collaborative knowledge building: preservice teachers and elementary students talking to learn

Collaborative Knowledge Building:Preservice Teachers and ElementaryStudents Talking to Learn

Earl Woodruff and Clare BrettOntario Institute for Studies in Education/University of Toronto, 252 Bloor St W,Toronto, Ontario M5S 1V6, Canada

Two target groups, one composed of six preservice teachers and one of six Grade 5/6students, are videotaped as they meet over a six-month period to conduct their collabo-rative groupwork. We take a socio-constructivist stance towards knowledge building,and as such, we are interested in how students collaboratively assist one another bypushing for deeper understanding and relating back to what the group already knows.Groups are given strategies to help them develop working norms and discourse struc-tures in an effort to promote inquiry. We argue for a distinction between argument forinquiry and argument for persuasion in order to assessknowledge-building collabora-tion discourse. Language and social issues are addressed along with the cognitiveissues of managing problem finding and problem solving. Analyses suggest that as theGrade 5/6 group learnedto discuss and argue ideas explicitlyas a means of inquiry theywere better able to help each other advance their understanding. The preserviceteachers, on the other hand, showed no such shift. This counter-intuitive result isdiscussed in terms of the students’ differing concept of the task and the role devotionaldiscourse may have in induction into a profession. Educational implications are alsoexplored.

Introduction and BackgroundJean Abercrombie first drew attention to the importance of talk in collabora-

tive settings in her Talking to Learn work during the 1970s (see Abercrombie &Terry, 1978). More recently, studies have disclosed how students use collabora-tive talk to make meaning (Lyle, 1996)and how technology can be used to deepenthe collaborative understanding (Oshima et al., 1996; Woodruff & Brett, 1993).Additionally, research also suggests that students can improve their ideasthrough the forms of discourse they use (Cooper, 1993; Pontecorvo, 1993;Resnick et al., 1993; Westgate & Corden, 1993). This study contributes to theabove research by examining data from the collaborative discourse of bothpreservice teachers and elementary students engaged in small group work. Weexamine both populations in order that we may develop a clearer understandingof the conditions for effective discourse since, as Pontecorvo (1993) expresses it,‘forms of discourse become forms of thinking’. In a larger context, this workfollows the growing interest in discursive epistemologies and psychologies(Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1996; Gee, 1992, 1998; Harré & Gillett, 1994; Harré &Stearns, 1995).

In particular, we are interested in the relationship between discourse and peergroup directed inquiry. The greater the role students play in directing theirlearning, such as in small group settings, the more critical it becomes that they beable effectively to set and follow through on shared learning goals. This involves

0950-0782/99/04 0280-22 $10.00/0 ©1999 E. Woodruff & C. BrettLANGUAGE AND EDUCATION Vol. 13, No. 4, 1999

280

skills of group management but also, and equally critically, the ability both tofind problems for inquiry, and then to pursue those problems. Another factorhere is how students define the purpose of the group — whether it involves taskor learning goals. Defining a learning situation in terms of a task implies some-thing that must or can be completed. Learning goals, in contrast, set the purposeto deepening one’s knowledge — as witnessed in the research on expertise(Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1993).

Our approach is one that is complementary to the behavioural and socialinstruction of programmes such as cooperative learning, while focusing on thediscourse people use in developing each others’ ideas. We examine the role ofdiscourse from the point of view of knowledge building, since oursocio-constructivistbias towards education is that knowledge is best establishedthrough its relationship to the known rather than didactically transmitted givens(see, for example, Woodruff & Meyer, 1997; Meyer & Woodruff, 1997). As such,we are interested in how students collaboratively assist one another by pushingfor deeper understanding and relating back to what the group already knows.Others have suggested that a focus on problems and depth of understandingresults in a discourse that centres on explanation (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1994).We have no doubt that this is true. However, earlier in the process, we expect tosee a shift from persuasion to inquiry discourse as groups establish the workingnorms for their collaborations. Specifically, we believe that as groups learn todiscuss and argue ideas explicitly as a means of inquiry, as opposed to persua-sion, they will be better able to help each other advance their understanding.

We draw upon three strands of current research and thought to inform thiswork. The first is the approach to group discourse used by Howard and Barton(1992). Their programme uses discourse to advance understanding by collabor-atively engaging individuals in a process of inquiry, presenting, analysing andchallenging personal opinions and those of others in the group. Underlying theeffectiveness of this process is an ethical commitment to a set of values, namely:respect, honesty, frankness and objectivity. Howard and Barton explore anumber of elements, both rational and emotional, including dealing withanxiety, which, put in practice together, make such discourse possible. Bereiter(1994) has further pointed out that additional commitments are needed (1) towork towards a common understanding satisfactoryto all; (2) to frame questionsand propositions in ways that enable evidence to be brought to bear on them; (3)expand the body of collectively valid propositions, and (4) allow any belief to besubjected to criticism if it will advance the discourse.

The second research strand is that of intentional learning environments(Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1989; Scardamalia et al., 1989; Brown et al, 1993). Briefly,intentional learning environments move students from passive recipients ofinformation to researchers and scholars; didactic teaching gives way to knowl-edge building; the curriculum changes from breadth of topics and fact retentionto depth of understanding and learner-researched wonderments; traditionaltests give way to more open-ended forms of assessment such as process portfo-lios and classmates become collaborators in the scholarly pursuit of knowledge.As Brown et al. point out, enculturation into these intentional learning culturesrequires that students ‘… adopt the ways of knowing, cultural practice,discourse patterns, and belief systems of scholars’ (1993: 223). Further, they note

Collaborative Knowledge Learning 281

that the discourse of the classroom necessary for success in this new cultureinvolves the development of increasingly scientific modes of thinking reflectedin discourse such as questioning, speculation, criticism, concern with evidenceand proof and constructive discussion.

The third strand comes from the work of Meiland (1989), who has distin-guished argument for inquiry from argument for persuasion. He contends thatthis distinction is crucial for settings where idea development is the focus. Inargument for inquiry the purpose is exploration of ideas and, as such, incompleteand fragmentary ideas are treated as the seeds of ideas to be developed. In theexample below, we see how the fragment of one member’s idea, in this casemythology as a motivational means to start students discussing their ideas, ispicked up by the other:

E: I think that mythology is a great idea to get them motivated when they getinto …

B: So, that they could be more comfortable with their ideas?E: Yes.B: Write their ideas down? Is that what you mean? Because sometimes, like I

said, it’s hard to put your ideas down because you’re afraid that you’re go-ing to be wrong. And they weren’t afraid to express them.

E: And they were wrong!B: And they were wrong. But at least they thought about it.

The conversation becomes interconnected and co-constructed and is indica-tive of the collaborative thinking which is expressed in the mutuality of thediscourse. Additionally, Meiland also points out that in contrast to forestalling aparticular point of view, criticism and dissent are seen as extremely importantknowledge-promoting moves that further analyse or test an idea. Thus, criti-cisms may be accompaniedby a suggestion for repair or may be directed towardsone’s own idea.

