Designing Integrative Scripts

  • Pierre Dillenbourg
  • Patrick Jermann
Part of the Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning book series (CULS, volume 6)

Abstract

Scripts structure the collaborative learning process by constraining interactions, defining a sequence of activities and specifying individual roles. Scripts aim at increasing the probability that collaboration triggers knowledge generative interactions such as conflict resolution, explanation or mutual regulation. Integrative scripts are not bound to collaboration in small groups but include individual activities and class-wide activities. These pre- and post-structuring activities form the didactic envelope of the script. In many cases, the core part of the script is based on one among a few schemata: Jigsaw, conflict, reciprocal. We propose a model for designing this core component. This model postulates that learning results from the interactions that students engage in to build a shared understanding of a task despite the fact that it is distributed. Hence, the way the task is distributed among group members determines the interactions they will engage in. Interactions are viewed as the mechanisms for overcoming task splits. A large variety of scripts can be built from a small number of schemata, embedded within activities that occur across multiple social planes, activities which are integrated with each other by few generic operators.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Berger, A., Moretti, R., Chastonay, P., Dillenbourg, P., Bchir, A., Baddoura, R., et al. (2001). Teaching community health by exploiting international socio-cultural and economical differences. In P. Dillenbourg, A. Eurelings, & K. Hakkarainen (Eds.). Proceedings of the first European Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (pp. 97–105). Maastricht.Google Scholar
  2. Bromme, R., Hesse, F., & Spada, H. (Eds.) (2005). Barriers and biases in computer-mediated knowledge communication. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Series. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  3. Brousseau, G. (1998). Théorie des situations didactiques. Grenoble: La Pensée Sauvage.Google Scholar
  4. Dillenbourg P. (1999). What do you mean by collaborative learning? In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Collaborative-learning: Cognitive and computational approaches (pp. 1–19). Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  5. Dillenbourg, P., & Bétrancourt, M. (2006). Collaboration Load. In J. Elen & R. E. Clark (Eds.), Handling complexity in learning environments: research and theory (pp. 142–163). Advances in Learning and Instruction Series, PergamonGoogle Scholar
  6. 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.Google Scholar
  7. Dillenbourg, P., Baker, M., Blaye, A., & O’Malley, C. (1995). The evolution of research on collaborative learning. In H. Spada & P. Reimann (Eds.), Learning in humans and machine: Towards an interdisciplinary learning science (pp. 189–211). Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  8. Dillenbourg, P., & Tchounikine, P. (in press). Flexibility in macro-scripts for CSCL. Journal of computer assisted learning.Google Scholar
  9. Engeli, M. (Ed.). (2001). Bits and spaces, architecture and computing for physical, digital, hybrid realms. Basel: Birkhäuser Publishers.Google Scholar
  10. Hakkarainen, K., & Sintonen, M. (2002). The interrogative model of inquiry and computer-supported collaborative learning. Science & Education, 11(1), 25–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Harrer, A, Bollen, L., & Hoppe, U. (2004). Processing and transforming collaborative learning protocols for learner’s reflection and tutor’s evaluation. In E. Gaudioso & L. Talavera (Eds.), Proceedings of the European Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Valencia.Google Scholar
  12. Hoppe, U. H., & Ploetzner, R. (1999). Can analytic models support learning in groups. In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Collaborative-learning: Cognitive and Computational Approaches (pp.147–168). Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  13. Hutchins, E. (1995). How a cockpit remembers its speeds. Cognitive Science, 19, 265–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jermann, P., & Dillenbourg, P. (2003). Elaborating new arguments through a cscl scenario. In G. Andriessen, M. Baker, & D. Suthers. (Eds.), Arguing to learn: confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Series. Amsterdam: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  15. Kobbe, L., Weinberger, A., Dillenbourg, P., Harrer, A., Hämäläinen, R., & Fischer, F. (submitted). Specifying Computer-Supported Collaboration Scripts.Google Scholar
  16. Kollar, I., Fischer, F., & Hesse, F. W. (in press). Computer-supported collaboration scripts-a conceptual analysis. Educational Psychology Review.Google Scholar
  17. Koschmann, T., Kelson, A. C., Feltovich, P. J., & Barrows, H. S. (1996). Computer-supported problem-based learning: A principled approach to the use of computers in collaborative learning. In T. Koschmann (Ed.), CSCL: Theory and practice of an emerging paradigm. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  18. Lave J. (1991). Situating learning in communities of practice. In L. Resnick, J. Levine, & S. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition (pp. 63–84). Hyattsville, MD: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Moreland, R. L. (1999). Transactive memory: Learning who knows what in work groups and organizations. In L. Thompson, D. Messick, & J. Levine (Eds.), Shared cognition in organizations: The management of knowledge (pp. 3–31). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  20. O’Donnell, A. M., & Dansereau, D. F. (1992). Scripted cooperation in student dyads: A method for analyzing and enhancing academic learning and performance. In R. Hertz-Lazarowitz & N. Miller (Eds.), Interaction in cooperative groups: The theoretical anatomy of group learning (pp. 120–141). London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Palincsar A. S., & Brown A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Roschelle, J., & Teasley S. D. (1995). The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving. In C. E. O’Malley (Ed), Computer-supported collaborative learning. (pp. 69–197). Berlin: Springer-VerlagGoogle Scholar
  23. Salomon, G. (1993). No distribution without individual’s cognition: a dynamic interactional view. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions. Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 111–138). Cambridge, USA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Schwartz, D. L. (1995). The emergence of abstract dyad representations in dyad problem solving. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(3), 321–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Soller, A., Martinez, A., Jermann, P., & Muehlenbrock. M. (2005). From Mirroring to Guiding: A Review of State of the Art Technology for Supporting Collaborative Learning. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 15, 261–290.Google Scholar
  26. Suthers, D., Connelly, J., Lesgold, A., Paolucci, M., Toth, E., Toth, J., et al. (2001). Representational and Advisory Guidance for Students Learning Scientific Inquiry. In K. D. & P. J. Feltovich (Eds.), Smart machines in education: The coming revolution in educational technology (pp. 7–35). Menlo Park, CA: AAAI/Mit Press.Google Scholar
  27. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Weinberger, A., Fischer, F., & Mandl, H. (2002). Fostering computer supported collaborative learning with cooperation scripts and scaffolds. In G. Stahl (Ed.), Computer support for collaborative learning: foundations for a CSCL community. Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning (CSCL) 2002 (pp. 573–574). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pierre Dillenbourg
    • 1
  • Patrick Jermann
    • 1
  1. 1.Ecole Polytechnique Fédérate de Lausanne (EPFL)Lausanne

Personalised recommendations