LDT 577: Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL)
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
LDT 577: Computer
Supported Collaborative
Learning (CSCL)
Spring 2021 . 3 credits
COVID mixed instruction
Synchronous meeting: Thurs 1:35pm-2:50pm
Asynchronous team meetings: TBA
Instructor: Dr. Marcela Borge
Office: 301C Keller Building
Phone: (814) 865 – 0625
Email:mborge@psu.edu
Giving Credit where Credit is due: This
syllabus builds on examples provided by
NAPLeS resources provided by ISLS.org. I also
thank the editors of the International Handbook
of CSCL and the authors of selected chapters for Office Hours: by
appointment on Thursday:
sharing preprints for use in this course.
2:50pm- 3:50pm
Note to Students: This syllabus is subject to
change. On the first day of class, we will go over
the syllabus as a shared artifact and negotiate any
items students wish to discuss. Any changes to
the syllabus shall be distributed in writing, which
may include electronic communication.
1
1. Course Overview
WHAT’S INSIDE
CSCL is an interdisciplinary branch within the Course Overview ......................... 2
Learning Sciences that focuses on the study of Course Objectives ....................... 2
social learning processes with and without Grading Scale .............................. 2
technology and the development and evaluation of Course Requirements ................. 3-6
tools to improve the practice of collective Grading of Activities ................... 3-6
cognition in learning contexts. CSCL also Course Schedule ......................... 7
promotes a shift in mainstream education from a Course Policies ........................... 13
practice that prioritizes individual knowledge
acquisition of inert forms of knowledge about
things, to one that prioritizes higher forms of
psychological function, such as control over
learning processes, artifact creation, and
collaborative knowledge building. The CSCL
community is made up of a diverse collection of
GRADING SCALE
researchers and includes design and lab-based
studies. As such, this class will introduce you to a
variety of literature in CSCL and take a
collaborative approach towards exploring this
exciting field.
2. Course Objectives
We will use collaborative technologies to discuss
and build understanding of key CSCL theories, we
will learn about CSCL methodologies, and will
create new tools, artifacts, and designs to
articulate our developing understanding. Students
will be expected to lead a class session, work with
collaborative technologies, and work on a CSCL
design and development study or position paper.
Of course, all expectations, rules, and activities
will be collaboratively negotiated on the first day
of class as we examine the syllabus as a learning
artifact and ensure that the needs of all students
are met with the proposed design.
Prerequisites: None.
Course Books and Materials: All readings will be
provided in pdf form in Canvas in the weekly
modules.
2
3. Course Requirements and Grading
One of the goals of this class is to create a collaborative culture and
provide opportunities to both learn about CSCL and experience many
aspects of it through practice. In this way, we can develop a deeper
understanding of the trade-offs associated with collaborative activities and
tools and develop a better understanding of important design
considerations. The course assignments and expectations are a reflection of
these goals. Your final course grade will be determined by the weighted
average of the following items:
Posting to and moderating Yammer (30%)
Class attendance and participation (20%)
Collaborative infographic (10%)
Online team discussions (20%)
Collaborative project (20%)
Each individual activity will be graded on a 100-point scale.
“Do or do not. There is no try.”--- Yoda
I. Posting to and moderating our shared Yammer group. Our class will also be using social media as a
tool to enhance discourse opportunities. Starting during the second week of class, students will be
required to write two posts or responses to a post each week to our Yammer group. This form of
interaction is meant to simulate a discussion-based seminar in an online setting and therefore it is
important that we all take time to be present in this social environment. How or what you post,
whether a new discussion thread or a reply to another’s post, is up to you as long as you follow the
rules as described in our yammer guide (link below). Any more than 2 missing posts will lead to a
Link to Yammer introduction video (for those unfamiliar with Yammer: https://youtu.be/kzWCU07k1jY
3
grade reduction. You are only expected to post once per week, but most students post more. All
student teams will also moderate Yammer discussions on 2-3 readings. Moderating teams are
responsible for
● Reading and following the Yammer guide,
● Making at least two high quality posts per reading for that week
● Noting who participated in the discussion at the end of the week in a spreadsheet.
Link to Yammer guide:
http://sites.psu.edu/mborge/wp-content/uploads/sites/17389/2016/05/Student-Guide-to-Using-
Yammer-FA-2015-edtech566.pdf
“It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than
our abilities.” --- Albus Dumbledore
I. In-Class participation and
attendance. For this class attendance is
important because all of us are crucial
to discussions. As such students are
expected to be present each week, keep
meticulous summaries of all of the
readings, and come to class prepared to
discuss. Religious observances are not
counted as absences, though observing
students must inform the instructor in
advance that they will not be present.
Official universities activities are
excused absences if the student informs
the instructor in advance and provides
appropriate paperwork. Absence due to
sickness does not require a doctor’s
note, but it is the student’s obligation to
inform the instructor promptly and to bring to the instructor’s attention extended medical absences as
soon as possible. It is the responsibility of the absent student to catch up on any missed material and
do any make-up work required by the instructor.
Please note that our in-class activities will push you to think deeply about the readings to create
artifacts. Students who do not regularly complete the readings rarely get full participation points.
Official university activities are excused absences if the student informs the instructor in advance and
provides appropriate paperwork. Absence due to sickness does not require a doctor’s note, but it is
the student’s obligation to inform the instructor promptly and to bring to the instructor’s attention
extended medical absences as soon as possible. It is the responsibility of the absent student to catch
up on any missed material and do any make-up work required by the instructor. Most absences will
require a make-up essay centering on the topics for that week.
Each student will also be responsible for leading one class session. Students are expected to meet
with the professor prior to their session, provide an outline of the proposed class activity, and discuss
questions or concerns. During their session, they should provide a concise summary at the beginning
of class that outlines the key points of the readings and an agenda for the day (5-10 minutes). They
are then responsible for leading class activity on that day.
4
II. Collaborative infographic. For this assignment, you will choose a topic from the class (textbook and
other materials) and pick three related journal articles. Then, you will interpret the research you
have found and choose particular pieces of information you think tell an interesting story. Then,
you will use this story to create an infographic that represents the research. You will submit the
following:
● Three research articles.
Provide your three research articles in their entirety with the
portions of information used to create your infographic
highlighted. If you are not able to upload digital copies of
your articles, you can submit hard copies to me in class on
the due date.
● Infographic.
With at least four panels/blocks.
Use of all three research articles.
Varied layout, graphics, or types of information across the
blocks, all on one document/one graphic.
Your infographic should have an interesting and attention-
grabbing title.
● Explanation of choices.
For each infographic panel/block, provide a brief paragraph about your choices. This information
should follow your infographic on a separate page/document.
For example: What story did you want to tell with your infographic? What information did you
represent, and why did you choose it? How do the information pieces/panels fit together? Why did
you choose particular fonts, graphics, icons, sizes, colors, etc., and how do they highlight,
strengthen, or complement your information?
III. Online team discussions. The course is divided into sections. On weeks following the end of these
sections, you will meet remotely in with team members to discuss the readings in depth in an online
chat environment. I will provide a short individual reflection that should be turned in prior to the chat
session. On these weeks, no other assignments will be due and will not meet in class.
For more information on CREATE and the reflective assessments, please see: https://youtu.be/Fer9ZWeA2yI
5
I will monitor discussions in the system and we will discuss the experiences in yammer. These
assignments will be completed in the create environment where students can examine the quality of
their discussions afterward.
IV. Final project. Students will be sorted into teams in week 1. These teams will remain constant for the
entire course. Teams will be responsible for completing a team project. The project consists of a root
concept plan (due in week 5) and one of three options, (1) a written position paper, (2) a reflection
on your teaching philosophy that synthesizes at least eight course readings with other papers in the
field to inform the design of collaborative learning environments or professional development
centering on CSCL, or (3) an empirical paper. If you pick the position paper, you must convince me
that there is a problem worth examining and that you understand the problem space (variables, existing
and desired states associated with the problem) by pulling on the course literature along with other papers
you may have read in other classes. If you pick the reflection, you must think deeply about your teaching
philosophy and how it has changed given this course: how you have previously defined learning, good
teaching, and good lesson plans, and how this has evolved. For both of the aforementioned projects, you
must provide a coherent and convincing argument for your position/evolution or proposed solution that
builds on the literature presented and potential for future research (if position paper) or practice (if
reflection) in this area. If you pick an evaluation paper, please be sure to follow a more traditional
empirical format that includes an introduction, literature review or theoretical framework, a methods
section, findings, and discussion. Please note that I know how difficult both of these options are and I do
not expect perfection, in fact I encourage you to take a risk and try something outside your comfort zone.
I provide extra credit within the paper to make up for areas that many students lack expertise in, i.e.,
methods and implementation. For the position paper, I provide extra credit for those who do a good job
detailing how the readings have modified their perspective on learning with technology.
V. Opting for an individual experience. Some students may be unable to work in a team due to life
demands. To accommodate these students, I offer an individual option, but discourage it; here is why.
For each discussion week, individuals must submit a 5-6 page APA formatted essay synthesizing the
course readings for that part of the course. This is far less fun and engaging than a group discussion
where the grade is not dependent on understanding of course content, but rather your attempts to
make sense of them together. The individual must also turn in all aspects of the final project by
themselves and moderate Yammer by themselves. Lastly, the student will not get the benefit of
bonding with teammates or discussing the readings with others. That last reason is the biggest
downside, as it has become a favorite of prior students.
"Just because
something works,
doesn't mean it can’t
be improved.”
--- Shuri
6
5. Course Schedule
The course is organized around eight topics and run in an apprenticeship manner. During the first few
weeks, I will present a synthesis of the readings, lead discussions in class, and provide additional
discussion topics and resources in Canvas. After that, students will take over. Also, in order to better meet
student needs, please note that this schedule may change.
Part
Part 11 Course
Course Intro:
Intro: History,
History, Theoretical,
Theoretical, and
and Methodological
Methodological Foundations
Foundations (Dr.
(Dr. Borge
Borge leads)
leads)
Leading Questions: What is CSCL? What do we mean by
collaboration? What is the difference between socio-cognitivel and
sociocultural views of learning? What is knowledge creation? What
does it mean to learn? Where does cognition live?
Week 0 Introductions and Logistics
Syllabus,
Welcome letter
Yammer Moderation Guide
Week 1 What is CSCL
Cress, U., Oshima, J., Rosé, C. P., & Wise, A. F. (2021).
Foundations, processes, technologies, and methods: An
overview of CSCL through its handbook. In U. Cress, J.
Oshima, C. P. Rosé, & A. F. Wise (Eds.), International
handbook of computer-supported collaborative learning.
Springer.
Stahl, G. (2015). The group as paradigmatic unit of analysis: The
contested relationship of CSCL to the learning sciences. In
M. A. Evans, M. J. Packer & R. K. Sawyer (Eds.)
, Reflections on the learning sciences. (Ch. 5). New York,
NY: Cambridge University Press.
Web: http://GerryStahl.net/pub/ls.pdf.
Supplemental:
Ludvigsen, S., Lund, K., & Oshima, J. (2021). A conceptual stance on CSCL history. In U. Cress, J.
Oshima, C. P. Rosé, & A. F. Wise (Eds.), International handbook of computer-supported
collaborative learning. Springer.
O’Donnell, A., & Hmelo-Silver, C. (2013). What is collaborative learning: An overview, in Hmelo-
Silver, C., Chinn, C., Chan. C., & O’Donnell, A. (Eds), The International Handbook of
Collaborative Learning, Routledge.
Stahl, G., Koschmann, T., & Suthers, D. (2021). Computer-supported collaborative learning. In R. K.
Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences, third edition. (ch. 21). Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press. Web: http://GerryStahl.net/pub/chls3.pdf
Roschelle, J., & Teasley, S. D. (1995). The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem
solving. In Computer supported collaborative learning (pp. 69-97). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
Week 2 Theoretical Foundations P1
Stahl, G., & Hakkarainen, K. (2021). Theories of CSCL. In U. Cress, J. Oshima, C. P. Rosé, & A. F. Wise
(Eds.), International handbook of computer-supported collaborative learning. Springer.
Latour, B. (1996). On inter-objectivity. Mind, culture, and activity, 3(4), 228-245.
Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (2014). Knowledge building and knowledge creation: One concept, two
hills to climb. In Knowledge creation in education (pp. 35-52). Springer, Singapore.
7
Supplemental:
Latour, B. (1996). On actor-network theory: A few clarifications. Soziale welt, 369-381.
Stahl, G. (2013). Theories of cognition in collaborative learning, in Hmelo- Silver, C., Chinn,
C., Chan. C., & O’Donnell, A. (Eds) The International Handbook of Collaborative Learning,
Routledge.
Hutchins, E., & Klausen, T. (1996). Distributed cognition in an airline cockpit. In Cognition and
Communication at Work, Y. Engeström and D. Middleton (Eds.), Cambridge University Press,
New York, NY, 15–34.
Week 3: Theoretical foundations P2
Hakkarainen, K., Paavola, S., Kangas, K., & Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P. (2013). Sociocultural Perspectives
on Collaborative Learning: Toward Collaborative Knowledge Creation, in Hmelo- Silver, C.,
Chinn, C., Chan. C., & O’Donnell, A. (Eds) The International Handbook of Collaborative
Learning, Routledge.
Vygotsky, L. (1930). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. We will read one
chapter: The interaction between learning and development, but other key chapters are included as
supplemental readings.
Supplemental
Cole, M. (1985). The zone of proximal development-where culture and cognition create each other. In J.
Wertsch (Ed) Culture, communication, and cognition: Vygotskian perspectives. (pp 146-161).
Cambridge University Press.
Vygotsky, L. (1930). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Additional chapters.
Week 4: Methodological Foundations and Part 1 Team Discussion (No Meeting Thursday)
Hmelo-Silver, C., & Jeong, H. (2021). An overview of CSCL methods. In U. Cress, J. Oshima, C. P.
Rosé, & A. F. Wise (Eds.), International handbook of computer-supported collaborative learning.
Springer.
Borge, M., & Rosé, C. (2021) Quantitative approaches to language in CSCL. In Ulrike Cress, Jun Oshima,
Carolyn Rosé, Alyssa Wise (Eds.), The International Handbook of Computer-Supported
Collaborative Learning. New York, NY: Springer.
Uttamchandani, S., & Lester, J. (2021). Qualitative approaches to language in CSCL. In Ulrike Cress, Jun
Oshima, Carolyn Rosé, Alyssa Wise (Eds.), The International Handbook of Computer-Supported
Collaborative Learning. New York, NY: Springer.
Supplemental Readings:
Chi, M. T. H. (1997). Quantifying qualitative analyses of verbal data: A practical guide. Journal of the
Learning Sciences, 6, 271-315.
Derry, S. J., Pea, R. D., Barron, B., Engle, R. A., Erickson, F., Goldman, R., Hall, R., Koschmann, T.,
Lemke, J. L., Sherin, M. G., & Sherin, B. L. (2010). Conducting video research in the learning
sciences: Guidance on selection, analysis, technology, and ethics. Journal of the Learning
Sciences, 19, 3-53.
Jordan, B., & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice. Journal of the
Learning Sciences, 4, 39–103.
Schneider, B., Sharma, K., Cuendet, S., Zufferey, G., Dillenbourg, P., & Pea, R. (2018). Leveraging
mobile eye-trackers to capture joint visual attention in co-located collaborative learning
groups. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 13(3), 241-261
Part 1 Team Discussion: Teams schedule synchronous meeting in CREATE to discuss concepts in Part 1.
Part 1 Reading questions activity due prior to team discussion.
8
Part 2 Collaborative Learning Goals and Common Problems (Students Begin Leading)
Leading Questions: Why is collaboration important? What are goals of interaction in CSCL from
different theoretical lenses? What are some common instructional models and do these models help all
learners? What are some common problems in collaborative contexts and what accounts for them? What
is the role of CSCL in Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion efforts?
Week 5 Interaction and learning goals P1:In a community of learners Team Project Plans Due
Hod, Y. & Teasely, S. (2021). Communities and participation. In U. Cress, J. Oshima, C. P. Rosé, & A. F.
Wise (Eds.), International handbook of computer-supported collaborative learning. Springer.
Bielaczyc, K., Kapur, M., & Collins, A. (2013). Cultivating a community of learners in K-12 Classrooms,
in Hmelo-Silver, C., Chinn, C., Chan. C., & O’Donnell, A. (Eds) The International
Handbook of Collaborative Learning, Routledge.
Reinholz, D. L., & Shah, N. (2018). Equity analytics: A methodological approach for quantifying
participation patterns in mathematics classroom discourse. Journal for Research in Mathematics
Education, 49(2), 140-177.
Supplemental Readings:
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). Ecology of the family as a context for human development: Research
perspectives. Developmental Psychology, 22(6), 723-742.
Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1996). Psychological theory and the design of innovative learning
environments: On procedures, principles, and systems. In L. Schauble & R. Glaser
(Eds.), Innovations in learning: New environments for education (p. 289–325). Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Inc.
Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Holum, A. (1991). Cognitive apprenticeship: Making thinking
visible. American educator, 15(3), 6-11.
Eberle, J., Stegmann, K., & Fischer, F. (2014). Legitimate peripheral participation in communities of
practice: Participation support structures for newcomers in faculty student councils. Journal of the
Learning Sciences, 23(2), 216-244.
Rogoff, B. (1994). Developing understanding of the idea of communities of learners. Mind, culture, and
activity, 1(4), 209-229.
Week 6 Interaction and Learning Goals P2: In collaborative argumentation
Chinn, C.A., & Clark, D.B. (2013). Learning though collaborative argumentation. In Hmelo-
Silver, C., Chinn, C., Chan. C., & O’Donnell, A. (Eds) The International Handbook of
Collaborative Learning (pp.314-332), New York: Taylor & Francis.
Polo, C., Lund, K., Plantin, C., & Niccolai, G. P. (2016). Group emotions: The social and cognitive
functions of emotions in argumentation. International Journal of Computer-Supported
Collaborative Learning, 11(2), 123-156.
Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2006). A framework to analyze argumentative knowledge construction in
computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers & education, 46(1), 71-95.
Supplemental Readings:
Ford, M. J. (2012). A dialogic account of sense-making in scientific argumentation and
reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 30(3), 207-245.
Forman, E. A., & Ford, M. J. (2014). Authority and accountability in light of disciplinary practices in
science. International Journal of Educational Research, 64, 199-210.
Nussbaum, E. M. (2008). Collaborative discourse, argumentation, and learning: Preface and literature
review. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33(3), 345-359.
Osborne, J. (2010). Arguing to learn in science: The role of collaborative, critical
discourse. Science, 328(5977), 463-466.
9
Week 7 Why Group Process Problems Occur; No Meeting Thursday (Mental Health Day)
Barron, B. (2003). When smart groups fail. The journal of the learning sciences, 12(3), 307-359.
Kozlowski, S., & Ilgen, D. (2006). Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams. Psychological
Science in the Public Interest, 7(3), 77-124.
Supplemental Readings:
Chi, M. T., & Wylie, R. (2014). The ICAP framework: Linking cognitive engagement to active learning
outcomes. Educational Psychologist, 49(4), 219-243.
Kerr, N. L., & Tindale, R. S. (2004). Group performance and decision making. Annu. Rev. Psychol., 55,
623-655.
Week 8 Equity, & Multi-cultural Learning P1 Team Infographics Due
Gomez, K., Gomez, L., & Worsely, M. (2021). Interrogating the Role of CSCL in Diversity, Equity, and
Inclusion. In U. Cress, J. Oshima, C. P. Rosé, & A. F. Wise (Eds.), International handbook of
computer-supported collaborative learning. Springer.
Uttamchandani, S., Bhimdiwala, A., & Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2020). Finding a place for equity in CSCL:
ambitious learning practices as a lever for sustained educational change. International Journal of
Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 15(3), 373-382.
Supplemental Readings:
Borge, M., Soto, J. A., Aldemir, T., & Mena, J. A. (2020). Building Multicultural Competence by
Fostering Collaborative Skills. Teaching of Psychology, 0098628320977421.
Simpson, A., Bannister, N., & Matthews, G. (2017). Cracking her codes: understanding shared technology
resources as positioning artifacts for power and status in CSCL environments. International
Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 12(3), 221-249.
Week 9 Equity, & Multi-cultural Learning P2 Team Discussion (No Meeting Thursday)
Ke, F., Chávez, A. F., Causarano, P. N. L., & Causarano, A. (2011). Identity presence and knowledge
building: Joint emergence in online learning environments?. International Journal of Computer-
Supported Collaborative Learning, 6(3), 349-370.
Richard, G. T. (2017). Video games, gender, diversity, and learning as cultural practice: Implications for
equitable learning and computing participation through games. Educational Technology, 36-43.
Supplemental Readings:
Richard, G. T., & Gray, K. L. (2018). Gendered play, racialized reality: Black cyberfeminism, inclusive
communities of practice, and the intersections of learning, socialization, and resilience in online
gaming. Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies, 39(1), 112-148.
Part 2 Team Discussion: Teams schedule synchronous meeting in CREATE to discuss concepts in Part 1.
Part 2 Reading questions activity due prior to team discussion.
Part 3 Using Design and Technology to Enhance Collaboration
Leading Questions: How can technology mitigate problems and enhance collaborative processes? How
can technology interfere with high quality collaboration? How does technology contribute to inequity?
How can we design for better collaborative environments? What is scripting and how does it connect to
theories of learning? What is shared regulation and socio-metacognition? What are important future
considerations and challenges for CSCL?
Weeks 10 Designing for social interactions
10Bereiter, C. & Scardamalia, M. (2014). Knowledge building and knowledge creation: One concept, two
hills to climb. In S. C. Tan, H. J. So, J. Yeo (Eds.) Knowledge creation in education (pp. 35-52).
Singapore: Springer.
Borge, M., Ong Shiou, Y., & Goggins, S. (2020). A sociocultural approach to using social networking
sites as learning tools. Educational Technology Research & Development, 68(3), 1089-1120. DOI:
10.1007/s11423-019-09721-z
Rodríguez-Triana, M. J., Prieto, L. P., Ley, T., de Jong, T., & Gillet, D. (2020). Social practices in teacher
knowledge creation and innovation adoption: a large-scale study in an online instructional design
community for inquiry learning. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative
Learning, 1-23.
Supplemental Readings:
Toprani, D., AlQahtani, M., & Borge, M. (In press). Examining technology use and evaluation in
Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning: A systematic review. In J. M, Spector, B. B. Lockee,
and M. D. Childress (Eds.), Learning, Design, and Technology: An International Compendium of
Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy. New York, NY: Springer
Resta, P., & Laferrière, T. (2007). Technology in support of collaborative learning. Educational
Psychology Review, 19(1), 65-83.
Soller, A., Mones, A. M., Jermann, P., & Muehlenbrock, M. (2005). From Mirroring to Guiding: A
Review of State of the Art Technology for Supporting Collaborative Learning, International
Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education
Week 11 To script or not to script
Fischer, F., Kollar, I., Stegmann, K., Wecker, C., Zottman, J., & Weinberger, A. (2013). Collaboration
Scripts in Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, in Hmelo-Silver, C.,
Chinn, C., Chan. C., & O’Donnell, A. (Eds) The International Handbook of Collaborative
Learning, Routledge.
Rummel, N., Spada, H., & Hauser, S. (2009). Learning to collaborate while being scripted or by observing
a model. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4(1), 69–92.
Vogel, F., Wecker, C., Kollar, I., & Fischer, F. (2017). Socio-cognitive scaffolding with computer-
supported collaboration scripts: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 29(3), 477-511.
Supplemental Readings:
Dillenbourg, P. (2002). Over-scripting CSCL: The risks of blending collaborative learning with
instructional design. In P. A. Kirschner, ed, Three worlds of CSCL. Can we support CSCL, pp. 61-
91. Heerlen: Open Universiteit Nederland.
Noroozi, O., Weinberger, A., Biemans, H., Mulder, M., & Chizari. M. (2013). Facilitating argumentative
knowledge construction through a transactive discussion script in CSCL. Computers & Education
61: 59-76.
Stegmann, K., Mu, J., Gehlen-Baum, V., Fischer, F. (2011). The Myth of Over-scripting: Can Novices be
Supported Too Much? in Proceedings of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, Hong
Kong, July 2011.
Week 12 Socially-Shared Regulation and Socio-metacognition
Järvelä, S., & Hadwin, A. F. (2013). New frontiers: Regulating learning in CSCL. Educational
Psychologist, 48(1), 25-39.
Borge, M., Ong Shiou, Y., & Rosé, C. (2018). Learning to monitor and regulate collective thinking
processes. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 13(1), 61-92.
DOI:10.1007/s/11412-018-9270-5
Näykki, P., Isohätälä, J., Järvelä, S., Pöysä-Tarhonen, J., & Häkkinen, P. (2017). Facilitating socio-
cognitive and socio-emotional monitoring in collaborative learning with a regulation macro script–
11an exploratory study. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 12(3),
251-279.
