Facilitating Collaborative Knowledge Construction in Computer-Mediated Learning Environments with Cooperation Scripts

  • Armin Weinberger
  • Markus Reiserer
  • Bernhard Ertl
  • Frank Fischer
  • Heinz Mandl
Part of the Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Series book series (CULS, volume 5)


Collaborative knowledge construction in computer-mediated learning environments poses difficulties regarding what tasks learners work on and how learners interact with each other. Learners who collaboratively construct knowledge in computer-mediated learning environments sometimes construct inadequate conceptions of a subject and rashly build consensus regarding these conceptions. Collaborative learning tasks can be structured through cooperation scripts. It is unclear, how cooperation scripts could be designed for different tasks and different technologies for computer-mediated communication. In this chapter, two studies with a 2×2-design will be reported that applied social and epistemic cooperation scripts in computer-mediated learning environments based on web-based discussion boards and videoconferencing technologies. Results show that social cooperation scripts substantially foster the processes of collaborative knowledge construction as well as learning outcomes. Epistemic cooperation scripts facilitate the processes of collaborative knowledge construction, but have no or negative effects on learning outcomes.


Theoretical Concept Cooperative Learning Knowledge Construction Attribution Theory Virtual Learning Environment 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Anderson, A. H., O'Malley, C., Doherty-Sneddon, G., Lanton, S., Newlands, A., Mullin, J., Fleming, A. M., & Van der Felden, J. (1997). The impact of VCM on collaborative problem solving: An analysis of task performance, communicative process, and user satisfaction. In K. E. Finn, A. J. Sellen, & S. B. Wilbur (Eds.), Video-mediated communication (pp. 51–74). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  2. Baker, M. & Lund, K. (1997). Promoting reflective interactions in a CSCL environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 13, 175–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brooks, L. W. & Dansereau, D. F. (1983). Effects of structural schema training and text organization on expository prose processing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 811–820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brown, A. L. & Palincsar, A. S. (1989). Guided, cooperative learning and individual knowledge acquisition. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction. Essays in the honour of Robert Glaser (pp. 393–451). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  5. Clark, D., Weinberger, A., Jucks, R., Spitulnik, M, & Wallace, R. (2003). Designing effective science inquiry in text-based computer supported collaborative learning environments. International Journal of Educational Policy, Research & Practice, 4(1), 55–82.Google Scholar
  6. Cohen, E. G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64, 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Coleman, E. B. (1995). Learning by explaining: Fostering collaborative progressive discourse in science. In R. J. Beun, M. Baker, & M. Reiner (Eds.), Dialogue and instruction: Modeling interaction in intelligent tutoring systems (pp. 123–135). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  8. 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
  9. Dillenbourg, P. (1999). Introduction: What do you mean by “collaborative learning”? In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Collaborative Learning. Cognitive and computational approaches (pp. 1–19). Amsterdam: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  10. Doise, W. (1990). System and metasystem in cognitive operations. In M. Carretero, M. L. Pope, P. R. J. Simons, & J. I. Pozo (Eds.), Learning and instruction: European research in an international context (pp. 125–139). Elmsford, NY: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  11. Doise, W. & Mugny, G. (1984). The social development of the intellect. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  12. Ertl, B., Reiserer, M. & Mandl, H. (2002). Kooperatives Lernen in Videokonferenzen [Cooperative learning in videoconferences], Unterrichtswissenschaft, 30, 339–356.Google Scholar
  13. Fischer, F., Bruhn, J., Gräsel, C., & Mandl, H. (2002). Fostering collaborative knowledge construction with visualization tools. Learning and Instruction, 12, 213–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Flores, F., Graves, M., Hartfield, B., & Winograd, T. (1988). Computer systems and the design of organizational interaction. ACM Trans. on Information Systems, 6(2), 153–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Geyken, A., Mandl, H., & Reiter, W. (1998). Selbstgesteuertes Lernen mit Tele-Tutoring [Self-guided learning through tele-tutoring]. In R. Schwarzer (Ed.), Multimedia und TeleLearning [Multimedia and telelearning] (pp. 181–196). Frankfurt am Main: Campus.Google Scholar
  16. Greeno, J. G., Collins, A. M., & Resnick, L. B. (1996). Cognition and learning. In D. C. Berliner (Ed.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 15–46). New York, NY: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  17. Guzley, R. M., Avanzino, S. & Bor, A. (2001). Simulated Computer-Mediated / Video-Interactive Distance Learning: A Test of Motivation, Interaction Satisfaction, Delivery, Learning & Perceived Effectiveness. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 6.Google Scholar
  18. Hogan, K., Nastasi, B. K., & Pressley, M. (2000). Discourse patterns and collaborative scientific reasoning in peer and teacher-guided discussions. Cognition and Instruction, 17(4), 379–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hron, A., Hesse, F. W., Reinhard, P., & Picard, E. (1997). Strukturierte Kooperation beim computerunterstützten kollaborativen Lernen [Structured cooperation in computer-supported collaborative learning]. Unterrichtswissenschaft, 25(1), 56–69.Google Scholar
