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.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
ELAN Multimedia Annotation Tool. (2010). Retrieved April 29, 2010, from http://tla.mpi.nl/tools/tla-tools/elan/.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. New York: Cambridge University Press.
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.
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.
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.
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.
SLO. (2009). Tussendoelen en leerlijnen (TULE) Retrieved June 7, 2010, from http://tule.slo.nl/.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
- Collaborative learning
- Elementary education
- Knowledge recall
- Science education