Assessing learners’ perceived readiness for computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL): a study on initial development and validation
- 546 Downloads
The main purpose of this study was to develop an instrument that assesses university students’ perceived readiness for computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL). Assessment in CSCL research had predominantly focused on measuring “after-collaboration” outcomes and “during-collaboration” behaviors while “before-collaboration” assessment was rarely studied. Given the nature of high learner agency and self-directness necessary in CSCL contexts, it was assumed that a sufficient level of student readiness for CSCL could promote positive attitudes and behaviors during the collaborative learning process and subsequent learning outcomes. Considering the importance of a before-collaboration status, this study proposes the new notion of students’ readiness for CSCL (SR-CSCL) and presents a set of criteria to theoretically define and empirically measure the perceived level of SR-CSCL. Drawing on prior research on CSCL and readiness issues, we developed the SR-CSCL instrument with a three-dimensional framework consisting of: (a) motivation for collaborative learning, (b) prospective behaviors for collaborative learning and (c) online learning aptitude. The SR-CSCL instrument was validated with the university students in China in the pilot study (N = 120) and the main study (N = 295). Overall, the results showed some evidence of reliability and validity for the proposed instrument. This study presents an empirical assessment tool that can help instructors and researchers better understand and investigate how to assess and increase students’ readiness levels in order to enhance their learning experiences in CSCL environments.
KeywordsReadiness CSCL Collaboration Online learning
This research was conducted as the master’s thesis of the first author at the National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
We declare that there are no potential conflicts of interest.
We complied with the ethical standards of research involving human subjects.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- AERA, APA, & NCME. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: AERA.Google Scholar
- Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
- Capdeferro, N., & Romero, M. (2012). Are online learners frustrated with collaborative learning experiences? International Review of Research in Open & Distance Learning, 13(2), 26–44.Google Scholar
- Carey, K. B., Purnine, D. M., Maisto, S. A., & Carey, M. P. (1999). Assessing readiness to change substance abuse: A critical review of instruments. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 6(3), 245–266.Google Scholar
- Chow, A., & Law, N. (2005). Measuring motivation in collaborative inquiry-based learning contexts. Paper presented at the proceedings of th 2005 conference on Computer support for collaborative learning: Learning 2005: The next 10 years!Google Scholar
- Deutsch, M. (2011). Interdependence and psychological orientation: Cooperation and competition (pp. 23–40). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
- DeVellis, R. (2011). Scale development: Theory and applications (2nd ed.). California: Sage.Google Scholar
- Downing, S. M., & Haladyna, T. M. (2006). Handbook of test development. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.Google Scholar
- Harasim, L., Hiltz, S. R., Teles, L., & Turoff, M. (1995). Learning networks: A field guide to teaching and learning online. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Kim, H. K., & Bateman, B. (2007). Student characteristics and participation patterns in online discussion. Paper presented at the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference.Google Scholar
- Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
- Kolodner, J. L., Camp, P. J., Crismond, D., Fasse, B., Gray, J., Holbrook, J., & Ryan, M. (2003). Problem-based learning meets case-based reasoning in the middle-school science classroom: Putting learning by design into practice. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(4), 495–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Koschmann, T. (2002). Dewey’s contribution to the foundations of CSCL research. Paper presented at the proceedings of the conference on computer support for collaborative learning: Foundations for a CSCL Community.Google Scholar
- McVay, M. (2000). How to be a successful distance learning student: Learning on the Internet. New York: Pearson Custom Pub.Google Scholar
- Miyake, N. (2007). Computer supported collaborative learning. In R. Andrews & C. Haythornthwaite (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of e-learning research (pp. 248–265). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
- Olson, G. M., Teasley, S., Bietz, M. J., & Cogburn, D. L. (2002). Collaboratories to support distributed science: The example of international HIV/AIDS research. Paper presented at the proceedings of the 2002 annual research conference of the South African institute of computer scientists and information technologists on enablement through technology.Google Scholar
- Snedecor, G., & Cochran, W. (1989). Statistical methods (8th ed.). Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press.Google Scholar
- Stahl, G. (2011). A view of computer-supported collaborative learning research today. Paper presented at the 2011 international conference on collaboration technologies and systems (CTS).Google Scholar
- Stahl, G., Koschmann, T., & Suthers, D. (2006). Computer-supported collaborative learning: An historical perspective. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (Vol. 2006). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
- Vonderwell, S. (2004). Online learning: Student role and readiness. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 3(3), 38–42.Google Scholar