Advertisement

Springer Nature is making Coronavirus research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Collaboration Scripts – A Conceptual Analysis

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Anderson, J.R. (2000). Cognitive psychology and its implications (Fifth edition). Worth Publishing: New York.

  2. Baker, M., & Lund, K. (1997). Promoting reflective interactions in a CSCL environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 13, 175193.

  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.

  4. Brehm, J.W. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance. Academic Press: New York.

  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.

  6. Cohen, E.G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review Educational Research, 64(1), 115.

  7. Cohen, E.G., & Lotan, R.A. (1995). Producing equal-status interaction in the heterogeneous classroom. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 99120.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  14. Ertl, B., Fischer, F., & Mandl, H. (in press). Conceptual and socio-cognitive support for collaborative learning in videoconferencing environments. Computers & Education.

  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.

  16. Fabos, B., & Young, M. (1999). Telecommunication in the Classroom: Rhetoric versus Reality. Review of Educational Research, 69(3), 217260.

  17. Fischer, F., Bruhn, J., Gräsel, C., & Mandl, H. (2002). Fostering collaborative knowledge construction with visualisation tools. Learning and Instruction, 12, 213232.

  18. Graesser, A.C., & Person, N.K. (1994). Question asking through tutoring. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 104137.

  19. Guzdial, M., & Turns, J. (2000). Effective discussion through a computer-mediated anchored forum. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(4), 437469.

  20. Hewitt, J., & Scardamalia, M. (1998). Design principles for distributed knowledge building processes. Educational Psychology Review, 10(1), 7596.

  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.

  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.

  23. Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R.T. (1994). Constructive conflict in schools. Journal of Social Issues, 50(1), 117137.

  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.

  25. King, A. (1998). Transactive peer tutoring: Distributing cognition and metacognition. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 5774.

  26. King, A. (2002). Structuring peer interaction to promote high-level cognitive processing. Theory into Practice, 41(1), 3339.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  32. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.

  33. Mayer, R.E. (2001). Multimedia learning. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, MA.

  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.

  35. Moore, J. L., & Rocklin, T. R. (1998). The distribution of distributed cognition: Multiple interpretations and uses. Educational Psychology Review, 10(1), 97113.

  36. Newell, A. (1990). Unified theories of cognition. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  42. Palincsar, A.S., & Brown, A.L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117175.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  50. Renkl, A., Mandl, H., & Gruber, H. (1996). Inert knowledge: Analyses and remedies. Educational Psychologist, 31, 115121.

  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.

  52. Rosenshine, B., & Meister, C. (1994). Reciprocal teaching: A review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 64(4), 479530.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  56. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1993/1994). Computer-support for knowledge-building communities. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(3), 265283.

  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.

  58. Schank, R.C. (1999). Dynamic memory revisited. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.

  59. Schank, R.C., & Abelson, R.P. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals and understanding. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.

  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.

  61. Schnotz, W. (2002). Towards an integrated view of learning from text and visual displays. Educational Psychology Review, 14(2), 101120.

  62. Schwan, S. (1997). Media characteristics and knowledge acquisition in computer conferencing. European Psychologist, 2(3), 277285.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  66. Sweller, J., Van Merrienboer, J., & Paas, F. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review 10(3), 251296.

  67. Tabak, I. (2004). Synergy: A complement to emerging patterns of distributed scaffolding. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 305335.

  68. Vekiri, I. (2002). What is the value of graphical displays in learning? Educational Psychology Review, 14(3), 261312.

  69. Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher mental processes. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA.

  70. Vygotsky, L.S. (1992). Thought and language (rev. ed.). The MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.

  71. Webb, N.M. (1989). Peer interaction and learning in small groups. International Journal of Educational Research, 13, 2139.

  72. Weinberger, A., Ertl, B., Fischer, F., & Mandl, H. (2005). Epistemic and social scripts in computer-supported collaborative learning. Instructional Science, 33(1), 130.

  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.

Download references

Acknowledgements

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

Author information

Correspondence to Ingo Kollar.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kollar, I., Fischer, F. & Hesse, F.W. Collaboration Scripts – A Conceptual Analysis. Educ Psychol Rev 18, 159–185 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-006-9007-2

Download citation

Keywords

  • Computer-supported collaborative learning
  • Scripts
  • Collaboration scripts
  • Scaffolding