Advertisement

Adaptable scripting to foster regulation processes and skills in computer-supported collaborative learning

  • Xinghua Wang
  • Ingo Kollar
  • Karsten Stegmann
Article
First Online:

Abstract

Collaboration scripts have repeatedly been implemented in Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) to facilitate collaboration processes and individual learning. However, finding the right degree of structure is a subtle design task: scripts that are too rigid may impair self-regulation and hinder learning; scripts that are too flexible may fail to evoke high-level interactions. This study investigated whether making collaboration scripts adaptable would be a way to raise their effectiveness. Three experimental phases were realized: In a first phase (exposure phase), all students solved three problem cases by aid of a collaboration script in an asynchronous, text-based CSCL environment. In a second phase (treatment phase), another three cases were presented that were to be solved by aid of a different theory that was presented to the learners through a summary on a sheet of paper. During this phase, a three-groups between-subject design was realized: (a) an unscripted condition, in which students received no specific guidance how to structure their collaboration, (b) a non-adaptable script condition, in which students’ collaboration was guided by the collaboration script they were trained in before, and (c) an adaptable script condition, in which students were allowed to modify parts of the trained script based on their self-perceived needs. In a third phase (subsequent transfer phase), students received a new case that they were to solve without guidance. N = 87 university students participated. Results showed that during the treatment phase, planning processes were most often performed in the unscripted condition. Yet, the adaptable script substantially increased students’ engagement in metacognitive activities of planning compared to learning with a non-adaptable script, and increased monitoring and reflection activities when compared to learning without script. Mediation analyses showed that the adaptable script facilitated learners’ use of self-regulation skills in the subsequent, unscripted transfer phase through the promotion of co-regulation processes of reflection in the treatment phase. The results reveal that adaptable scripting is a promising means of implementing flexible scripting and promoting self-regulation in CSCL.

