Review by: Brahm, Taiga (2007-10-11)

In their article, Arvaja and colleagues have a closer look at the methodological possibilities of research in collaborative learning. They start out with a short review on how research in (computer-supported) collaborative learning has mainly focused on the connection between student interaction and individual learning. It was found that this interaction indeed adds to the cognitive development of the individual learner. However, such a view misses that knowledge construction is also based on the interaction between the individual and his or her environment. This is in line with the socio-cultural approach to learning (Vygotsky, 1978). The authors conclude that it is therefore necessary to include the particular context of social acitivity when analysing collaborative learning. "In the study of collaborative knowledge construction, the contextual approach brings the process of tool-mediated negotiation of meanings into the focus of analysis" (p 449). However, such contextual variables cannot be included in experimental designs. Thus, other research methods have to be found to examine these phenomena.

The article aims at finding such new methodological approaches. In particular, the authors look at process-oriented methods which they find suitable to "capture the situational dynamics of learning together" (p 449). These methods do not only look at the learning process at the moment but also explore the learners' past, for instance, their learning experiences, prior knowledge, etc. Thus, the study itself examines three levels of learning:

• the group-level collaboration
• the individual's contextual interpretation
• the context.

Consequently, the unit of analysis is the individual student's interpretation of the group learning process as well as the collaborative knowledge construction itself. The first part of the study, i. e. the analysis of the collaborative knowledge construction, consisted of three parts

• qualitative content analysis
• analysis of the communicative functions
• analysis of the contextual resources.

With the content analysis, the meaning of the single messages was extracted to find out which messages were connected. In the second step, communicative functions (adapted from Kumpulainen & Mutanen, 1999) were used to examine the nature of the communication among the students. Although the categories were predefined, they were adapted to the particular setting in order to take the particular context into account. The third part consisted of an analysis of the resources students used in their knowledge exchange. Three kinds of contextual resources can be differentiated (Linell, 1998):

• co-text, i. e. the learners' previous communication and action;
• concrete situation of the student, including the persons, objects, artifacts involved;
• background knowledge including assumptions about the interaction.

The analyses were primarily conducted by one of the authors, however, they were also discussed with the co-authors. The second part of the study comprised the students' individual interpretations of the group process. These were assessed in a self-report questionaire. This individual perspective was used to "complement and validate the interpretation of the group-level negotiations" (p 452). This combination of qualitative and quantitative methods can be seen as an example of mixed-method research. The authors, then, present coding examples that show how the online discussions were analysed and interpreted. The combination of the two levels of analysis (individual and group) show clear distinctions between the different students' way of participating in the knowledge construction process. The analysis in particular discloses students who are facing more challenges than the rest of the group. On the one hand, the lack of commitment was seen as the biggest challenge by all of the learners. On the other hand, both levels of analysis show that the students actively constructed knowledge by building upon each other. The individual level of analysis was seen as helpful for the validation of the examination of the group processes, however, the combined examination does not explain what processes actually mediate the learners' interpretations and the actual collaborative processes. In sum, "this analysis was not able to reveal individuals's interpretations during the activity and how these might shape the meaning negotiations of the group" (p 458).

This combined methodology offers a good toolkit to examine differences between different learner groups. Of course, the complex nature of human interaction is still a challenge since there are so many factors (cognitive, social, motivational, emotional) interact. The contextual analysis might provide a possibility to explore these interactions. With regard to the article reviewed, it would good to see replications of the method in order to find out whether it can repeatedly prove to be helpful.