Operationalizing macro-scripts in CSCL technological settings

  • Pierre Tchounikine


This paper presents a conceptual analysis of the technological dimensions related to the operationalization of CSCL macro-scripts. CSCL scripts are activity models that aim at enhancing the probability that knowledge generative interactions such as conflict resolution, explanation or mutual regulation occur during the collaboration process. We first recall basics about CSCL scripts and macro-scripts. Then, we propose an analysis of some core issues that must be made explicit and taken into account when operationalizing macro-scripts, such as the reification of some aspects of the script within the technological setting, the strategy within which students are presented with the technological setting and the uncertainties related to scripts and technological setting perception and enactment. We then present SPAIRD, a model that we propose as a means to conceptualize the relations between scripts and technological settings used to operationalize them. This model describes four points of view on the script (structural model, implementation-oriented model, student-oriented models and platform specification) and the underlying design rationale (learning hypothesis, pedagogic principle and design decisions). In order to exemplify SPAIRD’s usefulness we propose examples of how it allows drawing general propositions with respect to the couple script + technological setting. Finally, we present an analysis of current state-of-the-art technological approaches with respect to this conceptualization, and research directions for the design and implementation of technological settings that present the properties identified in our analysis. In particular, we study the interest of model-driven approaches, flexible technological settings and model-based script engines.


CSCL macro-scripts Operationalization Technological setting Computer science 



This work benefited from fruitful exchanges and collaboration with P. Dillenbourg (Craft, EPFL, Switzerland). The author thanks C. Choquet (Lium, University of Le Mans, France), A. Harrer (Collide, University of Duisburg-Essen, Germany), C. Jones (OpenUniversity, UK), L. Kobbe (KMRC, Tübingen, Germany), and the anonymous reviewers for their comments on preceding versions of this article. More generally, this research benefited from the work realized in the groups focusing on CSCL of Kaleidoscope (, a European Research Network of Excellence focusing on Technology Enhanced Learning.


