Notes
Essays on Technology, Interaction and Cognition
The cover art pictures the cyclic struggle of
collaborative interaction: Gustav Vigeland, Tumbling
around, c. 1930, bronze, Vigeland Park bridge, Oslo, Norway. Photo by G. Stahl, 2003. It is taken from a gathering of
hundreds of stone and metal artifacts showing a variety of human groupings and
individual stances, created by the Norwegian sculptor Gustav Vigeland.
A primordial form of collaboration is that of man and woman,
as represented in this sculpture. Throughout the decade covered by this book, I
have thrived in the collaboration with my Bliss, who supported me and tolerated
my long hours at the computer. She taught me a great deal about the nature and
joys of collaboration, in both theory and practice.
Previously published as: Stahl, G., Sumner, T., &
Owen, R. (1995). Share globally, adapt locally: Software to create and
distribute student-centered curriculum. Computers and Education. Special Issue on Education and the
Internet, 24 (3), 237-246.
This chapter was originally published with co-authors Tamara
Sumner and Robert Owen. It describes work done at Owen Research with support by
DOE and NSF. Michael Wright and Carla Selby also worked on this project. The
project received encouragement from Len Scrogan, Technology Specialist in the
Curriculum and Instruction Division of Boulder Valley Public Schools, and Jim
Spohrer of Apple Computers. The design environment approach grew out of
research at the Center for LifeLong Learning and Design, University of
Colorado.
The research reported in this chapter and several others was
supported in part by the NSF; any opinions, findings, and conclusions or
recommendations expressed in this book are those of the author and do not
necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.
Previously unpublished manuscript: Stahl, G. (1999). Evolution of an LSA-based interactive
environment for learning to write summaries. It was originally
written for submission as a companion piece to (Kintsch et al., 2000) in the special issue of Interactive Learning Environments on
LSA. It was never submitted.
The research reported here was supported in part by a grant
from the Cognitive Studies in Educational Practice Project of the McDonnell
Foundation. The PIs on the grant were Walter Kintsch, Gerhard Fischer and
Thomas Landauer. The initial versions of State the
Essence were developed by the author, with assistance from Rogerio dePaula
and David Steinhart. Steinhart developed a later version, named Summary Street, as part of his dissertation. In
addition, Eileen Kintsch, Darrell Laham and Maureen Schreiner also participated
in this LSA Research Group. Cindy Matthews and Ronald Lamb team-taught the
sixth-grade classroom at Platt Middle School, Boulder, Colorado, where the
software was used in 1997 and 1998. The teachers were more than helpful, and,
as always, the kids were great. The views expressed in this chapter are those
of the author, and are not necessarily shared by Walter Kintsch, Tom Landauer and
Eileen Kintsch, who provided the primary project leadership.
Chapter 3.
Armchair Missions to Mars
Previously published as: Stahl, G. (1996). Armchair missions
to Mars: Using case-based reasoning and fuzzy logic to simulate a time series
model of astronaut crews. In Pal, S., Dillon, T., Yeung, D. (Eds.) (2000) Soft computing in case-based reasoning,
London, UK: Springer Verlag, 321-344. This was an extended version of a paper
published in Knowledge-Based Systems
(vol. 9, pp. 409-415).
The research was conducted at Owen Research, Inc. (ORI) in
Boulder, Colorado, during a two year SBIR grant from NASA in 1993-1995. ORI is
a small research lab founded and run by Dr. Robert Owen. Dr. Owen is a
physicist specializing in laser optics. He also has a Ph.D. in anthropology,
and his dissertation in that field led to this research in modeling small-group
behavior using AI techniques. I developed the technical approach and programmed
the system. Dr. Brent Reeves assisted with the fuzzy logic algorithms. To help
collect and analyze social science literature related to small groups in
isolated conditions, we worked with Professor Russell McGoodwin of the
Anthropology Department at the University of Colorado (CU) and his student,
Nick Colmenares. In addition, I conducted several interviews of an experienced
astronaut, Mike Lounge, and discussed our project with him. I also discussed
this work and that of the following chapter with Gene Cernan, the last man to
walk on the moon.
