by means of the examination of five specific approaches.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

References

  • Arnseth, H. C., & Ludvigsen, S. (2006). Approaching institutional contexts: Systemic versus dialogic research in CSCL. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1, 167–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arvaja, M., Salovaara, H., Häkkinen, P., & Järvelä, S. (2007). Combining individual and group-level perspectives for studying collaborative knowledge construction in context. Learning and Instruction, 17, 448–459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beers, P. J., Boshuizen, H. P. A., Kirschner, P. A., & Gijselaers, W. H. (2005). Computer support for knowledge construction in collaborative learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 21, 623–643.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beers, P. J., Kirschner, P. A., Boshizen, H. P. A., & Gijselaers, W. H. (2007a). ICT-support for grounding in the classroom. Instructional Science, 35, 535–556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beers, P. J., Boshuizen, H. P. A., Kirschner, P. A., & Gijselaers, W. H. (2007b). The analysis of negotiation of common ground in CSCL. Learning and Instruction, 17, 427–435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biggs, J. B., & Collis, K. F. (1982). Evaluating the quality of learning: The SOLO Taxonomy. New York: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives—the classification of educational goals, handbook 1 cognitive domain. London: Longman Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T. H. (1996). Constructing self-explanations and scaffolded explanations in tutoring. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10, 33–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology. A once and future discipline. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coll, C., Colomina, R., Onrubia, J., & Rochera, M. J. (1995). Actividad conjunta y habla: Una aproximación a los mecanismos de influencia educativa [Joint activity and speech: An approach to the mechanisms of educational influence]. In P. Fernández Berrocal, & M. A. Melero (Comps.), La interacción social en contextos educativos (pp. 193–326). Madrid: Siglo XXI.

  • De Laat, M., Lally, V., Lipponen, L., & Simons, R.-J. (2007). Online teaching in networked learning communities: A multi-method approach to studying the role of the teacher. Instructional Science, 35, 257–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Smet, M., Van Keer, H., & Valcke, M. (2008). Blending asynchronous discussion groups and peer tutoring in higher education: An exploratory study of online peer tutoring behaviour. Computers & Education, 50, 207–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Wever, B., Schellens, T., Valcke, M., & Van Keer, H. (2006). Content analysis schemes to analyze transcripts of online asynchronous discussion groups: A review. Computers & Education, 46, 6–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Wever, B., Van Keer, H., Schellens, T., & Valcke, M. (2007). Applying multilevel modelling to content analysis data: Methodological issues in the study of role assignment in asynchronous discussion groups. Learning and Instruction, 17, 436–447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. Internet and Higher Education, 2(2–3), 87–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garrison, D. R., & Arbaugh, J. B. (2007). Researching the community of inquiry framework: Review, issues, and future directions. Internet and Higher Education, 10, 157–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerbic, P., & Stacey, E. (2005). A purposive approach to content analysis: Designing analytical frameworks. Internet and Higher Education, 8, 45–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gunawardena, Ch N, Lowe, C. A., & Anderson, T. (1997). Analysis of a global online debate and the development of an interaction analysis model for examining social construction of knowledge in computer conferencing. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 17(4), 397–431.

    Google Scholar 

  • Häkkinen, P., & Järvelä, S. (2006). Sharing and constructing perspectives in web-based conferencing. Computers & Education, 47, 433–447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ho, C.-H., & Swan, K. (2007). Evaluating online conversation in an asynchronous learning environment: An application of Grice’s cooperative principle. Internet and Higher Education, 10, 3–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Järvelä, S., & Häkkinen, P. (2002). Web-based cases in teaching and learning—the quality of discussions and a stage of perspective taking in asynchronous communication. Interactive Learning Environments, 10, 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Järvenoja, H., & Järvelä, S. (2009). Emotion control in collaborative learning situations: Do students regulate emotions evoked by social challenges? British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 463–481.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jeong, A., & Joung, S. (2007). Scaffolding collaborative argumentation in asynchronous discussions with message constraints and message labels. Computers & Education, 48, 427–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krippendorff, K. (1980). Content analysis. An introduction to its methodology. Beverly Hills: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lai, M., & Law, N. (2006). Peer scaffolding of knowledge building through collaborative groups with differential learning experiences. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 35(2), 123–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linell, P. (1998). Approaching dialogue. Talk, interaction and contexts in dialogical perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mazzolini, M., & Maddison, S. (2007). When to jump in: The role for the instructor in online discussion forums. Computers & Education, 49, 193–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Naidu, S., & Järvelä, S. (2006). Analysing CMC content for what? Computers & Education, 46, 96–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pata, K., Sarapuu, T., & Lehtinen, E. (2005). Tutor scaffolding styles of dilemma solving in network-based role-play. Learning and Instruction, 15, 571–587.

    Google Scholar 

  • Puntambekar, S. (2006). Analysing collaborative interactions: Divergence, shared understanding and construction of knowledge. Computers & Education, 47, 332–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Redmond, P., & Lock, J. V. (2006). A flexible framework for online collaborative learning. Internet and Higher Education, 9, 267–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Resta, P. E., & Laferrière, T. (2007). Technology in support of collaborative learning. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 65–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rourke, L., & Anderson, T. (2004). Validity in quantitative content analysis. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52, 5–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (1999). Assessing social presence in asynchronous text-based computer conferencing. Journal of Distance Education, 14(2), 50–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Methodological issues in the content analysis of computer conference transcripts. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 12(1), 8–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salmon, G. (2000). A model for CMC in education and training. E-moderating. The key to teaching and learning online. London: Kogan Page.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schellens, T., & Valcke, M. (2006). Fostering knowledge construction in university students through asynchronous discussion groups. Computers & Education, 46, 349–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schrire, S. (2004). Interaction and cognition in asynchronous computer conferencing. Instructional Science, 32, 475–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schrire, S. (2006). Knowledge building in asynchronous discussion groups: Going beyond quantitative analysis. Computers & Education, 46, 49–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sparatiu, A., Hartley, K., Schraw, G., Bendixen, L. D., & Quinn, L. F. (2007). The influence of the discussion leader procedure on the quality of arguments in online discussions. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 37(1), 83–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stahl, G. (2005). Group cognition in computer-assisted collaborative learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21, 79–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stahl, G., Koschmann, T., & Suthers, D. D. (2006). Computer-supported collaborative learning. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 409–425). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stein, D. S., Wanstreet, C. E., Glazer, H. R., Engle, C. L., Harris, R. A., Johnston, S. M., et al. (2007). Creating shared understanding through chats in a community of inquiry. Internet and Higher Education, 10, 103–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strijbos, J. W., & Stahl, G. (2007). Methodological issues in developing a multi-dimensional coding procedure for small-group chat communication. Learning and Instruction, 17, 394–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strijbos, J. W., Martens, R. L., Prins, F. J., & Jochems, W. M. G. (2006). Content analysis: What are they talking about? Computers & Education, 46, 29–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strijbos, J. W., Martens, R. L., Jochems, W. M. G., & Broers, N. J. (2007). The effect of functional roles on perceived group efficiency during computer-supported collaborative learning: A matter of triangulation. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 353–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suthers, D. D. (2006). Technology affordances for intersubjective meaning making: A research agenda for CSCL. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1, 315–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tolman, C. (1981). The metaphysic of relations in Klaus Riegel’s “Dialectics” of human development. Human Development, 24, 33–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tseng, S.-C., & Tsai, C.-C. (2007). On-line peer assessment and the role of the peer feedback: A study of high school computer course. Computers & Education, 49, 1161–1174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vaughan, N., & Garrison, D. R. (2005). Creating cognitive presence in a blended faculty development community. Internet and Higher Education, 8, 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Veerman, A., & Veldhuis-Diermanse, E. (2001). Collaborative learning through computer-mediated communication in academic education. In P. Dillenbourg, A. Eurelings, & K. Hakkarainen (Eds.), European perspectives on computer-supported collaborative learning. Proceedings of the first European conference on CSCL (pp. 625–632). Maastricht: McLuhan Institute, University of Maastricht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1997). The historical meaning of the crisis on psychology: A methodological investigation. In R. W. Rieber & J. Wollock (Eds.), The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky. Volume 3. Problems of the theory and history of psychology (pp. 233–343). New York: Plenum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2006). A framework to analyze argumentative knowledge construction in computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers & Education, 46, 71–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weinberger, A., Fischer, F., & Stegmann, K. (2005). Computer-supported collaborative learning in higher education: Scripts for argumentative knowledge construction in distributed groups. Proceedings of the 2005 conference on computer support for collaborative learning (pp. 717–726).

  • Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry: Towards a sociocultural practice and theory of education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woo, Y., & Reeves, T. C. (2007). Meaningful interaction in web-based learning: A social constructivist interpretation. Internet and Higher Education, 10, 15–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woodrum, E. (1984). “Mainstreaming” content analysis in social science: Methodological advantages, obstacles, and solutions. Social Science Research, 13, 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zemel, A., Xhafa, F., & Cakir, M. (2007). What’s in the mix? Combining coding and conversation analysis to investigate chat-based problem solving. Learning and Instruction, 17, 405–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zumbach, J., Reimann, P., & Koch, S. C. (2006). Monitoring students’ collaboration in computer-mediated collaborative problem-solving: Applied feedback approaches. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 35(4), 399–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by the “Departament d’Educació i Universitats de la Generalitat de Catalunya,” the European Social Fund, and the GRINTIE research group at the University of Barcelona. We are deeply grateful to the anonymous reviewers of the previous versions of this paper for their detailed and challenging feedback. Thanks also to Sanna Järvelä for her helpful comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Developmental and Educational Psychology, University of Barcelona, Passeig de la Vall d’Hebron, 171, 08035, Barcelona, Spain

    Marc Clarà & Teresa Mauri

Authors
  1. Marc Clarà
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Teresa Mauri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marc Clarà.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Clarà, M., Mauri, T. Toward a dialectic relation between the results in CSCL: Three critical methodological aspects of content analysis schemes. Computer Supported Learning 5, 117–136 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-009-9078-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-009-9078-4

Keywords