Research on scientific discourse shows that when students use argument, it istypically used as a means of defending their positions rather than identifyingwhat is missing in their joint explanations (Eichinger et al., 1991). A study byChan et al. (1993) demonstrates the importance of students having a shared goalof revising their joint understanding and that, without this, discrepancies oranomalous information can often fail to produce conceptual change. Withoutunderstanding the purpose of the discourse tools for discourse such as articula-tion, elaboration and justifications of belief are used to defend arguments ratherthan to pursue understanding.

This investigation integrates the above approaches in an attempt to change thediscourse of inquiry-oriented groups. Our methodology, elaborated below, wascalled ‘Discourse for Inquiry’ and was clearly set out as a process to conduct andmanage small group discourse. Accordingly, in this exploratory study weworked with both elementary students and preservice teachers in order to obtaina broad body of data to assess how discourse for inquiry changes group discus-sion as the degree of self-directed learning increases. The two target groups weobserved differed, among other ways, in the amount of control they exercisedover the setting of their learning agendas. The Grade 5/6 group had aspects oftheir agenda defined by the teacher. The preservice group, by contrast, were

282 Language and Education

faced with a more complex task of both setting and then pursuing their ownlearning agenda.

Design and MethodologyTwo classes of students, one consisting of 32 preservice teachers and the other

consisting of 29 Grade 5/6 students were trained to understand and implementthe Discourse for Inquiry methodology.

Target groupsA target group from each class was selected for in-depth observation and

monitoring. One group was composed of six preservice teachers —two malesand four females, of approximately 30 years of age. These students were enrolledin a one-year post-baccalaureate teacher certification programme. This grouphad been created by random assignment and was formed for the duration of theprogramme. The target group was selected randomly and the participants wereinformed of the purpose of the study before their consent was obtained. Theelementary target group was composed of 6 female students from a Grade 5/6class of 29 students in a metropolitan public school. Groups in the class weremostly self-selected, with some reassignment from the teacher. The purpose ofthe study was also disclosed to this group, and parental consent was obtained inaddition to the students’ approval.

Both groups were matched on scores derived from a collaboration surveyadministered at the beginning of the year (adapted from Johnson & Johnson,1991). This measure looked at both the level of Openness and Sharing, and the levelof Acceptance and Support of group members. Scores of 21 or above on each scaledenoted a high degree of those characteristics, and the Grade 5/6 students hadfour out of six members with high scores compared to five out of six members inthe preservice group.

Instruction on discourse for inquiryEach group separately took part in an initial training programme consisting of

a 30-minute audiotaped introduction and group discussion. The focus of thediscussion was a set of strategies and self-questions aimed at helping to managegroup structure and conversation. Ideas and techniques for managing discoursewere summarised on a set of cards given to each group member. There werethree parts to the group session. First, each group discussed how they felt theirgroup functioned and what they thought they needed to do to improve it. Nextthe experimenter went through each of the cards, describing the ideas in moredetail and pointing to aspects that were appropriate for particular group needs asidentified by group members. Two important issues emphasised during thissegment were (1) that inquiry discourse requires a commitment to a particularset of values during the discussion, namely: respect, honesty, frankness and objec-tivity, and (2) that the goal of the group was to work together to advance eachother’s understanding by focusing on ideas. Each group then tried out some ofthe suggestions in response to short excerpts from journal articles, or othercontent related to their classroom work.


Procedure and designAfter the introductory discussion, subjects engaged in discourse within their

groups over a six-month period, meeting together approximately 20 times. Theyalso shared class time and some social time together. Both groups had prior expo-sure to collaborative work. The Grade 5/6 students were enrolled in a CSILE(Computer Supported Intentional Learning Environment) classroom, wheremuch classroomwork both on and off the computer involved smallgroup collab-orative interaction and student participation in defining their own learninggoals. The preservice teachers were exposed to groupwork and constructivistideas as part of their coursework programme-wide study groups. The studygroup structure involved weekly half-day meetings over the course of the year,and were used as a means of peer support and reflection on course work andpracticum experiences (Stiegelbauer & Woodruff, 1995).

Four different data sources were used within the study: (1) videotaped meet-ings (group meetings were videotaped on a regular basis to document interac-tion and discourse); (2) individual participant interviews (students wereinterviewed with respect to their own sense of group efficacy and development);(3) experimenter field notes (notes recorded of all interactions with groupmembers individually and together); and (4) collaboration questionnaire (acollaboration measurement instrument adapted from Johnson & Johnson (1991)that was administered prior to group formation).

An important difference between the group meetings of the two populationswas the setting of the learning agenda. In the Grade 5/6 classroom,students usedtheir group time primarily for ‘research reading’ which involved reading andunderstanding difficult texts containing concepts relevant to ongoing projectwork in their classroom. This is a modified version of Reciprocal Teaching(Brown & Palincsar, 1989), which this particular classroom had evolved. Thus,the student agenda was set to some degree, and their focus was trying to makesense of the ideas within the article, in the context of their classroom projects. Inthe preservice group, by contrast, creation of the agenda was primarily a groupdecision. We initially believed that the groups would effectively be parallel, inthat the preservice group would also use that time to try to understand difficultor important concepts from their course readings relevant to their practicumexperiences. In fact, as this paper will describe, the preservice study group estab-lished a different learning agenda, a result that has significant implications forthe design of the next phase of this research.

In this paper, we focus on the first two data sources in particular. The video-tape data has been transcribed and examined with reference to the changes insocial functioning in language, particularly with reference to the pursuit ofunderstanding and inquiry-based reasoning, and in cognitive issues — findingand solving problems through discourse. In looking at cognitive issues we focusboth on developmental differences and differences in the instructional contextsof the groups.

In addition to the collaboration questionnaire, participants were asked toanswer a number of questions about changes in their learning and among theirgroup twice during the year. These interviews and questionnaire data are used toassess how participants view the purpose of collaborative groups, and how


participants evaluate the relative importance of social and knowledge-relatedaspects of group discourse.

Results and DiscussionThe results section is organised around three issues crucial to establishing

effective discourse for inquiry groups; those of social, language and cognitiveissues. Within each issue we present qualitative data from both videotape andquestionnaire sources, from both groups, in order to characterise the mainfeatures of their discourse and how they direct their learning over the course ofthe year.

Social issues: Managing meetingsInterview data and observations of group interactions indicate that Discourse

for Inquiry supports were perceived as useful and usable by subjects in bothgroups. Preservice teachers in particular see knowledge-oriented collaborationas important for both professional development and classroom application andappear eager to participate. Generally, both groups manage to deal well with thesocial aspects of collaboration, and report improvement in comfort and trust asthe year progresses. The Grade 5/6 students mention issues which influence theperceived level of social support — as illustrated by these three questionnaireresponses to the question, ‘Describe the changes (if any) that you have noticed inthe amount and kind of social support provided by your group’:

Em: I think if you were to have a group that works (people like each other) theremight be more social and kindness than if you were to have a group thatdoesn’t work or like each other. I think that the groups have come a longway since the beginning of the year.

