Content uploaded by Lin Lin Lipsmeyer
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Lin Lin Lipsmeyer on Dec 19, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
DEVELOPMENT ARTICLE
Using a semantic diagram to structure a collaborative
problem solving process in the classroom
Huiying Cai
1
•Lin Lin
2
•Xiaoqing Gu
1
Association for Educational Communications and Technology 2016
Abstract This study provides an in-depth look into the implementation process of
visualization-based tools for structuring collaborative problem solving (CPS) in the
classroom. A visualization-based learning platform—the semantic diagram for structuring
CPS in a real classroom was designed and implemented. Metafora, the preliminary vehicle
of the semantic diagram, was integrated into the Food and Nutrition CPS curriculum in a
fifth-grade science classroom in east China. Data of a teacher’s and her students’ activities
from the CPS classroom were analyzed to understand how Metafora could be integrated
into the CPS instructional process, what roles Metafora and the teacher played in the CPS
project, and to what extent Metafora might have affected the teacher’s instruction and the
students’ learning activities in the CPS classroom. Results showed that the semantic dia-
gram could be integrated into the CPS classroom adaptively and flexibly, and that it was
important to keep a balance between the role of the semantic diagram and the role of the
teacher. Implications for semantic diagram design and implementation for structuring CPS
in the classroom, as well as future work about the semantic diagram will be discussed.
Keywords Collaborative problem solving Semantic diagram Classroom research The
role of teacher
&Xiaoqing Gu
xqgu@ses.ecnu.edu.cn; guxqecnu@gmail.com
1
Department of Educational Information Technology, East China Normal University,
3663 Zhangshan Road North, Shanghai 200062, China
2
Department of Learning Technologies, College of Information, University of North Texas, UNT
Discovery Park, G150 (G189), 3940 North Elm Street, Denton, TX 76207-7102, USA
123
Education Tech Research Dev
DOI 10.1007/s11423-016-9445-6
Introduction
Collaborative problem solving (CPS) is an educational approach which has students work
actively together to solve problems (Care and Griffin 2014). Different from the approach of
individual problem solving, CPS echoes Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory in that learners
can gradually internalize collaborative practices as collaborative skills and cognitive
strategies through social interactions (Fischer et al. 2013). CPS has become one of the most
promising educational approaches to help learners acquire knowledge and skills in a digital
age (Hmelo-Silver and Barrows 2008; Stahl et al. 2013). In addition, computer-supported
collaborative learning has caught attention in recent years. Various computer and learning
technologies have been designed to mediate and encourage social activities that promote
both group and individual learning (Stahl et al. 2006).
There have been successful cases of CPS in the classrooms, for instance, the web-based
inquiry science environment (WISE) project (Clark and Linn 2013). However, a lot more
needs to be done to help teachers structure CPS in the classroom. This is because it is not a
simple direct process to translate CPS research to CPS practice. Often, research focuses on
theoretical issues while in practice, teachers must take into consideration various practical
issues including curriculum, discipline, space, energy, and time constraints (Dillenbourg
2013). In addition, CPS is a complex pedagogical approach. The new technologies and new
approaches can all add more work and burden to the teachers, who are already pressured
with time and existing teaching responsibilities (Dimitriadis 2012).Thus, the pedagogical
or technological interventions advocated as having a positive impact on CPS in research
settings may not be readily applicable in real classrooms (Kirschner et al. 2004; Voogt
2008; Roschelle et al. 2013).
Various information and communication technologies (ICT), for instance, web 2.0,
mobile technology, gamification, and wearable technology have been investigated for sup-
porting learning and learners (Johnson et al. 2014). Yet, most studies have focused on
providing specific technological functions for parts of the general learning process, such as
assembling learning resources, sharing information or providing students with specific
experience. In this study, we focus on the design and implementation of visualization-based
tools to structure CPS in real classrooms. There are some theoretical considerations. Visu-
alization tools play an important role in the cognitive and social aspects of learning (Suthers
2001). They can help learners externalize information processing, see patterns, express
abstract ideas with concrete forms, and discover new relationships while solving problems. In
addition, visualization tools can help learners use artifacts to share questions and ideas in
groups, record the groups’ argumentation processes, and communicate conversations of the
group members. In this article, we will report an in-depth case analysis to show how tech-
nological interventions, the visualization tools in particular, can be integrated into a real CPS
science class. The goal is to discover the technological and pedagogical processes needed to
effectively scaffold the visualization tools in a real CPS classroom setting.
Literature review
A collaborative script is a set of instructions designed to structure collaborative learning
(Fischer et al. 2013). Scripting collaborations is a pedagogical method which prescribes the
task and process for a collaborative group (Dillenbourg 1999;Ha
¨ma
¨la
¨inen et al. 2008).
Collaborative scripts are based on Vygotsky’s concept of the zone of proximal
H. Cai et al.
123
development (ZPD). They are designed to provide supports necessary for the interactive
processes between the collaborators (Kollar et al. 2006). These scripts may include sets of
instructions to help the group members learn how to interact, collaborate, and solve
problems (O’Donnell and Dansereau 1992). Collaborative scripts may vary from macro-
level to micro-level scripts (Dillenbourg and Jermann 2007). The macro-level scripts
concentrate more on setting up conditions to structure collaborative activities and foster the
emergence of knowledge-productive interactions such as argumentation, explanations and
mutual regulation (Dillenbourg and Hong 2008). Examples of macro-level collaborative
scripts include jigsaws scripts (Aronson et al. 1978) and ArgueGraph scripts (Jermann and
Dillenbourg 2003). On the micro-level one focuses more on structuring and regulating the
communication processes in the knowledge-productive collaboration (Villasclaras-Fern-
ndez et al. 2009). Examples of micro-level collaborative scripts are the dialogue script for
facilitating argumentative knowledge construction (Stegmann et al. 2007), or the role-play
script for interaction to promote appropriate questions (Ge and Land 2004; Gu et al.
2015b). Based on the pedagogical notion of collaborative scripts, some researchers have
focused on the design of computer-supported collaborative scripts (Fischer et al. 2007). For
example, the Collage editor allowed generation of hierarchical combinations of collabo-
rative learning flow patterns (Herna
´ndez-Leo et al. 2006). The WISE learning platform
provided different toolkits to pre-design learning sequences to engage students in collab-
orative inquiries (Slotta 2004). Semi-structured communication interfaces were designed to
structure and regulate dialogue to promote communication (Baker and Lund 1997). All
these studies highlighted the importance of considering all aspects—the theory, knowl-
edge, content, pedagogy, and technology in the technology-supported CPS classrooms
(Mishra and Koehler 2006).
In addition, support is necessary to help students engage in complex learning scenarios
such as CPS (Quintana et al. 2004; Kim and Hannafin 2011). Our previous research focused
on the design of the pedagogical intervention framework for CPS in science classrooms (Gu
et al. 2015a). The pedagogical intervention framework helped to improve the students’ social
interaction and problem-solving skills including planning, organizing, and evaluating their
joint tasks. The framework was composed of three parts: making group plans for solving
problems, setting up rules for discourse, and structuring evidenced-based arguments. Making
group plans for solving problems was to guide and enable students to execute a learning task
jointly by planning, organizing, analyzing, and evaluating cognitive development of CPS
(Dawes et al. 2000). Setting up rules for discourse was designed to establish and exercise
group discourse rules (e.g. Dawes 2004; Wegerif and Mansour 2010). The purpose was to
engage students in reflective social discourse and in-depth cognitive processes. Structuring
evidence-based arguments was incorporated to help students identify differing viewpoints,
formulate ideas and beliefs, form judgments and evaluations, select preferred solutions, and
offer evidence and reasons (Cho and Jonassen 2002; Voss et al. 1991).
Prior research has shown promising potential for the technologically-based visual aids
in supporting CPS. There are different types of visualization tools such as those mapping
concepts, organizing graphics, and threading ideas. A concept mapping tool provides
visual cues, such as texts, shapes and line-labeled arrows, to present individuals’ under-
standing of relationships between concepts, or to present individuals’ knowledge structures
(Novak and Can
˜as 2008). Research found that digital concept maps can display shared
knowledge and allow involved learners to focus on information relevant to the problem at
hand, which can help learners solve problems more quickly and accurately (Engelmann
and Hesse 2010). Graphic organizers can be a thinking map or diagram (Hyerle and Alper
2011). Veerman (2001) reported that when students were presented a graphic diagram
Using a semantic diagram to structure a collaborative problem…
123
before discussions, they were able to focus better during the discussions. van Amelsvoort
et al. (2007) also reported that these diagrams functioned as important inputs for the
discussion phase and improved the breadth and depth of the discussions. The visualization
tools such as Idea Thread Mapper helped externalize and trace the processes of CPS. Using
the Idea Thread Mapper, students were reminded to reflect on their own thinking, to be
aware of and incorporate their community’s knowledge, and to make further efforts to
collaborate with their peers (Chen et al. 2013).
Considering the characteristics of visualization-based tools to support CPS, a visual-
ization-based learning environment, named the semantic diagram, was designed to struc-
ture CPS for a real classroom. The semantic diagram can utilize graphics, images, and
other visual elements to visualize the group’s knowledge and understanding of concepts,
principles, and concept relations (Gu and Quan 2014). Following the characteristics of
visualization-based tools mentioned above, the semantic diagram has the potential to: (1)
externalize group students’ understanding of the logic and semantic interrelationships
among different concepts, (2) stimulate the group students’ in-depth discussions based on
the co-constructed learning artifacts during social learning activities and (3) trace the
process of CPS to improve students’ reflection and awareness during collaboration. Our
expectation is that the semantic diagram will offer the needed support for students, while
facilitating their use of the overall CPS learning process because it can record, externalize
and trace both the individual and group learning processes, and can stimulate learners to
think and reflect during the CPS process.
In this study, Metafora (Dragon et al. 2013) was employed as the preliminary vehicle of
the semantic diagram to structure CPS in a real classroom. This is because the design
concept of Metafora is to support collaborative learning within a group (Harrer et al. 2013).
Metafora has two toolkits, the Planning Tool and the LASAD. The Planning Tool can be
used to make visualized problem solving plans. LASAD stands for Learning to Argue:
Generalized Support Across Domains. It is a dynamic discussion-mapping tool for con-
structing and deconstructing arguments. LASAD helps to define the knowledge elements of
Fig. 1 Screenshot of the planning tool in the Metafora platform
H. Cai et al.
123
an argument. The Planning Tool (see Fig. 1) provides a set of icons called Visual Lan-
guage Cards to present different steps for solving problems. These include 12 activity stage
cards and 18 activity process cards. The stage cards include high-level activities such as
exploring a phenomenon while the process cards provide methods and stages including
discussing alternatives. The cards contain titles and visual symbols representing various
learning activities, so that the map created by a group within the Planning Tool can be
considered as a visual language for the students to describe their collaborative work.
Meanwhile, LASAD (see Fig. 2) can provide a learning space for the students to
implement argument rules and to express, discuss, and reflect ideas in a joint learning
environment.
This study focused on how to structure CPS in a real classroom with the semantic
diagram (i.e., Planning Tool and LASAD in Metafora) as the technological support as a
follow-up to the pedagogical intervention framework (Gu et al. 2015a,b). The research
questions are: (Q1) How did the semantic diagram work when it was integrated into the
flow of a real CPS classroom? (Q2) What were the roles of the semantic diagram and the
teacher during the flow of the CPS project? (Q3) How did the CPS project affect the
teacher and the students’ performance?
Research context and methods
Due to the lack of conceptual framework and practical guidelines for structuring CPS with
semantic diagrams in real classrooms, we decided to follow an inductive research
approach, with the intention to derive theories from field data (Barab and Squire 2004). As
such, a case study (Yin 2003) was conducted in an elementary school in east China.
Fig. 2 Screenshot of LASAD in the Metafora platform
Using a semantic diagram to structure a collaborative problem…
123
Participants
The participants were twenty-one-fifth-grade students (8 males, 13 females, mean
age =9.95 years, SD =0.59). Since there were five computers equipped with Metafora,
the 21 participants were randomly divided into five groups. There were four groups with
four students, and one group with five students. In addition, the classroom was equipped
with the Internet connection and an electronic projector. The science teacher leading the
class had more than 10 years of teaching experience. After understanding our research
expectations, she co-designed the CPS project supported by Metafora with the research
team which included a lead researcher and three research assistants. She then implemented
the CPS project in her class after completing the design with the research team.
The design of the CPS project
This CPS learning project was co-designed in four rounds of face-to-face communication
(30 min each time) between the science teacher and the research team. Using a co-design
method (Penuel et al. 2007), the classroom teacher not only provided important inputs, she
also had ownership of and familiarity with the instructional design (Lui and Slotta 2014).
In the first round of communication, the teacher was introduced to the research intention
and Metafora. The CPS learning topic Food and Nutrition in the Fifth Grade science
curriculum was identified. In the second round of communication, the teacher was pre-
sented with the initial CPS instructional design by the research team. Four sequential
classroom learning sessions (60 min per session) were identified. They were: (1) to classify
the given food according to nutritional values, (2) to detect the main nutritional compo-
sition of a given food, (3) to discuss the function of a certain nutritional value and (4) to
evaluate a family’s diet for 1 week and develop a healthy diet plan for the family. Several
cycles of revision took place between the teacher and the research team to make sure that
the pedagogical intervention framework (citation omitted for blind review) and Metafora
would be properly integrated into the CPS classroom. Figure 3below shows the design of
the CPS project.
In the final round of communication, the number of students and the timeline of the CPS
project were decided. The research team was present during the entire process of the CPS
project for design and implementation. During implementation, the research team’s
Fig. 3 The design of Food and Nutrition CPS project
H. Cai et al.
123
primary role was to troubleshoot technical problems such as installing Metafora in the
classroom and helping students to log into the learning platform.
The learning design of the CPS case
Class session 1
Class session 1 contained two parts, using LASAD as the technological intervention. In the
warm-up activity, the pedagogical intervention of setting up rules for discourse used in a
previous study was incorporated (citation omitted for blind review). During the warm-up
activity, the 12 group discourse rules were pre-loaded in the LASAD blocks. Some
examples of the discourse rules were: 1. Listen to others’ ideas; 6. The one who made a
wrong decision should be held responsible; 8. Let the oldest in the group start first. Each
group was directed to categorize the rules into relevant places by moving the LASAD
blocks and make decision on what rule was acceptable and what was not acceptable for
their group. The screen of the learning task in LASAD is shown in Fig. 4.
With the help of LASAD, students were able to identify the collaborative discourses
written in each LASAD block through discussions and negotiations, and they each could
stimulate more discourse by dragging LASAD blocks with the group members.
As shown in Fig. 5, the LASAD interface was designed to structure the learning activity
1 in a collaborative way. At the top of the interface in the ‘‘introduction’’ LASAD block,
there were some pre-designed instructional texts. They were: (1) Analyze the assigned
paper-based nutrition table and write down your idea of food grouping into a specific
LASAD block; (2) Discuss within the group and make your group’s final decision of food
grouping based on every group member’s idea; and (3) Report your group’s decision of
Fig. 4 The interface of the warm-up activity 1. Note 1 Please discuss the following rules within your group.
Please categorize and decide which one is good, which is not acceptable, and which you are not sure of
adopting for your group collaboration. Note 2 Rule1: Listen to others’ ideas. Note 3 Rule 6: The one who
made a wrong decision should be held responsible. Note 4 Rule 8: Let the oldest in the group start first
Using a semantic diagram to structure a collaborative problem…
123
food grouping to the whole class. Under the ‘‘introduction’’ LASAD block, there were
several blank LASAD blocks for group members to fill in using their own ideas of food
groupings. This would allow the students to externalize their ideas through visual repre-
sentations based on the learning artifacts so that the group could discuss them together.
This activity set up a foundation for sharing and communication, which enabled the
students to substantiate facts and further investigate each other’s ideas. The members then
made their group’s final decision of food grouping based on the different emergent ideas in
the LASAD blocks. In this session, the semantic diagram could support formative feedback
at the group level.
Class session 2
The goal of class session 2 was to detect the nutrients in food. The Planning tool was
integrated to develop students’ awareness of making plans in solving a problem. In order to
guide students to use the Planning Tool, there was another warm-up activity. The teacher
highlighted the importance of making plans before solving a problem and then introduced
to the students the Visual Language Cards in the Planning Tool. Then in the learning
activity 2, the teacher demonstrated the experiment before the class. Then she allowed each
group to make a plan conducting the experiment using the Planning Tool. Afterwards, each
group conducted the experiment using the physical materials prepared by the teacher.
When the groups finished their experiments, they followed the teacher’s guidance to re-
enter the previous plans on the Planning Tool and make observational reflections or
changes. During this activity, the groups of students not only used the Planning tool to
visualize the process of conducting the science experiment, but also made detailed
reflections on the learning artifacts observed in the Planning Tool.
Fig. 5 The interface of the learning activity 1
H. Cai et al.
123
Class session 3
Learning activity 3, supported by LASAD, was to structure students’ understanding of food
nutrients. In this session, five kinds of printed learning materials about nutrients (protein;
fat; mineral and water; carbohydrates; vitamins) were assigned within each group. The
teacher then guided all groups to type in their understandings of their responsible nutrition
based on the assigned material into the LASAD. Each Group’s interpretations were shared
in the same LASAD interface in real time. In this learning activity, the LASAD application
served as a public knowledge sharing pool at the class-community level. Students could
read what was shown in the LASAD application to gain greater knowledge of food
nutrition, and the teacher could give targeted instructions based on the groups’ visual
interpretations in LASAD. In this session, the semantic diagram supported formative
feedback at the class level.
Class session 4
Learning activity 4 was the main collaborative activity in the entire learning project, which
focused on the intervention structuring evidence-based argument. For structuring this
learning activity, the teacher assigned a hands-on activity for the students to record one-
week of family diet data before learning activity 4 started. With the collected diet data, the
teacher guided each group to discuss and evaluate the family diet in the class. Afterwards,
the teacher asked students to develop a healthy plan using the Planning Tool. Then the
teacher asked two groups to present their plans using the projector in the classroom. During
this time, the teacher encouraged all the students to use the question promote to think and
reflect of their reports. After the whole class discussed their reports, each group returned to
its own group, and made further changes.
Table 1 Excerpt coding examples and results of classroom activities
Time Role Activities Meaning of the
pedagogical block
Led by
00:13:50 T Today we will learn about food and nutrition. (T
writes on the blackboard). What questions would
you like to ask when you see these words
5. Introduction of the
learning topic
Teacher
S1 Which food does it point to
S2 What is the nutritional value
00:14:50 T Ok. What nutritional value does the food contain?
Different kinds of food contain different nutritional
values. Today, we will research this question
5. Introduction of the
learning topic
Teacher
00:15:03 T Next, I will assign a table to every group. The
table shows names and nutritional values of the
food. Please read the table carefully and share what
you find in your group. After every group finishes
the discussions, I will ask each group to report your
findings
6. Distribution of
materials and group
tasks
Teacher
00:15:10 G (Groups start discussions) 7. Group discussions Student
00:20:02 G (Groups end discussions) 7. Group discussions Student
Tteacher, S1 student 1, S2 student 2, Ggroup
Using a semantic diagram to structure a collaborative problem…
123
Data collection and analysis
Data from classroom activity
We used event as a unit of analysis to capture the activities of the teacher and her students
from the CPS classroom. An event refers to an undivided pedagogical episode where a
series of uninterrupted interaction moves with the same semantic content (Prieto et al.
2011; Wen et al. 2015). First, the videos of four classroom sessions were transcribed based
on the words of the teacher and her students (see the first three columns in Table 1). Then
the events were extracted and labeled with the pedagogical meaning of the learning
activities. Afterwards, the person (either the teacher or a student) who led the activity was
noted accordingly. Table 1shows some excerpts of the coding of the classroom activities.
For example, at the time of ‘‘00:13:50–00:14:50’’, the teacher, student 1, and student 2 had
a conversation. Depending on the content of the conversation, the event could be named as
‘‘introduce the learning topic,’’ which was led by the ‘‘teacher.’’ Because there were four
other events before the time of ‘‘00:13:50’’, the event of ‘‘introduce the learning topic
activity’’ was named number ‘‘5’’. Based on the coding schema, 39 events were identified
in the four classroom video recordings. Two research assistants coded the transcribed data
of four classroom sessions independently. Then their coding results were compared and
negotiated, resulting in 39 events being identified in the CPS classroom.
In order to understand the roles of the semantic diagram and the teacher during the flow
of the CPS classroom, we used the framework of Dillenbourg (2013) to categorize the 39
events. Dillenbourg (2013) claimed that a classroom is a continuum of activities ranging
from intrinsic to extrinsic learning. It included five types of learning activities, namely,
core activities, emergent activities, envelope activities, extraneous events, and the infra
activities from the center to the periphery. Table 2below shows the category with
examples. For example, the activity, ‘‘2. Discussing group rules on LASAD,’’ was a main
part in the warm-up activity 1; therefore, it was placed in the category of ‘‘Core activity.’’
The event ‘‘6. Logging in the Planning Tool,’’ did not constitute a meaningful part of the
scenario but was necessary to run it, so it was placed into the category of ‘‘Infra activities.’’
Table 2 The coding schema of the pedagogical activity in the CPS classroom continuum
Activity
categories
Descriptions Examples of pedagogical
block
Core
activities
Designed as adaptive: the activities of the scenario are pre-
defined with certain adaptations to be performed by the system
or by the teacher
2. Discuss group rules
using LASAD
Emergent
activities
Designed as contingent: some scenarios include activities with
contents unpredictable because they build upon what learners
produced in earlier phases of the scenario
3. Group report
10. Class brainstorm
Envelope
activity
Routinized: some classroom activities are not part of the
pedagogical design but are established school practices
5. Introduce learning
topic
Extraneous
events
Unavoidable: a designed scenario which prepares for unexpected
events
30. Review the function
of planning tool
Infra
activities
Necessary: activities that do not constitute a meaningful part of
the scenario but are necessary to run
6. Log in planning tool
21. Assign learning
materials
H. Cai et al.
123
The 39 events were further categorized by functions performed to complete the tasks
according to Prieto et al. (2011)’s framework. With this framework, the teacher’s activities
were categorized into ‘‘explanation,’’ ‘‘support,’’ and ‘‘assessment,’’ while the students’
activities were categorized into ‘‘group discussion,’’ and ‘‘group report,’’ and ‘‘others.’’
Different shapes were used to present different categories of activities, as shown in
Table 3.
As shown in Table 3above, the event ‘‘1. Introduce group rules’’ was performed by the
teacher as a function of explanation, so the coding shape of the event was a circle. The
event ‘‘2. Discuss group rules’’ was performed by the students as a function of discussion,
so the coding shape of that event was a square.
Data from pre-test and post-test on student performance
At the beginning and end of the CPS project, the students were asked to complete the same
tests that evaluated their learning performance. The test contained two parts. The first part
was adopted from Raven’s Progressive Matrices (Raven 1936), which consisted of 15
items. It was used to assess individual’s general cognitive skills (Mercer et al. 1999). The
second part was adopted from the framework of collaborative problem-solving (OECD
2013). A 5-point Likert scale, which contained 16 items, was used to assess student’s
awareness of CPS skills. The internal consistency score (i.e., Cronbach’s alpha) of the
general cognitive skill was 0.72 and the internal consistency score (i.e., Cronbach’s alpha)
of the awareness of CPS skills was 0.86.
Findings
Q1 How did the semantic diagram work when it was integrated into the real CPS
classroom?
Table 3 The coding schema of teacher’s and students’ activity in the CPS project
Roles Activity
categories
Explanations Examples Coding
shapes
Teacher’s
activities
Explain Provide an overview of
activities
1. Introduce group rule
29. Review how to make a plan using
the planning tool
Support Provide support for
learning activities
6. Distribute materials. And assign
group tasks
15. Show experiment tools
Assess Evaluate results of
learning tasks
20. Complete experiments
Students’
activities
Discuss Discuss learning tasks 2. Discuss group rules
10. Brainstorm
Report Report learning tasks 3. Group report
Other Other student’s activity 13. Observe experiment
Using a semantic diagram to structure a collaborative problem…
123
Figure 6outlines the pedagogical intervention and technological support in each class
session of the CPS project. It is worth noting that the number in the circle in Fig. 6refers to
the order of represented learning activities taking place in the classroom. The white circle
refers to the events led by students; while the gray circle refers to the events led by the
teacher. In addition, technology used in a certain step was signaled by a triangle shape with
text description.
It was found that the semantic diagram was adaptively integrated into different learning
tasks in the classroom, under the guidance of the pedagogical intervention framework
(citation omitted for blind review). According to the unique function of each toolkit in
Metafora, the Planning tool and LASAD were selected to load and transfer some parts of
the pedagogical intervention according to the learning context. For example, the Planning
Tool was integrated into class session 2 to accomplish the pedagogical intervention making
group plans (labeled 2). LASAD was integrated into class session 1 to deliver the peda-
gogical intervention setting up rules for collaborative discourse (labeled 1).
In order to optimize the technological support of Metafora for structuring CPS, the
function and use of LASAD and the Planning tool were re-designed and then integrated
into the specific learning task. For example, in the class session 3, instead of acting as the
discussion tool for argumentation, LASAD served as a joint visual learning space for
groups to contribute and share knowledge at the class-level collaboration. In class session
4, instead of acting as the place in the tool for making a plan to solve a problem, this
Planning tool text area served as the workspace for the group to collect and make their
family members’ diet plans visible, which delivered data for the pedagogical intervention
structuring evidenced-based arguments (labeled 3).
Based on the data, we can conclude that Metafora was integrated into the CPS class-
room adaptively and flexibly. In fact, the flexible and adaptive use of the semantic diagram
for different learning scenarios was a critical factor for its successful integration into the
CPS classroom. This suggests that the semantic diagram provided successful visualization-
based toolkits as a group learning platform. It acted as a type of technological scaffolding
Fig. 6 The outline of the pedagogical intervention and technological support in the CPS project
H. Cai et al.
123
or visualization process for different notations of specific pedagogical interventions. It was
also used adaptively and flexibly to organize different learning activities, such as indi-
vidual reflection, group communication and class brainstorming visually.
Q2 What were the roles of the semantic diagram and the teacher during the flow of the
CPS project?
Figure 7below shows that the Planning Tool and LASAD were mainly used to support
the ‘‘core activity.’’ After an in-depth analysis of each emergent activity, we found that the
emergent activities only took place when the visualized learning artifacts on LASAD or the
Planning Tool were created. Therefore, we conclude that the semantic diagram played a
critical role in supporting and stimulating intrinsic activities during the flow of the CPS
project.
As shown in Fig. 7, most of the gray circles, which referred to the events led by the
teacher, were located in the last three rows. During the class observations, we also noticed
the indispensable role of the teacher. The teacher led the classroom progress, assigned
learning tasks to the students, and coordinated the students’ activities at the class level.
Therefore, we conclude that the teacher played a crucial role in the extrinsic learning
activities during the flow of CPS project.
Last but not the least, further analysis indicated the importance of a balanced role
between the semantic diagram and the teacher. As shown in Fig. 7, most of emergent
activities took place based on the externalized artifacts of the semantic diagram. Towards
the end of those emergent activities, the teacher sometimes provided guidance to lead sub-
activities, such as the flow of 8–9–10, the flow of 23–24–25. Sometimes the teacher made
decisions to stop the activities, such as the flow of 3–4, the flow of 26–27, and the flow of
38–39. Therefore, although the semantic diagram played a critical role in the core activ-
ities, the teacher was indispensable in the classroom in providing the focus for the class.
These findings were confirmed by the class observations. When the groups collaborated in
Metafora, the teacher looked around in the classroom and gave specific guidance to certain
groups. During the process, she paid attention to the groups’ learning status, which helped
her facilitate and guide the sub-activities. In conclusion, the results suggest that, in order to
make the flow of a CPS project move successfully and seamlessly, it is important to keep a
good balance between the role of the semantic diagram and the role of the teacher.
Q3 How did the CPS project affect the teacher and the students’ performance?
Figure 8below shows that the teacher had a higher percentage of non-lecture activities.
For instance, the teacher had more question promoting activities (5/16, 43.75 %), and
Fig. 7 The pedagogical flow of the CPS project
Using a semantic diagram to structure a collaborative problem…
123
evaluative activities (5/16, 37.5 %), than lecture-oriented activities (6/16, 18.75 % for
introducing activities).
This reveals that the teacher acted as learning facilitator rather than knowledge trans-
mitter or classroom lecturer in the CPS classroom. This finding was consistent with the
classroom observations. When students were busy with the learning activities in Metafora,
the teacher was freed from the knowledge transmission. The teacher had more time to
watch and guide the groups’ discussions and reports, and to provide detailed instructions
for activities. As also shown in Fig. 8, there were 23 students’ activities and more than 16
teacher’s activities. The students’ activities including the group reports and group dis-
cussions, comprised of 6/39 (15.4 %) and 12/39 (30.8 %) of all the classroom activities
respectively. There were more group-centered learning activities than the other kinds of
activities. This means that in this CPS project, students had many more opportunities for
communication and collaboration. Compared to the traditional teacher-centered lecture
approach, this project showed a trend towards student-centered learning.
In order to investigate the effect of the CPS project on the students’ performance, a
paired-sample T test of the students’ pre-tests and post-tests scores was employed. Mean
scores and standard deviations of individual students’ general cognitive skills and learning
awareness of the CPS skills are presented in Table 4.
As shown in Table 4, no significant difference existed between pre-test and post-test in
terms of the general cognitive skills (t =1.36, P =0.190 [0.05). This indicates that the
intervention of CPS project did not influence the development of students’ general cog-
nitive skills. This result is expected because students’ cognitive skills could not be
improved in such a short intervention time period. However, there existed significant
difference of students’ learning awareness of CPS skills (t =2.81, P =0.012 \0.05).
This means that after the intervention of the CPS project, students’ understanding of how to
solve problems collaboratively was greatly improved. This result confirms that the
designed CPS project was indeed student-centered, and that it gave the students a greater
opportunity to experience CPS in the classroom.
Fig. 8 The flow of the teacher’s and students’ activities in the CPS project
Table 4 The paired-sample Ttest of students’ pre-test and post-test in the CPS project
Pre-test Post-test tDfP
Mean SD Mean SD
General cognitive skills 10.11 2.42 10.53 2.39 1.36 18 0.190
Awareness of CPS skills 58.74 8.57 66.42 13.85 2.81 18 0.012
H. Cai et al.
123
Discussion and conclusion
In this study, we analyzed and reported the process of integrating the semantic diagram
(i.e., Metafora) into a real CPS classroom. The study revealed the relationships between the
semantic diagram (e.g. Metafora), the teacher and the students in the CPS classroom. In the
following, we will discuss the insights and limitations of the study, and we will propose
future work for the semantic diagram.
This study helped us better understand the characteristics of the semantic diagram for
structuring CPS in a real classroom. First, the semantic diagram should be treated as a
toolkit. As such, the toolkit can be adapted into different learning scenarios to structure the
CPS based on the requirements of learning tasks. This design process resonates with the
idea of authoring tools provided in the WISE learning platform (Slotta 2004). Second, the
semantic diagram interface can be redesigned to deliver pedagogical interventions using
collaborative scripts. This design approach resonates with the representational scripting
(Slof et al. 2013). Third, the technology function of the semantic diagram can structure the
CPS activities across the individual, group, class levels. Take, for example, the function of
LASAD in the CPS project. In the warm-up activity 1, LASAD was employed as a digital
whiteboard to show the predesigned learning materials for the students. In learning activity
1, LASAD served as a group opinion pool to record ideas from each member in the group.
In learning activity 3, LASAD served as a joint learning space for each group to contribute
and share knowledge at the class-level collaboration. The reflection of technological
considerations may provide promising answers that will address the pedagogical require-
ments coming from curriculum, the teacher and classroom culture. For students, it can also
record, externalize and trace their learning progresses for further instructions.
In addition, this study helped us better understand the role of the teacher in the CPS
classroom project. First, although the semantic diagram played a key role in the CPS core
activities, the role of a teacher should not be overlooked. These findings confirm Suthers
(2005)’s claim that ‘‘the technological affordance should attempt to leverage the unique
opportunities provided by technology rather than replicating support for learning that could
be done by teacher or (worse) trying to force the technology to be something for which it is
not well suited’’ (p. 666). Second, the teacher played a vital role in the design phrase of the
CPS classroom project because she was familiar with the domain knowledge and familiar
with her students’ learning styles and progress. The co-design with the teacher helped the
researchers to target specific domain knowledge, identify the requirements of technological
support, and streamline the sequence of designed activities into the CPS classroom. This
process is in accordance with statements made by the other scholars for structuring CPS in
a real classroom. Dillenbourg and Jermann (2010) and Kollar et al. (2011) stated that (1)
the curriculum sets the starting points for activities; (2) the learning environment supports
the collaboration; (3) the teacher pre-designs the structure of the learning processes that are
orchestrated in real time, and (4) the learners should be given sufficient freedom to co-
construct knowledge. This project proves that it is important to include the teacher in the
design process for the technologies to be truly beneficial for the teacher and the students.
This study has several limitations. First, the study was a case study of only one
classroom, including one science teacher with 21 students. Future studies should examine
other classrooms to see if similar results may emerge. Second, in this study, we set out to
ask students to take turns entering their ideas into Metafora, and then discuss the accu-
mulated ideas. When one student was typing, the other students were sitting and watching.
We observed that some students gave suggestions or asked questions to the person who
Using a semantic diagram to structure a collaborative problem…
123
was typing. Yet, we did not record such offline activities in this study, which could be
interesting for future studies. Third, we looked into the students’ learning achievements at
the macro level, including their general cognitive skills and their CPS skills. We did not
examine their micro-level abilities, for instance, the students’ cognitive development of the
domain knowledge. Future studies should investigate how to support students’ cognitive
development in the CPS classroom structured by the semantic diagram. Last but not the
least, we did not examine students’ willingness of using Metafora, a factor that could have
affected the results. This study, however, is an important step for us to understand the role
of the semantic diagram, to understand the effective integration of this visualization-based
platform into a CPS project, and to understand how to structure technologies into the CPS
project to create a student-centered learning environment.
Compliance with ethical standards
Funding This study is supported by Chinese National Social Science Foundation (Grant Number: BCA
120024), and partly supported by Program for New Century Excellent Talents in University (Grant Number:
NCET-11-0140).
Conflict of Interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
References
Aronson, E., Blaney, N., Sikes, J., Stephan, G., & Snapp, M. (Eds.). (1978). The jigsaw classroom. Beverly
Hills: Sage.
Baker, M., & Lund, K. (1997). Promoting reflective interactions in a CSCL environment. Journal of
Computer Assisted Learning, 13(3), 175–193.
Barab, S., & Squire, K. (2004). Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground. Journal of the
Learning Sciences, 13(1), 1–14.
Care, E., & Griffin, P. (2014). An approach to assessment of collaborative problem solving. Research &
Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 9(3), 367–388.
Chen, M. H., Zhang, J., & Lee, J. (2013). Making collective progress visible for sustained knowledge
building. In N. Rummel, M. Kapur, M. Nathan, & S. Puntambekar (Eds.), Proceedings of the Inter-
national Conference of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning: To See the World and a Grain of
Sand: Learning Across Levels of Space, Time, and Scale (pp. 81–88). Madison: International Society of
the Learning Science.
Cho, K. L., & Jonassen, D. H. (2002). The effects of argumentation scaffolds on argumentation and problem
solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 5–22.
Clark, D. B., & Linn, M. C. (2013). The knowledge integration perspective: Connections across research and
education. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Conceptual Change (2nd ed.,
pp. 520–538). New York: Routledge.
Dawes, L. (2004). Talk and learning in classroom science. International Journal of Science Education,
26(6), 677–695.
Dawes, L., Mercer, N., & Wegerif, R. (Eds.). (2000). Thinking together: A programme of activities for
developing speaking, listening and thinking skills for children aged 8–11. Birmingham: Imaginative
Minds Ltd.
Dillenbourg, P. (1999). What do you mean by collaborative learning? In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Collabo-
rative-learning: cognitive and computational approaches (pp. 1–19). Oxford: Elsevier.
Dillenbourg, P. (2013). Design for classroom orchestration. Computers & Education, 69, 485–492.
Dillenbourg, P., & Hong, F. (2008). The mechanics of CSCL macro scripts. International Journal of
Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3(1), 5–23.
Dillenbourg, P., & Jermann, P. (2007). Designing integrative scripts. In F. Fischer, I. Kollar, H. Mandl, & J.
M. Haake (Eds.), Scripting computer-supported collaborative learning (pp. 275–301). New York:
Springer.
Dillenbourg, P., & Jermann, P. (2010). Technology for classroom orchestration. In M. S. Khine & I.
M. Saleh (Eds.), New science of learning (pp. 525–552). New York: Springer.
H. Cai et al.
123
Dimitriadis, Y. A. (2012). Supporting teachers in orchestrating CSCL classrooms. In A. Jimoyiannis (Ed.),
Research on e-Learning and ICT in education (pp. 71–82). New York: Springer.
Dragon, T., Mavrikis, M., McLaren, B., Harrer, A., Kynigos, C., Wegerif, R., & Yang, Y. (2013). Metafora:
A web-based platform for learning to learn together in science and mathematics. IEEE Transactions on
Learning Technologies, 6(3), 197–207.
Engelmann, T., & Hesse, F. W. (2010). How digital concept maps about the collaborators’ knowledge and
information influence computer-supported collaborative problem solving. International Journal of
Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5(3), 299–319.
Fischer, F., Kollar, I., Mandl, H., & Haake, H. M. (Eds.). (2007). Scripting computer-supported collabo-
rative learning: Cognitive, computational and educational perspectives. New York: Springer.
Fischer, F., Kollar, I., Stegmann, K., & Wecker, C. (2013). Toward a script theory of guidance in computer-
supported collaborative learning. Educational Psychologist, 48(1), 56–66.
Ge, X., & Land, S. M. (2004). A conceptual framework for scaffolding ill-structured problem-solving
processes using question prompts and peer interactions. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 52, 5–22.
Gu, X., Chen, S., Zhu, W., & Lin, L. (2015a). An intervention framework designed to develop the col-
laborative problem-solving skills of primary school students. Educational Technology Research &
Development, 63(1), 143–159.
Gu, X., & Quan, G. (2014). The literature review of visual knowledge representation and model by semantic
diagram. e-Education Research, 5, 45–52. (In Chinese).
Gu, X., Shao, Y., Guo, X., & Lim, C. (2015b). Designing a role structure to engage students in computer-
supported collaborative learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 24, 13–20.
Ha
¨ma
¨la
¨inen, R., Oksanen, K., & Ha
¨kkinen, P. (2008). Designing and analyzing collaboration in a scripted
game for vocational education. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(6), 2496–2506.
Harrer, A., Pfahler, K., De Groot, R., & Abdu, R. (2013). Research on collaborative planning and reflection-
methods and tools in the Metafora project. In D. Herna
´ndez-Leo, T. Ley, R. Klamma, & A. Harrer
(Eds.), Scaling up learning for sustained impact (pp. 139–150). Berlin Heidelberg: Springer.
Herna
´ndez-Leo, D., Villasclaras-Ferna
´ndez, E. D., Asensio-Pe
´rez, J. I., Dimitriadis, Y., Jorrı
´n-Abella
´n, I.
M., Ruiz-Requies, I., & Rubia-Avi, B. (2006). Collage: A collaborative learning design editor based on
patterns. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 9(1), 58–71.
Hmelo-Silver, C., & Barrows, H. (2008). Facilitating collaborative knowledge building. Cognition and
Instruction, 26(1), 48–94.
Hyerle, D., & Alper, L. (Eds.). (2011). Student successes with thinking maps. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.
Jermann, P., & Dillenbourg, P. (2003). Elaborating new arguments through a CSCL script. In J. Andriessen,
M. Baker, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn (pp. 205–226). Netherlands: Springer.
Johnson, L., Adams, B. S., Estrada, V., & Freeman, A. (2014). NMC horizon report: 2014K-12 Edition.
Austin, TX: The New Media Consortium.
Kim, M. C., & Hannafin, M. J. (2011). Scaffolding problem solving in technology-enhanced learning
environments (TELEs): Bridging research and theory with practice. Computers & Education, 56(2),
403–417.
Kirschner, P., Strijbos, J. W., Kreijns, K., & Beers, P. J. (2004). Designing electronic collaborative learning
environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(3), 47–66.
Kollar, I., Fischer, F., & Hesse, F. W. (2006). Collaboration scripts: A conceptual analysis. Educational
Psychology Review, 18(2), 159–185.
Kollar, I., Ha
¨ma
¨la
¨inen, R., Evans, M., DeWever, B., & Perrotta, C. (2011). Orchestrating CSCL-more than a
metaphor. In H. Spada, G. Stahl, N. Miyake, & N. Law (Eds.), Proceedings of the Conference on
Computer Support for Collaborative Learning: Connecting Computer-Supported Collaborative
Learning to Policy and Practice (pp. 946–947). Madison: International Society of the Learning
Science.
Lui, M., & Slotta, J. D. (2014). Immersive simulations for smart classrooms: Exploring evolutionary
concepts in secondary science. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 23(1), 57–80.
Mercer, N., Wegerif, R., & Dawes, L. (1999). Children’s talk and the development of reasoning in the
classroom. British Educational Research Journal, 25(1), 95–111.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for
teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.
Novak, J. D., & Can
˜as, A. J. (2008). The theory underlying concept maps and how to construct and use
them. Technical report. Pensacola: Institute for Human and Machine Cognition.
O’Donnell, A. M., & Dansereau, D. F. (1992). Scripted cooperation in student dyads: A method for
analyzing and enhancing academic learning and performance. In R. Hertz-Lazarowitz & N. Miller
Using a semantic diagram to structure a collaborative problem…
123
(Eds.), Interaction in cooperative groups: The theoretical anatomy of group learning (pp. 120–141).
London: Cambridge University Press.
OECD. (2013). PISA 2015 collaborative problem solving framework. OECD Publishing. http://www.oecd.
org/pisa/pisaproducts/Draft%20PISA%202015%20Collaborative%20Problem%20Solving%20Framew
ork%20.pdf.
Penuel, W. R., Roschelle, J., & Shechtman, N. (2007). Designing formative assessment software with
teachers: An analysis of the co-design process. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced
Learning, 2(1), 51–74.
Prieto, L. P., Villagra
´-Sobrino, S., Jorrı
´n-Abella
´n, I. M., Martı
´nez-Mone
´s, A., & Dimitriadis, Y. (2011).
Recurrent routines: Analyzing and supporting orchestration in technology-enhanced primary class-
rooms. Computers & Education, 57(1), 1214–1227.
Quintana, C., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Krajcik, J., Fretz, E., Duncan, R. G., & Soloway, E. (2004). A
scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry. The Journal of the Learning
Sciences, 13(3), 337–386.
Raven, J. C. (1936). Mental tests used in genetic studies: The performances of related individuals in tests
mainly educative and mainly reproductive. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, University of London.
Roschelle, J., Dimitriadis, Y., & Hoppe, U. (2013). Classroom orchestration: Synthesis. Computers &
Education, 69, 523–526.
Slof, B., Erkens, G., Kirschner, P. A., & Helms-Lorenz, M. (2013). The effects of inspecting and con-
structing part-task-specific visualizations on team and individual learning. Computers & Education,
60(1), 221–233.
Slotta, J. D. (2004). The web-based inquiry science environment (WISE): Scaffolding knowledge integra-
tion in the science classroom. In M. C. Linn, E. A. Davis, & P. Bell (Eds.), Internet environments for
science education (pp. 203–231). NJ: Routledge.
Stahl, G., Koschmann, T., & Suthers, D. (2006). Computer-supported collaborative learning: An historical
perspective. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 409–426).
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Stahl, G., Law, N., & Hesse, F. (2013). Collaborative learning at CSCL 2013. International Journal of
Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3(8), 267–269.
Stegmann, K., Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2007). Facilitating argumentative knowledge construction
with computer-supported collaboration scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Col-
laborative Learning, 2(4), 421–447.
Suthers, D. D. (2001). Towards a systematic study of representational guidance for collaborative learning
discourse. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 7(3), 254–277.
Suthers, D. D. (2005). Technology affordances for intersubjective learning: A thematic agenda for CSCL. In
T. Koschmann, T. Chan, & D. D. Suthers (Eds.), Proceedings of the Conference on Computer Support
for Collaborative Learning: Learning 2005—The Next 10 years! (pp. 662–671). UK: Routledge.
van Amelsvoort, M., Andriessen, J., & Kanselaar, G. (2007). Representational tools in computer-supported
collaborative argumentation-based learning: How dyads work with constructed and inspected argu-
mentative diagrams. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16(4), 485–521.
Veerman, A. L. (2001). Computer-supported collaborative learning through argumentation. Doctoral Dis-
sertation. Utrecht University, Utrecht. http://dspace.library.uu.nl/bitstream/handle/1874/798/full.
pdf?sequence=1.
Villasclaras-Fernndez, E. D., Isotani, S., Hayashi, Y., & Mizoguchi, R. (2009). Looking into collaborative
learning: Design from macro-and micro-script perspectives. In V. Dimitrova, R. Mizoguchi, B. du
Boulay, & A. Graesser (Eds.), Artificial intelligence in education: building learning systems that care:
from knowledge representation to affective modelling (pp. 231–238). Amsterdam: IOS Press.
Voogt, J. (2008). IT and curriculum processes: Dilemmas and challenges. In J. Voogt & G. Knezek (Eds.),
International handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education (pp. 117–132).
New York, NY: Springer.
Voss, J. F., Wolfe, C. R., Lawrence, J. A., & Engle, R. A. (1991). From representation to decision: An analysis
of problem solving in international relations. In R. J. Sternberg & P. A. Frensch (Eds.), Complex problem
solving: Principles and mechanisms (pp. 119–158). England: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Wegerif, R., & Mansour, N. (2010). A dialogic approach to technology-enhanced education for the global
knowledge society. In M. S. Khine & I. M. Saleh (Eds.), New science of learning: Cognition, com-
puters and collaboration in education (pp. 325–340). New York: Springer.
Wen, Y., Looi, C. K., & Chen, W. (2015). Appropriation of a representational tool in a second-language
classroom. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 10(1), 77–108.
Yin, R. (Ed.). (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
H. Cai et al.
123
Huiying Cai is a Ph.D. Candidate and Research Assistant working in the Educational Technology Lab, East
China Normal University.
Lin Lin is an Associate Professor of Learning Technologies at University of North Texas. Her research
interest lies at the intersection of new media and technologies, cognitive psychology, and education.
Xiaoqing Gu is now a Professor of Educational Technology in School of Educational Science, East China
Normal University, China. Her main research interests are learning science, learning design and CSCL.
Using a semantic diagram to structure a collaborative problem…
123
