Advertisement

Examining the Dynamic of Participation Level on Group Contribution in a Global, STEM-Focused Digital Makerspace Community

  • Danielle P. EspinoEmail author
  • Seung B. Lee
  • Lauren Van Tress
  • Eric R. Hamilton
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 1112)

Abstract

Passive behavior in collaborative group settings is often associated with negative or no contributions to the group (social loafing). This paper examines low and high participation levels of students in a virtual collaborative group setting within a global, STEM-focused digital makerspace community. The results of using epistemic network analysis show that both high and low participation levels contributed to the overall balance of the group discourse, overcoming social loafing behavior. High participation level students provided social aspects that contributed to the development of a safe social space for sharing, while low level participation provided content focused dialogue for the group.

Keywords

STEM education Global Collaboration CSCL Online Digital makerspace Informal learning Participation Social loafing 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge funding support from the US National Science Foundation for the work this paper reports. Views appearing in this paper do not reflect those of the funding agency.

References

  1. 1.
    Caspi, A., Gorsky, P., Chajut, E.: The influence of group size on nonmandatory asynchronous instructional discussion groups. Internet High. Educ. 6(3), 227–240 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cohen, E.G.: Restructuring the classroom: conditions for productive small groups. Rev. Educ. Res. 64(1), 1–35 (1994)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Espino, D.P., Lee, S.B., Eagan, B., Hamilton, E.R.: An initial look at the developing culture of online global meet-ups in establishing a collaborative, STEM media-making community. In: Proceedings of the International Conference for Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL2019). Lyon, France, International Society for Learning Sciences (2019)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Frederiksen, J.R., Sipusic, M., Sherin, M., Wolfe, E.W.: Video portfolio assessment: creating a framework for viewing the functions of teaching. Educ. Assess. 5(4), 225–297 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Herrenkohl, L.R., Cornelius, L.: Investigating elementary students’ scientific and historical argumentation. J. Learn. Sci. 22(3), 413–461 (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2013.799475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hudson, J.M., Bruckman, A.S.: The bystander effect: a lens for understanding patterns of participation. J. Learn. Sci. 13(2), 165–195 (2004).  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1302_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Karau, S., Williams, K.: Social loafing: a meta-analytic review and theoretical integration. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 65(4), 681–706 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kwon, K., Hong, R.-Y., Laffey, J.M.: The educational impact of metacognitive group coordination in computer-supported collaborative learning. Comput. Hum. Behav. 29(4), 1271–1281 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P.A., Vermeulen, M.: Social aspects of CSCL environments: a research framework. Educ. Psychol. 48(4), 229–242 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Latané, B., Williams, K., Harkins, S.: Many hands make light the work: the causes and consequences of social loafing. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 37(6), 822–832 (1979).  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.37.6.822CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Liden, R., Wayne, S., Jaworski, R., Bennett, N.: Social loafing: a field investigation. J. Manage. 30(2), 285–304 (2004).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jm.2003.02.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Marquart, C.L., Hinojosa, C., Swiecki, Z., Eagan, B., Shaffer, D.W.: Epistemic Network Analysis (Version 1.5.2) (2018). http://app.epistemicnetwork.org
  13. 13.
    Piezon, S.L., Donaldson, R.L.: Online groups and social loafing: understanding student-group interactions. Online J. Distance Learn. Adm. 8(4), 1–11 (2005)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Preece, J.: Online Communities: Designing Usability, Supporting Sociability. Wiley, New York (2000)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rehm, M., Gijselaers, W., Segers, M.: The impact of hierarchical positions on communities of learning. Int. J. Comput.-Support. Collaborative Learn. 10(2), 117–138 (2015)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Danielle P. Espino
    • 1
    Email author
  • Seung B. Lee
    • 1
  • Lauren Van Tress
    • 1
  • Eric R. Hamilton
    • 1
  1. 1.Pepperdine UniversityMalibuUSA

Personalised recommendations