Group Cognition as a Foundation for the New Science of Learning - New Science of Learning - page 40

resources from language, culture, the group's own history, individual backgrounds,
relevant contexts and the sequential unfolding of the group discourse in which the
individuals participate. Although the group process is dependent upon contributions
and understanding of individuals, their individual cognition is essentially situated
in the group process. Group cognition is the science of cognitive processes at the
group unit of analysis. These group processes—such as the sequential flow of pro-
posals, questioning, building common ground, maintaining a joint problem space,
establishing intersubjective meanings, positioning actors in evolving roles, building
knowledge collaboratively and solving problems together—are not analyzable as
individual behaviors.
There is a scientific lacuna within the learning sciences between sciences of
the individual and sciences of communities. There are important cognitive achieve-
ments at the small-group level of description, which should be studied by a science
of groups. Online small groups are becoming increasingly possible and important
in the global networked world, and a post-cognitive science of virtual groups could
help the design of collaborative software for working and learning. It could provide
an effective foundation for the new science of learning.
References
Adams, F., & Aizawa, K. (2008). The bounds of cognition . Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Barron, B. (2000). Achieving coordination in collaborative problem-solving groups. Journal of the
Learning Sciences , 9 (4), 403-436.
Barron, B. (2003). When smart groups fail. The Journal of the Learning Sciences , 12 (3), 307-359.
Bereiter, C. (2002). Education and mind in the knowledge age . Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Bourdieu, P. (1972/1995). Outline of a theory of practice (R. Nice, Trans.). Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Çakır, M. P., Zemel, A., & Stahl, G. (2009). The joint organization of interaction within a multi-
modal CSCL medium. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning ,
4 (2), 115-149. Available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11412-009-9061-0
Clinton, H. (1996). It takes a village: And other lessons children teach us .NewYork:Simon&
Shuster.
Cohen, E. G., Lotan, R. A., Abram, P. L., Scarloss, B. A., & Schultz, S. E. (2002). Can groups
learn? Teachers College Record , 104 (6), 1045-1068.
Dourish, P. (2001). Where the action is: The foundations of embodied interaction . Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Dreyfus, H. (1972). What computers cannot do . New York: Harper and Row.
Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental
research . Helsinki, Finland: Orienta-Kosultit Oy.
Engeström, Y. (2008). From teams to knots . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Gadamer, H.-G. (1960/1988). Truth and method . New York: Crossroads.
Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures . New York: Basic Books.
Giddens, A. (1984a). Elements of the theory of structuration. The constitution of society (pp. 1-40).
Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Giddens, A. (1984b). The constitution of society. Outline of the theory of structuration .Berkeley,
CA: University of California Press.