# Contributions to a Theoretical Framework for CSCL


[Week
four](http://new.p2pu.org/en/groups/introduction-to-the-field-of-computer-supported-co/content/wk-4-knowledge-building/)'s
second reading is [[ref:stahl2002contributions|Contributions to a
Theoretical Framework for CSCL]] by [[Gerry Stahl]]. Stahl is a key
figure in the CSCL movement, as an editor of
[ijCSCL](http://ijcscl.org/), the key CSCL journal, and a prolific
publisher. He is also an incredibly generous academic, sharing an
incredible amount of information on his
[website](http://gerrystahl.net/). He even [compiled
ebooks](http://gerrystahl.net/elibrary/) of many of his papers, put
together in a systematic fashion, made available most of his published
books as OA, and even published [all of his grant
proposals](http://gerrystahl.net/elibrary/proposals) (including the
failed ones). I am very impressed by an academic who is so committed to
sharing his work.

**The paper**

This week's papers are both dense and rich. We could probably spend an
entire course just exploring the arguments being made in either paper.
Of the two, I was more comfortable with Scardamalia's paper, since I am
familiar with Knowledge Building. I found Stahl's paper quite difficult,
especially since he tends to get philosophical, invoking Heidegger and
Hegel (after all, [his PhD thesis](http://gerrystahl.net/elibrary/marx)
was in philosophy, on Marx and Heidegger).

He divides the paper into four parts, and I will touch on these four
parts here:

-   collaborative knowledge building
-   group and personal perspectives
-   mediation by artifacts
-   micro-analysis of conversation

**Collaborative knowledge building**

I found his comparison between learning and Knowledge Building (KB)
quite interesting. He notes that learning is everywhere, and can even
happen unconsciously ("even non-conscious activity can reinforce tacit
competences"). It's also very hard to measure, only the consequences can
be measured (and this is often problematic).

On the other hand, KB refers to specific, identifiable occurrences, and
because it necessarily takes place in observable media, can be directly
and empirically observed (useful for researchers). In this article, KB
is thought of a group process, but even an individual who is engaged in
deep and sustained work with ideas, will probably want to
[[grappling\_with\_ideas-the\_paper\#externalization|externalize]]
his/her ideas in a systematic fashion.

He discusses a number of other approaches to collaborative learning, and
notes a problem with project-based learning (which could probably apply
to many of the settings when educators want kids to "collaborate"):

"A potential issue with project-based activities that do not adhere to a
model like PBL is that tasks often get divided up so that participants
cooperate (as opposed to collaborate) on the over-all project but do not
collaborate on the knowledge building; they may subsequently share their
individual expertise
through [jigsawing](http://localhost/wiki/jigsaw "jigsaw") (Brown &
Campione, 1994), but the basic knowledge building takes place outside
the group interaction"

To me, this goes back to the difference between having an artifact as
the goal, and the process as the goal. If we were collaborating on
writing a book, or a Wikipedia article, together, the quality of the
result would be measured by the quality of the artifact. It would not
matter very much how we did it (except perhaps to determine the order of
the authors), and division and specialization would be expected.
However, if we are creating this artifact *in order to learn*, then this
kind of division becomes problematic.

What's interesting is that earlier in the article, Stahl says of the
goal of KB:

"Emphasize the construction and further development of a knowledge
object that is shared by the group or “community of learners.” Not
personal learning by the participants, *however* they will retain some
of what the group discovered, deepen their collaboration skills and
enjoy positive experiences of inquiry and intellectual engagement."

So if the goal of KB is the construction of a knowledge object, then why
should we criticize approaches that lead to a good knowledge object, but
does not let everyone learn from the approach? In the quote above, it
sounds like the individual learning is more of an after-thought?
(Perhaps the key is the "that is shared by the group", meaning that
everyone has to be intimately involved in the production of the
knowledge object?)

**The individual and the social**

He writes that only individuals can interpret objects ("symbols,
representations and artifacts are only meaningful to individal minds",
"interpretation is carried out by individuals, within horizons of
personal perspectives (Gadamer 1960/1988)"), but that "isolated from
social interaction, physical artifacts and historical cultures, human
brains are poor thinkers and could never have developed into powerful
minds (Donald, 1991)". It follows from this that a learning theory needs
to account for both the individual and the social. I haven't often found
a specific mention of the individual in CSCL literature, so I find this
useful, however I wish he would have expanded on it.

In my paper [[Grappling with ideas-the paper|Grappling with ideas]], I
introduced the concept of
[[grappling\_with\_ideas-the\_paper\#micro-*and*macro-levels\_of\_collaboration|micro-
and macro levels of collaboration]]:

> To tackle this question, I would like to introduce the idea of
> different granularities of collaboration — how much of the working
> with ideas takes place in your own head, and at what point do you
> share your thoughts with others? On one end of the spectrum, at a
> micro-level of collaboration, you might have two people who knew each
> other well, who were engaged in a discussion about a problem,
> vocalizing every idea that comes through their mind, working together
> as one mind to solve the problem.
>
> At the very other far end of the scala, the macro-level of
> collaboration, might be found the scientific world, where individual
> PhD researchers might read hundreds of books and articles, take
> thousands of pages of notes, diagrams, before they finally publish
> their dissertation, which deals with decades worth of literature. A
> few years after the publication of the dissertation, an article might
> be published that builds upon the ideas in the dissertation, a few
> years later, a new article, and so on. (Of course, the PhD student
> might be part of a local research team, and might exchange ideas with
> them at a much lower granularity).
>
> This is a useful distinction, because it covers many areas where we
> instinctively feel that there is collaboration and knowledge building
> going on, such as the edublogosphere, where you can see a progression
> of ideas and a community understanding of the current state of
> knowledge in the field, yet there are no affordances in the tools we
> use, that make this knowledge building easier.
>
> We can also experiment with lowering the granularity of collaboration
> in fields where the granularity to the public has traditionally been
> quite high - an example would be the movement for Open Notebook
> Science in academia, where researchers who would traditionally hoard
> their lab results until the final paper was published are not
> voluntarily sharing their data in almost real-time with anyone who
> might be interested (Bradley 2007).

Recently, [Ove
Christensen](http://oveucsj.posterous.com/online-learning-risks-and-opportunities)
tweeted "An education is more than just passively listening to
lectures.” I replied asking “Who says I am "passively" listening to the
lectures? Just as I am "passively" reading great books?” This was in
relation to the many Open Educational Resources which comprise of PDFs
and lecture recordings. Certainly, the entire P2PU is founded on the
idea that more active engagement with ideas is needed, however that does
not mean that these resources are not useful. And this post is one
example - if you go to the [[ref:stahl2002contributions|article's page]]
on my wiki, you'll see how I worked with it. I first added it to my
citation management system, then opened it in Skim. I read through it,
highlighting relevant passages. I exported these to the wiki, and then
went through them, trying to compile the most important ideas in my own
language.

And now I am blogging about some of the questions that the article
raised, linking this with other articles and people's contributions.
This is all what I would call very active engagement with ideas, not at
all "passively reading an article". Yet the article itself is passive,
and for someone looking at the web statistics, they would only see "One
PDF downloaded".

**Artifacts and analysis**

Stahl writes a great deal about artifacts and mediation, using concepts
both from philosophy and anthropology. I find his writings fascinating,
but difficult to penetrate or "pin down". Perhaps I need some concrete
"examples". Probably I need to do more readings (perhaps some of the
ones he cites), and then come back to this article, slowly teasing out
what he means. Theoretically this might be a place where the community
in this class could help me tease out the meaning that I cannot easily
access on my own. Yet that is also where the weakness of our
collaboration shows. By the time you read this blog post, we will almost
be over in next week, with new readings and new topics.

We could spend weeks unpacking this material, especially given the
little time available that each of us has. And if this was a true
Knowledge Building class, perhaps we would now abandon all structure,
and focus on this question that has appeared (or improvable idea). Yet,
this brings two problems. First, everyone in the class might not find
this very interesting at all. Second, there is clearly a value to
covering a lot of ground, and getting an overview of the field, without
spending the entire eight weeks burrowing down into one specific topic.
The converse is also true. Perhaps we will structure the course
differently next time. And perhaps another environment, that is at a
higher granularity than blog posts, such as Knowledge Forum, would be
more appropriate for that kind of interaction.

Stian