This research was sponsored by the Behavioral and
Performance Laboratory at Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas, part of
NASAÕs Astronaut Support Division. We worked closely with NASA researchers Dr.
Joanna Wood and Dr. Albert Holland on the design of the software and the data.
At the end of the project, we delivered the software to them to continue the
work.
Chapter 4.
Supporting Situated Interpretation
Previously published as: Stahl, G. (1993). Supporting situated interpretation.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (CogSci
Ô93), Boulder, CO. Proceedings,
965-970.
This chapter is indebted to Gerhard Fischer, Ray McCall,
Kumiyo Nakakoji, Jonathan Ostwald, and Tamara Sumner, who helped to focus it,
and to the Center for LifeLong Learning and Design (L3D) research
group at the University of Colorado generally, whose ideas and systems it tries
to ground theoretically and extend practically. The Hermes system was a re-write of McCallÕs Phidias system,
an object-oriented implementation of his contexts as computational
perspectives. The chapter reports on main themes in my computer science
dissertation.
Chapter 5.
Collaborative Information Environments for Communities
Previously published as: Stahl, G. (2000). Collaborative information environments to support knowledge
construction by communities. AI
& Society, 14, 1-27.
The earlier research on CIEs for design is a collaboration
of the author with Gerhard Fischer and Jonathan Ostwald. We would like to thank
the other members of L3D, particularly the ÒOrganizational Memory
and Organizational LearningÓ group, including Jay Smith, Scott Berkebile, Sam
Stoller, Jim Masson and Tim Ohara who worked on the WebNet
system. Our knowledge of LAN design benefited from our domain investigators
John Rieman and Ken Anderson and local informants Kyle Kucson and Evi Nemeth.
The more recent research on CIEs for knowledge construction involved the author
with Rogerio dePaula, Thomas Herrmann and his students at Dortmund, Ted
Habermann and his group at NOAA, Dan Kowal and his middle school students, the
collaborators in the ÒReadings in Cognitive ScienceÓ seminar and the
researchers in the ÒArticulate LearnersÓ project. The work reported here was
supported in part by grants from ARPA, the McDonnell Foundation and NSF. NetSuite Advanced Professional Design is a trademark of NetSuite.
An early version of this chapter was presented in 1998 as Collaborative information environments for
innovative communities of practice at the German Computer-Supported
Cooperative Work Conference (D-CSCW Ô98): Groupware und organizatorische
Innovation, Dortmund, Germany, Proceedings,
195-210.
Previously published as: Stahl, G. (2001). WebGuide:
Guiding collaborative learning on the Web with perspectives. Journal of Interactive Media in Education
(JIME), 2001(1). http://www-jime.open.ac.uk/2001/1/.
This chapter grew out of the authorÕs Readings and
Research in Cognitive Science seminar, Spring 1999, on ÒComputer Mediation
of Collaborative Learning,Ó with the following participants: Kirstin Butcher,
John Caron, Gabe Johnson, Elizabeth Lenell, Scott Long, Rogerio dePaula, Paul
Prestopnik, Tammy Sumner. The WebGuide research is a
collaboration of the author with Rogerio dePaula and other L3D
members, Ted Habermann and his group at NOAA, Dan Kowal and his middle school
students, the participants in my WebGuide seminars,
Thomas Herrmann and his group at Dortmund, and the researchers in the ICS
ÒArticulate LearnersÓ project.
