S-COL: A Copernican turn for the development of flexibly reusable collaboration scripts

  • Christof Wecker
  • Karsten Stegmann
  • Florian Bernstein
  • Michael J. Huber
  • Georg Kalus
  • Ingo Kollar
  • Sabine Rathmayer
  • Frank Fischer
Article

Abstract

Collaboration scripts are usually implemented as parts of a particular collaborative-learning platform. Therefore, scripts of demonstrated effectiveness are hardly used with learning platforms at other sites, and replication studies are rare. The approach of a platform-independent description language for scripts that allows for easy implementation of the same script on different platforms has not succeeded yet in making the transfer of scripts feasible. We present an alternative solution that treats the problem as a special case of providing support on top of diverse Web pages: In this case, the challenge is to trigger support based on the recognition of a Web page as belonging to a specific type of functionally equivalent pages such as the search query form or the results page of a search engine. The solution suggested has been implemented by means of a tool called S-COL (Scripting for Collaborative Online Learning) and allows for the sustainable development of scripts and scaffolds that can be used with a broad variety of content and platforms. The tool’s functions are described. In order to demonstrate the feasibility and ease of script reuse with S-COL, we describe the flexible re-implementation of a collaboration script for argumentation in S-COL and its adaptation to different learning platforms. To demonstrate that a collaboration script implemented in S-COL can actually foster learning, an empirical study about the effects of a specific script for collaborative online search on learning activities is presented. The further potentials and the limitations of the S-COL approach are discussed.

