Advertisement

Student-generated awareness information in a group awareness tool: what does it reveal?

  • Kyungbin KwonEmail author
Development Article
  • 44 Downloads

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Group awareness tool Computer-supported collaborative learning Online learning Awareness information 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The author declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

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.

References

  1. Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Soloway, E., & Krajcik, J. (1996). Learning with peers: From small group cooperation to collaborative communities. Educational Researcher,25, 37–39.  https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x025008037.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bodemer, D., & Dehler, J. (2011). Group awareness in CSCL environments. Computers in Human Behavior,27, 1043–1045.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.07.014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chen, Y., Chen, N. S., & Tsai, C. C. (2009). The use of online synchronous discussion for web-based professional development for teachers. Computers & Education,53, 1155–1166.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.05.026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Christensen, C., & Larson, J. R., Jr. (1993). Collaborative medical decision making. Medical Decision Making,13, 339–346.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989x9301300410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dehler, J., Bodemer, D., Buder, J., & Hesse, F. W. (2011). Guiding knowledge communication in CSCL via group knowledge awareness. Computers in Human Behavior,27, 1068–1078.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.05.018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fawcett, L. M., & Garton, A. F. (2005). The effect of peer collaboration on children’s problem-solving ability. British Journal of Educational Psychology,75, 157–169.  https://doi.org/10.1348/000709904X23411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fischer, F., Bruhn, J., Gräsel, C., & Mandl, H. (2002). Fostering collaborative knowledge construction with visualization tools. Learning and Instruction,12, 213–232.  https://doi.org/10.1016/s0959-4752(01)00005-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fransen, J., Weinberger, A., & Kirschner, P. A. (2013). Team effectiveness and team development in CSCL. Educational Psychologist,48, 9–24.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2012.747947.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Goos, M., Galbraith, P., & Renshaw, P. (2002). Socially mediated metacognition: Creating collaborative zones of proximal development in small group problem solving. Educational Studies in Mathematics,49, 193–223.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016209010120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Graneheim, U. H., & Lundman, B. (2004). Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: Concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Education Today,24, 105–112.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2003.10.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hall, D., & Buzwell, S. (2013). The problem of free-riding in group projects: Looking beyond social loafing as reason for non-contribution. Active Learning in Higher Education,14, 37–49.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787412467123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Heo, H., Lim, K. Y., & Kim, Y. (2010). Exploratory study on the patterns of online interaction and knowledge co-construction in project-based learning. Computers & Education,55, 1383–1392.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.06.012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Janssen, J., & Bodemer, D. (2013). Coordinated computer-supported collaborative learning: Awareness and awareness tools. Educational Psychologist,48, 40–55.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2012.749153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Janssen, J., Erkens, G., Kanselaar, G., & Jaspers, J. (2007). Visualization of participation: Does it contribute to successful computer-supported collaborative learning? Computers & Education,49, 1037–1065.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2006.01.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Janssen, J., Erkens, G., Kirschner, P. A., & Kanselaar, G. (2009). Influence of group member familiarity on online collaborative learning. Computers in Human Behavior,25, 161–170.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2008.08.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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
  17. Jehn, K. A., & Mannix, E. A. (2001). The dynamic nature of conflict: A longitudinal study of intragroup conflict and group performance. Academy of Management Journal,44, 238–251.  https://doi.org/10.2307/3069453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jermann, P., & Dillenbourg, P. (2008). Group mirrors to support interaction regulation in collaborative problem solving. Computers & Education,51, 279–296.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2007.05.012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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
  20. Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (1993). Social loafing: A meta-analytic review and theoretical integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,65, 681–706.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.65.4.681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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
  22. Kimmerle, J., & Cress, U. (2008). Group awareness and self-presentation in computer-supported information exchange. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning,3, 85–97.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-007-9027-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. King, A. (1997). ASK to THINK-TEL WHY: A model of transactive peer tutoring for scaffolding higher level complex learning. Educational Psychologist,32, 221–235.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3204_3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kirschner, P. A., Kreijns, K., Phielix, C., & Fransen, J. (2015). Awareness of cognitive and social behaviour in a CSCL environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,31, 59–77.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12084.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P. A., & Jochems, W. (2003). Identifying the pitfalls for social interaction in computer-supported collaborative learning environments: A review of the research. Computers in Human Behavior,19, 335–353.  https://doi.org/10.1016/s0747-5632(02)00057-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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
  27. Kwon, K., Hong, R., & Laffey, J. M. (2013). The educational impact of metacognitive group coordination in computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers in Human Behavior,29, 1271–1281.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.01.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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
  29. Lam, C. (2015). The role of communication and cohesion in reducing social loafing in group projects. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly,78, 454–475.  https://doi.org/10.1177/2329490615596417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics,33, 159–174.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lazakidou, G., & Retalis, S. (2010). Using computer supported collaborative learning strategies for helping students acquire self-regulated problem-solving skills in mathematics. Computers & Education,54, 3–13.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.02.020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Le, H., Janssen, J., & Wubbels, T. (2018). Collaborative learning practices: Teacher and student perceived obstacles to effective student collaboration. Cambridge Journal of Education,48, 103–122.  https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2016.1259389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lee, D., Huh, Y., & Reigeluth, C. M. (2015). Collaboration, intragroup conflict, and social skills in project-based learning. Instructional Science,43, 561–590.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-015-9348-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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
  35. 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
  36. Lin, J.-W., Tsai, C.-W., Hsu, C.-C., & Chang, L.-C. (2019). Peer assessment with group awareness tools and effects on project-based learning. Interactive Learning Environments.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1593198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Liu, M., Liu, L., & Liu, L. (2018). Group awareness increases student engagement in online collaborative writing. The Internet and Higher Education,38, 1–8.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2018.04.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Liu, C., & Tsai, C. (2008). An analysis of peer interaction patterns as discoursed by on-line small group problem-solving activity. Computers & Education,50, 627–639.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2006.07.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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
  40. 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
  41. Nokes-Malach, T. J., Richey, J. E., & Gadgil, S. (2015). When is it better to learn together? Insights from research on collaborative learning. Educational Psychology Review,27, 645–656.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9312-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Phielix, C., Prins, F. J., & Kirschner, P. A. (2010). Awareness of group performance in a CSCL-environment: Effects of peer feedback and reflection. Computers in Human Behavior,26, 151–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 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
  44. Resta, P., & Laferrière, T. (2007). Technology in support of collaborative learning. Educational Psychology Review,19, 65–83.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-007-9042-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Robinson, L., Harris, A., & Burton, R. (2015). Saving face: Managing rapport in a problem-based learning group. Active Learning in Higher Education,16, 11–24.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787415573355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Salomon, G., & Globerson, T. (1989). When teams do not function the way they ought to? International Journal of Educational Research,13, 89–99.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-0355(89)90018-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Schnaubert, L., & Bodemer, D. (2019). Providing different types of group awareness information to guide collaborative learning. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning,14, 7–51.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-018-9293-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Soboroff, S. D., Kelley, C. P., & Lovaglia, M. J. (2019). Group size, commitment, trust, and mutual awareness in task groups. The Sociological Quarterly.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00380253.2019.1625735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Stroebe, W., Diehl, M., & Abakoumkin, G. (1992). The illusion of group effectivity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,18, 643–650.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167292185015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Tseng, H. W., & Yeh, H.-T. (2013). Team members’ perceptions of online teamwork learning experiences and building teamwork trust: A qualitative study. Computers & Education,63, 1–9.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.11.013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Van den Bossche, P., Gijselaers, W. H., Segers, M., & Kirschner, P. A. (2006). Social and cognitive factors driving teamwork in collaborative learning environments: Team learning beliefs and behaviors. Small Group Research,37, 490–521.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496406292938.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Webb, N. M., & Mastergeorge, A. M. (2003). The development of students’ helping behavior and learning in peer-directed small groups. Cognition & Instruction,21, 361–428.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci2104_2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 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
  54. Wendt, J., & Rockinson-Szapkiw, A. (2015). The effect of online collaboration on adolescent sense of community in eighth-grade physical science. Journal of Science Education and Technology,24, 671–683.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-015-9556-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 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.

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications and Technology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Indiana UniversityBloomingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations