%0 Journal Article %1 402 %A Tao, P. K. %A Gunstone, R. F. %C Univ Hong Kong,Dept Curriculum Studies,Hong Kong,Hong Kong ; Monash Univ,Fac Educ,Clayton,Vic 3168,Australia %D 1999 %J International Journal of Science Education %K collaboration computer-modeling, computers, file-import-09-02-13, instructional-strategies, peer-interaction, physics %N (c) 2002 Inst. For Sci. Info %P 39-57+ %T Conceptual change in science through collaborative learning at the computer %V 21 %X The purpose of this classroom study was to investigate whether and how collaborative learning at the computer fosters conceptual change. A suite of computer simulation programs was developed to confront students' alternative conceptions in mechanics. This was integrated into a 10-week physics instruction of a Grade 10 science class in a Melbourne high school, A Conceptual Test was administered to the class as a pre-, post- and delayed post-test to determine students' conceptual change. Students in the class worked collaboratively in dyads on the programs carrying out predict-observe-explain tasks according to a set of worksheets. While the dyads worked on the tasks, their conversational interactions were recorded. A range of other data were also collected at various junctures during instruction. The conversational interactions of seven dyads in the class were analysed for the mode of their collaboration using three indices: joint on-task engagement, and equality and mutuality of engagement. Their collaborative sequences were categorized as co-constructions of shared understanding or peer conflicts, and inferences were made as to whether or not these led to conceptual change. Case studies of collaboration were written up for the seven dyads. The study showed that the computer-supported collaborative learning provided students with experiences of co-construction of shared understanding and peer conflicts which led to conceptual change for those who were (i) cognitively engaged in the tasks and (ii) prepared to reflect on and reconstruct their conceptions. It also showed that whilst co-construction was important, to achieve long-term and stable conceptual change this needed to be accompanied by students' personal construction and sense making of the new understanding.

@article{402, abstract = {The purpose of this classroom study was to investigate whether and how collaborative learning at the computer fosters conceptual change. A suite of computer simulation programs was developed to confront students' alternative conceptions in mechanics. This was integrated into a 10-week physics instruction of a Grade 10 science class in a Melbourne high school, A Conceptual Test was administered to the class as a pre-, post- and delayed post-test to determine students' conceptual change. Students in the class worked collaboratively in dyads on the programs carrying out predict-observe-explain tasks according to a set of worksheets. While the dyads worked on the tasks, their conversational interactions were recorded. A range of other data were also collected at various junctures during instruction. The conversational interactions of seven dyads in the class were analysed for the mode of their collaboration using three indices: joint on-task engagement, and equality and mutuality of engagement. Their collaborative sequences were categorized as co-constructions of shared understanding or peer conflicts, and inferences were made as to whether or not these led to conceptual change. Case studies of collaboration were written up for the seven dyads. The study showed that the computer-supported collaborative learning provided students with experiences of co-construction of shared understanding and peer conflicts which led to conceptual change for those who were (i) cognitively engaged in the tasks and (ii) prepared to reflect on and reconstruct their conceptions. It also showed that whilst co-construction was important, to achieve long-term and stable conceptual change this needed to be accompanied by students' personal construction and sense making of the new understanding.}, added-at = {2009-02-24T19:22:48.000+0100}, address = {Univ Hong Kong,Dept Curriculum Studies,Hong Kong,Hong Kong ; Monash Univ,Fac Educ,Clayton,Vic 3168,Australia}, author = {Tao, P. K. and Gunstone, R. F.}, biburl = {https://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/2301abaa160545628286c3a3ad96c384d/clachapelle}, citeulike-article-id = {4046600}, comment = {Looked at pre-, post- and delayed post-tests of conceptual understanding; also transcripts analyzed for: -joint on-task engagement ("a necessary condition for collaboration") -equality of engagement -mutuality of engagement (from Damon \& Phelps 1989) -co-construction vs. conflict Findings: (1) students collaborating experienced conflict \& co-construction, and supported each other to complete the tasks (2) "a high joint on-task engagement which was high in equality and mutuality did not necessarily mean cognitive engagement; it appeared that students also needed to reflect on and reconstruct their conceptions" (3) "Peer conflicts did not always produce conceptual change. They appeared to work only for students who were prepared to reflect on and reconstruct their conceptions." (4) "Developing shared knowledge and understanding was important, but to achieve conceptual change, this needed to be accompanied by students' personal construction and sense making of the new understanding. Both personal and social construction of knowledge appeared to be significant in the type of context provided in this research." In some dyads, one student showed conceptual change (on post-test) and other didn't. "One possible explanation for this is that, in addition to construction of shared understanding, the students who sustained their conceptual change also underwent personal construction of the new understanding. ...This research gives support to the claim that both social and personal construction of knowledge are important for conceptual change." I disagree. They did not analyze conversations for depth of shared understanding. It is possible to do some tasks on a shallow conceptual level (shared). this would account for the different results for members of a pair. There is no need to posit "personal construction" separate from "social construction". One last quote from the end: "Personal construction of knowledge is basically a private and personal process to which only students can decide whether or not to commit themselves and over which the teacher ultimately does not have much control. ...Personal construction of knowledge requires metacognitive skill on the part of the students." This is attributing a great deal of active work to internal, private processes. But this can be examined: with interviewing after work, with joint viewing of tapes, etc. and Tao did not make enough effort to do this kind of uncovering with the social work done here. Just because they talk and do the work doesn't mean they co-construct meanings. [CPL] Bibliography Items: 46 Number of times cited: 2}, interhash = {7f567dbf6a3a9ff2d740f62899cace19}, intrahash = {301abaa160545628286c3a3ad96c384d}, journal = {International Journal of Science Education}, keywords = {collaboration computer-modeling, computers, file-import-09-02-13, instructional-strategies, peer-interaction, physics}, number = {(c) 2002 Inst. For Sci. Info}, pages = {39-57+}, posted-at = {2009-02-13 21:46:31}, priority = {2}, timestamp = {2009-02-24T19:49:09.000+0100}, title = {Conceptual change in science through collaborative learning at the computer}, volume = 21, year = 1999 }