Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
The scientific disciplines with their traditional methods are not equipped to analyze
the interpenetration of such learning processes at the individual, small-group and
community levels.
The Need for a New Science of Group Cognition
The idea of a science of group cognition was originally motivated by issues of soft-
ware design for collaborative learning. The design of software to support group
work, knowledge building and problem solving should be built on the foundation
of an understanding of the nature of group interaction and group meaning making.
However, previous research in computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL)
is mostly based on an ad hoc collection of incommensurable theories, which are not
grounded in an explicit investigation of group interaction. What is needed is a sci-
ence of group interaction focused on the group level of description to complement
psychological theories of individuals and social theories of communities.
CSCL is fundamentally different from other domains of study in the learning sci-
ences (Stahl, 2002). It takes as its subject matter
collaborative
learning, that is, what
takes place when small groups of workers or students engage together in cognitive
activities like problem solving or knowledge building (Koschmann, 1996; Stahl,
2006, chap. 11). On a theoretical level, CSCL is strongly oriented toward Vygotsky
(1930/1978), who stressed that learning and other higher psychological processes
originally take place socially, intersubjectively. Piaget (1985), too, pointed to inter-
subject processes like conflicting perspectives as a fundamental driver for creativity
and cognitive development. Despite this powerful insight, even Vygotsky, Piaget
and their followers generally maintain a psychological focus on the individual mind
in their empirical studies and do not systematically investigate the intersubjective
phenomena of small-group interaction.
A science of group interaction would aim to unpack what happens at the small-
group unit of analysis (Stahl, 2004b). Thus, it would be particularly relevant for
CSCL, but may not be as directly applicable to other forms of learning, where the
individual or the community level predominates. As a science of the group, it would
complement existing theories of acting, learning and cognition, to the extent that
they focus either on the individual or the community or that they reduce group
phenomena to these other levels of description.
In the chapters of
Studying Virtual Math Teams
(VMT) (Stahl, 2009) and of
Group Cognition
(Stahl, 2006), my colleagues and I have reviewed some of the
research literature on small-group learning, on small-group processes and on col-
laborative mathematics. We have noticed that small-group studies generally look
for quantitative correlations among variables—such as the effect of group size on
measures of participation—rather than trying to observe group knowledge-building
processes. Studies of small-group processes from psychology, sociology and other
social sciences also tend to focus on non-cognitive aspects of group process or else
attribute all cognition to the individual minds rather than to group processes. This
