Advertisement

Facilitating learning in multidisciplinary groups with transactive CSCL scripts

  • Omid Noroozi
  • Stephanie D. Teasley
  • Harm J. A. Biemans
  • Armin Weinberger
  • Martin Mulder
Article
First Online:

Abstract

Knowledge sharing and transfer are essential for learning in groups, especially when group members have different disciplinary expertise and collaborate online. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) environments have been designed to facilitate transactive knowledge sharing and transfer in collaborative problem-solving settings. This study investigates how knowledge sharing and transfer can be facilitated using CSCL scripts supporting transactive memory and discussion in a multidisciplinary problem-solving setting. We also examine the effects of these CSCL scripts on the quality of both joint and individual problem-solution plans. In a laboratory experiment, 120 university students were randomly divided into pairs based only on their disciplinary backgrounds (each pair had one partner with a background in water management and one partner with a background in international development studies). These dyads were then randomly assigned to one of four conditions: transactive memory script, transactive discussion script, both scripts, or no scripts (control). Learning partners were asked to analyze, discuss, and solve an authentic problem that required knowledge of both their domains, i.e., applying the concept of community-based social marketing in fostering sustainable agricultural water management. The results showed interaction effects for the transactive memory and discussion scripts on transactive knowledge sharing and transfer. Furthermore, transactive memory and discussion scripts individually, but not in combination, led to better quality demonstrated in both joint and individual problem solutions. We discuss how these results advance the research investigating the value of using scripts delivered in CSCL systems for supporting knowledge sharing and transfer.

Keywords

Collaborative learning Computer-supported collaborative learning Multidisciplinary groups Transactive discussion script Transactive memory script 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Baker, M., & Lund, K. (1997). Promoting reflective interactions in a CSCL environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 13(3), 175–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barron, B. (2003). When smart groups fail. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(3), 307–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beers, P. J., Boshuizen, H. P. A., Kirschner, P. A., & Gijselaers, W. H. (2005). Computer support for knowledge construction in collaborative learning environments. Computers in Human Behaviour, 21(4), 623–643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beers, P. J., Kirschner, P. A., Boshuizen, H. P. A., & Gijselaers, W. H. (2007). ICT-support for grounding in the classroom. Instructional Science, 35(6), 535–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bereiter, C. (2002). Education and mind in the knowledge age. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  6. Berkowitz, M. W., & Gibbs, J. C. (1983). Measuring the developmental features of moral discussion. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 29(4), 399–410.Google Scholar
  7. Boix-Mansilla, V. (2005). Assessing student work at disciplinary crossroads. Change, 37(1), 14–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clark, H. H., & Brennan, S. E. (1991). Grounding in communication. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 127–148). Washington: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cohen, E. G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64(1), 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Courtney, J. F. (2001). Decision making and knowledge management in inquiring organizations: Toward a new decision-making paradigm for DSS. Decision Support Systems, 31(1), 17–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. De Lisi, R., & Golbeck, S. L. (1999). Implications of piagetian theory for peer learning. In A. M. O’Donnell & A. King (Eds.), Cognitive perspectives on peer learning (pp. 3–37). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  12. Dehler, J., Bodemer, D., & Buder, J. (2008). Knowledge convergence in CMC: The impact of convergence-related external representations. Poster presented at the 8 th international conference for the learning sciences, Utrecht, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
  13. Dehler, J., Bodemer, D., Buder, J., & Hesse, F. W. (2011). Guiding knowledge communication in CSCL via group knowledge awareness. Computers in Human Behaviour, 27(3), 1068–1078.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dillenbourg, P. (1999). Introduction: What do you mean by “collaborative learning”? In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Collaborative learning. Cognitive and computational approaches (pp. 1–19). Amsterdam, NL.Google Scholar
  15. 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
  16. Dillenbourg, P., & Tchounikine, P. (2007). Flexibility in macro-scripts for CSCL. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(1), 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Doise, W., & Mugny, G. (1984). The social development of the intellect. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  18. Engelmann, T., & Hesse, F. W. (2010). How digital concept maps about the collaborators’ knowledge and information influence computer-supported collaborative problem solving. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5(3), 299–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Engelmann, T., & Hesse, F. W. (2011). Fostering sharing of unshared knowledge by having access to the collaborators’ meta-knowledge structures. Computers in Human Behaviour, 27(6), 2078–2087.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Engelmann, T., Dehler, J., Bodemer, D., & Buder, J. (2009). Knowledge awareness in CSCL: A psychological perspective. Computers in Human Behaviour, 25(4), 949–960.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fischer, F., Bruhn, J., Gräsel, C., & Mandl, H. (2002). Fostering collaborative knowledge construction with visualization tools. Learning and Instruction, 12(2), 213–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fischer, F., Kollar, I., Mandl, H., & Haake, J. (Eds.). (2007). Scripting computer-supported communication of knowledge. Cognitive, computational and educational perspectives. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  23. Fischer, F., & Mandl, H. (2005). Knowledge convergence in computer-supported collaborative learning: The role of external representation tools. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(3), 405–441.Google Scholar
  24. Ge, X., & Land, S. M. (2004). A conceptual framework for scaffolding ill-structured problem-solving processes using question prompts and peer interactions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(2), 5–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Häkkinen, P. (2002). Internet-based learning environments for project-enhanced science learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18(2), 232–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Häkkinen, P. (2004). What makes learning in virtual teams so difficult? Cyber psychology and Behaviour, 7(2), 201–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Häkkinen, P., & Järvelä, S. (2006). Sharing and constructing perspectives in web-based conferencing. Computers in Education, 47(1/2), 433–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Häkkinen, P., Arvaja, M., & Mäkitalo, K. (2004). Prerequisites for CSCL: Research approaches, methodological challenges and pedagogical development. In K. Littleton, D. Faulkner, & D. Miell (Eds.), Learning to collaborate and collaborating to learn (pp. 161–175). New York: Nova.Google Scholar
  29. Häkkinen, P., Arvaja, M., Hämäläinen, R., & Pöysä, J. (2010). Scripting computer-supported collaborative learning: Review of SCORE studies. In B. Ertl. (Ed.), E-Collaborative knowledge construction: Learning from computer-supported and virtual environments (pp. 180–194). IGI Global.Google Scholar
  30. Hollingshead, A. B. (2000). Perceptions of expertise and transactive memory in work relationships. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 3(6), 257–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Järvelä, S., & Häkkinen, P. (2002). Web-based cases in teaching and learning - the quality of discussions and a stage of perspective taking in asynchronous communication. Interactive Learning Environments, 10(1), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jermann, P., & Dillenbourg, P. (2003). Elaborating new arguments through a CSCL script. In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Learning to argue (pp. 205–226). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kapur, M. (2008). Productive failure. Cognition and Instruction, 26(3), 379–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. King, A. (1999). Discourse patterns for mediating peer learning. In A. O’Donnell & A. King (Eds.), Cognitive perspectives on peer learning (pp. 87–115). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  35. Kirschner, P. A., Beers, P. J., Boshuizen, H. P. A., & Gijselaers, W. H. (2008). Coercing shared knowledge in collaborative learning environments. Computers in Human Behaviour, 24(2), 403–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Leitão, S. (2000). The potential of argument in knowledge building. Human Development, 43(6), 332–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lewis, K. (2003). Measuring transactive memory systems in the field: Scale development and validation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4), 587–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lewis, K., Lange, D., & Gallis, L. (2005). Transactive memory systems, learning, and learning transfer. Organizational Science, 16(6), 581–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Liang, D. W., Moreland, R. L., & Argote, L. (1995). Group versus individual training and group performance: The mediating role of transactive memory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(4), 384–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. London, M., Polzer, J. T., & Omoregie, H. (2005). Interpersonal congruence, transactive memory, and feedback processes: An integrative model of group learning. Human Resource Development Review, 4(2), 114–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mansilla, V. B. (2005). Assessing student work at disciplinary crossroads. Change, 37(1), 14–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Michinov, N., & Michinov, E. (2009). Investigating the relationship between transactive memory and performance in collaborative learning. Learning and Instruction, 19(1), 43–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Moreland, R. L., & Argote, L. (2003). Transactive memory in dynamic organizations. In R. Peterson & E. Mannix (Eds.), Leading and managing people in the dynamic organization (pp. 135–162). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  44. Moreland, R. L., & Myaskovsky, L. (2000). Exploring the performance benefits of group training: Transactive memory or improved communication? Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 82(1), 117–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Moreland, R. L., Argote, L., & Krishnan, T. (1996). Social shared cognition at work: Transactive memory and group performance. In J. L. Nye & A. M. Brower (Eds.), What’s social about social cognition? Research on socially shared cognition in small groups (pp. 57–84). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  46. Moreland, R. L., Argote, L., & Krishnan, R. (1998). Training people to work in groups. In L. H. R. S. Tindale, J. Edwards, E. J. Posvac, F. B. Byant, Y. Sharez-Balcazar, E. Henderson-King, & R. Myers (Eds.), Theory and research on small groups (pp. 37–60). New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  47. Nastasi, B. K., & Clements, D. H. (1992). Social-cognitive behaviours and higher-order thinking in educational computer environments. Learning and Instruction, 2(3), 215–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Noroozi, O., Biemans, H. J. A., Busstra, M. C., Mulder, M., & Chizari, M. (2011). Differences in learning processes between successful and less successful students in computer-supported collaborative learning in the field of human nutrition and health. Computers in Human Behaviour, 27(1), 309–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Noroozi, O., Biemans, H.J.A., Busstra, M.C., Mulder, M., Popov, V., & Chizari, M. (2012). Effects of the Drewlite CSCL platform on students’ learning outcomes. In Juan, A., Daradoumis, T., Roca, M., Grasman, S. E., & Faulin, J. (Eds.), Collaborative and Distributed E-Research: Innovations in Technologies, Strategies and Applications (pp. 276–289). Google Scholar
  50. Noroozi, O., Busstra, M. C., Mulder, M., Biemans, H. J. A., Tobi, H., Geelen, M. M. E. E., van’t Veer, P., & Chizari, M. (2012). Online discussion compensates for suboptimal timing of supportive information presentation in a digitally supported learning environment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60(2), 193–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Noroozi, O., Weinberger, Biemans, H. J. A., Mulder, M., & Chizari, M. (2012). Argumentation-based computer supported collaborative learning (ABCSCL). a systematic review and synthesis of fifteen years of research. Educational Research Review, 7(2), 79–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Noroozi, O., Biemans, H. J. A., Weinberger, A., Mulder, M., & Chizari, M. (2013). Scripting for construction of a transactive memory system in a multidisciplinary CSCL environment. Learning and Instruction, 25(1), 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 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 in Education, 61(2), 59–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Nussbaum, E. M., Hartley, K., Sinatra, G. M., Reynolds, R. E., & Bendixen, L. D. (2004). Personality interactions and scaffolding in on-line discussions. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 30(1 & 2), 113–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 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: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  56. Onrubia, J., & Engel, A. (2012). The role of teacher assistance on the effects of a macro-script in collaborative writing tasks. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 7(1), 161–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Paus, E., Werner, C. S., & Jucks, R. (2012). Learning through online peer discourse: Structural equation modeling points to the role of discourse activities in individual understanding. Computers in Education, 58(4), 1127–1137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Prichard, J. S., Stratford, R. J., & Bizo, L. A. (2006). Team-skills training enhances collaborative learning. Learning and Instruction, 16(3), 256–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models. Thousand Oaks: Sage publications.Google Scholar
  60. Roschelle, J., & Teasley, S. D. (1995). Construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving. In C. O’Malley (Ed.), Computer-supported collaborative learning. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  61. Rosenshine, B., Meister, C., & Chapman, S. (1996). Teaching students to generate questions: A review of the intervention studies. Review of Educational Research, 66(2), 181–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Rulke, D. L., & Rau, D. (2000). Investigating the encoding process of transactive memory development in group training. Group & Organization Management, 25(4), 373–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Rummel, N., & Spada, H. (2005). Learning to collaborate: An instructional approach to promoting collaborative problem solving in computer-mediated settings. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(2), 201–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Rummel, N., Spada, H., & Hauser, S. (2009). Learning to collaborate from being scripted or from observing a model. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 26(4), 69–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Schellens, T., & Valcke, M. (2006). Fostering knowledge construction in university students through asynchronous discussion groups. Computers in Education, 46(4), 349–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 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
