Transmission, transformation and ritual: an investigation of students’ and researchers’ digitally mediated communications and collaborative work

Abstract

This paper explores the use of multiple digital tools for mediating communications, drawing on two recent empirical studies in which students and researchers in UK Higher Education worked on collaborative activities. How different tools were used and the quality of the communications and their contributions to collaborative working and knowledge construction are outlined. We draw Pea (1994)'s proposition that communications can be understood as transmissive, ritualized or transformative depending on their impact on other participants. Most of the students' communications were either transmissive or ritualistic, although there were also generative conversations offering mutual support. Researchers' conversations were more often transformative, using tools consistently, for specific purposes. Researchers matched the tool to the specific needs of the task, whereas the students chose tools based on friendship groups and lifestyles. Transformative communications were powerful in co-configuring new knowledge and resources and the importance of the ritual communications in maintaining the social order was also essential to communications in collaborative settings. We conclude that close attention to protocols, social norms and patterns of use in digitally mediated 'conversations' are required to develop collaborative partnerships and support transformation practices amongst higher education 'workers'.

Rethinking assessment in a digital age: opportunities, challenges and risks

“…The ‘participation gap’ also relates to technology enhanced assessment, where assessment is integrated into online group activities such as through wikis or discussion boards. In such spaces, contributions are usually visible to everyone in the group, which can lead to more limited participation in formative assessment (Timmis et al ., ). Equally, where participation in summative assessments online is required in shared online spaces, this can make differential levels of achievement more visible and reinforce existing social divisions (Dawson, ).…”

Using communities of practice as a tool to analyse developing identity in online discussion

“…Furthermore, many studies involve undergraduate learning on higher education courses rather than younger students and the use of online environments for the development of propositional (explicit) knowledge -the focus of educational institutions such as schools and universities. So, for example, Timmis et al (2010) use activity theory as a tool to analyse the nature of undergraduate students' and researchers' communication during a collaborative task. Selwyn and Grant (2009) consider undergraduate use of social networking software as a vehicle for developing similar software for educational purposes.…”

The dialectical potential of Cultural Historical Activity Theory for researching sustainable CSCL practices

“…Engaging in understanding and interpreting the relationship between learners' interactions within a community therefore becomes a priority. In communities, learners are also working across different time spans, spaces and settings (Timmis et al, 2010). Space: time configurations are therefore critical; their reciprocal relations should be recognized as part of understanding how practices unfold (Ritella & Hakkarainen 2012) and become appropriated within a community's cultural repertoire.…”

“…This relates to research questions 2 and 3, which focused on the kinds of collaborative and communicative practices using digital tools that took place in the online special interest groups and the patterns of interaction and division of labor that took place over time. Understanding and interpreting the 8 A new conversation was counted once an elapsed time of 60 minutes or more had taken place 9 For a fuller account of the results of this study, see (Timmis et al, 2010;Timmis, 2012) object and the co-creation of knowledge also formed part of the conceptual framework outlined in Table 1.…”