Skip to main content

Scripted collaborative drawing in elementary science education

Abstract

Creating graphical representations can foster knowledge gains on science topics in elementary school students by promoting active integration and translation of new information. Collaborating on joint representations may encourage children to discuss and elaborate their knowledge. To foster productive interactions, children may greatly benefit from additional guidance through collaboration scripts or careful group composition. In this study, we investigate the effects of script support and group composition by social preference on children’s learning processes and outcomes in a collaborative drawing setting within science education. The script foresaw a phase of individual preparation and prompted learners to engage in critical interactions. Group composition was based on children’s preferences for peers to work with. Results show that whereas the drawings of unscripted children depicted the concepts to be learned more adequately, scripted children acquired more domain knowledge during the experience. We discuss how a script can facilitate learning through collaborative drawing by imposing additional challenges on children’s interactions.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

References

  1. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Azmitia, M. (1996). Peer-interactive minds: Developmental, theoretical, and methodological issues. In P. B. Baltes & U. M. Staudinger (Eds.), Interactive minds: Life-span perspectives on the social foundation of cognition (pp. 133–162). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Azmitia, M., & Montgomery, R. (1993). Friendship, transactive dialogues, and the development of scientific reasoning. Social Development, 2(3), 202–221. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9507.1993.tb00014.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Baines, E., Blatchford, P., & Kutnick, P. (2008). Pupil grouping for learning: Developing a social pedagogy of the classroom. In R. M. Gillies, A. F. Ashman, & J. Terwel (Eds.), The teacher’s role in implementing cooperative learning in the classroom (pp. 56–72). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  5. Bellmore, A., Jiang, X. L., & Juvonen, J. (2010). Utilizing peer nominations in middle school: A longitudinal comparison between complete classroom-based and random list methods. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 20(2), 538–550. doi:10.1111/j.1532-7795.2010.00640.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Berkowitz, M. W. (1980a). The role of transactive discussion in moral development. The history of a six-year program of research—part I. Moral Education Forum, 5(2), 13–26.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Berkowitz, M. W. (1980b). The role of transactive discussion in moral development. The history of a six-year program of research—part II. Moral Education Forum, 5(3), 15–27.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Brooks, M. (2009). Drawing visualization and young children’s exploration of “big ideas”. International Journal of Science Education, 31(3), 319–341. doi:10/1080/0950069082595771.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Chi, M. T. H., Slotta, J. D., & de Leeuw, N. (1994). From things to processes: A theory of conceptual change for learning science concepts. Learning and Instruction, 4, 27–43. doi:10.1016/0959-4752(94)90017-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Danish, J. A., & Phelps, D. (2011). Represenational practices by the numbers: How kindergarten and first-grade students create, evaluate, and modify their science representations. International Journal of Science Education, 33, 2069–2094. doi:10.1080/09500693.2010.525798.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 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.

  12. Dillenbourg, P., & Jermann, P. (2007). Designing integrative scripts. In F. Fischer, I. Kollar, H. Mandl, & J. M. Haake (Eds.), Scripting computer-supported collaborative learning (Vol. 6). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  13. Dillenbourg, P., & Tchounikine, P. (2007). Flexibility in macro-scripts for computer-supported collaborative learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23, 1–13. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2007.00191.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. DiSessa, A. A., & Sherin, B. L. (2000). Meta-representation: An introduction. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 19(4), 385–398. doi:10.1016/S0732-3123(01)00051-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Dutson, A. J., Todd, R. H., Magleby, S. P., & Sorensen, C. D. (1997). A review of literature teaching engineering design through project-oriented capstone courses. Journal of Engineering Education, 86(1), 17–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. ELAN Multimedia Annotation Tool. (2010). Retrieved April 29, 2010, from http://tla.mpi.nl/tools/tla-tools/elan/.

  17. Gelmini-Hornsby, G., Ainsworth, S., & O’Malley, C. (2011). Guided reciprocal questioning to support children’s collaborative storytelling. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6, 577–600. doi:10.1007/11412-011-9129-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Gijlers, H., & de Jong, T. (2009). Sharing and confronting propositions in collaborative inquiry learning. Cognition and Instruction, 27(3), 239–268. doi:10.1080/07370000903014352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Hartup, W. W., Laursen, B., Stewart, M. I., & Eastenson, A. (1988). Conflict and the friendship relations of young children. Child Development, 59, 1590–1600. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1988.tb03686.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Joshi, M. & Rosé, C. P. (2007). Using transactivity in conversation for summarization of educational dialogue: Proceedings of the SLaTE Workshop on Speech and Language Technology in Education, Farmington, Pennsylvania.

  21. Kagan, S., & Kagan, M. (1994). The structural approach: Six keys to cooperative learning. In S. Sharan (Ed.), Handbook of cooperative learning methods (pp. 115–133). Westport: Greenwood Press.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Kane, J. S., & Lawler, E. E. (1978). Methods of peer assessment. Psychological Bulletin, 85(3), 555–586. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.85.3.555.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. King, A. (1994). Guiding knowledge construction in the classroom: Effects of teaching children how to question and how to explain. American Educational Research Journal, 31(2), 338–368. doi:10.3102/00028312031002338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Lazonder, A. W., Wilhelm, P., & Ootes, S. A. W. (2003). Using sentence openers to foster student interaction in computer-mediated learning environments. Computers & Education, 41, 291–308. doi:10.1016/S0360-1315(03)00050-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 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(4), 603–622. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2004.10.033.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Maldonado, H., Klemmer, S. R., & Pea, R. D. (2009). When is collaborating with friends a good idea? Insights from design education. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 9th International Conference of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, Hong Kong, China.

  27. Mercer, N., Dawes, L., Wegerif, R., & Sams, C. (2004). Reasoning as a scientist: Ways of helping children to use language to learn science. British Educational Research Journal, 30(3), 359–377. doi:10.1080/01411920410001689689.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Moore, B. H., & Caldwell, H. (1993). Drama and drawing for narrative writing in primary grades. Journal of Educational Research, 87(2), 100–110. doi:10.1080/00220671.1993.9941173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Newcomb, A. F., & Bagwell, C. L. (1995). Children’s friendship relations: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 117(2), 306–347. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.117.2.306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Newcomb, A. F., & Brady, J. E. (1982). Mutuality in boys’ friendship relations. Child Development, 53, 392–395. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1982.tb01328.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 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 & Education, 61, 59–76. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.08.013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  33. 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: Lawrence Erlbaum Associated.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Poulin, F., & Dishion, T. J. (2008). Methodological issues in the use of peer sociometric nominations with middle school youth. Social development, 17, 908–921. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9507.2008.00473.x.

  35. Rennie, L. J., & Jarvis, T. (1995). English and Australian children’s perceptions about technology. Research in Science & Technology Education, 13(1), 37–52. doi:10.1080/0263514950130104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Savinainen, A., Scott, P., & Viiri, J. (2005). Using a bridging representation and social interactions to foster conceptual change: Designing and evaluating an instructional sequence for Newton’s third law. Science Education, 89(2), 175–195. doi:10.1002/sce.20037.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. SLO. (2009). Tussendoelen en leerlijnen (TULE) Retrieved June 7, 2010, from http://tule.slo.nl/.

  38. Sloetjes, H., & Wittenburg, P. (2008). Annotation by category—ELAN and ISO DCR. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2008), Marrakech, Marocco.

  39. Stegmann, K., Wecker, C., Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2011). Collaborative argumentation and cognitive elaboration in a computer-supported collaborative learning environment. Instructional Science,. doi:10.1007/s11251-011-9174-5.

    Google Scholar 

  40. 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. doi:10.1007/s11412-007-9028-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 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(2), 183–218. doi:10.1207/S15327809JLS1202_2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Teasley, S. D. (1997). Talking about reasoning: How important is the peer in peer collaboration? Paper presented at the NATO Advanced Research Workshop on Discourse, Tools, and Reasoning: Situated Cognition and Technologically Supported Environments, Lucca, Italy.

  43. van Boxtel, C., van der Linden, J., & Kanselaar, G. (2000). Collaborative learning tasks and the elaboration of conceptual knowledge. Learning and Instruction, 10, 311–330. doi:10.1016/S0959-4752(00)00002-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. van Meter, P. (2001). Drawing construction as a strategy for learning from text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 129–140. doi:10.1037//0022-0663-93.1.129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. van Meter, P., & Garner, J. (2005). The promise and practice of learner-generated drawing: Literature review and synthesis. Educational Psychology Review, 17(4), 285–325. doi:10/1007/s10648-005-8136-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Watson, S. B., & Marshall, J. E. (1995). Heterogeneous grouping as an element of cooperative learning in an elementary education science course. School Science and Mathematics, 95(8), 401–405. doi:10.1111/j.1949-8594.1995.tb10192.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2006). A framework to analyze argumentative knowledge construction in computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers & Education, 46(1), 71–95. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2005.04.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Weinberger, A., Stegmann, K., & Fischer, F. (2010). Learning to argue online: Scripted groups surpass individuals (unscripted groups do not). Computers in Human Behavior, 26(4), 506–515. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2009.08.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Zajac, R. J., & Hartup, W. W. (1997). Friends as coworkers: Research review and classroom implications. The Elementary School Journal, 98(1), 3–13. doi:10.1086/461881.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alieke M. van Dijk.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

van Dijk, A.M., Gijlers, H. & Weinberger, A. Scripted collaborative drawing in elementary science education. Instr Sci 42, 353–372 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-013-9286-1

Download citation

Keywords

  • Collaborative learning
  • Drawing
  • Elementary education
  • Knowledge recall
  • Science education
  • Scripting
  • Transactivity