Convergence (psychology)

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Icon tools.svg

This article was entered on the quality assurance page of the wiki psychology project . This is done to improve the quality of the articles on the subject of psychology. Articles are improved or suggested for deletion if they do not meet the criteria of Wikipedia. Help with the improvement and take part in the discussion in the Psychology project .

In educational psychology, convergence is understood as a process in which members of a learning group approach and adjust to one another in order to learn with and from one another. These convergences can already exist or arise during a cooperative learning process in which two or more people are working on a problem. Here, individual and joint learning are networked with one another. In the Piaget sense , participants in a group have different levels of knowledge at the beginning. The amount of shared knowledge should be increased by solving and interpreting problematic situations.

On the concept of convergence

Education scientist Jeremy Roschelle conducted a case study in 1992 in which two students, named Carol and Dana, were asked to explore physical phenomena together using a computer simulation. Both individuals were very similar. They were close friends, often worked together, were, according to their chemistry teacher, of average talent and in the field of physics they were also more “novices”. The question arose as to how new knowledge can arise with two individuals who are so similar, whereby convergences initially pose a problem. Nevertheless, the learning process of the two students was successful. Roschelle found that convergences were successful in driving mutual learning in this case. He attributed this to a connection with the quality of the argumentation and communication (e.g. providing evidence through arguments). In addition, the computer simulation helped both students to check their hypotheses. This made it possible to recognize contexts of meaning. Roschelle's case study provided a first attempt at defining the term “convergence” and presented both opportunities and problems. His descriptions were still very general, however, as this was limited to the pure acquisition of knowledge. For example, no considerations have been given as to how other factors such as B. Emotions or processes influence learning. However, since further research showed that convergences extend to many areas, further categorization is necessary. Convergences can therefore be divided as follows:

  • Knowledge convergence describes a convergent state, on the formal level “knowledge”. This is about how group members adjust to one another in terms of their knowledge through social interaction.
  • Process convergence is a process in which participants in a cooperative learning process influence each other through effective coordination and so team resources are used.
  • Outcome convergence describes the scope of the shared cognitive representations that arise from a cooperative learning process.
  • Cognitive convergence refers to the organization, communication and perception in a cooperative learning process and describes associated cognitive activities, such as B. the making of decisions or the search and / or finding of a "cognitive consensus", which z. B. results in an agreement of the group on relevant topics and their conception. This creates a common mental model of a team.
  • Emotional convergence is supposed to show how convergences and divergences affect a common learning process in relation to emotional sensitivities. This is not about the question of whether group members maintain a good interpersonal relationship with one another, but to what extent a common or different emotional attitude to a topic in general or to different situations occurring in group work in particular can improve or worsen the process of cooperative learning and how a group regulates itself accordingly. Components such as "self-regulation", "motivation" and "strategy development" play a decisive role. Emotions are not defined here as a relatively permanent state, but as short impulses that have a direct effect on learning, for example by interrupting the action.

Groups can regulate themselves with regard to various factors such as emotions through processes such as self-regulation (self-regulation) and co-regulation (co-regulation) and shared regulation, which means that responsibility for the entire learning process is shared arises.

Convergences vs. Divergences

In cooperative processes, the question arises again and again as to how learners in a group influence each other with regard to knowledge, i.e. whether these converge or diverge with one another. The terms “knowledge equivalence” and “shared knowledge” play a role here. “Knoweldge equaivalence” describes the mutual approach of the learning partners with regard to the scope of individual knowledge, while “shared knowledge” means the knowledge of the same concepts of the learning partner. This distinction relates to the entire time span of the work process, i.e. H. both before, during and after. Group members who learn together, solve a problem or design something go through three phases: In the first phase, a group tends to be divergent. Members meet to share information. In the second phase, this still divergent status is converted into a convergent status, for example by agreeing on a uniform definition for a term that is satisfactory for the group. Decisions are then made based on the previously analyzed shared information.

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Sadhana Puntambekar: Analyzing collaborative interactions: divergence, shared understanding and construction of knowledge . In: Computers & Education . tape 47 , no. 3 , November 1, 2006, ISSN  0360-1315 , p. 332-351 , doi : 10.1016 / j.compedu.2004.10.012 .
  2. ^ What We Know About CSCL . 2004, doi : 10.1007 / 1-4020-7921-4 .
  3. ↑ Jeremy Roschelle: Learning by Collaborating: Convergent Conceptual Change . In: Journal of the Learning Sciences . tape 2 , no. 3 , July 1, 1992, ISSN  1050-8406 , p. 235-276 , doi : 10.1207 / s15327809jls0203_1 .
  4. ↑ Heisawn Jeong, Michelene TH Chi: Construction of shared knowledge during collaborative learning . In: Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on Computer support for collaborative learning - CSCL '97 . Association for Computational Linguistics, Morristown, NJ, USA 1997, doi : 10.3115 / 1599773.1599788 .
  5. ^ A b c Frank Fischer, Heinz Mandl: Knowledge Convergence in Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning: The Role of External Representation Tools . In: Journal of the Learning Sciences . tape 14 , no. 3 , July 2005, ISSN  1050-8406 , p. 405-441 , doi : 10.1207 / s15327809jls1403_3 .
  6. ↑ Pierre Dillenbourg, John Self: Designing Human-Computer Collaborative Learning . In: Computer Supported Collaborative Learning . Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg 1995, ISBN 978-3-642-85100-1 , pp. 245-264 , doi : 10.1007 / 978-3-642-85098-1_13 .
  7. ^ Susan Mohammed, Brad C. Dumville: Team mental models in a team knowledge framework: expanding theory and measurement across disciplinary boundaries . In: Journal of Organizational Behavior . tape 22 , no. 2 , March 2001, ISSN  0894-3796 , p. 89-106 , doi : 10.1002 / job.86 .
  8. ↑ Cornelia Schoor, Maria Bannert: Motivation in a computer-supported collaborative learning scenario and its impact on learning activities and knowledge acquisition . In: Learning and Instruction . tape 21 , no. 4 , August 2011, p. 560-573 , doi : 10.1016 / j.learninstruc . 2010.11.002 .
  9. ^ Gwendolyn L. Kolfschoten, Frances MT Brazier: Cognitive Load in Collaboration: Convergence . In: Group Decision and Negotiation . tape 22 , no. 5 , September 2013, ISSN  0926-2644 , p. 975-996 , doi : 10.1007 / s10726-012-9322-6 .
  10. ↑ Reinhard Pekrun, Thomas Goetz, Wolfram Titz, Raymond P. Perry: Academic Emotions in Students' Self-Regulated Learning and Achievement: A Program of Qualitative and Quantitative Research . In: Educational Psychologist . tape 37 , no. 2 , June 2002, ISSN  0046-1520 , p. 91-105 , doi : 10.1207 / S15326985EP3702_4 .
  11. ^ Paul Ekman: An argument for basic emotions . In: Cognition and Emotion . tape 6 , no. 3-4 , May 1992, ISSN  0269-9931 , pp. 169-200 , doi : 10.1080 / 02699939208411068 .
  12. ^ Donia Lasinger: Helpful and hindering factors in the strategic early education process . In: Performance before innovation . Gabler, Wiesbaden 2011, ISBN 978-3-8349-2783-5 , pp. 340-344 .
  13. ↑ Hanna Järvenoja, Sanna Järvelä: Emotion control in collaborative learning situations: Do students regulate emotions evoked by social challenges / . In: British Journal of Educational Psychology . tape 79 , no. 3 , 2009, ISSN  2044-8279 , p. 463-481 , doi : 10.1348 / 000709909X402811 .