Collaborative drawing on a shared digital canvas in elementary science education: The effects of script and task awareness support

  • Hannie Gijlers
  • Armin Weinberger
  • Alieke Mattia van Dijk
  • Lars Bollen
  • Wouter van Joolingen


Creating shared representations can foster knowledge acquisition by elementary school students by promoting active integration and translation of new information. In this study, we investigate to what extent awareness support and scripting facilitate knowledge construction and discourse quality of elementary school students (n = 94) in a computer-supported collaborative drawing scenario. Students in the awareness condition received feedback prompts based on the characteristics of their drawing. The script foresaw a sequence of creating, comparing, discussing, and merging individual drawings to arrive at a shared representation of the subject matter, which was photosynthesis. Both forms of support, (awareness and scripting) facilitated the learning processes and outcomes. Discourse analysis revealed that awareness and scripting increased (the share of) integrative and conflict-oriented consensus-building activities as well as (the share of) off-task and coordination-related activities in comparison to the control group. Awareness and scripting facilitated deeper understanding of the processes and relations of domain concepts. The scripted students acquired significantly more conceptual knowledge than the unscripted students.


Collaborative drawing Scripting Awareness 


  1. Ainsworth, S., Prain, V., & Tytler, R. (2011). Drawing to learn in science. Science, 333, 1096–1097. doi: 10.1126/science.1204153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anjewierden, A., Gijlers, H., Kolloffel, B., Saab, N., & de Hoog, R. (2011). Examining the relation between domain-related communication and collaborative inquiry learning. Computers & Education, 57, 1741–1748. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2011.03.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brooks, M. (2009). Drawing, visualisation and young children’s exploration of “big ideas”. International Journal of Science Education, 31, 319–341. doi: 10.1080/09500690802595771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Buder, J., & Bodemer, D. (2008). Supporting controversial cscl discussions with augmented group awareness tools. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3, 123–139. doi: 10.1007/s11412-008-9037-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. de Vries, E., Lund, K., & Baker, M. (2002). Computer-mediated epistemic dialogue: Explanation and argumentation as vehicles for understanding scientific notations. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11, 63–103. doi: 10.1207/S15327809JLS1101_3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dillenbourg, P. (2002). Over-scripting cscl: The risks of blending collaborative learning with instructional design. Three worlds of CSCL. Can we support CSCL, 61–91. doi: citeulike-article-id:8271598.
  7. Dourish, P., & Bellotti, V. (1992). Awareness and coordination in shared workspaces. Paper presented at the ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW 1992), Toronto.Google Scholar
  8. Edelson, D. C. (2001). Learning-for-use: A framework for the design of technology-supported inquiry activities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 355–385. doi: 10.1002/1098-2736(200103)38:3<355::aid-tea1010>;2-m.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fransen, J., Kirschner, P. A., & Erkens, G. (2011). Mediating team effectiveness in the context of collaborative learning: The importance of team and task awareness. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 1103–1113. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2010.05.017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Giemza, A., Weinbrenner, S., Engler, H., Hoppe, H. U. (2007). Tuple spaces as a flexible integration platform for distributed learning environments. Paper presented at the 15th International Conference on Computers in Education Hiroshima, Japan.Google Scholar
  11. Gijlers, H., & de Jong, T. (2013). Using concept maps to facilitate collaborative simulation-based inquiry learning. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 22, 340–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gijlers, H., Saab, N., van Joolingen, W. R., de Jong, T., & van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M. (2009). Interaction between tool and talk: How instruction and tools support consensus building in collaborative inquiry-learning environments. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25, 252–267. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2008.00302.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gutwin, C., & Greenberg, S. (1995). Support for group awareness in real-time desktop conferencing. Paper presented at the 2nd New Zealand Computer Science Research Student’s Conference, Hamilton, New Zealand.Google Scholar
  14. Hythecker, V. I., Dansereau, D. F., & Rocklin, T. R. (1988). An analysis of the processes influencing the structured dyadic learning environment. Educational Psychologist, 23, 23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kollar, I., Fischer, F., & Slotta, J. D. (2007). Internal and external scripts in computer-supported collaborative inquiry learning. Learning and Instruction, 17, 708–721. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.09.021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Leopold, C., & Leutner, D. (2012). Science text comprehension: Drawing, main idea selection, and summarizing as learning strategies. Learning and Instruction, 22, 16–26. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.05.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. O'Donnell, A. M., & Dansereau, D. F. (1992). Scripted collaborations in student dyads: A method for analyzing and enhancing academic learning and performance. In R. Hertz-Lazarowitz & N. Miller (Eds.), Interaction in cooperative groups: The theoretical anatomy of group learning (pp. 120–141). New Yourk, NY, US: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Oortwijn, M. B., Boekaerts, M., Vedder, P., & Strijbos, J.-W. (2008). Helping behaviour during cooperative learning and learning gains: The role of the teacher and of pupils’ prior knowledge and ethnic background. Learning and Instruction, 18, 146–159. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.01.014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Roth, W.-M., & Roychoudhury, A. (1993). The concept map as a tool for the collaborative construction of knowledge: A microanalysis of high school physics students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 503–534. doi: 10.1002/tea.3660300508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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, 201–241. doi: 10.1207/s15327809jls1402_2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Saab, N., van Joolingen, W. R., & Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M. (2007). Supporting communication in a collaborative discovery learning environment: The effect of instruction. Instructional Science, 35, 73–98. doi: 10.1007/s11251-006-9003-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Scanlon, E., Anastopoulou, S., Kerawalla, L., & Mulholland, P. (2011). How technology resources can be used to represent personal inquiry and support students’ understanding of it across contexts. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27, 516–529. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00414.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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. doi: 10.1177/1046496405281771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. SchoolTV. (2010). Fotosynthese Retrieved 13 mai, 2011, from
  25. Schwamborn, A., Mayer, R. E., Thillmann, H., Leopold, C., & Leutner, D. (2010). Drawing as a generative activity and drawing as a prognostic activity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 872–879.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. SLO. (2009). Tussendoelen en leerlijnen (tule) Retrieved June 7, 2010, from
  27. Suthers, D. D., & Hundhausen, C. D. (2003). An experimental study of the effects of representational guidance on collaborative learning processes. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 183–218. doi: 10.1207/S15327809JLS1202_2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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
  29. Tolmie, A. K., Topping, K. J., Christie, D., Donaldson, C., Howe, C., Jessiman, E., . . . Thurston, A. (2010). Social effects of collaborative learning in primary schools. Learning and Instruction, 20, 177–191. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.01.005.
  30. van Dijk, A. M., Gijlers, H., Weinberger, A. (in press). Scripted collaborative drawing in elementary science education. Instructional Science. doi: 10.1007/s11251-013-9286-1.
  31. van Joolingen, W. R., Bollen, L., & Leenaars, F. A. J. (2010). Using drawings in knowledge modeling and simulation for science teaching. In R. Nkambou, J. Bourdeau, & R. Mizoguchi (Eds.), Advances in intelligent tutoring systems (pp. 266–282). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  32. van Meter, P. (2001). Drawing construction as a strategy for learning from text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 129–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. van Meter, P., & Garner, J. (2005). The promise and practice of learner-generated drawing: Literature review and synthesis. Educational Psychology Review, 17, 285–325. doi: 10.1007/s10648-005-8136-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. van Meter, P., Aleksic, M., Schwartz, A., & Garner, J. (2006). Learner-generated drawing as a strategy for learning from content area text. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 31, 142–166. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2005.04.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Vollmeyer, R., & Rheinberg, F. (2006). Motivational effects of self-regulated learning with different tasks. Educational Psychology Review, 18, 239–253. doi: 10.1007/s10648-006-9017-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Webb, N. M., & Mastergeorge, A. (2003). Promoting effective helping behavior in peer-directed groups. International Journal of Educational Research, 39, 73–97. doi: 10.1016/s0883-0355(03)00074-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Weinberger, A. (2011). Principles of transactive computer-supported collaboration scripts. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 6, 189–202.Google Scholar
  38. Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2006). A framework to analyze argumentative knowledge construction in computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers & Education, 46, 71–95. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2005.04.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Weinberger, A., Fischer, F., & Mandl, H. (2001). Scripts and scaffolds in problem-based computer supported learning environments; fostering partcipation and transfer. Munich: Ludwig-Maximilians-University.Google Scholar
  40. Weinberger, A., Ertl, B., Fischer, F., & Mandl, H. (2005). Epistemic and social scripts in computer–supported collaborative learning. Instructional Science, 33, 1–30. doi: 10.1007/s11251-004-2322-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Weinberger, A., Stegmann, K., & Fischer, F. (2007). Knowledge convergence in collaborative learning: Concepts and assessment. Learning and Instruction, 17(4), 416–426. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.03.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Weinberger, A., Stegmann, K., & Fischer, F. (2010). Learning to argue online: Scripted groups surpass individuals (unscripted groups do not). Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 506–515. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2009.08.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society of the Learning Sciences, Inc. and Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hannie Gijlers
    • 1
  • Armin Weinberger
    • 2
  • Alieke Mattia van Dijk
    • 1
  • Lars Bollen
    • 1
  • Wouter van Joolingen
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Instructional TechnologyUniversity of TwenteEnschedeThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of Educational TechnologySaarland UniversitySaarbrückenGermany
  3. 3.Institute for Teacher Education, Science Communication & School PracticesUniversity of TwenteEnschedeThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations