Student-generated awareness information in a group awareness tool: what does it reveal?
- 44 Downloads
Group awareness tools (GATs) are used to enhance awareness among students in online collaborative settings. GATs display awareness information of group processes, so students have a shared understanding of the collaboration. They also encourage students to share their opinions regarding their group processes, which externalizes unspoken awareness information and facilitates group regulation activities. The current study observed how students generated awareness information when being guided by a GAT. The primary aim of the study was to investigate the contents of student-generated awareness information collected from the evaluations of group processes and reflections about the collaboration process. A case study, drawing upon both qualitative and quantitative data, was conducted in the study. The results suggested the validity of student-generated awareness information, and its application in evaluating collaborative group processes. Students’ reflections also identified successful as well as disadvantageous aspects of group processes in three themes: communication, efficient work processes, and commitment. Overall, the findings suggested that student-generated awareness information can reveal the real status of collaborative group process. Successful and disadvantageous aspects of group processes were discussed from the students’ perspectives.
KeywordsGroup awareness tool Computer-supported collaborative learning Online learning Awareness information
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The author declares that he has no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
- Järvelä, S., Kirschner, P. A., Panadero, E., Malmberg, J., Phielix, C., Jaspers, J.,…, Järvenoja, H. (2015). Enhancing socially shared regulation in collaborative learning groups: Designing for CSCL regulation tools. Educational Technology Research and Development, 63, 125–142. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-014-9358-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1995). Positive interdependence: key to effective cooperation. In R. Hertz-Lazarowitz & N. Miller (Eds.), Interaction in cooperative groups: The theoretical anatomy of group learning (pp. 174–199). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Keville, S., Davenport, B., Adlington, B., Davidson-Olsson, I., Cornish, M., Parkinson, A., et al. (2013). A river runs through it: Enhancing learning via emotional connectedness. Can problem-based learning facilitate this? Reflective Practice,14, 348–359. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2013.767231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Kruger, A. C. (1993). Peer collaboration: Conflict, cooperation, or both? Social Development,2, 165–182. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9507.1993.tb00012.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Kwon, K., Liu, Y., & Johnson, L. P. (2014). Group regulation and social-emotional interactions observed in computer supported collaborative learning: Comparison between good vs. poor collaborators. Computers & Education,78, 185–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.06.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Lin, J.-W. (2018). Effects of an online team project-based learning environment with group awareness and peer evaluation on socially shared regulation of learning and self-regulated learning. Behaviour & Information Technology,37, 445–461. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2018.1451558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Lin, J.-W., & Tsai, C.-W. (2016). The impact of an online project-based learning environment with group awareness support on students with different self-regulation levels: An extended-period experiment. Computers & Education,99, 28–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.04.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Malmberg, J., Järvelä, S., & Järvenoja, H. (2017). Capturing temporal and sequential patterns of self-, co-, and socially shared regulation in the context of collaborative learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology,49, 160–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2017.01.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Näykki, P., Järvelä, S., Kirschner, P. A., & Järvenoja, H. (2014). Socio-emotional conflict in collaborative learning—A process-oriented case study in a higher education context. International Journal of Educational Research,68, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2014.07.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Phielix, C., Prins, F. J., Kirschner, P. A., Erkens, G., & Jaspers, J. (2011). Group awareness of social and cognitive performance in a CSCL environment: Effects of a peer feedback and reflection tool. Computers in Human Behavior,27, 1087–1102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.06.024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Weinberger, A., Stegmann, K., & Fischer, F. (2007). Knowledge convergence in collaborative learning: Concepts and assessment. Learning and Instruction,17, 416–426. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.03.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Wentzel, K. R., & Watkins, D. E. (2002). Peer relationships and collaborative learning as contexts for academic enablers. School Psychology Review, 31, 366–377. Retrieved from https://naspjournals.org/loi/spsr.