Advertisement

Are two heads always better than one? Differential effects of collaboration on students’ computer-supported learning in mathematics

  • Dejana Mullins
  • Nikol Rummel
  • Hans SpadaEmail author
Article

Abstract

While some studies found positive effects of collaboration on student learning in mathematics, others found none or even negative effects. This study evaluates whether the varying impact of collaboration can be explained by differences in the type of knowledge that is promoted by the instruction. If the instructional material requires students to reason with mathematical concepts, collaboration may increase students’ learning outcome as it promotes mutual elaboration. If, however, the instructional material is focused on practicing procedures, collaboration may result in task distribution and thus reduce practice opportunities necessary for procedural skill fluency. To evaluate differential influences of collaboration, we compared four conditions: individual vs. collaborative learning with conceptual instructional material, and individual vs. collaborative learning with procedural instructional material. The instruction was computer-supported and provided adaptive feedback. We analyzed the effect of the conditions on several levels: Logfiles of students’ problem-solving actions and video-recordings enabled a detailed analysis of performance and learning processes during instruction. In addition, a post-test assessed individual knowledge acquisition. We found that collaboration improved performance during the learning phase in both the conceptual and the procedural condition; however, conceptual and procedural material had a differential effect on the quality of student collaboration: Conceptual material promoted mutual elaboration; procedural material promoted task distribution and ineffective learning behaviors. Consequently, collaboration positively influenced conceptual knowledge acquisition, while no positive effect on procedural knowledge acquisition was found. We discuss limitations of our study, address methodological implications, and suggest practical implications for the school context.

Keywords

Computer-supported collaborative learning Learning in mathematics Procedural and conceptual knowledge acquisition Tutored problem-solving 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the Virtual PhD Programm, VGK (DFG) and by the Landesstiftung Baden-Württemberg. We are grateful to the CTAT team for their support in the development of our learning environment, and to the research group of Nikolaos Avouris that we could use their tool ActivityLens to analyze our data. Many thanks go to our student research assistants Jan Koch-Weser and Martina Rau for their help with the implementation of the tutoring problems, and to our student research assistants Stephanie Haug, Marlene Herrberg, Katharina Westermann, and Michael Wiedmann for their help during data collection and data analysis. Furthermore, we want to thank Lars Holzaepfel for his advice on the development of the study material from a mathematics education perspective.

References

  1. Aleven, V., McLaren, B. M., Sewall, J., & Koedinger, K. R. (2009). A new paradigm for intelligent tutoring systems: Example-tracing tutors. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Education, 19(2), 105–154.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, J. R. (1983). The architecture of cognition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Avouris, N., Fiotakis, G., Kahrimanis, G., Margaritis, M., & Komis, V. (2007). Beyond logging of fingertip actions: analysis of collaborative learning using multiple sources of data. Journal of Interactive Learning Research JILR, 18(2), 231–250.Google Scholar
  4. Baker, R. S., Corbett, A. T., & Koedinger, K. R. (2004). Detecting student misuse of intelligent tutoring systems. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems.Google Scholar
  5. Berg, K. F. (1994). Scripted cooperation in high school mathematics: Peer interaction and achievement. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, Louisana.Google Scholar
  6. Brenner, M. E., Mayer, R. E., Moseley, B., Brar, T., Durán, R., Reed, B. S., et al. (1997). Learning by understanding: The role of multiple representations in learning algebra. American Educational Research Journal, 34(4), 663–689.Google Scholar
  7. Chi, M. T. H. (1997). Quantifying qualitative analyses of verbal data: A practical guide. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6(3), 271–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cress, U. (2008). The need for considering multi-level analysis in CSCL research. An appeal for the use of more advanced statistical methods. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3(1), 69–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dillenbourg, P., & Jermann, P. (2007). Designing integrative scripts. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Diziol, D., Rummel, N., Spada, H., & McLaren, B. (2007). Promoting learning in mathematics: Script support for collaborative problem solving with the Cognitive Tutor Algebra. In C. A. Chinn, G. Erkens & S. Puntambekar (Eds.), Mice, minds and society. Proceedings of the Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) Conference 2007, Vol 8, I (pp. 39–41). International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar
  11. Diziol, D., Rummel, N., & Spada, H. (2009). Procedural and conceptual knowledge acquisition in mathematics: Where is collaboration helpful? In C. O’Malley, D. Suthers, P. Reimann, & A. Dimitracopoulou (Eds.), Computer Supported Collaborative Learning Practices—CSCL2009 Conference Proceedings, ISLS (pp. 178–187). International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar
  12. Diziol, D., Rummel, N., & Spada, H. (2010a). Why is collaboration not always effective? Insights from the analysis of students’ learning trajectories. Paper presented at the ISEE workshop at the 9th International Conference of the Learning Sciences. Chicago, IL, USA.Google Scholar
  13. Diziol, D., Rummel, N., Spada, H., & Haug, S. (2010b). Learning in mathematics: Effects of procedural and conceptual instruction on the quality of student interaction. In K. Gomez, L. Lyons, & J. Radinsky (Eds.), Learning in the disciplines: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS 2010) (Vol. 2, pp. 370–371). Chicago: International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar
  14. Diziol, D., Walker, E., Rummel, N., & Koedinger, K. (2010c). Using intelligent tutor technology to implement adaptive support for student collaboration. Educational Psychology Review, 22(1), 89–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ellis, S., Klahr, D., & Siegler, R. (1993). Effects of feedback and collaboration on changes in children’s use of mathematical rules. Paper presented at the meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, New Orleans.Google Scholar
  16. Ericsson, K. A. (2003). Valid and non-reactive verbalization of thoughts during performance of tasks. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 10(9–10), 1–18.Google Scholar
  17. Gadgil, S., & Nokes, T. (2009). Analogical scaffolding in collaborative learning. In N. A. Taatgen & H. van Rijn (Eds.), Proceedings of the 31th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 3115–3120). Austin: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
  18. Gweon, G., Rosé, C. P., Albright, E., & Cui, Y. (2007). Evaluating the effect of feedback from a CSCL problem solving environment on learning, interaction, and perceived interdependence. In C. A. Chinn, G. Erkens, & S. Puntambekar (Eds.), Mice, minds and society. Proceedings of the Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) Conference 2007 (pp. 231–240). International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar
  19. Hausmann, R. G. M., Chi, M. T. H., & Roy, M. (2004). Learning from collaborative problem solving: An analysis of three hypothesized mechanisms. In K. D. Forbus, D. Gentner, & T. Regier (Eds.), 26nd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 547–552). Mahwah: Lawrence.Google Scholar
  20. Hiebert, J., & Wearne, D. (1996). Instruction, understanding, and skill in multidigit addition and subtraction. Cognition and Instruction, 14(3), 251–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jonassen, D. H. (2003). Designing research-based instruction for story-problems. Educational Psychology Review, 15(3), 267–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Bolger, N. (1998). Data analysis in social psychology. In D. Gilbert, S. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vol. 1, pp. 233–265). Boston: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  23. KMK. (2004). Bildungsstandards im Fach Mathematik für den Mittleren Schulabschluss (Jahrgangsstufe 10) [Standards for mathematics education for junior high school graduation, grade 10]. Darmstadt: Betz Druck.Google Scholar
  24. Koedinger, K. R., Anderson, J. R., Hadley, W. H., & Mark, M. A. (1997). Intelligent tutoring goes to school in the big city. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 8, 30–43.Google Scholar
  25. Krause, U.-M., & Stark, R. (2004). Too much of a good thing? Unwanted side effects of successful instructional interventions. In P. Gerjets, P. A. Kirschner, J. Elen, & R. Joiner (Eds.), Instructional design for effective and enjoyable computer-supported learning. Proceedings of the First Joint Meeting of the EARLI SIGs Instructional Design and Learning and Instruction with Computers (CD-ROM). Knowledge Media Research Center: Tuebingen.Google Scholar
  26. Krauss, S., Brunner, M., Kunter, M., Baumert, J., Blum, W., Neubrand, M., et al. (2008). Pedagogical content knowledge and content knowledge of secondary mathematics teachers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 716–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lou, Y., Abrami, P. C., Spence, J. C., Poulsen, C., Chambers, B., & d’Apollonia, S. (1996). Within-class grouping: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 66(4), 423–458.Google Scholar
  28. Lou, Y., Abrami, P. C., & d’Apollonia, S. (2001). Small group and individual learning with technology: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 71(3), 449–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mevarech, Z. R., & Stern, E. (1997). Interaction between knowledge and contexts on understanding abstract mathematical concepts. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 65, 68–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Nathan, M. J., Kintsch, W., & Young, E. (1992). A theory of algebra-word-problem comprehension and its implications for the design of learning environments. Cognition and Instruction, 9(4), 329–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Nathan, M. J., Mertz, K., & Ryan, R. (1994). Learning through self-explanation of mathematics examples: Effects of cognitive load. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar
  32. NCTM (2000). Principals and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA.Google Scholar
  33. Nokes, T. J., & Ross, B. H. (2007). Facilitating conceptual learning through analogy and explanation. In L. Hsu, C. Henderson, & L. McCullough (Eds.), 2007 Physics Education Conference (pp. 7–10). American Institute of Physics Conference Proceedings.Google Scholar
  34. 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). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.Google Scholar
  35. Perry, M. (1991). Learning and transfer: Instructional conditions and conceptual change. Cognitive Development, 6, 449–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Reimann, P. (2007). Time is precious: Why process analysis is essential for CSCL (and can also help to bridge between experimental and descriptive methods. In C. A. Chinn, G. Erkens & S. Puntambekar (Eds.), Mice, minds and society. Proceedings of the Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) Conference 2007, Vol 8, II (pp. 590–607). International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar
  37. Renkl, A. (2008). Kooperatives Lernen. In W. Schneider & M. Hasselhorn (Hrsg.). Handbuch Psychologie, Bd. Pädagogische Psychologie, S. 84–94. Göttingen, HogrefeGoogle Scholar
  38. Rittle-Johnson, B. (2006). Promoting transfer: Effects of self-explanation and direct instruction. Child Development, 77(1), 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rittle-Johnson, B., & Alibali, M. W. (1999). Conceptual and procedural knowledge of mathematics: Does one lead to the other? Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(1), 175–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rittle-Johnson, B., & Star, J. R. (2007). Does comparing solution methods facilitate conceptual and procedural knowledge? An experimental study on learning to solve equations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 561–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rittle-Johnson, B., Siegler, R. S., & Alibali, M. W. (2001). Developing conceptual understanding and procedural skill in mathematics: An interative process. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(2), 346–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Slavin, R. E. (1996). Research on cooperative learning and achievement: What we know, what we need to know. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21(1), 43–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Souvignier, E., & Kronenberger, J. (2007). Cooperative learning in third graders’ jigsaw groups for mathematics and science with and without questioning training. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 755–771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Staub, F. C., & Reusser, K. (1995). The role of presentational structures in understanding and solving mathematical word problems. In C. A. Weaver, S. Mannes, & C. R. Fletcher (Eds.), Discourse comprehension. Essays in honor of Walter Kintsch (pp. 285–305). Hillsdale: Lawrence.Google Scholar
  45. Teasley, S. D. (1995). The role of talk in children’s peer collaborations. Developmental Psychology, 31(2), 207–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Walker, E., Rummel, N., & Koedinger, K. R. (2011). Designing automated adaptive support to improve student helping behaviors in a peer tutoring activity. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning. doi: 10.1007/s11412-011-9111-2.
  47. Walker, E., Rummel, N., & Koedinger, K. R. (2009). Integrating collaboration and intelligent tutoring data in the evaluation of a reciprocal peer tutoring environment. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 4(3), 221–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Webb, N. M. (1989). Peer interaction and learning in small groups. International Journal of Education Research, 13, 21–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society of the Learning Sciences, Inc.; Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of PsychologyUniversity of FreiburgFreiburgGermany
  2. 2.Institute of EducationRuhr-Universität BochumBochumGermany

Personalised recommendations