Keywords

Computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) Collaboration scripts Self-regulated learning (SRL) Co—Regulation Shared regulation Adaptability 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Azevedo, R. (2005). Using hypermedia as a metacognitive tool for enhancing student learning? The role of self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 40(4), 199–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Azevedo, R. (2007). Understanding the complex nature of self-regulatory processes in learning with computer-based learning environments: An introduction. Metacognition and Learning, 2(2–3), 57–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Azevedo, R., & Feyzi-Behnagh, R. (2010). Dysregulated learning with advanced learning technologies. Journal of E-Learning and Knowledge Society, 7(2), 5–10.Google Scholar
  4. Azevedo, R., & Hadwin, A. F. (2005). Scaffolding self-regulated learning and metacognition - implications for the design of computer-based scaffolds. Instructional Science, 33(5–6), 367–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Azevedo, R., Witherspoon, A., Graesser, A., McNamara, D., Rus, V., Cai, Z., et al. (2008). MetaTutor: An adaptive hypermedia system for training and fostering self-regulated learning about complex science topics. Chicago: Paper to be presented at a Symposium on ITSs with Agents at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Computers in Psychology.Google Scholar
  6. Bannert, M., & Reimann, P. (2012). Supporting self-regulated hypermedia learning through prompts. Instructional Science, 40(1), 193–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bannert, M., Reimann, P., & Sonnenberg, C. (2014). Process mining techniques for analysing patterns and strategies in students’ self-regulated learning. Metacognition Learning, 9, 161–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bates, D. M., Kliegl, R., Vasishth, S., & Baayen, H. (2015). Parsimonious mixed models. arXiv:1506.04967.Google Scholar
  9. Cascallar, E., Boekaerts, M., & Costigan, T. (2006). Assessment in the evaluation of self-regulation as a process. Educational Psychology Review, 18(3), 297–306. doi: 10.1007/s10648-006-9023-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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
  11. DiDonato, N. C. (2013). Effective self- and co-regulation in collaborative learning groups: An analysis of how students regulate problem solving of authentic interdisciplinary tasks. Instructional Science, 41(1), 25–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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
  13. Dillenbourg, P., Järvelä, S., & Fischer, 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). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dillenbourg, P., & Tchounikine, P. (2007). Flexibility in macro-scripts for computer-supported collaborative learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dillon, C., & Greene, B. (2003). Learner differences in distance learning: Finding differences that matter. In M. G. Moore & W. G. Anderson (Eds.), Handbook of distance education (pp. 235–244). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  16. Diziol, D., Walker, E., Rummel, N., & Koedinger, K. R. (2010). Using intelligent tutor technology to implement adaptive support for student collaboration. Educational Psychology Review, 22(1), 89–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fischer, F., Kollar, I., Stegmann, K., & Wecker, C. (2013). Toward a script theory of guidance in computer-supported collaborative learning. Educational Psychologist, 48(1), 56–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gweon, G., Rosé, C. P., Carey, R., & Zaiss, Z. S. (2006). Providing support for adaptive scripting in an on-line collaborative learning environment. Paper presented at the CHI 2006, End User Programming, Montréal, Québec, Canada.Google Scholar
  19. Hadwin, A. F., Järvelä, S., & Miller, M. (2010). Self-regulated, co-regulated, and socially shared regulation of learning. In B. Zimmerman & D. Schunk (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance (pp. 65–84). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  20. Hesse, F. W. (2007). Being told to do something or just being aware of something? An alternative approach to scripting CSCL. In F. Fischer, I. Kollar, H. Mandl, & J. M. Haake (Eds.), Scripting computer-supported collaborative learning – Cognitive, computational, and educational perspectives (pp. 91–98). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  21. Hew, K. F., Cheung, W. S., & Ng, C. S. L. (2010). Student contribution in asynchronous online discussion: A review of the research and empirical exploration. Instructional Science, 38(6), 571–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hox, J. J., & Kreft, I. G. G. (1994). Multilevel analysis methods. Sociological Methods & Research, 22(3), 283–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Imai, K., Keele, L., & Yamamoto, T. (2010). Identification, inference and sensitivity analysis for causal mediation effects. Statistical Science, 26(1), 51–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Järvelä, S., & Hadwin, A. F. (2013). New frontiers: Regulating learning in CSCL. Educational Psychologist, 48(1), 25–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Järvelä, S., Järvenoja, H., & Veermans, M. (2008). Understanding the dynamics of motivation in socially shared learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 47(2), 122–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Järvelä, S., Malmberg, J., & Koivuniemi, M. (2016). Recognizing socially shared regulation by using the temporal sequences of online chat and logs in CSCL. Learning and Instruction, 42, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Karakostas, A., & Demetriadis, S. (2011). Enhancing collaborative learning through dynamic forms of support: The impact of an adaptive domain-specific support strategy. Journal of Computer-Assisted Learning, 27, 243–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. King, A. (1991). Effects of training in strategic questioning on children's problem-solving performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(3), 307–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kollar, I., Fischer, F., & Hesse, F. W. (2006). Collaboration scripts-a conceptual analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 18(2), 159–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Leutner, D. (2009). Adaptivität und Adaptierbarkeit multimedialer Lehr- und Informationssysteme [Adaptivity and adaptability of multimedia teaching and information systems]. In L. J. Issing & P. Klimsa (Eds.), Online-Lernen: Handbuch für Wissenschaft und Praxis. Oldenbourg: Munich.Google Scholar
  31. Linn, M. C., & Eylon, B.-S. (2011). Science learning and instruction: Taking advantage of technology to promote knowledge integration. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  32. Mäkitalo, K., Weinberger, A., Häkkinen, P., Järvelä, S., & Fischer, F. (2005). Epistemic cooperation scripts in online learning environments: Fostering learning by reducing uncertainty in discourse? Computers in Human Behavior, 21, 603–622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Quintana, C., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Krajcik, J., Fretz, E., Duncan, R. G., Kyza, E., Edelson, D., & Soloway, E. (2004). A scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 337–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rienties, B., Tempelaar, J., Van den Bossche, P., Gijselaers, W., & Segers, M. (2009). The role of academic motivation in computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 1195–1206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rummel, N., & Spada, H. (2005). Learning to collaborate: A instructional approach to promoting collaborative problem solving in computer-mediated settings. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(2), 201–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rummel, N., Spada, H., & Hauser, S. (2009). Learning to collaborate while being scripted or by observing a model. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4, 69–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Scheiter, K., & Gerjets, P. (2007). Learner control in hypermedia environments. Educational Psychology Review, 19(3), 285–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Schellens, T., & Valcke, M. (2006). Fostering knowledge construction in university students through asynchronous discussion groups. Computers & Education, 46(4), 349–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Schoor, C., & Bannert, M. (2011). Motivation in a computer-supported collaborative learning senario and its impact on learning activities and knowledge acquisition. Learning and Instruction, 21, 560–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Shute, V., & Towle, B. (2003). Adaptive e-learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(2), 105–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Stegmann, K., Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2007). Facilitating argumentative knowledge construction with computer-supported collaboration scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2, 421–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tchounikine, P. (2016). Contribution to a theory of CSCL scripts: Taking into account the appropriation of scripts by learners. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 11(3), 349–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Tingley, D., Yamamoto, T., Hirose, K., Keele, L., & Imai, K. (2014). Mediation: R package for causal mediation analysis. Journal of Statistical Software, 59(5), 1–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Vallerand, R. J., Blais, M. R., Brière, N. M., & Pelletier, L. G. (1989). Construction et validation de l'échelle de motivation en éducation (EME) [construction and validation of a scale of educational motivation]. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 21(3), 323–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Vauras, M., Iiskala, T., Kajamies, A., Kinnunen, R., & Lehtinen, E. (2003). Shared regulation and motivation of collaborating peers: A case analysis. Psychologia, 46(1), 19–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Volet, S., Summers, M., & Thurman, J. (2009). High-level co-regulation in collaborative learning: How does it emerge and how is it sustained? Learning and Instruction, 19, 128–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 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, 6, 279–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wang, X., Kollar, I., Stegmann, K., & Fischer, F. (2011). Preventing overscripting effects in computer-supported collaborative learning by adaptable scripts. In H. Spada, G. Stahl, N. Miyake, & N. Law (Eds.), Connecting computer-supported collaborative learning to policy andpractice: CSCL2011 conference proceedings, volume I—Long papers (pp. 382–389). Hong Kong: International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar
  50. Wecker, C., & Fischer, F. (2011). From guided to self-regulated performance of domain-general skills: The role of peer monitoring during the fading of instructional scripts. Learning and Instruction, 21(6), 746–756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wecker, C., Kollar, I., Fischer, F., & Prechtl, H. (2010b). Fostering online search competence and domain-specific knowledge in inquiry classrooms: Effects of continuous and fading collaboration scripts. 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. 1, pp. 810–817). Chicago: International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar
  52. Wecker, C., Stegmann, K., Bernstein, F., Huber, M. J., Kalus, G., Kollar, I., Rathmeyer, S., & Fischer, F. (2010a). S-COL: A Copernican turn for the development of flexibly reusable collaboration scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5(3), 321–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 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
  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. Weiner, B. (1985). An attribution theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychological Review, 92, 548–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Woodward-Kron, R., & Remedios, L. (1998). Classroom discourse in problem-based learning classrooms in the health sciences. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 30(1), 1–18.Google Scholar
  57. Zimmerman, B. J., & Kitsantas, A. (1997). Development phases in self-regulation: Shifting from process goals to outcome goals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(1), 29–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. (2001). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives. Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  59. Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. (2011). Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society of the Learning Sciences, Inc. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of EducationBeijing Normal UniversityBeijingChina
  2. 2.Augsburg UniversityAugsburgGermany
  3. 3.Department of PsychologyLudwig-Maximilians-University of MunichMunichGermany

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options