Supplemental Readings:
Järvelä, S., Kirschner, P. A., Hadwin, A., Järvenoja, H., Malmberg, J., Miller, M., & Laru, J. (2016).
Socially shared regulation of learning in CSCL: Understanding and prompting individual-and
group-level shared regulatory activities. International Journal of Computer-Supported
Collaborative Learning, 11(3), 263-280.
Järvelä, S., Kirschner, P. A., Panadero, E., Malmberg, J., Phielix, C., Jaspers, J., ... & Järvenoja, H.
(2015). Enhancing socially shared regulation in collaborative learning groups: designing for CSCL
regulation tools. Educational Technology Research and Development, 63(1), 125-142.
Week 13 CSCL at scale
Chen, B., Håklev, S., & Rosé, C. (2021). Collaborative Learning at Scale. In U. Cress, C. Rosé, A. Wise,
& J. Oshima (Eds.), International Handbook of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning.
Springer. https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783030652906
Rosé, C. P., McLaughlin, E. A., Liu, R., & Koedinger, K. R. (2019). Explanatory learner models: Why
machine learning (alone) is not the answer. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(6),
2943-2958.
Teasley, S. D. (2019). Learning analytics: where information science and the learning sciences
meet. Information and Learning Sciences.
Supplemental Readings:
Ludvigsen, S., & Steier, R. (2019). Reflections and looking ahead for CSCL: digital infrastructures, digital
tools, and collaborative learning. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative
Learning, 14(4), 415-423.
Rosé, C. P., & Ferschke, O. (2016). Technology support for discussion-based learning: From computer
supported collaborative learning to the future of massive open online courses. International
Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 26(2), 660-678.
Schwarz, B. B., Prusak, N., Swidan, O., Livny, A., Gal, K., & Segal, A. (2018). Orchestrating the
emergence of conceptual learning: A case study in a geometry class. International Journal of
Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 13(2), 189-211.
Week 14 Reflecting on the field of CSCL and Team Discussions (No Meeting Thursday)
Wise, A. F., & Schwarz, B. B. (2017). Visions of CSCL: eight provocations for the future of the field.
International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 12, 423-467.
Then pick two:
Borge, M., & Mercier, E. (2019). Towards a micro-ecological approach to CSCL. International Journal of
Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 14(2), 219-235.
Rummel, N. (2018). One framework to rule them all? Carrying forward the conversation started by Wise
and Schwarz. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 13(1), 123-
129.
Tchounikine, P. (2019). Learners’ agency and CSCL technologies: towards an emancipatory
perspective. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 14(2), 237-
250.
Part 3 Team Discussion: Teams schedule synchronous meeting in CREATE to discuss concepts in Part 1.
Part 3 Reading questions activity due prior to team discussion.
Final Projects Due May 5th
126. University Policies and Other Administrative Items
I. Academic Integrity. Familiarize yourself with the Penn State Principles and University Code of
Conduct: Academic integrity is a basic guiding principle for all academic activity at Penn State
University, allowing the pursuit of scholarly activity in an open, honest, and responsible manner. In
according with the University’s Code of Conduct, you must not engage in or tolerate academic
dishonesty. This includes, but is not limited to cheating, plagiarism, fabrication of information or
citations, facilitating acts of academic dishonesty by others, unauthorized possession of examinations,
submitting work of another person, or work previously used without informing the instructor, or
tampering with the academic work of other students. Any violation of academic integrity will be
investigated, and where warranted, punitive action will be taken. For every incident when a penalty
of any kind is assessed, a report must be filed.
Individual and group assignments may
be checked with Turnitin, an online
database for plagiarism detection.
Talking over your ideas and getting
comments on your writing from friends
are not examples of plagiarism. Taking
someone else's words or ideas (published
or not) and calling them your own is
plagiarism. Plagiarism has dire
consequences, including getting a zero on the paper in question, failing the course, and university
disciplinary action, depending on the circumstances of the offense. The simplest way to avoid
plagiarism is to document the sources of your information carefully, avoid rewording and rephrasing
the words of others, and focus on analyzing readings for the purpose of discussing it with your own
words. Plagiarism is far more complicated than you might think, so I encourage you to ensure that
you understand what it means so you do not accidently commit plagiarism. Turnitin has a great
resource to begin with:
https://www.turnitin.com/static/plagiarism-spectrum/
https://www.turnitin.com/static/plagiarism-quiz/
II. Counseling and Student Health. Students with academic concerns related to this course should contact
the instructor in person or via email. Students also may occasionally have personal issues that arise
in the course of pursuing higher education or that may interfere with their academic performance. If
you find yourself facing problems affecting your coursework, you are encouraged to talk with an
13instructor and to seek confidential assistance at the Penn State Counseling and Psychological Services
(CAPS) Center at (814) 863-0395. Visit their website for more information
http://studentaffairs.psu.edu/counseling/. Also, crisis intervention is always available 24/7 from
Centre County CAN HELP (1-800-643-5432), or contact University Police at (814) 863-1111.
III. An Invitation to Speakers of English as a Second Language. If you are uncomfortable with public
speaking or writing in English, I strongly encourage you make an appointment to meet with me
privately during the first two weeks of this class to establish ways to ensure you are comfortable in
completing the required assignments and speaking in class.
IV. An Invitation to Students with Disabilities. Penn State welcomes students with disabilities into the
University's educational programs. If you have a disability-related need for reasonable academic
adjustments, contact the Office for Disability Services (ODS) at 814-863-1807 (V/TTY). For further
information regarding ODS, please visit the Office for Disability Services website at
http://equity.psu.edu/ods/. In order to receive consideration for course accommodations, you must
contact ODS and provide documentation (see the documentation guidelines at:
http://equity.psu.edu/ods/guidelines/documentation-guidelines
If the documentation supports the need for academic adjustments, ODS will provide a letter
identifying appropriate academic adjustments. Please share this letter and discuss the adjustments
with your instructor as early in the course as possible. You must contact ODS and request academic
adjustment letters at the beginning of each semester.
V. An Invitation to Student Parents. If you have a young child and find yourself without child care due
to a snow day or other unexpected situation, please know that you may bring your child to our class.
If you let me know with enough notice, I may even have activities appropriate for the child. I happen
to have many toys in my office, pens, markers, etc. If your child is very ill, please let me know as
soon as possible, stay home, and care for the child. I recognize how difficult it can be to care for a
sick child, but if you would like, I could Zoom you into class. I hold student parents in high regard
and will happily work with you, when needed.
VI. Statement on Nondiscrimination and Harassment. The Pennsylvania State University is committed
to the policy that all persons shall have equal access to programs, facilities, admission and
employment without regard to personal characteristics not related to ability, performance, or
qualifications as determined by University policy or by state or federal authorities. It is the policy of
the University to maintain an academic and work environment free of discrimination, including
harassment. The Pennsylvania State University prohibits discrimination and harassment against any
person because of age, ancestry, color, disability or handicap, national origin, race, religious creed,
sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or veteran status. Discrimination or harassment against
faculty, staff, or students will not be tolerated at The Pennsylvania State University. You may direct
inquiries to the Office of Affirmative Action, 328 Boucke Building, University Park, PA 16802-5901;
Tel 814-865-4700/V, 814-863-1150/TTY. For reference to the full policy (Policy AD42: Statement
on Nondiscrimination and Harassment): http://guru.psu.edu/policies/AD42.html
I would also encourage you to report bias to http://equity.psu.edu/reportbias.
VII. Statement on Yammer Usage and Content. As part of this course, we will be using a private
discussion-based social networking system, housed within Penn State. Use of this system within this
course is for learning purposes and as such will be moderated by the course instructor. Any posts that
advertise businesses, organizations, and or political positions may be removed by the instructor if
they are not directly related to course content or do not follow expected rules of conduct. Expectations
for conduct are as follows: (1) no explicit language or images, (2) no stereo-typical depictions of
14populations or subpopulations of people, (3) no political propaganda, (4) no posts promoting,
defending, or inciting violence or illegal activity of any kind. Any posts failing to meet the rules of
conduct will be removed and will not count towards required posts for the week. Posts that violate
Penn State’s rules for non-discrimination and harassment will be copied and reported to the
university.
“Be careful. Look out for each
other. This is the fight of our
lives. And we’re going to win.
Whatever it takes. Good
luck.” --- Captain America
15You can also read
