Educational Psychology Review

, Volume 18, Issue 2, pp 159–185 | Cite as

Collaboration Scripts – A Conceptual Analysis

Original Paper


This article presents a conceptual analysis of collaboration scripts used in face-to-face and computer-mediated collaborative learning. Collaboration scripts are scaffolds that aim to improve collaboration through structuring the interactive processes between two or more learning partners. Collaboration scripts consist of at least five components: (a) learning objectives, (b) type of activities, (c) sequencing, (d) role distribution, and (e) type of representation. These components serve as a basis for comparing prototypical collaboration script approaches for face-to-face vs. computer-mediated learning. As our analysis reveals, collaboration scripts for face-to-face learning often focus on supporting collaborators in engaging in activities that are specifically related to individual knowledge acquisition. Scripts for computer-mediated collaboration are typically concerned with facilitating communicative-coordinative processes that occur among group members. The two lines of research can be consolidated to facilitate the design of collaboration scripts, which both support participation and coordination, as well as induce learning activities closely related to individual knowledge acquisition and metacognition. In addition, research on collaboration scripts needs to consider the learners’ internal collaboration scripts as a further determinant of collaboration behavior. The article closes with the presentation of a conceptual framework on script-based learning that incorporates both external and internal collaboration scripts.


Computer-supported collaborative learning Scripts Collaboration scripts Scaffolding 



This research has been partially funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG; [German Research Foundation]).


  1. Anderson, J.R. (2000). Cognitive psychology and its implications (Fifth edition). Worth Publishing: New York.Google Scholar
  2. Baker, M., & Lund, K. (1997). Promoting reflective interactions in a CSCL environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 13, 175193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bell, P. (2004). Promoting students’ argument construction and collaborative debate in the science classroom. In: Linn, M.C., Davis, E.A., & Bell, P. (eds.), Internet environments for science education. Erlbaum: Mahwah, NJ, pp. 114–144.Google Scholar
  4. Brehm, J.W. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance. Academic Press: New York.Google Scholar
  5. Carmien, S., Kollar, I., Fischer, F., & Fischer, G. (in press). The interplay of internal and external scripts. A distributed cognition perspective. In: Fischer, F., Kollar, I., Mandl, H., & Haake, J.M. (eds.), Scripting computer-supported collaborative learning: Cognitive, computational, and educational perspectives. Springer: New York.Google Scholar
  6. Cohen, E.G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review Educational Research, 64(1), 115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cohen, E.G., & Lotan, R.A. (1995). Producing equal-status interaction in the heterogeneous classroom. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 99120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Derry, S.J., DuRussel, L.A., & O’Donnell, A.M. (1998). Individual and distributed cognitions in interdisciplinary teamwork: A developing case study and emerging theory. Educational Psychology Review, 10(1), 2556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dillenbourg, P. (2002). Over-scripting CSCL: The risks of blending collaborative learning with instructional design. In: Kirschner, P.A. (ed.), Three worlds of CSCL. Can we support CSCL. Open Universiteit Nederland, Heerlen, pp. 61–91.Google Scholar
  10. Dillenbourg, P., & Jermann, P. (in press). Designing integrative scripts. In: Fischer, F., Kollar, I., Mandl, H., & Haake, J.M. (eds.), Scripting computer-supported collaborative learning: Cognitive, computational, and educational perspectives. Springer: New York.Google Scholar
  11. Dillon, A., & Gabbard, R. (1998). Hypermedia as an educational technology: A review of the quantitative research literature on learner comprehension, control and style. Review of Educational Research, 68, 322349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dochy, F., Moerkerke, G., & Segers, M. (1999). The effect of prior knowledge on learning in educational practice: Studies using prior knowledge state assessment. Evaluation & Research in Education, 8, 345367.Google Scholar
  13. Dönmez, P., Rosé, C.P., Stegmann, K., Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2005). Supporting CSCL with automatic corpus analysis technology. In: Koschmann, T., Suthers, D., & Chan, T.-W. (eds.), Computer supported collaborative learning 2005: The next 10 Years. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 125– 134.Google Scholar
  14. Ertl, B., Fischer, F., & Mandl, H. (in press). Conceptual and socio-cognitive support for collaborative learning in videoconferencing environments. Computers & Education.Google Scholar
  15. Ertl, B., Kopp, B., & Mandl, H. (2005). Effects of an individual's prior knowledge on collaborative knowledge construction and individual learning outcomes in videoconferencing. In: Koschmann, T., Suthers, D., & Chan, T.-W. (eds.), Computer supported collaborative learning 2005: The next 10 Years. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 145–154.Google Scholar
  16. Fabos, B., & Young, M. (1999). Telecommunication in the Classroom: Rhetoric versus Reality. Review of Educational Research, 69(3), 217260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fischer, F., Bruhn, J., Gräsel, C., & Mandl, H. (2002). Fostering collaborative knowledge construction with visualisation tools. Learning and Instruction, 12, 213232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Graesser, A.C., & Person, N.K. (1994). Question asking through tutoring. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 104137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Guzdial, M., & Turns, J. (2000). Effective discussion through a computer-mediated anchored forum. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(4), 437469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hewitt, J., & Scardamalia, M. (1998). Design principles for distributed knowledge building processes. Educational Psychology Review, 10(1), 7596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hron, A., Hesse, F.W., Reinhard, P., & Picard, E. (1997). Strukturierte Kooperation beim computerunterstützten kollaborativen Lernen [Structured collaboration in computer-supported collaborative learning]. Unterrichtswissenschaft, 25, 5669.Google Scholar
  22. Hythecker, V.I., Dansereau, D.F., & Rocklin, T.R. (1988). An analysis of the processes influencing the structured dyadic learning environment. Educational Psychologist, 23(1), 2337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R.T. (1994). Constructive conflict in schools. Journal of Social Issues, 50(1), 117137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. King, A. (1997). ASK to THINK – TEL WHY ®©: A model of transactive peer tutoring for scaffolding higher level complex learning. Educational Psychologist, 32(4), 221235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. King, A. (1998). Transactive peer tutoring: Distributing cognition and metacognition. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 5774.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. King, A. (2002). Structuring peer interaction to promote high-level cognitive processing. Theory into Practice, 41(1), 3339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kollar, I. (2001). Gewissheits- und Ungewissheitsorientierung beim kooperativen Lernen in Videokonferenzen – der Einfluss verschiedener Strukturierungsmaßnahmen. [Uncertainty orientation in video-mediated cooperative learning – effects of different structural supports]. Unpublished master thesis, Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich, Germany.Google Scholar
  28. Kollar, I., Fischer, F., & Slotta, J.D. (2005). Internal and external collaboration scripts in web-based science learning at schools. In: Koschmann, T., Suthers, D., & Chan, T.-W. (eds.), Computer supported collaborative learning 2005: The next 10 Years. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 331–340.Google Scholar
  29. Lambiotte, J.G., Dansereau, D.F., O’Donnell, A.M., Young, M.D., Skaggs, L.P., Hall, R.P., & Rocklin, T.R. (1987). Manipulating cooperative scripts for teaching and learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(4), 424430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Larson, C.O., Dansereau, D.F., O’Donnell, A., Hythecker, V., Lambiotte, J.G., & Rocklin, T.R. (1984). Verbal ability and cooperative learning: Transfer of effects. Journal of Reading Behavior, 16(4), 289295.Google Scholar
  31. Larson, C.O., Dansereau, D.F., O’Donnell, A., Hythecker, V., Lambiotte, J.G., & Rocklin, T.R. (1985). Effects of metacognitive and elaborative activity on cooperative learning and transfer. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 10, 342348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.Google Scholar
  33. Mayer, R.E. (2001). Multimedia learning. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  34. Miao, Y., Hoeksema, K., Hoppe, H.U., & Harrer, A. (2005). CSCL Scripts: Modelling features and potential use. In: Koschmann, T., Suthers, D., & Chan, T.-W. (eds.), Computer supported collaborative learning 2005: The next 10 Years. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 423–432.Google Scholar
  35. Moore, J. L., & Rocklin, T. R. (1998). The distribution of distributed cognition: Multiple interpretations and uses. Educational Psychology Review, 10(1), 97113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Newell, A. (1990). Unified theories of cognition. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  37. Nuthall, G. (2000). The role of memory in the acquisition and retention of knowledge in science and social studies units. Cognition and Instruction, 18(1), 83139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. O’Connaill, B., & Whittaker, S. (1997). Characterizing, predicting, and measuring video-mediated communication: A conversational approach. In: Finn, K.E., Sellen, A.J., & Wilbur, S.B. (eds.), Video-mediated communication. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 107–132.Google Scholar
  39. O’Donnell, A.M. (1999). Structuring dyadic interaction through scripted cooperation. In: O’Donnell, A.M., & King, A. (eds.), Cognitive perspectives on peer learning. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 179–196.Google Scholar
  40. O’Donnell, A.M., & Dansereau, D.F. (1992). Scripted Cooperation in student dyads: A method for analyzing and enhancing academic learning and performance. In: Hertz-Lazarowitz, R., & Miller, N. (eds.), Interaction in cooperative groups: The theoretical anatomy of group learning. Cambridge University Press: New York, pp. 120–141.Google Scholar
  41. O’Donnell, A.M., Dansereau, D.F., Hall, R.H., & Rocklin, T.R. (1987). Cognitive, social/affective, and metacognitive outcomes of scripted cooperative learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(4), 431437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Palincsar, A.S., & Brown, A.L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pea, R.D. (1993). Practices of distributed intelligence and design for education. In: Salomon, G. (ed.), Distributed cognitions: psychological and educational considerations. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, pp. 47–87.Google Scholar
  44. Pea, R.D. (2004). The social and technological dimensions of scaffolding and related theoretical concepts for learning, education, and human activity. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 423451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Perkins, D.N. (1993). Person-plus: a distributed view of thinking and learning. In: Salomon, G. (ed.), Distributed cognitions: psychological and educational considerations. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, pp. 88–110.Google Scholar
  46. Pfister, H.-R., & Mühlpfordt, M. (2002). Supporting discourse in a synchronous learning environment: The learning protocol approach. In: Stahl, G. (ed.), Proceedings of the conference on computer supported collaborative learning (CSCL) 2002. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp. 581–589.Google Scholar
  47. Plass, J.L., Chun, D., Mayer, R.E., & Leutner, D. (1998). Supporting visualizer and verbalizer learning preferences in a second language multimedia learning environment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 2536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Quintana, C., Reiser, B.J., Davis, E.A., Krajcik, J., Fretz, E., Duncan, R.G., Kyza, E., Edelson, D., & Soloway, E. (2004). A scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 337387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Reiser, B.J. (2004). Scaffolding complex learning: The mechanisms of structuring and problematizing student work. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 273304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Renkl, A., Mandl, H., & Gruber, H. (1996). Inert knowledge: Analyses and remedies. Educational Psychologist, 31, 115121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Rewey, K.L., Dansereau, D.F., Dees, S.M., Skaggs, L.P., & Pitre, U. (1992). Scripted cooperation and knowledge map supplements: Effects of the recall of biological and statistical information. Journal of Experimental Education, 60(2), 93107.Google Scholar
  52. Rosenshine, B., & Meister, C. (1994). Reciprocal teaching: A review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 64(4), 479530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Rummel, N., & Spada, H. (2005). Learning to collaborate: an instructional approach to promoting collaborative problem solving in computer-mediated settings. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(2), 201241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Salomon, G. (1993). No distribution without individuals’ cognition: A dynamic interactional view. In: Salomon, G. (ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations. Cambridge University Press: New York City, pp. 111–138.Google Scholar
  55. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1991). Higher levels of agency for children in knowledge building: A challenge for the design of new knowledge media. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1(1), 3768.Google Scholar
  56. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1993/1994). Computer-support for knowledge-building communities. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(3), 265283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., McLean, R.S., Swallow, J., & Woodruff, E. (1989). Computer supported intentional learning environments. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 5, 5168.Google Scholar
  58. Schank, R.C. (1999). Dynamic memory revisited. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.Google Scholar
  59. Schank, R.C., & Abelson, R.P. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals and understanding. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.Google Scholar
  60. Schellens, T., van Keer, H., Valcke, M., & deWever, B. (2005). The impact of role assignment as scripting tool on knowledge construction in asynchronous discussion groups. In: Koschmann, T., Suthers, D., & Chan, T.-W. (eds.), Computer supported collaborative learning 2005: The next 10 Years. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 557–566.Google Scholar
  61. Schnotz, W. (2002). Towards an integrated view of learning from text and visual displays. Educational Psychology Review, 14(2), 101120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Schwan, S. (1997). Media characteristics and knowledge acquisition in computer conferencing. European Psychologist, 2(3), 277285.Google Scholar
  63. Sherin, B., Reiser, B.J., & Edelson, C. (2004). Scaffolding analysis: Extending the scaffolding metaphor to learning artifacts. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 387421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Spiro, R.J., Feltovich, P.J., Jacobson, M.J., & Coulson, R.L. (1991). Cognitive flexibility, constructivism, and hypertext: Random access instruction for advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains. Educational Technology, 31(5), 2433.Google Scholar
  65. Suthers, D.D., & Hundhausen, C.D. (2003). An experimental study of the effects of representational guidance on collaborative learning processes. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(2), 183219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Sweller, J., Van Merrienboer, J., & Paas, F. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review 10(3), 251296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Tabak, I. (2004). Synergy: A complement to emerging patterns of distributed scaffolding. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 305335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Vekiri, I. (2002). What is the value of graphical displays in learning? Educational Psychology Review, 14(3), 261312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher mental processes. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  70. Vygotsky, L.S. (1992). Thought and language (rev. ed.). The MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  71. Webb, N.M. (1989). Peer interaction and learning in small groups. International Journal of Educational Research, 13, 2139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Weinberger, A., Ertl, B., Fischer, F., & Mandl, H. (2005). Epistemic and social scripts in computer-supported collaborative learning. Instructional Science, 33(1), 130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Wood, D., Bruner, J.S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 17, 89100.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science +Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ingo Kollar
    • 1
  • Frank Fischer
    • 1
  • Friedrich W. Hesse
    • 1
  1. 1.Knowledge Media Research CenterTübingenGermany

Personalised recommendations