Advertisement

The role of teacher assistance on the effects of a macro-script in collaborative writing tasks

  • Javier Onrubia
  • Anna Engel
Article

Abstract

Some recent proposals on CSCL scripts have suggested that one key factor for their effectiveness is the ability of the teacher to adapt the scripts to the students and to the specific teaching and learning situations. In this context, this paper presents a multiple-case study dealing with the relationship between the assistance given by the teacher during the collaborative process and the forms of collaborative work developed by groups of university students in two natural settings, in which two different types of macro-script are used. Specifically, the study sets itself three objectives: (1) to identify patterns of teacher assistance to the collaborative work developed by the groups; (2) to identify the forms of collaborative work developed by the groups; and (3) to explore the relationships between the patterns of teacher assistance, the forms of collaborative work and the level of performance achieved by the groups. The results show two different patterns of teacher assistance in the two settings. These patterns differ on four dimensions: the aspect of the task on which the teacher was offering assistance, the moment in which the assistance was offered, the recipient of the assistance, and whether the assistance offered by the teacher was spontaneous or requested by the students. These patterns are related with the forms of collaborative work developed by the groups (how the group is organized and how the written work is produced) within the structural framework imposed, in each setting, by the macro-script.

Keywords

CSCL scripts Higher education Patterns of group organisation Phases of collaborative knowledge construction Teacher assistance 

References

  1. Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing teaching presence in a computer conference context. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(2), 1–17.Google Scholar
  2. Arvaja, M., Rasku-Puttonen, H., Häkkinen, P., & Eteläpelto, A. (2003). Constructing knowledge through a role-play in a web-based learning environment. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 28(4), 319–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barnes, D. (1976). From communication to curriculum. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
  4. Bereiter, C. (1994). Implications of postmodernism for science, or, science as progressive discourse. Educational Psychologist, 29(1), 3–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berge, Z. L. (1995). Facilitating computer conferencing: Recommendations from the field. Educational Technology, 35(1), 22–30.Google Scholar
  6. Blaye, A., & Light, P. (1990). Computer-based learning: The social dimensions. In H. C. Foot, M. J. Morgan, & R. H. Shute (Eds.), Children helping children (pp. 135–150). Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  7. Coll, C., Mauri, T., & Onrubia, J. (2008a). Análisis de los usos reales de las TIC en contextos educativos formales: una aproximación sociocultural. Revista Electrónica de Investigación Educativa, 10(1). <http://redie.uabc.mx/vol10no1/contenido-coll2.html> Retrieved 08.08.08.
  8. Coll, C., Onrubia, J., & Mauri, T. (2008). Ayudar a aprender en contextos educativos: El ejercicio de la influencia educativa y el análisis de la enseñanza. Revista de Educación, 346, 33–70.Google Scholar
  9. Colomina, R., Onrubia, J., & Rochera, M. J. (2001). Interactividad, mecanismos de influencia educativa y construcción del conocimiento en el aula. In C. Coll, J. Palacios, & A. Marchesi (Eds.), Desarrollo psicológico y educación. Vol. II. Psicología de la educación escolar (pp. 437–458). Madrid: Alianza.Google Scholar
  10. De Laat, M., Lally, V., Lipponen, L., & Simons, R. J. (2007). Online teaching in networked learning communities: A multi-method approach to studying the role of the teacher. Instructional Science, 35, 257–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. De Wever, B., Van Keer, H., Schellens, T., & Valcke, M. (2007). Applying multilevel modelling on content analysis data: Methodological issues in the study of the impact of role assignment in asynchronous discussion groups. Learning and Instruction, 17, 436–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. De Wever, B., Van Keer, H., Schellens, T., & Valcke, M. (2009). Structuring asynchronous discussion groups: The impact of role assignment and self-assessment on students’ levels of knowledge construction through social negotiation. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25(2), 177–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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
  14. Dillenbourg, P., & Fischer, F. (2007). Basics of computer-supported collaborative learning. Zeitschrift für Berufs- und Wirtschaftspädagogik, 21, 111–130.Google Scholar
  15. Dillenbourg, P., & Hong, F. (2008). The mechanics of CSCL macro scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3(1), 5–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dillenbourg, P., & Jermann, P. (2006). Designing integrative scripts. In F. Fischer, H. Mandl, J. Haake, & I. Kollar (Eds.), Scripting computer-supported collaborative learning: Cognitive, computational and educational perspectives (pp. 275–301). New York: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  17. Dillenbourg, P., & Tchounikine, P. (2007). Flexibility in macro-scripts for computer-supported collaborative learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dillenbourg, P., Järvelä, S., & Fisher, F. (2009). The evolution of research on computer-supported collaborative learning: from design to orchestration. In N. Balacheff, S. Ludvigsen, T. de Jong, A. Lazonder, & S. Barnes (Eds.), Technology enhanced learning: Principles and products (pp. 3–19). Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  19. Engel, A., & Onrubia, J. (2008). Scripting computer-supported collaboration by university students. Interactive Educational Multimedia, 16, 33–53.Google Scholar
  20. Engel, A., & Onrubia, J. (2010). Patrones de organización grupal y fases de construcción del conocimiento en entornos virtuales de aprendizaje colaborativo. Infancia y Aprendizaje, 33(4), 515–528.Google Scholar
  21. Erkens, G., Jaspers, J., Prangsma, M., & Kanselaar, G. (2005). Coordination processes in computer supported collaborative writing. Computers in Human Behavior, 21(3), 463–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fischer, F. & Dillenbourg, P. (2006). Challenges of orchestrating computer-supported collaborative learning. Paper presented at the 87th. Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA), San Francisco, USA.Google Scholar
  23. Fischer, F., Mandl, H., Kollar, I., & Haake, J. (Eds.). (2007). Scripting computer-supported collaborative learning. Cognitive, computational and educational perspectives. New York: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  24. Forman, E., & Cazden, C. (1985). Perspectivas vigotskianas en la educación: El valor cognitivo de la interacción entre iguales. Infancia y Aprendizaje, 27–28, 139–157.Google Scholar
  25. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 15(1).Google Scholar
  26. Gunawardena, L., Lowe, C., & Anderson, T. (1997). Interaction analysis of a global on-line debate and the development of a constructivist interaction analysis model forcomputer conferencing. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 17(4), 395–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hämäläinen, R., & Häkkinen, P. (2010). Teachers’ instructional planning for computer-supported collaborative learning: Macro-scripts as a pedagogical method to facilitate collaborative learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(4), 871–877.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Järvelä, S., & Häkkinen, P. (2002). Web-based cases in teaching and learning: The quality of discussion and a stage of perspective taking in asynchronous communication. Interactive Learning Environments, 10(1), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kirschner, P. A., Beers, P. J., Boshuizen, H. P. A., & Gijselaers, W. H. (2008). Coercing shared knowledge in collaborative learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 403–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kobbe, L., Weinberger, A., Dillenbourg, P., Harrer, A., Hämäläinen, R., & Häkkinen, P. (2007). Specifying computer-supported collaboration scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(2/3), 211–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lipponen, L. (2002). Exploring foundations for computer-supported collaborative Learning. In G. Stahl (Ed.), Computer support for collaborative learning: Foundations for a CSCL community (pp. 72–81). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lockhorst, D. (2004). Design principles for a CSCL environment in teacher training. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Universiteit Utrecht, The Netherlands. <http://www.uu.nl/uupublish/content/proefschriftLockhorst.pdf> Retrieved 05.05.06.
