A Multidimensional Framework of Collaborative Groups’ Disciplinary Engagement

Main Article Content

Toni Kempler Rogat
Cindy E. Hmelo-Silver
Britte Haugan Cheng
Anne Traynor
Temitope F. Adeoye
Andrea Gomoll
Brenda K Downing

Abstract

Abstract


This research is aimed at developing novel theory to advance innovative methods for examining how collaborative groups progress toward productively engaging during classroom activity that integrates disciplinary practices. This work draws on a situative perspective, along with prior framings of individual engagement, to conceptualize engagement as a shared and multidimensional phenomenon. A multidimensional conceptualization affords the study of distinct engagement dimensions, as well as the interrelationships of engagement dimensions that together are productive. Development and exploration of an observational rubric evaluating collaborative group disciplinary engagement (GDE) is presented, leveraging the benefits of observational methods with a rubric specifying quality ratings, enabling the potential for analyses of larger samples more efficiently than prior approaches, but with similar ability to richly characterize the shared and multidimensional nature of group engagement. Mixed-methods analyses, including case illustrations and profile analysis, showcase the synergistic interrelations among engagement dimensions constituting GDE. The rubric effectively captured engagement features that could be identified via intensive video analysis, while affording the evaluation of broader claims about group engagement patterns. Application of the rubric across curricular contexts, and within and between lessons across a curricular unit, will enable comparative studies that can inform theory about collaborative engagement, as well as instructional design and practice.

Article Details

How to Cite
Rogat, T. K., Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Cheng, B. H., Traynor, A., Adeoye, T. F., Gomoll, A., & Downing, B. K. (2022). A Multidimensional Framework of Collaborative Groups’ Disciplinary Engagement . Frontline Learning Research, 10(2), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.14786/flr.v10i2.863
Section
Articles
Author Biographies

Cindy E. Hmelo-Silver, Indiana University, USA

Distinguished Professor, Learning Sciences
Director,  Center for Research on Learning and Technology

Anne Traynor, Purdue University, USA

Associate Professor of Educational Psychology & Research Methodology

Department of Educational Studies

Temitope F. Adeoye, Purdue University, USA

Doctoral Candidate

Department of Educational Psychology

References

Adams-Wiggins, K. R. (2020). Whose meanings belong?: Marginality and the role of microexclusions in middle school inquiry science. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 24, 100353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2019.100353

Barron, B. (2000). Achieving coordination in collaborative problem-solving groups. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9, 403-436. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327809JLS0904_2

Chi, M.T.H. & Wylie, R. (2014). The ICAP framework: Linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes. Educational Psychologist, 49, 219-243. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.965823

Chinn, C. A., Duncan, R. G., & Rinehart, R. (2018). Epistemic Design: Design to Promote Transferable Epistemic Growth in the PRACCIS Project. In E. Manalo, Y. Uesaka, & C. A. Chinn (Eds.), Promoting Spontaneous Use of Learning and Reasoning Strategies. pp. 242-259. New York: Routledge.

Danish, J. A., & Gresalfi, M. (2018). Cognitive and Sociocultural Perspective on Learning: Tensions and Synergy in the Cognitive and Sociocultural Perspective on Learning: Tensions and Synergy in the Learning Sciences. In F. Fischer, C. E. Hmelo-Silver, S. R. Goldman, & P. Reimann (Eds.), International Handbook of the Learning Sciences (pp. 33-43). New York: Routledge.

Duschl, R. (2008). Science education in three-part harmony: Balancing conceptual, epistemic, and social learning goals. Review of research in education, 32, 268-291. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X07309371

Engle, R. A., & Conant, F. C. (2002). Guiding principles for fostering productive disciplinary engagement: Explaining an emerging argument in a community of learners classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 20, 399-483. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532690XCI2004_1

Engle, R. A., Langer-Osuna, J. M., & McKinney de Royston, M. (2014). Toward a model of influence in persuasive discussions: Negotiating quality, authority, privilege, and access within a student-led argument. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 23(2), 245-268. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2014.883979

Forsthuber, B., Motiejunaite, A., & de Almeida Coutinho, A. S. (2011). Science Education in Europe: National Policies, Practices and Research. Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency, European Commission.

Fredricks, J., Blumenfeld, P., & Paris, P. (2004). A school engagement potential of the concept and state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74, 59-109. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059

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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2013.07.009

Fulmer, S.M., & Frijters, J.C. (2009). A Review of self-report and alternative approaches in the measurement of student motivation. Educational Psychology Review, 21, 219-246. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-009-9107-x

Gomoll, A. S., Hillenburg, R., & Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2020). “I have never had a pbl like this before”: On viewing, reviewing, and co-design. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning. 14(1). https://doi.org/10.14434/ijpbl.v14i1.28802.

