Abstract
Group awareness tools (GATs) are used to enhance awareness among students in online collaborative settings. GATs display awareness information of group processes, so students have a shared understanding of the collaboration. They also encourage students to share their opinions regarding their group processes, which externalizes unspoken awareness information and facilitates group regulation activities. The current study observed how students generated awareness information when being guided by a GAT. The primary aim of the study was to investigate the contents of student-generated awareness information collected from the evaluations of group processes and reflections about the collaboration process. A case study, drawing upon both qualitative and quantitative data, was conducted in the study. The results suggested the validity of student-generated awareness information, and its application in evaluating collaborative group processes. Students’ reflections also identified successful as well as disadvantageous aspects of group processes in three themes: communication, efficient work processes, and commitment. Overall, the findings suggested that student-generated awareness information can reveal the real status of collaborative group process. Successful and disadvantageous aspects of group processes were discussed from the students’ perspectives.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Soloway, E., & Krajcik, J. (1996). Learning with peers: From small group cooperation to collaborative communities. Educational Researcher,25, 37–39. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x025008037.
Bodemer, D., & Dehler, J. (2011). Group awareness in CSCL environments. Computers in Human Behavior,27, 1043–1045. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.07.014.
Chen, Y., Chen, N. S., & Tsai, C. C. (2009). The use of online synchronous discussion for web-based professional development for teachers. Computers & Education,53, 1155–1166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.05.026.
Christensen, C., & Larson, J. R., Jr. (1993). Collaborative medical decision making. Medical Decision Making,13, 339–346. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989x9301300410.
Dehler, J., Bodemer, D., Buder, J., & Hesse, F. W. (2011). Guiding knowledge communication in CSCL via group knowledge awareness. Computers in Human Behavior,27, 1068–1078. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.05.018.
Fawcett, L. M., & Garton, A. F. (2005). The effect of peer collaboration on children’s problem-solving ability. British Journal of Educational Psychology,75, 157–169. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709904X23411.
Fischer, F., Bruhn, J., Gräsel, C., & Mandl, H. (2002). Fostering collaborative knowledge construction with visualization tools. Learning and Instruction,12, 213–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0959-4752(01)00005-6.
Fransen, J., Weinberger, A., & Kirschner, P. A. (2013). Team effectiveness and team development in CSCL. Educational Psychologist,48, 9–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2012.747947.
Goos, M., Galbraith, P., & Renshaw, P. (2002). Socially mediated metacognition: Creating collaborative zones of proximal development in small group problem solving. Educational Studies in Mathematics,49, 193–223. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016209010120.
Graneheim, U. H., & Lundman, B. (2004). Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: Concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Education Today,24, 105–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2003.10.001.
Hall, D., & Buzwell, S. (2013). The problem of free-riding in group projects: Looking beyond social loafing as reason for non-contribution. Active Learning in Higher Education,14, 37–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787412467123.
Heo, H., Lim, K. Y., & Kim, Y. (2010). Exploratory study on the patterns of online interaction and knowledge co-construction in project-based learning. Computers & Education,55, 1383–1392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.06.012.
Janssen, J., & Bodemer, D. (2013). Coordinated computer-supported collaborative learning: Awareness and awareness tools. Educational Psychologist,48, 40–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2012.749153.
Janssen, J., Erkens, G., Kanselaar, G., & Jaspers, J. (2007). Visualization of participation: Does it contribute to successful computer-supported collaborative learning? Computers & Education,49, 1037–1065. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2006.01.004.
Janssen, J., Erkens, G., Kirschner, P. A., & Kanselaar, G. (2009). Influence of group member familiarity on online collaborative learning. Computers in Human Behavior,25, 161–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2008.08.010.
Järvelä, S., Kirschner, P. A., Panadero, E., Malmberg, J., Phielix, C., Jaspers, J.,…, Järvenoja, H. (2015). Enhancing socially shared regulation in collaborative learning groups: Designing for CSCL regulation tools. Educational Technology Research and Development, 63, 125–142. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-014-9358-1.
Jehn, K. A., & Mannix, E. A. (2001). The dynamic nature of conflict: A longitudinal study of intragroup conflict and group performance. Academy of Management Journal,44, 238–251. https://doi.org/10.2307/3069453.
Jermann, P., & Dillenbourg, P. (2008). Group mirrors to support interaction regulation in collaborative problem solving. Computers & Education,51, 279–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2007.05.012.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1995). Positive interdependence: key to effective cooperation. In R. Hertz-Lazarowitz & N. Miller (Eds.), Interaction in cooperative groups: The theoretical anatomy of group learning (pp. 174–199). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (1993). Social loafing: A meta-analytic review and theoretical integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,65, 681–706. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.65.4.681.