  34. Manlove, S., Lazonder, A. W., & De Jong, T. (2009). Trends and issues of regulative support use during inquiry learning: Patterns from three studies. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(4), 795–803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mason, R. (1991). Moderating educational computer conference. DEOSNEWS, 1(19). <http://www.emoderators.com/papers/mason.html> Retrieved 05.05.06.
  36. Meier, A., Spada, H., & Rummel, N. (2007). A rating scheme for assessing the quality of computer-supported collaboration processes. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(1), 63–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mercer, N. (1995). The guided construction of knowledge: Talk amongst teachers and learners. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  38. Mercer, N. (2000). Words and minds. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Onrubia, J., & Engel, A. (2009). Strategies for collaborative writing and phases of knowledge construction in CSCL environments. Computers & Education, 53(4), 1256–1265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Paulsen, M. F. (1995). Moderating educational computer conferences. In Z. L. Berge & M. P. Collins (Eds.), Computer-mediated communication and the online classroom. Cresskill: Hampton Press.Google Scholar
  41. Rourke, L., & Kanuka, H. (2007). Barriers to online critical discourse. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2, 105–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rummel, N., & Spada, H. (2005). Learning to collaborate: An instructional approach to promoting collaborative problem-solving in computer-mediated settings. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14, 201–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge-building communities. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(3), 265–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2003). Knowledge building. In J. W. Guthrie (Ed.), Encyclopedia of education (2nd ed., pp. 1370–1373). New York: Macmillan Reference.Google Scholar
  45. Schellens, T., Van Keer, H., & Valcke, M. (2005). The impact of role assignment on knowledge construction in asynchronous discussion groups: A multilevel analysis. Small Group Research, 36, 704–745.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Schellens, T., Van Keer, H., De Wever, B., & Valcke, M. (2007). Scripting by assigning roles: Does it improve knowledge construction in asynchronous discussion groups? International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(2–3), 225–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Schrire, S. (2006). Knowledge building in asynchronous discussion groups: Going beyond quantitative analysis. Computers & Education, 46, 49–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Slof, B., Erkens, G., Kirschner, P. A., Jaspers, J. G. M., & Janssen, J. (2010). Guiding students’ online complex learning-task behavior through representational scripting. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(5), 927–939.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Stahl, G. (2005). Group cognition in computer-assisted collaborative learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(2), 79–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Stahl, G., Koschmann, T., & Suthers, D. (2006). Computer-supported collaborative learning: An historical perspective. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  51. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Strijbos, J. W., Martens, R. L., Jochems, W. M. G., & Broers, N. J. (2004). The effect of functional roles on group efficiency: Using multilevel modeling and content analysis to investigate computer-supported collaboration in small groups. Small Group Research, 35, 195–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Strijbos, J. W., de Laat, M., Martens, R. L., & Jochems, W. M. G. (2005). Functional versus spontaneous roles during CSCL. In T. Koschmann, D. Suthers, & T. W. Cahn (Eds.), Computer supported collaborative learning 2005: The next ten years! (pp. 567–576). Mahwah: LawrenceErlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  54. Strijbos, J. W., Martens, R. L., Jochems, W. M. G., & Broers, N. J. (2007). The effect of functional roles on perceived group efficiency during computer-supported collaborative learning: A matter of triangulation. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 353–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Suthers, D. D. (2006). Technology affordances for intersubjective meaning making: A research agenda for CSCL. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(3), 315–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Suthers, D., & Hundhausen, C. (2001). Learning by constructing collaborative representations: an empirical comparison of three alternatives. In Proceedings of European Conference on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning. Maastrict, The Netherlands, March 2001.Google Scholar
  57. Tharp, R. G., Estrada, P., Dalton, S., & Yamauchi, L. A. (2000). Teaching transformed. Achieving excellence, fairness, inclusion, and harmony. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  58. Veldhuis-Diermanse, A. E. (2002). CSCLearning? Participation, learning activities and knowledge construction in computer-supported collaborative learning in higher education. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Wageningen University, The Netherlands. <http://www.gcw.nl/dissertations/3187/dis3187.pdf> Retrieved 15.08.04.
  59. Weinberger, A. (2003). Scripts for computer-supported collaborative learning. Effects of social and epistemic cooperation scripts on collaborative knowledge construction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Ludwig Maximilians Universität, Deutschland. <http://deposit.ddb.de/cgibin/dokserv?idn=968511597&dok_var=d1&dok_ext=pdf&filename=968511597.pdf> Retrieved 11.12.2006
  60. Weinberger, A., Fischer, F., & Mandl, H. (2002). Fostering computer supported collaborative learning with cooperation scripts and scaffolds. In G. Stahl (Ed.), Computer support for collaborative learning: Foundations for a CSCL community (pp. 573–574). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 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
  62. Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry: Towards a sociocultural practice and theory of education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Developmental and Educational PsychologyUniversity of BarcelonaBarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations