Scripting by assigning roles: Does it improve knowledge construction in asynchronous discussion groups?

  • Tammy Schellens
  • Hilde Van Keer
  • Bram De Wever
  • Martin Valcke
Article

Abstract

This article describes the impact of learning in asynchronous discussion groups on students’ levels of knowledge construction. A design-based approach enabled the comparison of two successive cohorts of students (N = 223 and N = 286) participating in discussion groups for one semester. Multilevel analyses were applied to uncover the influence of student, group, and task variables on the one hand, and the specific impact of a particular form of scripting – namely the assignment of roles to group members – on the other. Results indicate that a large part of the overall variability in students’ level of knowledge construction can be attributed to the discussion assignment. More intensive and active individual participation in the discussion groups and adopting a positive attitude towards the learning environment also positively relates to a higher level of student knowledge construction. Task characteristics – differences between the consecutive discussion themes – appeared to significantly affect levels of knowledge construction, although further analysis revealed that these differences largely disappeared after correcting for task complexity. Finally, comparisons between both cohorts revealed that the introduction of student roles led to significantly higher levels of knowledge construction. An effect size of 0.5 was detected.

Keywords

Asynchronous discussion groups Computer-supported collaborative learning Higher education Online learning Scripting 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aviv, R., Erlich, Z., & Ravid, G. (2003). Cohesion and roles: Network analysis of CSCL communities. In V. Devedzic, J. M. Spector, D. G. Sampson, & Kinshuk (Eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (pp. 145–150). Athens: ICALT.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baker, M., & Lund, K. (1997). Promoting reflective interactions in a CSCL environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 13, 175–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bransford, J., & Stein, B. (1984). The ideal problem solver: A guide for improving thinking, learning and creativity. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
  4. Brousseau, G. (1998). Théorie des situations didactiques. Textes rassemblés et préparés par Balacheff, Cooper, Sutherland, Warfield, Recherches en Didactique des Mathématiques. Grenoble: La Pensée sauvage.Google Scholar
  5. Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2, 141–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carey, J. M., & Kacmar, C. J. (1997). The impact of communication mode and task complexity on small group performance and member satisfaction. Computers in Human Behavior, 13, 23–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clark, D., Weinberger, A., Jucks, I., Spitulnik, M., & Wallace, R. (2003). Designing effective science inquiry in text-based computer supported collaborative learning environments. International Journal of Educational Policy, Research & Practice, 4, 55–82.Google Scholar
  8. Chalmers, C., & Nason, R. A. (2003). Developing primary students’ group metacognitive processes in a computer supported collaborative learning environment. In Proceedings AARE-NZARE 2003 Joint Conference, Auckland. Coldstream: AARE.Google Scholar
  9. Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in education research. Educational Researcher, 32, 9–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cohen, E. G. (1994). Designing groupwork. Strategies for the heterogeneous classroom (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  11. Coleman, E. B. (1995). Learning by explaining: Fostering collaborative progressive discourse in science. In R. J. Beun, M. Baker, & M. Reiner (Eds.), Dialogue and instruction: Modeling interaction in intelligent tutoring systems (pp. 123–135). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  12. Collins, A., Joseph, D., & Bielaczyc, K. (2004). Design research: Theoretical and methodological issues. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13, 15–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cragan, J. F., & Wright, D. W. (1990). Small group communication research of the 1980’s: A synthesis and critique. Communication Studies, 41, 212–236.Google Scholar
  14. Dennen, V. P., & Paulus, T. M. (2005). Researching “collaborative knowledge building” in formal distance learning environments. In T. Koschman, T. W. Chan, & D. D. Suthers (Eds.), Proceedings of CSCL 2005: The next 10 Years! (CD-ROM). Taipei: International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar
  15. De Wever, B., Van Keer, H., Schellens, T., & Valcke, M. (2007). Applying multilevel modelling to content analysis data: Methodological issues in the study of role assignment in asynchronous discussion groups. Learning & Instruction, 17, 436–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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
  17. Dillenbourg, P., & Jermann, P. (2003). Elaborating new arguments through a cscl scenario. In G. Andriessen, M. Baker, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments. CSCL series. Amsterdam: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  18. Dillenbourg, P., & Jermann, P. (2007). Designing integrative scripts. Cognitive, computational and educational perspectives. In: F. Fischer, I. Kollar, H. Mandl, & J. Haake (Eds.), Scripting computer-supported collaborative learning: Cognitive, computational and educational perspectives (pp. 275–301). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  19. Dillenbourg, P., Baker, M., Blaye, A., & O’Malley, C. (1995) The evolution of research on collaborative learning. In E. Spada, & P. Reiman (Eds.), Learning in humans and machine: Towards an interdisciplinary learning science (pp. 189–211). Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  20. 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, 345–367.Google Scholar
  21. Ellis, A. (2001). Student-centred collaborative learning via face-to-face and asynchronous online communication: What’s the difference? In G. Kennedy, M. Keppel, C. McNaught, & T. Petrovic (Eds.), Meeting at the Crossroads. Proceedings of the 18th Annual Conference of the Australian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education (pp. 169–177). Melbourne: Biomedical Multimedia Unit, The University of Melbourne.Google Scholar
  22. Entwistle, N., Tait, H., & McCune, V. (2000). Patterns of response to an approaches to studying inventory across contrasting groups and contexts. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 15, 33–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ewing, J., & Miller, D. (2002). A framework for evaluating computer supported collaborative learning, Educational Technology & Society, 5, 112–118.Google Scholar
  24. Flanagin, A. J., Park, H. S., & Seibold, D. R. (2004). Group performance and collaborative technology: A longitudinal and multilevel analysis of information quality, contribution equity, and members’ satisfaction in computer-mediated groups. Communication Monographs, 71, 352–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Flavell, J. H. (1985). Cognitive development. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  26. Frey, L. R. (1994). The call of the field: Studying communication in natural groups. In L. R. Frey (Ed.), Group communication in context: Studies of natural groups (pp. ix–xiv). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum AssociatesGoogle Scholar
  27. Garrison, D. R. (1992). Critical thinking and self-directed learning in adult education: An analysis of responsibility and control issues. Adult Education Quarterly, 42, 136–148.Google Scholar
  28. Graham, M., Scarborough, H., & Goodwin, C. (1999). Implementing computer mediated communication in an undergraduate course—A practical experience. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 3, 32–45. Retrieved March 12, 2007, from http://www.aln.org/publications/jaln/v3n1/v3n1_graham.asp.Google Scholar
  29. Gunawardena, C. N., Lowe, C. A., & Anderson, T. (1997). Analysis of a global online debate and the development of an interaction analysis model for examining social construction of knowledge in computer conferencing. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 17, 397–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hakkarainen, K., & Palonen, T. (2003). Patterns of female and male students’ participation in peer interaction in computer-supported learning. Computers and Education, 40(16), 327–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hara, N., Bonk, C. J., & Angeli, C. (2000). Content analysis of online discussion in an applied educational psychology course. Instructional Science, 28, 115–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Harper, B., Squires, D., & McDougall, A. (2000). Constructivist simulations: A new design paradigm. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 9(2), 115–130.Google Scholar
  33. Holsti, O. R. (1969). Content analysis for the social sciences and humanities. Reading: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  34. Hox, J. J. (1994). Hierarchical regression models for interviewer and respondent effects. Sociological Methods and Research, 22, 300–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hox, J. J., & Kreft, I. G. (1994). Multilevel analysis methods. Sociological Methods and Research, 22, 283–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hox, J. J., & Maas, C. J. M. (2002). Sample sizes for multilevel modeling. In J. Blasius, J. Hox, E. de Leeuw, & P. Schmidt (Eds.), Social Science Methodology in the New Millennium. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Logic and Methodology (CD-ROM; 2nd ed., expanded).Google Scholar
  37. Hurme, T. R., & Järvelä, S. (2001). Metacognitive processes in problem solving with CSCL in mathematics. Paper presented at the first European Conference on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, EURO-CSCL 2001, Maastricht, The Netherlands, March 22–24.Google Scholar
  38. Inaba, M. (2006). A CSCL environment that promotes metacognition among learners in the community of practice. Paper presented at the fifth International Conference of the Cognitive Science, Vancouver, Canada, July 26.Google Scholar
  39. Jacobson, D. M. (2001). Building different bridges: Technology integration, engaged student learning, and new approaches to professional development. Paper presented at AERA 2001: What we know and how we know it, the 82nd Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA, April 10–14.Google Scholar
  40. Kobbe, L., Weinberger, A., Dillenbourg, P., Harrer, A., Hämäläinen, R., & Fischer, F. (2007). Specifying computer-supported collaboration scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2.Google Scholar
  41. Kollar, I., Fischer, F., & Hesse, F. W. (2003). Cooperation scripts for computer-supported collaborative learning. In B. Wasson, R. Baggetun, U. Hoppe, & S. Ludvigsen (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning—CSCL 2003, COMMUNITY EVENTS-Communication and Interaction (pp. 59–61). Bergen: InterMedia.Google Scholar
  42. Kollar, I, Fischer, F., & Slotta, J. (2006). Internal and external collaboration scripts in web based science learning at schools. In: T. Koschmann, D. Suthers, & T.-W. Chan (Eds.), Computer supported collaborative learning 2005: The next 10 years. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  43. Lockhorst, D. (2004). Design principles for a CSCL environment in teacher training. Dissertation. Utrecht: Universiteit Utrecht.Google Scholar
  44. Mäkitalo, K., Weinberger, A., Häkkinen, P., & Fischer, F. (2004). Uncertainty-reducing cooperation scripts in online learning environments. Retrieved July 14, 2004, from http://www.iwm-kmrc.de/workshops/sim2004/pdf_files/Makitalo_et al.pdf.
  45. Monge, P. R. (1990). Theoretical and analytical issues in studying organizational processes. Organization Science, 1, 406–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Muirhead, B. (2000) Enhancing social Interaction in computer-mediated distance education. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 3, 4–11.Google Scholar
  47. O’Donnell, A. N., & Dansereau, D. F. (1992). Scripted cooperation in student dyads: A method for analyzing and enhancing academic learning and performance. In R. Hertz-Lazarowitz, & N. Miller (Eds.), Interactions in cooperative groups. The theoretical anatomy of group learning (pp. 120–141). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Polya, G. (1957). How to solve it. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Poole, M. S., Keyton, J., & Frey, L. R. (1999). Group communication methodology: Issues and considerations. In L. R. Frey, D. S. Gouran, & M. S., Poole (Eds.), The handbook of group communication theory and research (pp. 92–117). Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  50. Quinn, C. N. (1997) Engaging learning. ITForum Paper #18. Retrieved July 12, 2004, from http://itech1.coe.uga.edu/itforum/paper18/paper18.html.
  51. Rasbash, J., Browne, W., Goldstein, H., Yang, M., Plewis, I., Healy, M. et al. (1999). A user’s guide to MLwiN. London: Institute of Education.Google Scholar
  52. Rourke, L., & Anderson, T. (2004). Validity in quantitative content analysis. Educational Technology Research & Development, 52, 5–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Methodological issues in the content analysis of computer conference transcripts. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 12, 8–22.Google Scholar
  54. Salomon, G., & Globerson, T. (1989). When teams do not function the way they ought to. International Journal of Educational Research, 13, 89–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Schellens, T., & Valcke, M. (2005). Collaborative learning in asynchronous discussion groups: What about the impact on cognitive processing? Computers in Human Behavior, 21, 957–975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Schellens, T., Van Keer, H., Valcke, M., & De Wever, B. (2005). Learning in asynchronous discussion groups: A multilevel approach to study the influence of student, group, and task characteristics. Behaviour & Information Technology, 36, 704–745.Google Scholar
  57. Scott, C. R. (1999). Communication technology and group communication. In L. Frey, D. Gouran, & M. Poole (Eds.), The handbook of group communication theory and research (pp. 432–472). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  58. Shotsberger, P. G. (1997). Emerging roles for instructors and learners in the web-based instruction classroom. In: B. H. Khan (Ed.), Web-based instruction (pp. 101–106). Englewood Cliffs: Educational Technology Publications.Google Scholar
  59. Simons, P. R. J. (2000). Computer-supported collaborative learning in primary, secondary and vocational education. New perspectives for learning—briefing paper 31. Retrieved from http://www.pjb.co.uk/npl/bp31.htm.
  60. Stahl, G. (2003). Building collaborative knowing: Elements of a social theory of learning. In: J.-W. Strijbos, P. Kirschner, & R. Martens (Eds.), What we know about CSCL in higher education (pp. 53–85). Amsterdam (The Netherlands): Kluwer.Google Scholar
  61. Stevens, J. (1996). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (3rd ed.). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  62. Strijbos, J. W., Martens, R. L., Jochems, W., & Broers, N. J. (2004). The effect of functional roles on group efficiency: Using multilevel modelling and content analysis to investigate computer-supported collaboration in small groups. Small Group Research, 35, 195–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Tagg, A. C. (1994). Leadership from within: Student moderation of computer conferences. The American Journal of Distance Education, 8, 40–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Vonderwell, S. (2003). An examination of asynchronous communication experiences and perspectives of students in an online course: A case study. Internet and Higher Education, 6, 77–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Wallas, G. (1921). The art of thought. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.Google Scholar
  66. Weinberger, A. (2003). Scripts for computer-supported collaborative learning. Effects of social and epistemic cooperation scripts on collaborative knowledge construction. Doctoral dissertation, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität.Google Scholar
  67. Weinberger, A., Reiserer, M., Ertl, B., Fischer, F., & Mandl, H. (2005). Facilitating collaborative knowledge construction in computer-mediated learning environments with cooperation scripts. In R. Bromme, F. W. Hesse, & H. Spada (Eds.), Barriers and biases in computer-mediated knowledge communication. Boston: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  68. Weinberger, A., Stegmann, K., & Fischer, F. (2005). Computer-supported collaborative learning in higher education: Scripts for argumentative knowledge construction in distributed groups. In: T. Koschmann, D. Suthers, & T.-W. Chan (Eds.), Computer supported collaborative learning 2005: The next 10 years (pp. 717–726). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  69. Zhu, E. (1996). Meaning negotiation, knowledge construction, and mentoring in a distance learning course. In Proceedings of Selected Research and Development Presentations at the 1996 National Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technolgy (pp. 821–844). Indeanapolis: ERIC documents: ED 397 849.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society of the Learning Sciences, Inc.; Springer Science+ Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tammy Schellens
    • 1
  • Hilde Van Keer
    • 1
  • Bram De Wever
    • 1
  • Martin Valcke
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Educational Studies, Faculty of Psychology and Educational SciencesGhent UniversityGentBelgium

Personalised recommendations