Gomoll, A. S., Šabanović, S., Tolar, E., Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Francisco, M., Lawlor, O. (2018). Between the Social and the Technical: Negotiation of Human-Centered Robotics Design in a Middle School Classroom. International Journal of Social Robotics, 10, 309-324. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-017-0454-3

Graham, J. W. (2009). Missing data analysis: Making it work in the real world. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 549–576. 10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085530

Greeno, J. G. (2006). Learning in activity. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences (pp. 79–96). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Gresalfi, M. S., & Barnes, J. (2016). Designing feedback in an immersive videogame: supporting student mathematical engagement. Educational Technology Research and Development, 64(1), 65-86. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-015-9411-8

Gresalfi, M., Martin,T., Hand, V. & Greeno, J. (2009). Constructing competence: an analysis of student participation in the activity systems of mathematics classrooms. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 70, 49-70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-008-9141-5

Hand, V., & Gresalfi, M. (2015). The joint accomplishment of identity. Educational Psychologist, 50, 190-203. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2015.1075401

Hickey, D. T. (2003). Engaged participation versus marginal nonparticipation: A stridently sociocultural approach to achievement motivation. Elementary School Journal, 103(4), 401-429. https://doi.org/10.1086/499733

Hmelo, C. E., Guzdial, M., & Turns, J. (1998). Computer-support for collaborative learning: Learning to support student engagement. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 9, 107-130.

Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Eberbach, C., Jordan, J., Sinha, S., Rogat, T. K. (2015, August). Trajectories for Engaged Learning about Complex Systems. Presented at European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction Biennial Conference. Limassol, Cyprus.

Isohätälä, J., Naykki & Jarvela (2020). Convergences of Joint, Positive Interactions and Regulation in Collaborative Learning. Small Group Research, 51, 229-264. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496419867760

Järvelä, S., Järvenoja, H., Malmberg, J., Isohätälä, J., & Sobocinski, M. (2016). How do types of interaction and phases of self-regulated learning set a stage for collaborative engagement?. Learning and Instruction, 43, 39-51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.01.005

Järvenoja, H., Järvelä, S., Törmänen, T., Näykki, P., Malmberg, J., Kurki, K., Mykkänen, A. & Isohätälä, J. (2018). Capturing motivation and emotion regulation during a learning process. Frontline Learning Research, 6, 85-104. https://doi.org/10.14786/flr.v6i3.369

Khosa, D. K., & Volet, S. E. (2014). Productive group engagement in cognitive activity and metacognitive regulation during collaborative learning: can it explain differences in students’ conceptual understanding?. Metacognition and Learning, 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-014-9117-z

Koretsky, M. D., Vauras, M., Jones, C., Iiskala, T., & Volet, S. (2021). Productive disciplinary engagement in high-and low-outcome student groups: Observations from three collaborative science learning contexts. Research in Science Education, 51, 159-182. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-019-9838-8

Kreijins, K., Kirschner, P.A. & Jochems, W. (2002). The sociability of computer-supported collaborative learning environments. Journal of Education Technology and Society 5, 8–22. http://www.jstor.org/stable/jeductechsoci.5.1.8

Langer-Osuna, J. M., Gargroetzi, E., Munson, J., & Chavez, R. (2020). Exploring the role of off-task activity on students’ collaborative dynamics. Journal of Educational Psychology, 112(3), 514-532. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000464

LeBreton, J. M., & Senter, J. L. (2008). Answers to 20 questions about interrater reliability and interrater agreement. Organizational Research Methods, 11(4), 815–852. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428106296642

Lee, O., & Brophy, J. (1996). Motivational patterns observed in sixth‐grade science classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 303-318. https://doi.org/10.1002/

Linnenbrink-Garcia, L., Rogat, T.K. & Koskey, K.L. (2011). Affect and Engagement during Small Group Instruction. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36, 13-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2010.09.001

Lipponen, L., Rahikainen, M., Lallimo, J., & Hakkarainen, K. (2003). Patterns of participation and discourse in elementary students’ computer-supported collaborative learning. Learning and Instruction, 13, 487-509. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(02)00042-7

Molenaar, I., & Chiu, M. M. (2014). Dissecting sequences of regulation and cognition: statistical discourse analysis of primary school children’s collaborative learning. Metacognition and learning, 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-013-9105-8

Mortimer, E. & de Araújo, A. (2014). Using productive disciplinary engagement and epistemic practices to evaluate a traditional Brazilian high school chemistry classroom. International Journal of Educational Research, 64, 156-169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2013.07.004

Näykki, P. Järvelä, S. Kirschner, P.A. & Järvenoja, H. (2014). Socio-emotional conflict in collaborative learning – A process-oriented case study in a higher education context. International Journal of Educational Research, 68, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2014.07.001

NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For States, By States. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Nylund-Gibson, K., Grimm, R., Quirk, M., & Furlong, M. (2014). A latent transition mixture model using the three-step specification. Structural Equation Modeling, 21, 439-454. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2014.915375

Perry, N. E., & Winne, P. H. (2006). Learning from learning kits: gStudy traces of students’ self-regulated engagements with computerized content. Educational Psychology Review, 18(3), 211-228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-006-9014-3

Pintrich, P.R. & DeGroot, E.V. (1990).Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33-40. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.82.1.33

Rogat, T.K. & Adams-Wiggins, K.R. (2015). Facilitative versus Directive Other-regulation in Collaborative Groups: Implications for Socioemotional Interactions. Computers in Human Behavior, 52, 589-600. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.01.026

Rogat, T.K. & Linnenbrink-Garcia, L. (2011). Socially Shared Regulation in Collaborative Groups: An Analysis of the Interplay between Quality of Social Regulation and Group Processes. Cognition and Instruction, 29, 375-415. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2011.607930

Rogat, T.K. & Linnenbrink-Garcia, L. (2013). Understanding the quality variation of socially shared regulation: A focus on methodology. In M. Vauras & S. Volet (Eds.), Interpersonal regulation of learning and motivation: Methodological advances (pp. 102-125). London: Routledge.

Roschelle, J., Shechtman, N., Tatar, D., Hegedus, S., Hopkins, B., Empson, S.,... & Gallagher, L. P. (2010). Integration of technology, curriculum, and professional development for advancing middle school mathematics: Three large-scale studies. American Educational Research Journal, 47, 833-878. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831210367426

Roschelle, J., & Teasley, S. (1995). The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving. In C. O’Malley (Ed.), Computer-supported collaborative learning (pp. 69-197). Berlin, Germany: Springer.

Rubin, D. B. (1987). Multiple imputation for nonresponse in surveys. New York: Wiley.

Ryu, S., & Lombardi, D. (2015). Coding Classroom Interactions for Collective and Individual Engagement. Educational Psychologist, 50, 70-83. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/00461520.2014.1001891

Sandoval, W. A. (2014). Conjecture mapping: an approach to systematic educational design research. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 23, 18-36. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2013.778204

Schoor, C., Narciss, S., & Körndle, H. (2015). Regulation During Cooperative and Collaborative Learning: A Theory-Based Review of Terms and Concepts. Educational Psychologist, 50, 97-119. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2015.1038540

Sengupta-Irving, T., & Agarwal, P. (2017). Conceptualizing perseverance in problem solving as collective enterprise. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 19(2), 115-138. https://doi.org/10.1080/10986065.2017.1295417

Shechtman, N., Cheng, B. H., Lundh, P., & Trinidad, G. (2012). Unpacking the black box of engagement: Cognitive, behavioral, and affective engagement in learning mathematics. In van Aalst, J., Thompson, K., Jacobson, M. J., & Reimann, P. (Eds.) The Future of Learning: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS 2012) – Volume 2, Short Papers, Symposia, and Abstracts. International Society of the Learning Sciences: Sydney, NSW, Australia, pp. 53-56.

Sinha, S., Rogat, T., Adams-Wiggins, K. R., & Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2015). Collaborative group engagement in a computer-supported inquiry learning environment. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 10, 273-307. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-015-9218-y

Summers, J. J., Gorin, J. S., Beretvas, S. N., & Svinicki, M. D. (2005). Evaluating collaborative learning and community. The Journal of Experimental Education, 73(3), 165-188. https://doi.org/10.3200/JEXE.73.3.165-188

Volet, S., Summers, M., & Thurman, J. (2009). High-level co-regulation in collaborative learning: How does it emerge and how is it sustained? Learning and Instruction, 19, 128-143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.03.001

Vriesema, C.C, & McCaslin, M. (2020). Experience and meaning in small-group contexts: Fusing observational and self-report data to capture self and other dynamics. Frontline Learning Research, 8,136-139. https://doi.org/10.14786/flr.v8i3.493