Meaning & Interpretation in Collaboration

1. Meaning &Interpretationin Collaboration Gerry Stahl Drexel University, Philadelphia, USA Gerry.Stahl@Drexel.edu

2. An overview of the paper • Not an abstract discussion of “the meaning of meaning” – a situated reflection on meaning in collaboration • In preparing these slides, I clarified & expanded the paper beyond what appears in the Proceedings … So is the meaning of the paper now given by the original paper in the Proceedings, the revised paper on my website, these slides or my talk? If I cite (Stahl 2003) next year, what am I referencing?

3. How far have we come from the start of CSCL ’02 to CSCL ’03 ? • In his opening keynote in January 2002, Tim Koschmann proposed: • (and in his opening keynote on Sunday, Roger Säljö proposed almost the same thing) • “CSCL is a field of study centrally concerned with meaning and the practices of meaning-making in the context of joint activity, and the ways in which these practices are mediated through designed artifacts.”

4. What it means in terms of cognition • CSCL is concerned with how individuals construct meaning, especially when they are collaborating with other people to achieve a shared task. CSCL is also concerned with designing online media for collaborating individuals to exchange their ideas. • Raise your hand if you tend to agree with this interpretation

5. What it means for a situated, group-level analysis • CSCL is concerned with how groups construct meaning through collaborative social practices. CSCL is also concerned with how these group practices and group meaning-making are made possible and structured by shared artifacts, including CSCL technological & curricular artifacts. • Raise your hand if you tend to agree with this interpretation

6. The ambiguity of individual-centered and group-centered Descartes (1633) CognitivistInstructionism Rationalism Empiricism Evidence-Based Instructionism Piaget Constructivism Kant (1787) Wittgenstein individualtheories Husserl social theories Wittgenstein Ethno-methodology Schutz Conversation Analysis Hegel (1807) Heidegger (1927) Situated Cognition Progressive Inquiry Dewey Marx (1867) anthropology Social Practice Vygotsky (1934) Activity Theory

7. Trace “mediation” back to Hegel • Work [in a collaborative, social setting] gives form to its object. The worker’s transforming relationship toward the object is transformed into the object's form and becomes something persisting, because for the worker the object gains self-sufficiency. This transforming mediation – the activity of forming – is also the individuality of consciousness or the pure being-for-itself of consciousness, which in the work process now steps out of consciousness and takes on the character of persistence. The consciousness of the worker thereby arrives at a perception of the self-sufficient artifact as a perception of his self.

8. Birth of meaning in Vygotsky • We call the internal reconstruction of an external operation internalization. A good example of this process may be found in the development of pointing. Initially, this gesture is nothing more than an unsuccessful attempt to grasp something, a movement aimed at a certain object which designates forthcoming activity. . . . When the mother comes to the child’s aid and realizes this movement indicates something, the situation changes fundamentally. Pointing becomes a gesture for others. The child’s unsuccessful attempt engenders a reaction not from the object he seeks but from another person. Consequently, the primary meaning of that unsuccessful grasping movement is established by others. . . . The grasping movement changes to the act of pointing. As a result of this change, the movement itself is then physically simplified, and what results is the form of pointing that we may call a true gesture. (Italics added.)

9. Discourse as group cognition • 1:22:05 Brent This one’s different • 1:22:06 Jamie Yeah, but it has same no… • 1:22:08 Chuck Pointy nose cone • 1:22:09 Steven Oh, yeah • 1:22:10 Chuck But it’s not the same engine • 1:22:11 Jamie Yeah, it is, • 1:22:12 Brent Yes it is, • 1:22:13 Jamie Compare two n one • 1:22:13 Brent Number two • 1:22:14 Chuck I know. • 1:22:15 Jamie Are the same • 1:22:16 Chuck Oh • 1:22:17 Brent It’s the same engine. • 1:22:18 Jamie So if you compare two n one, • 1:22:19 Chuck Oh yeah, I see, I see, I see

10. Internalization of group meaning • An operation that initially represents an external activity is reconstructed and begins to occur internally. . . . An inter-personal process is transformed into an intra-personal one. . . . The transformation of an inter-personal process into an intra-personal one is the result of a long series of developmental events. . . . They are incorporated into this system of behavior and are culturally reconstituted and developed to form a new psychological entity. . . . As yet, the barest outline of this process is known. (Vygotsky)

11. “situated” from Heidegger & Dewey • What is designated by the word 'situation' is not a single object or event or set of objects and events. For we never experience nor form judgments about objects or events in isolation, but only in connection with a contextual whole. The latter is what is called a “situation.” (Dewey) • For example, the artifact at hand which we call a hammer has to do with hammering, the hammering has to do with fastening something, fastening has to do with protection against bad weather. What significance artifacts have is prefigured in terms of the situation as a totality of relationships of significance. (Heidegger)

12. Interpretation from individual perspectives • We are born into a meaningful world of language, artifacts, social practices, habits, culture – which we must learn to understand • We interpret meanings based on our pre-understanding (Zone of Proximal Development) • Our activity is situated in activity context, shared world (s), personal perspective (s) • Artifacts (linguistic, physical, practices) embody, store, transmit shared meanings • Meanings are shared, in-the-world, socially created in collaboration; individuals interpret the meanings from their personal perspectives, tacit pre-understanding

13. Implications for CSCL practice: a) prominence of collaborative learning • Meaning is by its nature shared, social • So meaning-making is in general accomplished by collaborative learning • Individual learning is secondary, interpreting group meaning from one’s perspective and internalizing it as new pre-understanding or cognitive artifacts, skills

14. b) Learning made visible • Learning exists in the world, e.g., as traces of discourse (chat logs, etc.) • Researchers can observe learning taking place through detailed discourse analysis • CSCL methodology not restricted to hypotheses about hidden mental processes: pre/post tests, interviews of subjects, statistical effects of interventions

15. c) Technology as artifact • CSCL technologies can be designed as artifacts that embody meanings and mediate meaning-making • The meanings in the technology must be learned by users from their situated perspectives • The technologies & curricular usage activities structure & transform interactions, activities, meanings, meaning-making

16. d) Understanding collaboration • Strong definition of “collaboration” as group meaning-making – not just incidental interaction of individual meaning makers • Meaning is made by groups; analyze meaning-making at group unit of analysis • Meaning must be interpreted by involved individuals from their situated perspectives • Meaning is constructed in discourse • Meaning is made persistent in artifacts

17. e) Socio-cultural theory • There is a rich socio-cultural theory tradition with a continuous history of over 200 years (at least) • This tradition has strong roots in the mainstreams of 20th century philosophy & theory: Marx, Heidegger, Wittgenstein • The alternative individual-centered theory has its roots in neo-Kantian positivism and pre-Kantian rationalism or empiricism

18. CSCL after CSCL ’03 • a) Collaborative learning is fundamental mode of learning, not an esoteric, new-fangled pedagogic fashion • b) CSCL methodology can differ from traditional educational research • c) CSCL technology can be designed & analyzed as artifacts with shared meanings • d) Collaboration is meaning-making at the group unit of analysis • e) Socio-cultural theory is grounded in contemporary philosophy

19. Conclusion • CSCL – in order to get started – had to use the ideas, tools & approaches inherited from an era focused on the individual • Now it is time to rethink our theory, pedagogy, analytic methods & technologies with a focus on groups & (a strong definition of) collaboration • A conference in the Nordic region is a fitting starting point to move away from the ideology of individualism (something harder to do in America these days)

20. Frequently Asked Questions • Can there be meaning without people? No – people (individually and in groups) create & interpret meaning. • Isn’t there individual learning as well as collaborative? Yes – but it is a powerful ability that was developed in human culture and by individuals based on collaborative learning. • Why don’t we see more collaborative learning? Our modern lives are individualized and our thinking is oriented to an ideology of individualism. The individual self and mind are historical, social products that conceal their origin

21. Doesn’t collaboration involve both individual and group processes? Yes – and the two levels interact organically. But we are so used to seeing things from the individual perspective that it is healthy to focus on the group now. • Isn’t meaning non-physical? No – most physical objects are meaningful. Artifacts are physical embodiments of interpretable meaning • What is the potential of CSCL? To provide computer support and social practices that help overcome the barriers to collaboration inherent in speech and writing (see Säljö )

22. … the details: • Stahl, G. (2002) Rediscovering CSCL. In T. Koschmann, R. Hall, & N. Miyake (Eds.), CSCL2: Carrying Forward the Conversation, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ. Available at: http://www.cis.drexel.edu/faculty/gerry/cscl/papers/ch01.pdf • Stahl, G. (2002) Understanding educational computational artifacts across community boundaries, Paper presented at ISCRAT 2002, Amsterdam, NL. Available at: http://www.cis.drexel.edu/faculty/gerry/cscl/papers/ch03.pdf • Stahl, G. (2003) Building collaborative knowing: Contributions to a social theory of learning. In J.-W. Strijbos, P. Kirschner, & R. Martens (Eds.), What We Know about CSCL in Higher Education, Kluwer, Amsterdam, NL. Available at: http://www.cis.drexel.edu/faculty/gerry/cscl/papers/ch16.pdf • Stahl, G. (2003) Meaning and interpretation in collaboration, In: Proceedings of Computer Support for Collaborative Learning (CSCL 2003), Bergen, Norway. Extended version available at: http://www.cis.drexel.edu/faculty/gerry/cscl/papers/ch20.pdf