  20. Kiesler, S. (1992). Talking, teaching, and learning in network groups: Lessons from research. In A. Kaye (Ed.), Collaborative learning through computer conferencing. The Najaden Papers (pp. 147–165). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  21. King, A. (1999). Discourse patterns for mediating peer learning. In A. M. O'Donnell & A. King (Eds.), Cognitive perspectives on peer learning (pp. 87–115). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  22. Larson, C. O., Dansereau, D. F., O'Donnell, A. M., Hytecker, V. I., Lambiotte, J. G., & Rocklin, T. R. (1985). Effects of metacognitive and elaborative activity on cooperative learning and transfer. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 10, 342–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Linn, M. & Burbules, N. C. (1993). Construction of knowledge and group learning. In K. Tobin (Ed.), The practice of constructivism in science education (pp. 91–119). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).Google Scholar
  24. Mandl, H., Gruber, H., & Renkl, A. (1996). Communities of practice toward expertise: Social foundation of university instruction. In P. B. Baltes & U. Staudinger (Eds.), Interactive minds. Life-span perspectives on the social foundation of cognition (pp. 394–411). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Nussbaum, E. M., Hartley, K., Sinatra, G. M., Reynolds, R. E., & Bendixen, L. D. (2002, April). Enhancing the quality of on-line discussions. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar
  26. 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, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  27. 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.), Interactions in cooperative groups. The theoretical anatomy of group learning (pp. 120–141). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  28. O'Donnell, A. M., Dansereau, D. F., Hall, R. H., & Rocklin, T. R. (1987). Cognitive, social/affective, and metacognitive outcomes of scripted cooperative learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(4), 431–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Palincsar, A. S. & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Reiser, B. J. (2002). Why scaffolding should sometimes make tasks more difficult for learners. Paper presented at the Computer Support for Collaborative Learning: Foundations for a CSCL Community, Boulder, CO.Google Scholar
  31. Rosenshine, B. & Meister, C. (1994). Reciprocal teaching: A review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 64, 479–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Salomon, G. & Globerson, T. (1989). When teams do not function the way they ought to. International Journal of Educational Research, 13(1), 89–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Scardamalia, M. & Bereiter, C. (1996). Computer support for knowledge-building communities. In T. Koschmann (Ed.), CSCL: Theory and practice of an emerging paradigm (pp. 249–268). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  34. Scarr, S. & McCartney, K. (1983). How people make their own environments: A theory of genotype-environment effects. Child Development, 54, 424–435.Google Scholar
  35. Slavin, R. E. (1996). Research for the future. Research on cooperative learning and achievement: What we know, what we need to know. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 43–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Slavin, R. E. (1995). Cooperative learning: theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  37. Straus, S. G. & McGrath, J. E. (1994). Does the medium matter? The interaction of task type and technology on group performance and member reactions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(1), 87–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Suthers, D. D. & Hundhausen, C. D. (2001). Learning by constructing collaborative representations: An empirical comparison of three alternatives. In P. Dillenbourg, A. Eurelings, & K. Hakkarainen (Eds.), European perspectives on computer-supported collaborative learning (pp. 577–592). Maastricht, NL: University of Maastricht.Google Scholar
  39. Teasley, S. (1997). Talking about reasoning: How important is the peer in peer collaboration? In L. B. Resnick, R. Säljö, C. Pontecorvo, & B. Burge (Eds.), Discourse, tools and reasoning: Essays on situated cognition (pp. 361–384). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  40. Veerman, A. L. & Treasure-Jones, T. (1999). Software for problem solving through collaborative argumentation. In P. Coirier & J. E. B. Andriessen (Eds.), Foundations of argumentative text processing (pp. 203–230). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Webb, N. M. (1989). Peer interaction and learning in small groups. International Journal of Educational Research, 13, 21–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Weinberger, A., Fischer, F., & Mandl, H. (2002). Fostering computer supported collaborative learning with cooperation scripts and scaffolds. Paper presented at the Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning (CSCL), Boulder, USA.Google Scholar
  44. Weinberger, A., Fischer, F., & Mandl, H. (2003). Gemeinsame Wissenskonstruktion in computervermittelter Kommunikation: Wirkungen von Kooperationsskripts auf den Erwerb anwendungsorientierten Wissens? [Collaborative knowledge construction in computer-mediated communication: Effects of cooperation scripts on acquisition of application-oriented knowledge]. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 211(2), 86–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Weinberger, A. & Mandl, H. (2003). Computer-mediated knowledge communication. Special Issue: New Media in Education. Studies in Communication Sciences, 81–105.Google Scholar
  46. Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychological Review, 92, 548–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Armin Weinberger
  • Markus Reiserer
  • Bernhard Ertl
  • Frank Fischer
  • Heinz Mandl

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations