The last bit for week 4...

(Roschelle, 1992)
The claims in the evaluation are fair, given that the author is clear in stating the assumptions made (for example, which theoretical schools of thought are valued).
While the idea that ‘…conceptual change occurred…’ appears valid, I still view that it is difficult to justify that ‘…individual interpretations converged toward shared knowledge…’. I say this because I am still unclear if having a shared understanding can actually be viewed as ‘knowledge’ if the participants are unable to explain the concept in scientific terms and are unable to transfer the concept to other scenarios – an inability to apply, which, for most teaching and learning contexts, would be considered poor practice. The ‘reconstructing….to converge on the meanings shared by the…community…’ could surely not be guaranteed by collaboration; are ‘experts’ not needed to ensure understanding is ‘correct’? This brings me on to the issue of the Lave and Wenger citation, in relation to social constructivism; I had viewed this in the context of the concept of ‘legitimate peripheral participation’ and this does not seem to apply at all, as the task is set up as an ‘experiment’ rather than in a community of practice; who is the master and what is the experiment peripheral to?
The proposal of ‘…progressively higher standards of evidence for convergence…’ seems dependent on the construction being equally created; but there is no evidence of this and one contributor may well have been the ‘leader’ in constructing the ‘knowledge’. Would one additionally require comparisons of the level and number of interactions from each participant? I found this an interesting (if challenging) paper to read, as it is clarifies that any research is very dependent on one’s views and theoretical recommendations. Perhaps any reported research could be justified?