  67. Schellens, T., Van Keer, H., De Wever, B., & Valcke, M. (2009). Tagging thinking types in asynchronous discussion groups: Effects on critical thinking. Interactive Learning Environments, 17(1), 77–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Schoor, C., & Bannert, M. (2011). Motivation in a computer-supported collaborative learning scenario and its impact on learning activities and knowledge acquisition. Learning and Instruction, 21(4), 560–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Schreiber, M., & Engelmann, T. (2010). Knowledge and information awareness for initiating transactive memory system processes of computer-supported collaborating ad hoc groups. Computers in Human Behaviour, 26(6), 1701–1709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Stahl, G. (2006). Group cognition: Computer support for building collaborative knowledge. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  71. Stahl, G. (2010). Guiding group cognition in CSCL. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5(3), 255–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Stahl, G. (2011a). How to study group cognition. In S. Puntambekar, G. Erkens, & C. Hmelo-Silver (Eds.), Analyzing interactions in CSCL: Methodologies, approaches and issues (pp. 107–130). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Stahl, G. (2011b). Theories of cognition in collaborative learning. In C. Hmelo-Silver, A. O’Donnell, C. Chan, & C. Chinn (Eds.), International handbook of collaborative learning. New York: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  74. Stahl, G., & Hesse, F. (2009). Paradigms of shared knowledge. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4(4), 365–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Stasser, G., & Titus, W. (1985). Pooling of unshared information in group decision making: Biased information sampling during discussion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48(6), 1467–1478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Stasser, G., Stewart, D. D., & Wittenbaum, G. M. (1995). Expert roles and information exchange during discussion: The importance of knowing who knows what. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31(3), 244–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 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
  78. Stegmann, K., Wecker, C., Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2012). Collaborative argumentation and cognitive elaboration in a computer-supported collaborative learning environment. Instructional Science, 40(2), 297–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Steiner, I. D. (1972). Group process and productivity. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  80. Tchounikine, P. (2008). Operationalizing macro-scripts in CSCL technological settings. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3(2), 193–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Teasley, S. D. (1995). The role of talk in children’s peer collaborations. Developmental Psychology, 31(2), 207–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Teasley, S. D. (1997). Talking about reasoning: How important is the peer in peer collaboration? In L. B. Resnick, R. Säljö, C. Pontecorvo, & B. Burge (Eds.), Discourse, tools and reasoning: Essays on situated cognition (pp. 361–384). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  84. Vennix, J. A. M. (1996). Group model building: Facilitating team learning using system dynamics. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  85. Webb, N. M. (1989). Peer interaction and learning in small groups. International Journal of Education Research, 13(1), 21–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Wegner, D. M. (1987). Transactive memory: A contemporary analysis of the group mind. In B. Mullen & G. R. Goethals (Eds.), Theories of group behaviour (pp. 185–208). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Wegner, D. M. (1995). A computer network model of human transactive memory. Social Cognition, 13(3), 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Weinberger, A. (2011). Principles of transactive computer-supported collaboration scripts. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 6(3), 189–202.Google Scholar
  89. Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2006). A framework to analyse argumentative knowledge construction in computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers in Education, 46(1), 71–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 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
  91. Weinberger, A., Stegmann, K., & Fischer, F. (2007). Knowledge convergence in collaborative learning: Concepts and assessment. Learning and Instruction, 17(4), 416–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Weinberger, A., Kollar, I., Dimitriadis, Y., Mäkitalo-Siegl, K., & Fischer, F. (2009). Computer-supported collaboration scripts. Perspectives from educational psychology and computer science. In N. Balachef, S. R. Ludvigsen, T. de Jong, S. Barnes, & A. W. Lazonder (Eds.), Technology-enhanced learning. Principles and products (pp. 155–173). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Weinberger, A., Stegmann, K., & Fischer, F. (2010). Learning to argue online. Scripted groups surpass individuals (unscripted groups do not). Computers in Human Behaviour, 28(4), 506–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Zhang, J., Scardamalia, M., Reeve, R., & Messina, R. (2009). Designs for collective cognitive responsibility in knowledge building communities. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18(1), 7–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society of the Learning Sciences, Inc. and Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Omid Noroozi
    • 1
  • Stephanie D. Teasley
    • 2
  • Harm J. A. Biemans
    • 3
  • Armin Weinberger
    • 4
  • Martin Mulder
    • 5
  1. 1.Education and Competence Studies GroupWageningen UniversityWageningenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.School of InformationUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA
  3. 3.Education and Competence StudiesWageningen UniversityWageningenThe Netherlands
  4. 4.Educational TechnologySaarland UniversitySaarbrückenGermany
  5. 5.Education and Competence StudiesWageningen UniversityWageningenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options