The first major version of this chapter was in response to
Ricki GoldmannÕs invitation to submit to an AERA paper session at the 1999 conference
in Montreal. Earlier posters, demos and papers on WebGuide were presented at
CSCL Ô97, CILT Ô98, CSCW Ô98, ICLS Ô98, Interaktion in Web: Innovative
Kommunikationsformen Ô98, WebNet Ô99, GROUP Ô99, CSCL Ô99 and CILT Ô99. While
incorporating some of the content of these other presentations, the current
chapter is based primarily on the final JIME
version. The JIME reviewers, Helen
Chappel-Hayios, Hans van der Meij and Gary Boyd, provided supportive and
stimulating reflections; their comments were incorporated in the JIME publication and are summarized in
the present version.
The research was supported in part by grants from NSF, the
McDonnell Foundation and CUÕs Lab for New Media Strategy and Design.
Previously published as: Stahl, G. (2002). Groupware
goes to school: Adapting BSCW to the classroom. International Journal of Computer
Applications Technology (IJCAT). 19 (3/4). 162-174.
The ITCOLE Project—funded by the European Commission
ÒSchool of TomorrowÓ framework grant IST-00-III.2—was a collaboration of
many people from universities and schools throughout Europe. The project was
conceived largely by people in the Centre for Research in Networked Learning
and Knowledge Building at the University of Helsinki and in the Media Lab at
the University of Art and Design Helsinki. Much of the Synergeia
user interface was designed by the Media Lab group. MapTool
was implemented at the University of Murcia in Spain. The project manager for
ITCOLE at FIT was Wolfgang Appelt. The implementation of most of the features
described in this chapter was done by the BSCW group
at Fraunhofer-FIT, especially by Rudolf Ruland and me. To carry out the
adaptation of a complex system like BSCW in a way
that takes advantages of the strengths of its design and does not contradict
its philosophy would not be possible without detailed guidance from the BSCW development staff, including Thomas Koch, Elke
Hinrichs and Gerd Woetzel, in addition to Rudolf. I am grateful to all the
people at FIT who made my year there possible, productive and enjoyable.
Parts of this chapter originally formed a User Manual for Synergeia. An early version of this chapter was presented
at the International Workshop on Groupware (CRIWG Ô02) in La Serena, Chile, September 1-3, 2002. A number of CRIWG reviewers and
participants made suggestions that significantly improved this chapter.
Chapter 8. Knowledge
Negotiation Online
Previously
published as: Stahl, G. (2003). Knowledge negotiation in asynchronous
learning networks. Paper presented at the Hawaii International
Conference on System Sciences (HICSS Ô03), Hawaii, HA.
The concept of knowledge negotiation
grew out of discussions at Fraunhofer-FIT, where I had the pleasure of working
in 2001/2002. The BSCL system was
implemented there with the help of the BSCW development team (especially Rudolf
Ruland and Thomas Koch) as part of the European CommissionÕs ITCOLE Project
IST-2000-26249. My concern with negotiation goes back to discussions since 1997
with Thomas Herrmann and his students, both in Boulder and in Dortmund. The chapter
has also benefited from personal communications with Volker Wulf, as well as
from comments by several HICSS reviewers.
Previously
published as: Stahl, G. (2000). A model of collaborative knowledge building.
Paper presented at the Fourth International Conference of the Learning Sciences
(ICLS Ô00), Ann Arbor, MI. Proceedings,
LEA, 70-77.
This chapter was motivated by
modeling sessions with Thomas Herrmann and Kai-Uwe Loser during a visit to the
University of Dortmund in June 1999 and exchanges with Tim Koschmann while he
was a visiting professor in Boulder. The alternative models appended to the end
of the chapter use the conventions of HerrmannÕs SeeMe editor. The
original paper benefited from comments by collaborators in my Fall Ô99 seminar on KBEs, participants in the CSCL Ô99
workshop on KBEs and reviewers for ICLS 2000.
Previously
published as: Stahl, G. (2002). Rediscovering
CSCL. In T. Koschmann, R. Hall & N. Miyake (Eds.), CSCL 2: Carrying forward the conversation
(pp. 169-181). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
The view of collaborative learning as
visible in interaction is itself a collaborative product that has emerged in
interactions of the author with Timothy Koschmann as well as with Curtis
LeBaron, Robert Craig, Alena Sanusi and other members of a Fall
2000 seminar in CSCL. This chapter was written for the CSCL 2 volume.
