Instructional Science

, Volume 42, Issue 3, pp 353–372 | Cite as

Scripted collaborative drawing in elementary science education

  • Alieke M. van DijkEmail author
  • Hannie Gijlers
  • Armin Weinberger


Creating graphical representations can foster knowledge gains on science topics in elementary school students by promoting active integration and translation of new information. Collaborating on joint representations may encourage children to discuss and elaborate their knowledge. To foster productive interactions, children may greatly benefit from additional guidance through collaboration scripts or careful group composition. In this study, we investigate the effects of script support and group composition by social preference on children’s learning processes and outcomes in a collaborative drawing setting within science education. The script foresaw a phase of individual preparation and prompted learners to engage in critical interactions. Group composition was based on children’s preferences for peers to work with. Results show that whereas the drawings of unscripted children depicted the concepts to be learned more adequately, scripted children acquired more domain knowledge during the experience. We discuss how a script can facilitate learning through collaborative drawing by imposing additional challenges on children’s interactions.


Collaborative learning Drawing Elementary education Knowledge recall Science education Scripting Transactivity 


  1. Anjewierden, A., Gijlers, H., Kolloffel, B., Saab, N., & de Hoog, R. (2011). Examining the relation between domain-related communication and collaborative inquiry learning. Computers & Education, 57, 1741–1748. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2011.03.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Azmitia, M. (1996). Peer-interactive minds: Developmental, theoretical, and methodological issues. In P. B. Baltes & U. M. Staudinger (Eds.), Interactive minds: Life-span perspectives on the social foundation of cognition (pp. 133–162). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Azmitia, M., & Montgomery, R. (1993). Friendship, transactive dialogues, and the development of scientific reasoning. Social Development, 2(3), 202–221. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9507.1993.tb00014.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baines, E., Blatchford, P., & Kutnick, P. (2008). Pupil grouping for learning: Developing a social pedagogy of the classroom. In R. M. Gillies, A. F. Ashman, & J. Terwel (Eds.), The teacher’s role in implementing cooperative learning in the classroom (pp. 56–72). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bellmore, A., Jiang, X. L., & Juvonen, J. (2010). Utilizing peer nominations in middle school: A longitudinal comparison between complete classroom-based and random list methods. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 20(2), 538–550. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-7795.2010.00640.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Berkowitz, M. W. (1980a). The role of transactive discussion in moral development. The history of a six-year program of research—part I. Moral Education Forum, 5(2), 13–26.Google Scholar
  7. Berkowitz, M. W. (1980b). The role of transactive discussion in moral development. The history of a six-year program of research—part II. Moral Education Forum, 5(3), 15–27.Google Scholar
  8. Brooks, M. (2009). Drawing visualization and young children’s exploration of “big ideas”. International Journal of Science Education, 31(3), 319–341. doi: 10/1080/0950069082595771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chi, M. T. H., Slotta, J. D., & de Leeuw, N. (1994). From things to processes: A theory of conceptual change for learning science concepts. Learning and Instruction, 4, 27–43. doi: 10.1016/0959-4752(94)90017-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Danish, J. A., & Phelps, D. (2011). Represenational practices by the numbers: How kindergarten and first-grade students create, evaluate, and modify their science representations. International Journal of Science Education, 33, 2069–2094. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2010.525798.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dillenbourg, P. (2002). Over-scripting CSCL: The risks of blending collaborative learning with instructional design. In P. A. Kirschner (Ed.), Three worlds of CSCL. Can we support CSCL? (pp. 61-91). Heerlen: Open Universiteit Nederland.Google Scholar
  12. Dillenbourg, P., & Jermann, P. (2007). Designing integrative scripts. In F. Fischer, I. Kollar, H. Mandl, & J. M. Haake (Eds.), Scripting computer-supported collaborative learning (Vol. 6). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dillenbourg, P., & Tchounikine, P. (2007). Flexibility in macro-scripts for computer-supported collaborative learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23, 1–13. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2007.00191.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. DiSessa, A. A., & Sherin, B. L. (2000). Meta-representation: An introduction. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 19(4), 385–398. doi: 10.1016/S0732-3123(01)00051-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dutson, A. J., Todd, R. H., Magleby, S. P., & Sorensen, C. D. (1997). A review of literature teaching engineering design through project-oriented capstone courses. Journal of Engineering Education, 86(1), 17–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. ELAN Multimedia Annotation Tool. (2010). Retrieved April 29, 2010, from
  17. Gelmini-Hornsby, G., Ainsworth, S., & O’Malley, C. (2011). Guided reciprocal questioning to support children’s collaborative storytelling. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6, 577–600. doi: 10.1007/11412-011-9129-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gijlers, H., & de Jong, T. (2009). Sharing and confronting propositions in collaborative inquiry learning. Cognition and Instruction, 27(3), 239–268. doi: 10.1080/07370000903014352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hartup, W. W., Laursen, B., Stewart, M. I., & Eastenson, A. (1988). Conflict and the friendship relations of young children. Child Development, 59, 1590–1600. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1988.tb03686.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Joshi, M. & Rosé, C. P. (2007). Using transactivity in conversation for summarization of educational dialogue: Proceedings of the SLaTE Workshop on Speech and Language Technology in Education, Farmington, Pennsylvania. Google Scholar
  21. Kagan, S., & Kagan, M. (1994). The structural approach: Six keys to cooperative learning. In S. Sharan (Ed.), Handbook of cooperative learning methods (pp. 115–133). Westport: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