Keville, S., Davenport, B., Adlington, B., Davidson-Olsson, I., Cornish, M., Parkinson, A., et al. (2013). A river runs through it: Enhancing learning via emotional connectedness. Can problem-based learning facilitate this? Reflective Practice,14, 348–359. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2013.767231.
Kimmerle, J., & Cress, U. (2008). Group awareness and self-presentation in computer-supported information exchange. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning,3, 85–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-007-9027-z.
King, A. (1997). ASK to THINK-TEL WHY: A model of transactive peer tutoring for scaffolding higher level complex learning. Educational Psychologist,32, 221–235. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3204_3.
Kirschner, P. A., Kreijns, K., Phielix, C., & Fransen, J. (2015). Awareness of cognitive and social behaviour in a CSCL environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,31, 59–77. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12084.
Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P. A., & Jochems, W. (2003). Identifying the pitfalls for social interaction in computer-supported collaborative learning environments: A review of the research. Computers in Human Behavior,19, 335–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0747-5632(02)00057-2.
Kruger, A. C. (1993). Peer collaboration: Conflict, cooperation, or both? Social Development,2, 165–182. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9507.1993.tb00012.x.
Kwon, K., Hong, R., & Laffey, J. M. (2013). The educational impact of metacognitive group coordination in computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers in Human Behavior,29, 1271–1281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.01.003.
Kwon, K., Liu, Y., & Johnson, L. P. (2014). Group regulation and social-emotional interactions observed in computer supported collaborative learning: Comparison between good vs. poor collaborators. Computers & Education,78, 185–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.06.004.
Lam, C. (2015). The role of communication and cohesion in reducing social loafing in group projects. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly,78, 454–475. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329490615596417.
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics,33, 159–174. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310.
Lazakidou, G., & Retalis, S. (2010). Using computer supported collaborative learning strategies for helping students acquire self-regulated problem-solving skills in mathematics. Computers & Education,54, 3–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.02.020.
Le, H., Janssen, J., & Wubbels, T. (2018). Collaborative learning practices: Teacher and student perceived obstacles to effective student collaboration. Cambridge Journal of Education,48, 103–122. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2016.1259389.
Lee, D., Huh, Y., & Reigeluth, C. M. (2015). Collaboration, intragroup conflict, and social skills in project-based learning. Instructional Science,43, 561–590. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-015-9348-7.
Lin, J.-W. (2018). Effects of an online team project-based learning environment with group awareness and peer evaluation on socially shared regulation of learning and self-regulated learning. Behaviour & Information Technology,37, 445–461. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2018.1451558.
Lin, J.-W., & Tsai, C.-W. (2016). The impact of an online project-based learning environment with group awareness support on students with different self-regulation levels: An extended-period experiment. Computers & Education,99, 28–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.04.005.
Lin, J.-W., Tsai, C.-W., Hsu, C.-C., & Chang, L.-C. (2019). Peer assessment with group awareness tools and effects on project-based learning. Interactive Learning Environments. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1593198.
Liu, M., Liu, L., & Liu, L. (2018). Group awareness increases student engagement in online collaborative writing. The Internet and Higher Education,38, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2018.04.001.
Liu, C., & Tsai, C. (2008). An analysis of peer interaction patterns as discoursed by on-line small group problem-solving activity. Computers & Education,50, 627–639. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2006.07.002.
Malmberg, J., Järvelä, S., & Järvenoja, H. (2017). Capturing temporal and sequential patterns of self-, co-, and socially shared regulation in the context of collaborative learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology,49, 160–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2017.01.009.
Näykki, P., Järvelä, S., Kirschner, P. A., & Järvenoja, H. (2014). Socio-emotional conflict in collaborative learning—A process-oriented case study in a higher education context. International Journal of Educational Research,68, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2014.07.001.
Nokes-Malach, T. J., Richey, J. E., & Gadgil, S. (2015). When is it better to learn together? Insights from research on collaborative learning. Educational Psychology Review,27, 645–656. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9312-8.
Phielix, C., Prins, F. J., & Kirschner, P. A. (2010). Awareness of group performance in a CSCL-environment: Effects of peer feedback and reflection. Computers in Human Behavior,26, 151–161.
Phielix, C., Prins, F. J., Kirschner, P. A., Erkens, G., & Jaspers, J. (2011). Group awareness of social and cognitive performance in a CSCL environment: Effects of a peer feedback and reflection tool. Computers in Human Behavior,27, 1087–1102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.06.024.
Resta, P., & Laferrière, T. (2007). Technology in support of collaborative learning. Educational Psychology Review,19, 65–83. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-007-9042-7.
Robinson, L., Harris, A., & Burton, R. (2015). Saving face: Managing rapport in a problem-based learning group. Active Learning in Higher Education,16, 11–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787415573355.
Salomon, G., & Globerson, T. (1989). When teams do not function the way they ought to? International Journal of Educational Research,13, 89–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-0355(89)90018-9.
Schnaubert, L., & Bodemer, D. (2019). Providing different types of group awareness information to guide collaborative learning. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning,14, 7–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-018-9293-y.
Soboroff, S. D., Kelley, C. P., & Lovaglia, M. J. (2019). Group size, commitment, trust, and mutual awareness in task groups. The Sociological Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1080/00380253.2019.1625735.
Stroebe, W., Diehl, M., & Abakoumkin, G. (1992). The illusion of group effectivity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,18, 643–650. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167292185015.
Tseng, H. W., & Yeh, H.-T. (2013). Team members’ perceptions of online teamwork learning experiences and building teamwork trust: A qualitative study. Computers & Education,63, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.11.013.
Van den Bossche, P., Gijselaers, W. H., Segers, M., & Kirschner, P. A. (2006). Social and cognitive factors driving teamwork in collaborative learning environments: Team learning beliefs and behaviors. Small Group Research,37, 490–521. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496406292938.
Webb, N. M., & Mastergeorge, A. M. (2003). The development of students’ helping behavior and learning in peer-directed small groups. Cognition & Instruction,21, 361–428. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci2104_2.
Weinberger, A., Stegmann, K., & Fischer, F. (2007). Knowledge convergence in collaborative learning: Concepts and assessment. Learning and Instruction,17, 416–426. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.03.007.
Wendt, J., & Rockinson-Szapkiw, A. (2015). The effect of online collaboration on adolescent sense of community in eighth-grade physical science. Journal of Science Education and Technology,24, 671–683. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-015-9556-6.
Wentzel, K. R., & Watkins, D. E. (2002). Peer relationships and collaborative learning as contexts for academic enablers. School Psychology Review, 31, 366–377. Retrieved from https://naspjournals.org/loi/spsr.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The author declares that he has no conflict of interest.
Ethical approval
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix: Evaluation items used in the group awareness tool
Appendix: Evaluation items used in the group awareness tool
Planning phase
Evaluation statements
-
It was clear from the beginning what this team had to accomplish.
-
My team spent time making sure every team member understands the team objectives.
-
My team members understand what is expected of them in their respective roles.
-
Shortly after the start, my team had a common understanding of the task we had to handle.
-
Shortly after the start, my team had a common understanding of how to deal with the task.
-
My team members fully discussed how to collaborate for the ID project.
Reflections
-
Share what has been done very well in regard to the group process.
-
Share what should be improved in regard to the group process.
Monitoring phase
Evaluation statements
-
We regularly took time to figure out ways to improve our team’s work processes.
-
In this team someone always made sure that we stopped to reflect on the team’s work process.
-
My team members supported each other to move forward.
-
My team members shared meaningful feedback to improve the quality of work.
-
When my team members succeed in their jobs it works out positively for me.
Quality of product and collaboration
-
Rate the quality of group product.
-
Rate the quality of collaboration.
Member evaluation
-
Contribution to the project
-
Accountability towards the group work
-
Professional attitude
Reflections
-
Share what has been done very well in regard to the group process.
-
Share what should be improved in regard to the group process.
Evaluating phase
Evaluation statements
-
In our team we relied on each other to get the job done.
-
My team members were able to bring up problems and tough issues.
-
My team members sometimes rejected others being different.
-
My team members valued and utilized my unique skills and talents.
-
It was difficult to ask other members of my team for help.
-
Team members keep information to themselves that should be shared with others.
-
No one in this team would deliberately act in a way that undermines my efforts.
-
I am satisfied with the performance of my team.
-
We have completed the task in a way we all agreed upon.
-
I would want to work with this team in the future.
Quality of product and collaboration
-
Rate the overall quality of group product.
-
Rate the overall quality of collaboration.
Member evaluation
-
Contribution to the project
-
Accountability towards the group work
-
Professional attitude
Reflections
-
Share your reflection on the group process you have experienced.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kwon, K. Student-generated awareness information in a group awareness tool: what does it reveal?. Education Tech Research Dev 68, 1301–1327 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09727-7
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09727-7