Previously
published as: Stahl, G. (2002). Contributions
to a theoretical framework for CSCL. Paper presented at the international
conference on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL Ô02), Boulder,
CO. Proceedings, LEA, 1-2 &
62-71.
The ideas in this chapter grew out of
collaborative knowledge building mediated by WebGuide in a series
of seminars on CSCL at the University of Colorado. I would particularly like to
thank participants Alena Sanusi, Curt LeBaron and Bob Craig from the
Communication Department as well as the teachers and students at Platt Middle
School in Boulder who were involved with SimRocket.
The Introduction part of this chapter
is taken from the Introduction to the
CSCL Ô02 Proceedings (Stahl, 2002). The remainder was a
paper I presented at that conference; Jeremy Roschelle was the discussant.
Previously
published as: Stahl, G. (2002). Understanding educational computational
artifacts across community boundaries. Paper presented at the
International Society for Cultural Research and Activity Theory (ISCRAT Ô02),
Amsterdam, NL.
Thanks to Timothy Koschmann, who has
long pushed me in the direction of this kind of analysis, and to Curt LeBaron
and Bob Craig who opened up the communication-based micro-ethnographic approach
to me. Much of the transcription and insight into the
interaction was due to Alena Sanusi. Support for the original research while in
L3D at Colorado was from the McDonnell Foundation, NSF and Omnicom.
The analysis and writing continued while I was in the CSCW group of
Fraunhofer-FIT near Bonn, Germany. This work was presented in various formats
at ISCRAT Ô02, ICLS Ô02, Ethnography in Education Ô01 and Ô03.
Previously published as: Stahl, G.
(2004) Collaborating with relational references. Paper
presented at the workshop on representational guidance at the American
Educational Research Association (AERA 2004), San Diego, CA.
Rogers Hall made two suggestive
observations related to the SimRocket data at a
workshop on video analysis at the International Conference of the Learning
Sciences (ICLS 2002) where I presented the data from chapter 12: (1) that
divergent interpretations of a group discourse might open a space for group
creativity and (2) that the deictic relation of ÒThis oneÕs differentÓ is not
to a simple rocket object, but to a more complex relationship among objects,
and that such a complexity caused problems for both the students and the
analysts. I have attempted to explore these suggestions (1) by trying to
understand the interaction of group meaning and individual interpretation in
later chapters and (2) by looking at the relational character of the reference
in this chapter.
A condensed version of this chapter,
translated and revised by Angela Carell, was previously published as: Stahl, G.
& Carell, A. (2004). Kommunikationskonzepte (The role of
communication concepts for CSCL pedagogy). In J. Haake, G. Schwabe & M. Wessner (Eds.) CSCL-Kompendium. (pp. 229-237). Munich, Germany: Oldenbourg.
Previously
published as: Stahl, G. (2004). Building
collaborative knowing: Elements of a social theory of CSCL. In J.-W. Strijbos, P. Kirschner & R. Martens (Eds.), What we know about CSCL: And implementing it in
higher education. (pp. 53-86). Boston, MA: Kluwer.
This chapter was originally written
as the theory chapter for the edited volume in the Kluwer CSCL series. As a
result of working with Jan-Willem Strijbos on that project, I invited him to
work on my research at Drexel for five months in early 2004. During his visit,
we celebrated the publication of his book, intertwined our contrasting
methodological proclivities and discussed the first draft of this book.
Previously
published as: Stahl, G. (2003). Meaning and
interpretation in collaboration. In B. Wasson, S. Ludvigsen, U. Hoppe
(Eds.) Designing for change in networked
learning environments. (pp. 523-532). Bergen, Norway: Kluwer.
This chapter was the final plenary
presentation at CSCL Ô03 in Bergen Norway, where it was well received.
Subsequent comments from students in Dan SuthersÕ class and in my CSCL seminar
led me to expand several central points.
Previously
published as: Stahl, G. (2004). Can community knowledge exceed its membersÕ? ACM SigGroup Bulletin, 23 (3), 1-13.
Parts of this chapter began life
within one of the VMT research proposals co-authored with Stephen Weimar,
Wesley Shumar and Ian Underwood of the Math Forum @ Drexel. Early versions were
presented at Communities & Technology 2003 in Amsterdam, Netherlands, and
at GROUP 2003 on Sanibel Island, Florida.
The central section of this chapter
is based on: Koschmann, T., Stahl, G., & Zemel, A. (2005). The video analystÕs manifesto (or the implications of GarfinkelÕs
policies for the development of a program of video analytic research within the
learning sciences). In R. Goldman, R. Pea, B. Barron & S. Derry
(Eds.), Video research in the learning
sciences. That document adhered more closely to the terminology of
ethnomethodology (Garfinkel,
1967); my
co-authors are not responsible for the liberties taken in re-interpreting their
ideas here. After so much email-mediated collaboration on the text—let
alone the influences of the sources indexed or the effects of re-situating the
argument in the context of this book—it is no longer possible to
attribute most of the ideas to any one author, and this chapter should
particularly be considered a product of group cognition, although my
co-thinkers would reject many of the formulations in this text.
The distinction of five perspectives (returned to in
chapter 21) originated in a talk I gave at ISCRAT Ô02 in Amsterdam on Understanding educational computational
artifacts across community boundaries. (Most of the rest of that talk was
presented in chapter 12).
Ideas for this chapter were
previously published as: Stahl, G. (2005) Group
cognition: The collaborative locus of agency in CSCL. Plenary paper
presented at the international conference on Computer-Supported Collaborative
Learning (CSCL Ô05), Taipei, Taiwan. Comments by anonymous reviewers for CSCL
2005 prompted minor clarifications in this and the next chapter.
Previously
published as: Stahl, G. (2003). Keynote talk: The future of computer
support for learning: An American/German DeLFIc vision. In A. Bode, J. Desel, S.
Rathmeyer, M. Wessner (Eds.), DeLFI 2003,
Tagungsband der 1. e-Learning Fachtagung Informatik,
16.-18. September 2003 in Garching bei MŸnchen. 13-16.
I began to explore these themes on
the occasion of a keynote talk that opened the first German computer science
conference on e-learning, DeLFI 2003 in Munich. Discussions of other chapters
from part III with Rupert Wegerif at the Kaleidoscope CSCL Symposium 2004 in
Lausanne and with Sten Ludvigsen and his colleagues at InterMedia in Oslo
pushed me to extend the considerations. Translations of the Heidegger and Marx
quotations have been taken from my philosophy dissertation (Stahl,
1975a), where they
are discussed more thoroughly.
Previously published as: Stahl, G.
(2004) Thinking at the group unit of analysis. Paper
presented at the CSCL-Sig Symposium of Kaleidoscope, Lausanne, Switzerland.
This chapter is based on a paper delivered at the
first Symposium of the CSCL Sig of the Kaleidoscope Network of Excellence of
the European Union, in October 2004. It was the final paper presentation there
and was well received. Versions of that talk were also presented at Drexel
University in Philadelphia, Knowledge Media Research Center in TŸbingen,
Intermedia in Oslo, Fraunhofer-FIT near Bonn. The
analysis of the chat excerpt was subsequently extended with help from Alan
Zemel and his conversation analysis seminar at the VMT project. The VMT project
is supported in part by grants from NSF.
This book benefited in numerous ways
from my collaborators at the VMT project and Drexel University while I
assembled and refined the text. They provided essential feedback, continuous
stimulation and new insights. The series editors and the press staff also
gently steered the bookÕs evolution in helpful ways. David Tietjen read the
entire manuscript and improved its details. Despite all this help, the book
retains a variety of flaws—these are solely my contribution.