  22. Kane, J. S., & Lawler, E. E. (1978). Methods of peer assessment. Psychological Bulletin, 85(3), 555–586. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.85.3.555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. King, A. (1994). Guiding knowledge construction in the classroom: Effects of teaching children how to question and how to explain. American Educational Research Journal, 31(2), 338–368. doi: 10.3102/00028312031002338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lazonder, A. W., Wilhelm, P., & Ootes, S. A. W. (2003). Using sentence openers to foster student interaction in computer-mediated learning environments. Computers & Education, 41, 291–308. doi: 10.1016/S0360-1315(03)00050-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mäkitalo, K., Weinberger, A., Häkkinen, P., Järvelä, S., & Fischer, F. (2005). Epistemic cooperation scripts in online learning environments: Fostering learning by reducing uncertainty in discourse? Computers in Human Behavior, 21(4), 603–622. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2004.10.033.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Maldonado, H., Klemmer, S. R., & Pea, R. D. (2009). When is collaborating with friends a good idea? Insights from design education. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 9th International Conference of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, Hong Kong, China.Google Scholar
  27. Mercer, N., Dawes, L., Wegerif, R., & Sams, C. (2004). Reasoning as a scientist: Ways of helping children to use language to learn science. British Educational Research Journal, 30(3), 359–377. doi: 10.1080/01411920410001689689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Moore, B. H., & Caldwell, H. (1993). Drama and drawing for narrative writing in primary grades. Journal of Educational Research, 87(2), 100–110. doi: 10.1080/00220671.1993.9941173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Newcomb, A. F., & Bagwell, C. L. (1995). Children’s friendship relations: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 117(2), 306–347. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.117.2.306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Newcomb, A. F., & Brady, J. E. (1982). Mutuality in boys’ friendship relations. Child Development, 53, 392–395. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1982.tb01328.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Noroozi, O., Weinberger, A., Biemans, H. J. A., Mulder, M., & Chizari, M. (2013). Facilitating argumentative knowledge construction through a transactive discussion script in CSCL. Computers & Education, 61, 59–76. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2012.08.013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. O’Donnell, A. M. (1999). Structuring dyadic interaction through scripted cooperation. In A. M. O’Donnell & A. King (Eds.), Cognitive perspectives on peer learning (pp. 179–196). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associated.Google Scholar
  34. Poulin, F., & Dishion, T. J. (2008). Methodological issues in the use of peer sociometric nominations with middle school youth. Social development, 17, 908–921. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9507.2008.00473.x.
  35. Rennie, L. J., & Jarvis, T. (1995). English and Australian children’s perceptions about technology. Research in Science & Technology Education, 13(1), 37–52. doi: 10.1080/0263514950130104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Savinainen, A., Scott, P., & Viiri, J. (2005). Using a bridging representation and social interactions to foster conceptual change: Designing and evaluating an instructional sequence for Newton’s third law. Science Education, 89(2), 175–195. doi: 10.1002/sce.20037.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. SLO. (2009). Tussendoelen en leerlijnen (TULE) Retrieved June 7, 2010, from
  38. Sloetjes, H., & Wittenburg, P. (2008). Annotation by category—ELAN and ISO DCR. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2008), Marrakech, Marocco. Google Scholar
  39. Stegmann, K., Wecker, C., Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2011). Collaborative argumentation and cognitive elaboration in a computer-supported collaborative learning environment. Instructional Science,. doi: 10.1007/s11251-011-9174-5.Google Scholar
  40. Stegmann, K., Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2007). Facilitating argumentative knowledge construction with computer-supported collaboration scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(4), 421–447. doi: 10.1007/s11412-007-9028-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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), 183–218. doi: 10.1207/S15327809JLS1202_2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Teasley, S. D. (1997). Talking about reasoning: How important is the peer in peer collaboration? Paper presented at the NATO Advanced Research Workshop on Discourse, Tools, and Reasoning: Situated Cognition and Technologically Supported Environments, Lucca, Italy.Google Scholar
  43. van Boxtel, C., van der Linden, J., & Kanselaar, G. (2000). Collaborative learning tasks and the elaboration of conceptual knowledge. Learning and Instruction, 10, 311–330. doi: 10.1016/S0959-4752(00)00002-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. van Meter, P. (2001). Drawing construction as a strategy for learning from text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 129–140. doi: 10.1037//0022-0663-93.1.129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. van Meter, P., & Garner, J. (2005). The promise and practice of learner-generated drawing: Literature review and synthesis. Educational Psychology Review, 17(4), 285–325. doi: 10/1007/s10648-005-8136-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Watson, S. B., & Marshall, J. E. (1995). Heterogeneous grouping as an element of cooperative learning in an elementary education science course. School Science and Mathematics, 95(8), 401–405. doi: 10.1111/j.1949-8594.1995.tb10192.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Weinberger, A., Ertl, B., Fischer, F., & Mandl, H. (2005). Epistemic and social scripts in computer-supported collaborative learning. Instructional Science, 33, 1–30. doi: 10.1007/s11251-004-2322-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2006). A framework to analyze argumentative knowledge construction in computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers & Education, 46(1), 71–95. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2005.04.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Weinberger, A., Stegmann, K., & Fischer, F. (2010). Learning to argue online: Scripted groups surpass individuals (unscripted groups do not). Computers in Human Behavior, 26(4), 506–515. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2009.08.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Zajac, R. J., & Hartup, W. W. (1997). Friends as coworkers: Research review and classroom implications. The Elementary School Journal, 98(1), 3–13. doi: 10.1086/461881.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alieke M. van Dijk
    • 1
    Email author
  • Hannie Gijlers
    • 1
  • Armin Weinberger
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Instructional TechnologyUniversity of TwenteEnschedeThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Saarland UniversitySaarbrückenGermany

Personalised recommendations