Keywords

Collaboration scripts Scaffolding Collaborative learning Web-based learning 

References

  1. Baker, M., & Lund, K. (1997). Promoting reflective interactions in a CSCL environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 13(3), 175–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bilal, D. (2002). Children’s use of the Yahooligans! Web search engine: III. Cognitive and physical behaviors on fully self-generated search tasks. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53(13), 1170–1183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Clark, D., Sampson, V., Stegmann, K., Marttunen, M., Kollar, I., Janssen, H., et al. (2010). Online learning environments, scientific argumentation, and 21st century skills. In B. Ertl (Ed.), E-collaborative knowledge construction—learning from computer-supported and virtual environments (pp. 1–39). Hershey: IGI Global.Google Scholar
  4. Clark, D. B., Stegmann, K., Weinberger, A., Menekse, M., & Erkens, G. (2008). Technology-enhanced learning environments to support students’ argumentation. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education (pp. 217–243). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  5. De Wever, B., Van Keer, H., Schellens, T., & Valcke, M. (2009). Structuring asynchronous discussion groups: The impact of role assignment and self-assessment on students’ levels of knowledge construction through social negotiation. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25, 177–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dillenbourg, P., & Jermann, P. (2007). Designing integrative scripts. In F. Fischer, I. Kollar, H. Mandl, & J. M. Haake (Eds.), Scripting computer supported communication of knowledge: Cognitive, computational and educational perspectives (pp. 275–301). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  7. Dillenbourg, P., & Hong, F. (2008). The mechanics of CSCL macro scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3(1), 5–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dillenbourg, P., & Tchounikine, P. (2007). Flexibility in macro-scripts for CSCL. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(1), 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. El-Refai, W., Kollar, I., & Fischer, F. (2010, August/September). Supporting Online Design-Based Learning with Collaboration Scripts and Incomplete Concept Maps. Paper to be presented at the meeting of EARLI SIG 6 (“Instructional Design for motivated and competent learning in a digital world”) and EARLI SIG 7 (“Learning and Instruction with Computers)”. Ulm, August, 30 – September, 1, 2010.Google Scholar
  10. Greasemonkey (2010). Retrieved 22 June 2010, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greasemonkey.
  11. Harrer, A., & Malzahn, N. (2006). Bridging the gap—towards a graphical modeling language for learning designs and collaboration scripts of various granularities. Proceedings of the Sixth IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT'06) (pp. 296–300). Kerkrade, the Netherlands: IEEE Computer Society Press.Google Scholar
  12. Hewitt, J., & Aillon, C. (2003). DOM Inspector. Retrieved 22 June 2010, from https://developer.mozilla.org/En/DOM_Inspector.
  13. Ikpeze, C. H., & Boyd, F. B. (2007). Web-based inquiry learning: Facilitating thoughtful literacy with WebQuests. The Reading Teacher, 60(7), 644–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kobbe, L., Weinberger, A., Dillenbourg, P., Harrer, A., Hämäläinen, R., Häkkinen, P., et al. (2007). Specifying computer-supported collaboration scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2, 211–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kollar, I., Fischer, F., & Hesse, F. W. (2006). Collaboration scripts—A conceptual analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 18, 159–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kollar, I., Fischer, F., & Slotta, J. D. (2007). Internal and external scripts in computer-supported collaborative inquiry learning. Learning and Instruction, 17(6), 708–721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kollar, I., Wecker, C., & Fischer, F. (2009, August). Supporting high-school students’ scientific literacy through scripted collaborative inquiry—a use-inspired basic research program. Paper presented at the 13th Biennial Conference for Learning and Instruction of the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction (Earli) “Fostering Communities of Learners", Amsterdam, August, 25–29, 2009.Google Scholar
  18. Lazonder, A. W. (2005). Do two heads search better than one? Effects of student collaboration on web search behaviour and search outcomes. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(3), 465–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Luconi, F., & Tabatabai, D. (1999). Searching the Web: Expert-Novice Differences in a Problem-Solving Context. Retrieved 22 June 2010, http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED429619.pdf.
  20. Manyscripts (2010). Retrieved 22 June 2010, http://manyscripts.epfl.ch/.
  21. Miao, Y., Harrer, A., Hoeksema, K., & Hoppe, H. U. (2007). Modeling CSCL scripts—a reflection on learning design approaches. In F. Fischer, I. Kollar, H. Mandl, & J. M. Haake (Eds.), Scripting computer-supported collaborative learning: Cognitive, computational and educational perspectives (pp. 117–135). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pea, R. D. (2004). The social and technological dimensions of scaffolding and related theoretical concepts for learning, education, and human activity. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 423–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pirolli, P. (2005). Rational analyses of information foraging on the Web. Cognitive Science, 29, 343–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Puntambekar, S., & Hübscher, R. (2005). Tools for scaffolding students in a complex learning environment: What have we gained and what have we missed? Educational Psychologist, 40(1), 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Quintana, C., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Krajcik, J., Fretz, E., Duncan, R. G., et al. (2004). A scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 337–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rogers, D., & Swan, K. (2004). Self-regulated learning and Internet searching. Teachers College Record, 106(9), 1804–1824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rummel, N., & Spada, H. (2005). Learning to collaborate: An instructional approach to promoting collaborative problem solving in computer-mediated settings. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(2), 201–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Schellens, T., Van Keer, H., De Wever, B., & Valcke, M. (2007). Scripting by assigning roles: Does it improve knowledge construction in asynchronous discussion groups? International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(2–3), 225–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Schoonenboom, J. (2008). The effect of a script and an interface in grounding discussions. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3(3), 327–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Slof, B., Erkens, G., Kirschner, P. A., Jaspers, J. G. M., & Janssen, J. (2010). Guiding students’ online complex learning-task behavior through representational scripting. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(5), 927–939.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Slotta, J. D. (2004). The Web-Based Inquiry Science Environment (WISE): Scaffolding knowledge integration in the science classroom. In M. C. Linn, E. A. Davis, & P. Bell (Eds.), Internet environments for science education (pp. 203–231). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  32. Slotta, J. D., & Linn, M. C. (2009). WISE science: Web-based inquiry in the classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  33. Stahl, G., & Hesse, F. (2007). Welcome to the future: ijCSCL volume 2. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(1), 1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Stegmann, K., Streng, S., Halbinger, M., Koch, J., Fischer, F., & Hussmann, H. (2009). eXtremely Simple Scripting (XSS): A framework to speed up the development of computer-supported collaboration scripts. In A. Dimitracopoulou, C. O'Malley, D. Suthers, & P. Reimann (Eds.), Computer Supported Collaborative Learning Practices: CSCL2009 Community Events Proceedings (pp. 195–197). ISLS.Google Scholar
  35. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Tchounikine, P. (2008). Operationalizing macro-scripts in CSCL technological settings. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3(2), 193–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Tomaiuolo, N. G., & Packer, J. G. (1996). Web search engines: Key to locating information for all users or only the cognoscienti. In Online Information 96. Proceedings of the International Online Information Meeting, Retrieved 22 June 2010, http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED411811.pdf.
  38. Van Merrienboer, J. J. G., Clark, R. E., & de Crock, M. B. M. (2002). Blueprints for complex learning: The 4C/ID model. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(2), 39–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Walton, M., & Archer, A. (2004). The Web and information literacy: Scaffolding the use of web sources in a project-based curriculum. British Journal of Educational Technology, 35(2), 173–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wecker, C., Kollar, I, Fischer, F., & Prechtl, H. (2010, June/July). Fostering online search competence and domain-specific knowledge in inquiry classrooms: Effects of continuous and fading collaboration scripts. Paper presented at the 9th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS), Chicago, June, 29 – July, 2, 2010.Google Scholar
  41. 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
  42. Weinberger, A., Ronen, M., Tchounikine, P., Harrer, A., Dillenbourg, P., Haake, J., et al. (2007). Languages and platforms for CSCL Scripts. In C. Chinn, G. Erkens, & S. Puntambekar (Eds.), [Proceedings of the] CSCL 2007. Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA, July 16th - July 21st, 2007 (pp. 831–832). International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar
  43. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Zigo, V. (2009). XPather Documentation. Retrieved 22 June 2010, from http://xpath.alephzarro.com/documentation.

Copyright information

© International Society of the Learning Sciences, Inc.; Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christof Wecker
    • 1
  • Karsten Stegmann
    • 1
  • Florian Bernstein
    • 2
  • Michael J. Huber
    • 2
  • Georg Kalus
    • 2
  • Ingo Kollar
    • 1
  • Sabine Rathmayer
    • 2
  • Frank Fischer
    • 1
  1. 1.Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität MünchenEmpirische Pädagogik und Pädagogische PsychologieMunichGermany
  2. 2.Technische Universität MünchenFakultät für InformatikGarchingGermany

Personalised recommendations