El: You have to have a group that is willing to work together and everyoneneeds to try to understand.

Al: Sometimes the people in your group just want you to read or summarizeand they don’t really care what it means. It depends on the group. Maybeyou should move groups and then find the one that gives you the most so-cial support.

The preservice teachers express similar reactions, and see a positive change astheir responses to the same question reveal:

CI: We have definitely developed a good rapport when I feel I could call anystudy group member and ask for help either for the practicum or otherwise.

LF: Our study group worked really well together and the social support wasgreat! If you are experiencing problems the group members are more thanhappy to help in any way they can.

Additionally, there are changes in leadership and participation patterns,which can be seen in the video data. Both target groups initially had informal‘leaders’ who did a lot of talking for the group, and we found that the distributionof contributions within both groups became more balanced across participantsover time. The quieter members participate more, and the initial ‘leaders’, whilestill maintaining an active leadership role, are more often challenged by the other


group members over both ideas and procedure, as this excerpt from thepreservice group illustrates. The original leader CG, while contributing, is butone voice in the discussion, and does not always set the direction and focus of thediscussion:

Tape 3 1.27.43–1.28.38)

1. SH: You are right, it is [hard with?] behavioural difficulties as well, be-cause you would be able to relate it back and say, we talked about this,and in this particular case we think that this is what is basically goingwrong, because it manifests itself this way, and the current theoriesare to deal with it in this manner. Because right now I don’t think weare going to have any real basis for the way we react. And I don’t. Ihave dealt with a lot of kids with learning disabilities and I can’t pointto a theory and say this is why I did this when I was talking to the kid.No, it was just a gut feeling. I just go with what I am thinking at thetime and hopefully it works.

2. CG: Childhood psychology should be a necessary course.3. CI: Definitely.4. CG: Either as a prerequisite or as …5. CI: Does primary have that? Does anybody know?6. DD: Some schools demand that … some schools like Queens, you have to

have …7. SG: First year psych but it doesn’t do developmental.8. CG: How much history and geography … [inaudible]? Which I under-

stand because you haven’t got time for it. I mean, that is an argumentfor a two year system.

9. SH: One other thing is should we really be responsible for the curriculumthis year? No. Presumably, because we are all scholars. We have allgot a degree.

10. CI: Yes, we are supposed to be.11. SH: So we should all be able to go out and research the material that we

have to teach. What we should be learning is the technique of gettingthe information across.

12. CI: Techniques and strategies. Except for Special Ed.13. KJ: What about actually teaching? Should that be in the second year?14. SH: Sorry?15. KJ: Should the emphasis be on hands-on teaching in the second year?

Altogether, both groups show development in their contributions andcommitment to the group and to those core values Howard and Barton (1992)identify as necessary prerequisites for inquiry-based discourse to occur, namely;respect, honesty, frankness and objectivity. These targeted values were inte-grated into the group culture and contributed to the group’s improvement incomfort and trust as well as the more balanced contributions and willingness tochallenge the ‘leaders’.

Language issues: Managing group discourseLanguage structures are critical in facilitatingeffective talk about ideas for two

reasons. First, language can facilitate the separation of ideas from the owners of


those ideas, making it more likely that one can pursue understanding, ratherthan act competitively. Secondly, language can maintain the discussion focus onideas by supporting objectivity and evaluation as alternatives to coerced agree-ment or disagreement.

The most noticeable changes occurred amongst the Grade 5/6 group,although there were clear language structures used by the preservice group thatwill be described shortly. The changes among the 5/6 group include an increasein both their pursuit of understanding and in their movement towards a moreobjectified approach to understanding, consistent with inquiry-based ratherthan persuasive argumentation.

Deeper pursuit of understandingIndicators here include querying others’ explanations and a greater focus on

scientific terminology. Initially, students would ask questions, but tended toaccept the answer without further clarification or restatement to check under-standing, for example:

Tape 5. 12.12–12.32)

1. Em: I don’t understand quite what they mean by light waves — what arelight … waves?

2. Ad: I think they have something to do with space like, when you want totalk to them you have light waves.

3. Em: OK. I guess we’re done.

In the above example, Em seems content to leave the issue at that point, withoutrestatement to check her understanding or any request for further elaboration. Inthe following example from the end of the year we see, by contrast, a moredrawn-out attempt to make sense of the text, even though there is still a lot of reli-ance upon gesture rather than clear verbal statements.Tape 8: 13.10–14.05

1. Em: two convex surfaces — so that means … (turning her page)2. Ma: Is that part of this picture? (turns sheet)3. Em: this,4. Ma: like this5. Em: so two surfaces that are like that (drawswith her hands on the table).6. Eu: they always … refract …7. Ma: refract?8. Eu: Wait, the rays are parallel to the optic axis.9. Em: Is that just saying its … (runs her finger along the diagram)10. Eu: That’s refracting … (the line on the diagram).11. Em: This is parallel …12. Eu: … to the axis …13. Em: Yes! So I basically think they are talking about this, (finger moves be-

tween the two ends of the drawing — the light emanating and theimage) right?

14. Ma: Yes, because they are yea yea (agrees with Em’s hands).15. All: Look at Em’s drawing.


16. Em: Two convex lens … (fingers running up and down centre line ofdrawing)

17. Ma: It looks like two but it’s actually one … looks like two together yea,18. Em: Yes, (puts hands in shape of lens), and its (the line) is on an angle and

its19. Eu: parallel20. Em: Yes parallel!

However, these students are increasingly trying to use and understand thescientific terminology, and make more referent-based explanations. Forexample, in this excerpt from early in the year, few referents are given, and thereis no conclusion made:

1. Em: don’t quite understand what the point of the stadium one is? Likewhere everyone is going like that.

2. Ad: Well, I think there are two different types: one that goes up and downand the other that goes like this. So, when one person leans this way,and when they lean back it goes like that.

3. Em: OK, so they are just talking about that wave.4. As: Yes.5. Em: OK.

This next example from the end of the year shows an attempt to understandterms and meanings, as well as containing contributions from more members.

Tape 8: 1.36–1.590

1. An: Um … does anyone know what Hyper … op … what ever, means?2. Eu: It means you need glasses!!3. Al: Yes,4. Mar: Yeah- it’s a more scientific word for far-sightedness.5. An: for needing glasses?6. Al: Yeah, if you’re far-sighted, you see things far away, you have to read

like this (holds paper at arm’s length).

Students also demonstrate some efforts to relate their learning to earlier class-room experiences as they struggle to understand various concepts:Tape 8: 9.32–9.43

1. Al: What in the world is an axis anyway?2. Eu: Does it have something to do with the beam of incidence, remember

that we talked about before, when we were doing reflection?

So far, we have noticed that the Grade 5/6 group have used talk to makemeaning, and deepen their understandings. We saw this in Em’s drawn outinterchanges, and in the more precise understanding of scientific terminology aswell as their efforts to relate learning experiences. In the next section we shall seehow the Grade 5/6 students and the preservice teachers both made shifts in theirform of understanding.

More objectified view of understandingIndicators here include a greater willingness to express disagreement or


suggest corrections to another’s explanation of an idea, and an increasing abilityto distinguish between the intellectual and the social aspects of being in a group,as the following excerpt from a Grade 6 student’s questionnaire illustrates. Thefirst answer is in response to the question ‘What change, if any, have you noticedin the amount and kind of social support provided?’, in which the student notesproblems she has heard from people in her class.

Eu: I think that people aren’t really comfortable in groups because a lot of theother people are sort of cold and unappreciative of others’ ideas. I don’tthink much has changed since the beginning of the year.

In response to the next question ‘What change, if any, have you noticed in theamount and kind of intellectual support provided?’ (in your group), sheresponds positively to instances of her ideas being listened to and evaluated byother students, even though the social climate may not always have been warmor appreciative:

Eu: The amount of support is usually very good. I’ve learned a lot from otherpeople because they have listened to my ideas and said what they thinkabout them. I like how this has changed since the beginning of the year.

Another Grade 6 student comments on this distinction between the social andthe academic during a whole class discussion during the year:

Em: Everybody is making it sound like when we were first in our group we werebest friends. We weren’t. Some of us really weren’t friends or we didn’tagree with each other. But since all of us wanted to make things work we,we all made it work and now we’re all friends.

This student seems to be claiming, with the phrase ‘now we’re all friends’, thatthe experience of working together with a positive attitude academically, actu-ally leads to friendship, rather than successful group work depending upon itspreexistence. Another remark by a student in the post-test (turn 2 below) alsohighlights the social as distinct from the academic context:

1. Em: Usually I think we are really productive together, but today it didn’tseem like we really clicked on everything. Usually I feel we are a lotmore effective.

2. An: But also we are starting to talk now about harder things and they areharder to understand.

The first student reflects on the effectiveness of the group’s interaction, andthe second student (An) seems to suggest that their group difficulties are duemore to the difficulty of the material rather than to some feature of the group’sinteraction.

At the beginning of the year, students tend not to disagree with one anotherand contributions are usually of an additive form, as in the following example:

Tape 5: 13.40–14.19

1. Em: I also think that they’re talking about how when it travels through theair, it travels with the pressure — about how the pressure when theslinky goes, the pressure it goes in the little thing. It’s talking about


how when the sound goes out of your mouth or an instrument itsquishes together and keeps moving on and gets back to normal

2. Ad: Then in the second bit they’re talking about another type of wave andone example they’re talking about, how when you talk, air, sing,through, play an instrument — you make a pressure waves and thatthe pressure waves can go through gasses, so that you can talk. Andthey can go through solids (like a rock).

This next excerpt, however, taken from the last session of the year, illustrates anumber of changes. First, one student (Em, in turn 2) challenges another’s under-standing (Ma, in turn 1, ‘wait, concave is like this …) in order to correct a misun-derstanding. Second, there is a shared and more extensive pursuit ofunderstanding in lines 4–15 as they try to interpret the movement of lightthrough concave and convex lenses:

Tape 8: 14.40–15.48

1. Ma: I think I kind of get that, like if I, like now we understand what the axismeans, we understand that now right … when the two concave lensesare together and the line …

2. Em: Wait concave is like this and convex is like that (shows with herhands) No, this is convex.

3. Ma: Yes, I mean convex so the convex lenses have two axes — and concavetoo, because they have two things like this.

4. Al: Wait (picks up sheet) aren’t they these? (points to diagram)5. Ma: (looks)6. Eu: Deviates means leaves, so they will go away from … incident rays, be-

cause7. Ma: yes8. Ma: (raises voice) so it will bounce off both of them, just like one of them?9. Em: But what’s an incident ray though?10. Eu:

That’s the incoming beam11. Ma: Probably, yeah, it is, you know that flashlight, that mirror thing (re-

fers to another article read earlier that year).12. El: So the rays that are parallel to the axis will go away from the axis, or

something?13. Ma: and others: Yeah14. Ma: and go through the lens, yea, I understand.15. Ma: Yes.

Another important, although emergent indicator of movement towardstreating knowledge as an object is the attempt to restate the main ideas as theunderstanding of the group, not simply the individual, one example of which iswhen student Ma (in turn 1) says ‘we understand’ while she tries to synthesizethe meaning of the term ‘axis’.

The preservice teacher group showed very different patterns, and ones thatwere directly related to how they defined and pursued their learning agenda.Clearly, as intelligent and educated adults they started out with more sophisti-cated language skills for collaborative discussion, as well as bringing consider-


able knowledge with them from various domains. In fact, one of the features theyvalued in assessing the effectiveness of their group was the varied backgroundsof their group members. They did demonstrate some similarity to the youngerstudents, through initially tending to listen and add information to each other’sideas rather than challenging or contradicting one another. However, as the yearprogressed they also provided two key discourse supports for each other. Onewas in providing an opportunity for reflection on practicum experiences forother members, and another in providing advice and resource help based ontheir own field experiences. For example, in the following excerpt one teacher isdrawing the other out by asking questions (turns 5 and 7) about the details andimplications of her most recent practicum placement.

Tape 3: 14.28–15.42

1. CI: It can be rough.2. LF: Yes. It is not an easy neighbourhood.3. CI: That school has been.4. SH: Yes, in the past it has been brutal.5 KJ: Was her class typical of the school or was it because of her?6. LF: Okay, I think it was because of her. And B. was similar. But the rest, [I

didn’t look in other rooms?] … [inaudible] typical classroom.7. KJ: You say you learned a lot about the school system as well.8. LF: Yes. Well when we started the practicum I went up to [an outdoor ed-

ucation centre] which is a [inaudible] centre for … [inaudible]. Andwe spent four days up there and it was a fabulous experience. It wasincredible. Especially getting to know the kids outside the school. Youset up your relationship before you actually have to teach them. But inthe off-time, because there was a lot of off-time, any chance M. or B.could get they would sit down and talk about the profession, aboutdealing with the school, dealing with parents or other teachers andprincipals.

They also provided a forum for discussing problems that arose in placementclassrooms. In the next example, turn 4 is triggered by the description of theusing groups in classroomin turns 1 and 3, and is then answered by others’ expe-riences with groups in turns 5 and 6:Tape 3: 40.46–43.22

1. KJ: One thing that I did find was that I did use groups and my associaterecommended let the kids choose their own groups. And I wouldn’tdo that again.

2. SH: No.3. KJ: Simply because you get strong groups and weak groups. You get

groups where a couple of people do all the work. Some of them werejust excellent, the presentations, because each group at the end didone section of living in space. And they had to do a presentation onwhat it is like to eat in space and somebody else would do what it islike to sleep in space, somebody else would do what the work is inspace. Some of them were excellent and really strong and some ofthem were very weak. Because I think the units have to be organized. I


also think that for cooperative units to work they have to be reallystructured and monitored well by the teacher. Which I didn’t neces-sarily do, but … they worked but they could have worked better.

4. LF: How do you keep the … you see, this is the thing I always have prob-lems with. How do you make sure that two kids don’t do all the workand the rest of the kids just sit there?

5 SH: We don’t. You can’t. That is really hard, because you find that thebright kids, or the motivated kids do all the work. It is really hard tomake everyone do an exact, equal amount of work.

6. KJ: Unless … I found that I have had these before and if you have groupwork you say to them at the beginning, ‘You are being evaluatedthrough this group process’. And so even when they are working ingroups you are monitoring them, you are observing them. Then theyknow that this is part of their evaluation, not just the finished product,but the actual group process, I think that is sortof a good motivator.

Clearly, this context for sharing experiences was an effective one in terms ofthe reflection it allowed on their teaching. What was particularly noteworthyfrom the perspective of the present study, however, was that the discussioncontext focused primarily on these two functions. The study group discussionsalways had a specific agenda format, which included summaries of recentpracticum experiences, raising of specific problems or issues faced in practica orcoursework assignments and other, topic-based issues, such as a Ministry ofEducation report or Board policies, for example. The problem-based issuesraised were typically specific problems within an individual’s placement. Notsurprisingly, therefore, discussion and disagreements were presented as opin-ions, and rarely supported by references or data other than personal experience.The largest portion of study group time tended to be discussion of practicumexperiences and the participants rarely made explicit references to the readingsor class material. Interpretations of this finding are related to issues of prob-lem-finding, and will be presented in the next section.

Cognitive issues: Managing problem finding and solvingSuccess at the idea level is affected by the nature of the context or the degree to

which students are responsible for directing their own learning. The way thelearning agenda is defined by the group is a critical issue because it defines thegoals of the discourse, and therefore changes the discourse itself. Educationalenvironments need actively to support as well as promote a culture that supportsthe pursuit of learning, as opposed to task goals (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1989).In the current study, the preservice teachers found it hard explicitly to link thetheoretical work or research to which they were exposed with the rest of theircurriculum. The goal of the collaborative study groups was to give them time towork on this integration, but preservice teachers reported that meetings were notfrequent enough to make that a realistic goal. Instead, the pressure of masteringthe separate elements of curriculum planning, theory and classroom manage-ment skills seemed gradually to erode the initially acknowledged importance ofintegrating the various facets to bring a greater depth of understanding to all this


information. At the beginning of the year they feel willing and able to take thatperspective as statements in the following excerpt, such as in turns 5 and 7 show:

Tape 1: 5.45–6.15

Exp: … It sounds like you have come quite a long way. Most groups havebecome sort of cohesive, but have not necessarily got the learning partof it going quite as much yet. Do you feel that you are getting intoideas? Taking things apart?

1. KJ: Yes.2. CG: Yes.3. SH: We are starting to.4. LF: We are starting to but I don’t think we have really … like, we haven’t

gone off and done research … [inaudible].5 CG: But we are startingto think about things that we might do as a group.6. LF: Right. But we haven’t actually done them.7. CG: We have talked about significant issues. I mean, just getting into eval-

uation, that is a huge thing right now in elementary education. Whatis the most effective form of evaluation? And we spent at least half anhour on that. We discussed how each of our associates evaluated thestudents and what the current method is. So that may be something.

In a subsequent session, early in the year, they discuss the need for dealingwith information in more depth, and how to balance this with the speed andconstraints of the programme:Tape 1: 37.33–39.33

1. CI: That was brought up last week. And I was basically saying that how alot of theory … we haven’t gone too much in depth in classes. And Iwanted to get more … have a better understanding of a couple of the-ories rather than getting lots of little …

2. CG: That is what our research topics are for.3. CI: Right.4. SH: If there is a theory that you want to add to research topics.5. KJ: Is this something that we want to share with, or ask, the other groups

about too, if they are concerned that they are getting very … not su-perficial, I don’t want to be negative, but … the theory without gettinga real feeling for it?

6. SH: Just a smattering.7. KJ: Or any of this, exactly.8 SH: Piaget, exactly.9. KJ: I would have to go look it up in the book.10. LF: Well, I think with us only having a year, to do this … that is why they

are throwing … [inaudible] I think if you really get into depth withstuff … I know one girl who was beside me, she went to Brock and shetook a year of [Piaget] so she knows everything about it. So I think,like, [more schooling] or whatever you want to do is … I think that isthe point of … this really in depth stuff.

11. SH: If you want stuff on cognitive theory I can get you some.12. CG: Yes, they have books here too.


13. KJ: Is that something we want to do as a group or not?14. CG: I think the first reason to do this is they are throwing theories at us that

are based on other … like the fundamental theories of basic cognitivedevelopmental psychology and there is some basic, you know,constructivist and behaviourist and so on, and I think that lack of ba-sic understanding of those theories and then they expect us to drawon those for more complex theories when a lot of people don’t … [in-audible].

15. KJ: Right. It is similar to the statistics class we had yesterday.16. CG: Exactly.17. KJ: Where people had no basic statistics knowledge. You know, it was

difficult for some of us to cope.

Later they decide on a strategyof recording their individual interests for goinginto depth on the shared electronic conference, and discuss how to invite othersin the class to participate:

Tape 1: 41.47–43.17

1. SH: Okay, so the theories, we are basically saying that we are going towrite up [inaudible] things that we’re interested in and use those asresearch topics later on. And if we find in the future that there is some-thing that we don’t … we aren’t comfortable with, we can, again, usethose research topics and try to find other people through [an elec-tronic conference] that have the same interest.

2. CI: Well let’s put that on through [an electronic conference] at this point.3. KJ: We will make sure we put a note on through [an electronic confer-

ence].4. CI: Yes.5. KJ: A message to other groups saying are you interested in …6. CI: Sure.7 KJ: Do you have concerns about … [inaudible].8 LF: Message to what? Other groups?9. KJ: To other study groups. We would like to share more information

about some [inaudible] or get more information about some theoriesthat we have discussed. Educational theories.

10 SH: An invite to share research. Or to share …11. CI: You have a book that is really …12. CG: It is a basic developmental psychology … a 100 level textbook.13 KJ: Do you think we need to explain in this note about that reasonfor this is

we have had a lot of theory … covered a lot of theories superficially …

However, these ideas do not end up being pursued, and this may, in part, bebecause they are too vaguely specified. In order to find a problem to work on, ithas to be clear enough to communicate to others. It seems likely that generalissues such as ‘Piaget’, or ‘cognitive theory’ are just too large to tackle given thereal-time constraintswithin the programme, and they lack a process to help themlocate more specific issues that related the readings and their practicum experi-ences in a salient way. By the second term, it is clear that there are too manycompeting pressures from other course demands and the support aspects of the


group take precedence over the knowledge-constructing functions. The struc-ture of their discussion time is primarily focused on sharing of practicum experi-ences and resources for upcoming lessons and assignments.

There are some indicators that their view of knowledge also contributes totheir use of this group structure. Specifically, some group members seemed tosee knowledge acquisition as a primarily individual and transmissive activity.For example, one preservice teacher says:

SH: We are all scholars, we can go and research the materials.

This remark is given as a justification for needing a focus on teaching tech-niques rather than a focus on curriculum for the first year of a potential two-yearteacher training programme. However they are simultaneously aware that theyneed more understanding of theory:

Tape 3: 1.27.04–1.27.40

SH: You are right, it is [hard with?] behavioural difficulties as well, because youwould be able to relate it back and say, we talked about this, and in this par-ticular case we think that this is what is basically going wrong, because itmanifests itself this way, and the current theories are to deal with it in thismanner. Because right now I don’t think we are going to have any real basisfor the way we react. And I don’t. I have dealt with a lot of kids with learn-ing disabilities and I can’t point to a theory and say this is why I did thiswhen I was talking to the kid. No, it was just a gut feeling. I just go withwhat I am thinking at the time and hopefully it works.

By contrast, the Grade 5/6 students’ learning context remains fairly stable andthe expectations for their learning remains focused on knowledge advancement.In addition, they identify their own group activity as being predominantlyco-construction rather than sharing of existing knowledge, which stands incontrast to the preservice teachers who described their interaction in thefollowing way:

Tape 4: 1.34–3.54

1. CG: That relates to our cooperative vs. collaborative learning. Like build-ing scaffolding for each other.

2. SH: Well, I think that we did both.3. LF: Yes, so do I.4. CG: For the most part I think that it was cooperative learning. We helped

each other with prior knowledge. But once we got to know each otherwe would scaffold each other and achieve new heights that no onehad previously.

5. SH: I think that it had more to do with, I think that if someone knew or hadknowledge of the topic …

6. LF: We learned together.7. SH: Yes. We’d build.8. DD: I was thinking of that thing we did with shadow and light. I mean you

had a really good understanding, so did you C— you had a good un-derstanding of how it worked. And some of us were less thanenlightened …


9. CI: Scientist beware!10. DD: Yes, so you helped us with that. But then you kind of … Then we came

out of the shadow and into the light!Exp: That would have been one where you had expertise help?

11. DD: Yes. But I think that for a lot of these one of us would ask a question tothe group and we would all pitch in and work together to sort of …

12. LF: I think that it is good to have two different perspectives.13. CI: Uhum! That’s what I was going to say. We’re very diverse in our back-

ground … No. No. I mean in terms of our understanding. But I amtalking about where we went to university and what our majors wereand what we did after that. We had a very diverse background and Ithink that helped too. We went around and everyone gave their ownperspective. And when someone had difficulties we all went aroundand ‘oh yes, I never thought of it like that’.

14. CG: But I think to respond and to be very specific, I think that if you had topick which happened more, I think that the cooperative happened alittle more.

Exp: The sharing?15. CG: The sharing. Yes.16. LF: Yes.17. CG: The sharing. Of the information shared, most of it one person knew

before in the group. So, I think that it was pretty equal all around.

In general, the preservice group appeared to treat the study group process as asupport context rather than using it to get more deeply into an understanding ofhow to bring the classroom experience and readings together. However, it isimportant to note that when they were working on a more knowledge-basedactivity — the light and shadows unit mentioned in the preceding excerpt — oneperson (DD in turns 10 and 11) identified that experience as a co-constructiveone, rather than one of sharing existing expertise. The task she is referring toinvolved preservice teacher groups trying to understand for themselves theconcepts in shadows and light through carrying out experiments — a task resem-bling the one the Grade 5/6 students worked on in their groups.

Overall, it seemed that the preservice group found the creation of a learningagenda to be a very overwhelming task, and instead they tended to focus onaspects of their curriculum with which they either felt more comfortable orperceived as more pressing, such as sharing experiences and strategies and tech-niques, rather than tackling the larger conceptual issues which might emergeduring the course of their studies. They also seemed to expect more help with‘theory’ through classes, rather than using the study group time to explore theo-retical issues raised in class, where there was insufficient time to pursue them. Inthis last excerpt they discuss how switching to a longer programme may allowtime to get more deeply into theory.

Tape 3: 1.25.30–1.26.591. LF: It is just that we are getting so many theories and things thrown at us it

is more up to us to look into them and I think that … I think if we get alittle more into the theory it would help us out.

2. SH: Like structured transmission of …


3. LF: Yes.4. SH: I think the easiest example is just something like Piaget.5. LF: Yes.6. SH: At the beginning of the year, for the first month it was, ‘Piaget said

blah, blah, blah’, and that is the end of it.7. LF: And they are assuming that we have already had that training.8. DD: ‘Who is Piaget?’ (joking!)9. SH: ‘Who is Piaget?’10. CG: I know he has something to do with early childhood. There were

stages.11. LF: He is French, right? (joking again)12. SH: Whereas if you have … that is right. If I have two years …13. CG: I know some of Piaget.14. SH: If you had two years, you could take a course for the first year that was

all developmental theory. You could do everything from the psy-cho-social to the bio … the whole thing. And then you would have amuch better idea. I think that that works extremely well because thenwhen you move on in the second year you could do an entire courseon special education, I mean, from all exceptionalities, gifted, learn-ing disabilities, physical disabilities on to basic developmentaldisorders, all these things. And they would fit into the material thatyou had already learned, especially if you had done the bio and thepsycho and the social.

15. CG: Yes.16. SH: You are right, it is [hard with?] behavioral difficulties as well, because

you would be able to relate it back and say, we talked about this, andin this particular case we think that this is what is basically goingwrong, because it manifests itself this way, and the current theoriesare to deal with it in this manner. Because right now I don’t think weare going to have any real basis for the way we react. And I don’t. Ihave dealt with a lot of kids with learning disabilities and I can’t pointto a theory and say this is why I did this when I was talking to the kid.No, it was just a gut feeling. I just go with what I am thinking at thetime and hopefully it works.

17. CG: Childhood psychology should be a necessary course.18. CI: Definitely.

The main purpose of the discourse process, from the programme perspective,was to provide a forum to discuss the various theories mentioned in thepreceding excerpt, through providing a context for integrating all those experi-ences. The fact that study groups remained primarily a discussion forum for thepractical aspects of the preservice experience requires some explanation.

One way to interpret these findings is suggested by a distinction, mentionedearlier, that Bereiter and Scardamalia (1989) make between learning goals andtask goals. A learning goal is evidenced when people are working for under-standing, such as when working on ill-structured problems, and task goals aremost clearly seen in routine academic learning, as defined by Cohen’s (1994) tasktypes. However, the important difference between Cohen’s dichotomous


distinction between routine and conceptual learning and Bereiter andScardamalia’s task and learning goal dimension, is that the latter distinction ismade from the point of view of the student. Thus the possibility exists, that eventhough a teacher may define something as a learning goal, the students maychoose to interpret the activityas a task-based one. Working for understanding issomething under control of the student, not something that can be manipulatedexternally (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1989). In the current situation, the preserviceteachers have a limited amount of time and a tremendous number of tasks tocomplete. Many of these are finite; assignments, papers, time on placements,classes and reading background literature. It is possible that the context of thestudy group is not sufficiently salient to override the more task-oriented focus ofthe rest of the academic programme, and instead becomes integrated into theprevailing task-oriented environment.

Another way to explain the preservice discourse centres around their induc-tion into the profession. As noted earlier, the two groups differed in the amountof control they had over the topic of discussion. As conscripts to the classroom,the Grade 5/6 students were engaging in inquiry-based discourse largely onacademic interest alone. The preservice teachers, on the other hand, were alsoengaged in schooling for certification and induction to the profession.

Reasonably, the preservice teachers have a multiple number of interests thatneed to be considered, and not the least of these is their perception of themselvesas teachers. To this end, they often appear to be engaged in what Carl Bereiter hascalled devotional discourse (1995, personal communication). Bereiter was refer-ring, in part, to the observed discourse that appears as the novice becomesimmersed in the discourse of the profession. It sounds like teacher talk and seemsappropriate; however, its shortcoming is revealed only when we look moredeeply at the content. While the language sounds right, for example, whendiscussing issues of classroom practice, the students are not finding andaddressing the same problems as proficient teachers. Devotional discourse mayhave an appropriate place in the development of a professional teacher if weview induction from Lave and Wenger’s (1991) notion of legitimate peripheralparticipation. Moving from the periphery to the centre of a profession may firstrequire some practice with the discourse. Indeed, Lave and Wenger state, ‘Fornewcomers then the purpose is not to learn from talk as substitute for legitimateperipheral participation; it is to learn to talk as a key to legitimate peripheralparticipation’ (1991: 109).

Overall, we set out to better understand the relationship between discourseand peer-directed learning. While we found some noticeable changes using thisapproach, we also found creating change somewhat easier with Grade 5/6students than with the preservice teachers. Even though children may havefewer collaborative skills, less abstract language, as well as less knowledge ofhow to structure argument, it appears that with help in setting directions for theirgroup discourse, they can pursue understanding fairly well. While the presentdata do not show young students engaged in more sophisticated inquiryprocesses, such as evaluating arguments, the particular context of under-standing difficult texts is likely to have been sufficiently demanding that all theirattention was focused on basic interpretation, and it would be important to carryout a more detailed comparative analysis between discourse in this context and


in contexts in which students have mastered basic concepts before drawing anydevelopmental conclusions.

It appears that the adult experience in this study was defined by both the pressof the rest of the institutional culture and difficulty in establishing and pursuingproblems. Thus, while the group may have agreed that such reflective dialoguewas useful, they tended to pursue topically-based issues, such as reporting onpracticum experiences, rather than problem-based ones. Additionally, it mayhave been that there was not enough overlap in their personal learning agendasfor them to feel that it was possible to investigate issues in depth together.Instead, their discourse centred on a shared cultural model of classroom stories(Gee & Green, 1998), with which they were all familiar. Engaging in such adiscourse may have allowed them to accomplish certain ends (Gee & Green,1998) such as social support and the completion of programme tasks through thesharing of resources. They were able to raise questions but not to specify them inenough detail to feel it was realistic to follow them up. This of course limited thechange in discourse, and much of the change in the preservice group was limitedto social, management and leadership shifts, resulting in more openness andcomfort, and some increase in the amount of argumentation. They did recognisethey had not gone as far as they might with their ideas, and suggested a numberof changes that would make the process more effective. These included greateraccountability for the outcomes of the study groups, as well as a graduatestudent ‘coach’ to help them work on issues and provide feedback on how theirgroup is functioning.

The focus on knowledge as a discursive outcome may help guide groupstowardsconstructive types of argumentation as illustrated by the excerpts in thispaper. In addition, following Cazden (1988), this requires uniting, through theuse of language structures, the social and the intellectual aspects of group work.We see from the preservice teacher excerpts that a more supportive and cohesivesocial interaction does not lead inevitably to greater inquiry-based discourse.Improving the learning environment will require an orientation, or learningculture, that views knowledge not as something that resides in the head of anindividual, but as an object (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1996) steeped in social prac-tice and discursive interaction (Gee, 1992).

Overall, these data suggest the usefulness of Discourse for Inquiry in bothunderstanding and facilitatingthe development of knowledge-oriented commu-nities among teachers and students. However, it is clear that such groups needconsiderable start-up facilitation, particularly in selecting issues for investiga-tion and inquiry. While the help was available, students did not experience theneed for such help, relying instead on a more task-oriented sharing of experi-ences and providing resources.

Conclusions and Educational ImplicationsThe growing importance of small group work in educational settings is testi-

mony to the effectiveness of the social and academic instruction students receivein peer-assisted learning programmes (see for example Johnson & Johnson, 1987;Slavin, 1987, 1989). Concurrently, the use of small groups has also pointed to theimportance of understanding the discourse dynamics (Pontecorvo, 1993)and the


processes that foster internalisation(Mead, 1934;Vygotsky, 1978). Following thiswork, we made the conjecture that groups of individuals will better be able tohelp each other advance their understanding as they learn to discuss and argueideas through inquiry argumentation as opposed to persuasion. We saw someevidence for the above stance in the Grade 5/6 group at the end of the year. Intheir last session they were treating knowledge as an object, pushing groupmembers for better understanding and jointly constructing their explanations.Counter-intuitively, however, the preservice teachers did not show this shift. Wesuspect that this is due to either an alternative orientation towards the task or analternative purpose for the discourse. Devotional discourse seems the mostlikely rationale. Novice teachers hear how proficient teachers talk about andsolve their problems and they begin to assume the form and spirit of the disci-pline’s discourse without necessarily finding and solving the crucial problems.

Lave’s work suggests that something like a devotional discourse phase maybe a necessary step in the development of a professional. This observation has anumber of implications for preservice education. It may, for instance, be valuableto have the preservice teacher intentionally look at, and describe, problems fromdifferent perspectives or roles. The intent would be to have them step outsidetheir emerging teacher role and discuss the situation or problem from a newperspective.