  1. Baker, M. J., & Lund, K. (1997). Promoting reflective interactions in a computer-supported collaborative learning environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 13, 175–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Berger, A., Moretti, R., Chastonay, P., Dillenbourg, P., Bchir, A., Baddoura, R. et al. (2001). Teaching community health by exploiting international socio-cultural and economical differences. In: European Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (pp. 97–105), Maastricht (NL).Google Scholar
  3. Betbeder, M. L., Tchounikine, P. (2003). Symba: A framework to support collective activities in an educational context. In International Conference on Computers in Education (pp. 188–196), Hong Kong.Google Scholar
  4. Bote-Lorenzo, M. L., Hernández-Leo, D., Dimitriadis, Y., Asensio-Pérez, J. I., Gómez-Sánchez, E., Vega-Gorgojo, G., et al. (2004). Towards reusability and tailorability in collaborative learning systems using IMS-LD and Grid Services. Advanced Technology for Learning, 1(3), 129–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brousseau, G. (1998). Théorie des situations didactiques. France: La Pensée Sauvage.Google Scholar
  6. Caron, P.-A., Derycke, A., Le Pallec, X. (2005). Bricolage and model driven approach to design distant course. In Proceedings of the World Conference on E-learning in Corporate Government, Healthcare & Higher Education (pp. 2856–2864), Vancouver, Canada.Google Scholar
  7. CopperCore (2007). Last visited March 2007.
  8. Delium, C. (2003). OSCAR: A framework for structuring mediated communication by speech acts. In IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (pp. 229–233), Athens, Greece.Google Scholar
  9. DiGiano, C., Yarnall, L., Patton, C., Roschelle, J., Tatar, D. G., Manley, M. (2002). Collaboration design patterns: Conceptual tools for planning for the wireless classroom. In International Workshop on Wireless and Mobile Technologies in Education (pp. 39–47), Växjö, Sweden.Google Scholar
  10. Dillenbourg, P. (1999). What do you mean by collaborative learning? In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.) Collaborative-learning, cognitive and computational approaches (pp. 1–19). Oxford: Elsevier.Google 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). SWISH: A model for designing CSCL scripts. In F. Fischer, H. Mandl, J. Haake, & I. Kollar (Eds.) Scripting computer-supported collaborative learning—Cognitive, computational, and educational perspectives. Computer-supported Collaborative Learning Series. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  13. Dillenbourg, P., & Tchounikine, P. (2007). Flexibility in macro-scripts for CSCL. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(1), 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding. A activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit.Google Scholar
  15. Ferraris, C., Martel, C., & Vignollet, L. (2007). LDL for collaborative activities. In L. Botturi, & T. Stubbs (Eds.) Handbook of visual languages in instructional design: Theories and practices. Hershey, PA: Idea Group.Google Scholar
  16. Fischer, F., Mandl, H., Haake, J., & Kollar, I. (2007). Scripting computer-supported collaborative learning–Cognitive, computational, and educational perspectives. Computer-supported Collaborative Learning Series. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  17. Goodyear, P. (2001). Effective networked learning in higher education: Notes and guidelines. Volume 3 of the Final Report to JCALT: Networked Learning in Higher Education Project. Retrieved from (December 2nd, 2006).
  18. Goodyear, P. (2004). Patterns, pattern languages and educational design. In R. Atkinson, C. McBeath, D. Jonas-Dwyer & R. Phillips (Eds.), Beyond the comfort zone: ASCILITE Conference (pp. 339–347), Perth, Australia.Google Scholar
  19. Haake, J., & Pfister, H.-R. (2007). Flexible scripting in net-based learning groups. In F. Fischer, I. Kollar, H. Mandl, & J. M. Haake (Eds.) Scripting computer-supported cooperative learning. Cognitive, computational, and educational perspectives. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  20. Harrer, A., Malzahn, N. (2006). Bridging the gap—Towards a graphical modelling language for learning designs and collaboration scripts of various granularities. In International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (pp. 296–300). Kerkrade, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  21. Hernández-Leo, D., Asensio-Pérez, J. I., Dimitriadis, Y. (2004). IMS learning design support for the formalization of collaborative learning patterns. In International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (pp. 350–354). Finland: Joensuu.Google Scholar
  22. Hernández-Leo, D., Asensio-Pérez, J. I., Dimitriadis, Y., Bote-Lorenzo, M. L., Jorrín-Abellán, I. M., & Villasclaras-Fernández, E. D. (2005). Reusing IMS-LD formalized best practices in collaborative learning structuring. Advanced Technology for Learning, 2(3), 223–232.Google Scholar
  23. Hernández-Leo, D., Burgos, D., Tattersall, C., & Koper, R. (2007). Representing CSCL macro-scripts using IMS LD: Lessons learned. .
  24. Hernández-Leo, D., Villasclaras-Fernández, E. D., Jorrín-Abellán, I. M., Asensio-Pérez, J. I., Dimitriadis, Y., Ruiz-Requies, I., et al. (2006). Collage, a collaborative learning design editor based on patterns special issue on learning design. Educational Technology & Society, 9(1), 58–71.Google Scholar
  25. Hong, F., & Dillenbourg, P. (2007). Conveying a pedagogical model through design patterns. In Workshop on Computer-Supported Collaboration Scripts, Villars (Switzerland). Retrieved March 2nd, 2007 from http:
  26. Iksal, S., & Choquet, C. (2005). Usage analysis driven by models in a pedagogical context. In AIED’05 Workshop on usage analysis in learning systems (pp. 49–56), Amsterdam (NL).Google Scholar
  27. IMS-LD (2003). IMS global learning consortium. IMS Learning Design v1.0 Final Specification. Retrieved May 29th 2006, from
  28. Jermann, P., & Dillenbourg, P. (2003). Elaborating new arguments through a CSCL scenario. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker, & D. D. Suthers (Eds.) Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 205–226). Amsterdam: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  29. Jones, C., Dirckinck-Holmfeld, L., & Lindström, B. (2006). A relational, indirect, meso-level approach to CSCL design in the next decade. IJCSCL, 1(1), 35–56.Google Scholar
  30. Kirschner, P., Strijbos, J. W., Kreijns, K., & Beers, P. J. (2004). Designing electronic collaborative learning environments. Education Technology Research & Development, 52(3), 47–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kobbe, L., Weinberger, A., Dillenbourg, P., Harrer, A., Hämäläinen, R., Häkkinen, P., et al. (2007). Specifying computer-supported collaboration scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(2–3), 211–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kollar, I., Fischer, F., & Hesse, F. W. (2006). Computer-supported cooperation scripts—A conceptual analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 18(2), 159–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. LAMS (2007). Last visited March 2007.
  34. Le Moigne, J.-L. (1990). La modélisation des systèmes complexes. Paris: Dunod.Google Scholar
  35. Malone, T. W., Lai, K.-Y., Fry, C. (1992). Experiments with oval: A radically tailorable tool for cooperative work. In Proceedings of ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative (pp 289–297), Toronto, Canada.Google Scholar
  36. McGrenere, J., Ho, W. (2000). Affordances: Clarifying and evolving a concept. In Proceedings of Graphic Interface (pp. 179–186), Montreal, Canada.Google Scholar
  37. MDA (2003). OMG, MDA guide version 1.0.1. Retrieved May 29th 2006, from
  38. Miao, Y., Hoeksema, K., Hoppe, U., & Harrer, A. (2005). CSCL scripts: modelling features and potential use. In Proceedings of International Computer Supported Collaborative Learning Conference (CD-om), Taipei, Taiwan.Google Scholar
  39. MOF (2007). Meta-object facility. Last visited March 2007.
  40. Moran, T. P., & Carroll, J. M. (1996). Design rationale: Concepts, techniques, and use. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  41. Morch, A. (1997). Three levels of end-user tailoring: Customization, integration, and extension. In M. Kyng, & L. Mathiassen (Eds.) Computers and design in context (pp. 51–76). Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  42. Norman, D. A. (1999). Affordances, conventions, and design. Interactions, 6(3), 38–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 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, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  44. Plone (2006). Plone: A user-friendly and powerful open source content management system. Retrieved May 29th 2006, from
  45. Rabardel, P. (2003). From artefact to instrument. Interacting with Computers, 15(5), 641–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Reinders, M., Vinkhuyzen, E., Voss, A., Akkermans, H., Balder, J., Bartsch-Spörl, B., et al. (1991). A conceptual modelling framework for knowledge-level Reflection. AI Communications, 4(2/3), 74–87.Google Scholar
  47. Schmidt, K. (1990). Analysis of cooperative work. A conceptual framework. Roskilde, Denmark: Riso National Laboratory.Google Scholar
  48. Soller, A. (2001). Supporting social interaction in a collaborative learning system. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 12(4), 40–62.Google Scholar
  49. Strijbos, J. W., Martens, R. L., & Jochems, W. M. G. (2004). Designing for interaction: Six steps to designing computer-supported group-based learning. Computers in Education, 42, 403–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Suthers, D., & Weiner, A. (1995). Groupware for developing critical discussion skills. In J. L. Schnase, & E. L. Cunnius (Eds.) Proceedings of CSCL ’95, the First International Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning. Oct. 17–20, 1995. Indiana U. Bloomington, IN (pp. 341–348). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum (see also Scholar
  51. Tchounikine, P. (2007). Directions to acknowledge learners’ self organization in CSCL macro-scripts. In J. M. Haake, S. F. Ochoa, & A. Cechich (Eds.) Groupware: Design, implementation and use, LNCS 4715 (pp. 247–254). Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. UML, Unified modeling language, OMG. Retrieved May 29th 2006, from
  53. Wasson, B., & Morch, A. (2000). Identifying collaboration patterns in collaborative telelearning scenarios. Educational Technology & Society, 3(3), 237–248.Google Scholar
  54. Weinberger, A., Ertl, B., Fischer, F., & Mandl, H. (2005). Epistemic and social scripts in computer-supported collaborative learning. Instructional Science, 33(1), 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wielinga, B., Schreiber, A., & Breuker, A. (1992). Kads: A modelling approach to knowledge engineering. Knowledge Acquisition Journal, 4(1), 1–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Zope (2006). Zope community. Retrieved May 29th 2006, from

Copyright information

© International Society of the Learning Sciences, Inc.; Springer Science+ Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.LIUMUniversité of Le MansLe Mans Cedex 9France

Personalised recommendations