The next phase of this research will involve a much larger group of preserviceteachers enrolled in an extended programme. These preservice teachers will bepractising in classrooms where they, the teachers, and students engage ininquiry-oriented groups in a more intensive and systematic way, usingcommunal computer databases as well as face-to-face discourse groups. Accessto student understanding afforded by the communal database may providestarting points for discussion, which then, with input from other groups, asso-ciate teachers and researchers, will allow the opportunity to reach deeper levelsof integration and synthesis. We anticipate that the integrated nature of thisapproach will provide a much more sustaining context for the growth ofDiscourse for Inquiry, and will yield detailed data about the nature of this develop-ment. More generally, the significance of this work lies in its broad application togroup functioning. In particular, analyses of how such community structuresdevelop also can inform our understanding of other means collaborative groupsmight use to improve communications, considering, for example, how electroniccommunities can be facilitated through effective goal-setting and discourse strat-egies (Riel, 1990; Woodruff, 1995).

ReferencesAbercrombie, M.L.J., and Terry, P.M. (1978) Talking to Learn: Improving Teaching and

Learning in Small Groups. Guilford: Society for Research into Higher Education Ltd.Bereiter, C. (1994) Implications of Postmodernism for science, or, science as progressive

discourse. Educational Psychologist 29 (1), 3–12.Bereiter, C. and Scardamalia, M. (1996) Rethinking learning. In D. Olson and N. Torrance

(eds) The Handbook of Education and Human Development: New Models of Learning,Teaching and Schooling (pp. 485–513). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers Inc.

Bereiter, C. and Scardamalia, M. (1993) Surpassing Ourselves: An Inquiry into the Nature andImplications of Expertise. Chicago: Open Court.

Bereiter, C., and Scardamalia, M. (1989) Intentional learning as a goal of instruction. In L.


Resnick (ed.) Knowing, Learning and Instruction: Essays in Honor of Robert Glaser.Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.

Brown, A., Ash, D., Rutherford, M., Nakagawa, K., Gordon, A. and Campione, J. (1993)Distributed expertise in the classroom. In G. Salomon (ed.) Distributed Cognitions:Psychological and Educational Considerations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Brown, A. and Palincsar, A. (1989) Guided, cooperative learning and individualknowledge acquisition. In L. Resnick (ed.) Knowing, Learning and Instruction: Essays inHonour of Robert Glaser. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.

Cazden, C. (1988) Classroom Discourse: The Language of Teaching and Learning. Portsmouth,NH: Heinemann.

Chan, C., Burtis, P.J. and Bereiter, C. (1993) Students’ understanding of knowledgeproblems underlying their misconceptions. Paper presented in the Symposium onMetacognition and Conceptual Change at the annual American Educational ResearchAssociation meeting, Atlanta, GA.

Cohen, E. (1994) Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups.Review of Educational Research 64 (1), 1–35.

Cooper, H. (1993) Removing the scaffolding: A case study investigating how whole-classteaching can lead to effective peer group discussion without the teacher. TheCurriculum Journal 4 (6), 385–401.

Eichinger, D., Anderson, C., Palincsar, A. and David, Y. (1991) An illustration of the rolesof content knowledge, scientific argument, and social norms in collaborativeproblem-solving. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American EducationalResearch Association, Chicago.

Fischer, E. (1993)Distinctive features of pupil-pupil classroom talk and their relationship tolearning: How discursive exploration might be encouraged. Language and Education7 (4).

Gee, J.P. (1992) The Social Mind: Language, Ideology, and Social Practice. New York: Berginand Garvey.

Gee, J.P. and Green, J.L. (1998) Discourse analysis, learning and social practice: Amethodological study. In P.D. Pearson and A. Iran-Nejad (eds) Review of Research inEducation. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

Harré, R. and Gillett, G. (1994) The Discursive Mind. Thousand Oaks, CA: SagePublications.

Harré, R. and Stearns, P. (eds) (1995) Discursive Psychology in Practice. Thousand Oaks,CA.: Sage Publications.

Howard, V.A. and Barton, J.H (1992)Thinking Together: Making Meetings Work. New York:William Morrow.

Johnson, D. and Johnson, F. (1991) Joining Together:Group Theory and Group Skills (4th edn).New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Lyle, S. (1996) An analysis of collaborative group work in the primary school and thefactors relevant to its success. Language and Education 10 (1), 13–31.

Mead, G.H. (1934) Mind, Self and Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Meiland, J.W. (1989) Argument and inquiry and argument as persuasion. Argumentation

3, 185–196.Meyer, K. and Woodruff, E. (1997) Consensually driven explanation in science teaching.

Science Education 80, 173–192.Nastasi, B. and Clements, D. (1991) Research on cooperative learning: Implications for

practice. School Psychology Review 20 (1), 110–131.Oshima, J., Scardamalia, M. and Bereiter, C. (1996) Collaborative learning processes

associated with high and low conceptual progress. Instructional Science 24, 125–155.Pontecorvo, P. (1993)Forms of discourse and shared thinking. Cognition and Instruction 11

(3&4), 189–196.Resnick, L., Salmon, M., Zeitz, C., Wathenm, S. and Holowchak, M. (1993) Reasoning in

conversation. Cognition and Instruction 11 (3&4), 347–364.Riel, M. (1990) Cooperative learning across classrooms in electronic learning circles.

Instructional Science 19, 445–466.Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., McLean, B., Swallow, J., & Woodruff, E. (1989) Computer


supported intentional learning environments. Journal of Educational ComputingResearch 5, 51–68.

Slavin, R. (1987)Small group methods. In M. Dunkin (ed.) The International EncyclopediaofTeaching and Teacher Education. New York: Pergamon Press.

Slavin, R. (1989) Cooperative learning and student achievement: Six theoreticalperspectives. In M. Maehr (ed.) Advances in Motivation and Achievement: MotivationEnhancing Environments (Vol. 6). London: JAI Press.

Stiegelbauer, S. and Woodruff, E. (1995) Preservice study groups as a strategy for lifelongprofessional learning. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Societyfor Studies in Education, Montreal.

Westgate, D. and Corden, R. (1993)‘What we thought about things’: Expectations, contextand small group talk. Language and Education 7 (2), 115–126.

Woodruff, E. (1995) The effects of computer mediated communications on collaborativediscourse in knowledge building communities. Paper presented at the annual meetingof the American Educational Research Association, April, San Francisco.

Woodruff, E. and Brett, C. (1993) Fostering scholarly collaboration in young childrenthrough the development of electronic commenting. Research in Education 50, 83–96.

Woodruff, E. and Meyer, K. (1997) Explanations from intra and inter group discourse:Children building knowledge in the science classroom. Research In Science Education 27(1), 25–39.


collaborative knowledge building: preservice teachers and elementary students talking to learn

Documents