Flexible Scripting in Net-Based Learning Groups

  • Jörg M. Haake
  • Hans-Rüdiger Pfister
Part of the Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning book series (CULS, volume 6)


CSCL scripts facilitate cooperative learning by constraining the activities of co-learners and thereby supporting coordination between distributed co-learners as well as guiding co-learners through the collaborative learning process. So far, such scripts have been encoded in CSCL environments and their tools. This made flexible adaptations of scripts an expensive task, which hinders experience-based improvements of CSCL scripts. In this chapter, we present a formal model of CSCL scripts and show how it can be used to help teachers and designers develop, adapt and experiment with CSCL scripts. In our approach, a script is represented as an extended finite state automaton, which is used to control the user interface and the possible activities in a web-based CSCL environment. We distinguish between atomic scripts, which support a specific collaborative learning activity, and composite scripts, which support a complex collaborative learning task through a sequence of atomic or composite scripts. Scripts can be created by a two-step process: defining atomic CSCL scripts, and linking existing scripts into a composite script for the overall learning activity. This approach enables the definition and reuse of CSCL scripts as well as their adaptation to learning groups and learning situations.


Collaborative Learning Cooperative Learning Finite State Automaton Computer Support Collaborative Learn Collaboration Script 
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. Apple (1987). Retrieved from Scholar
  2. ArgueGraph (2003). Retrieved August, 2004, from Scholar
  3. Bourimi, M., Haake, J. M., Landgraf, B., Schümmer, T., & Haake, A. (2003). Unterstützung für das 2-Ebenen-Tailoring bei CSCL. Proceedings of DELF1 2003: 1. E-Learning Fachtagung Informalik (pp. 280–289). Bonn: GI.Google Scholar
  4. Clark, H. H., & Brennan, S. E. (1991). Grounding in communication. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 127–149). Washington, DC: APA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. CopperCore (2004). Retrieved from Scholar
  6. Dansereau, D. F. (1988). Cooperative learning strategies. In C. E. Weinstein, E. T. Goetz, & P. A. Alexander (Eds.), Learning and study strategies: Issues in assessment, instruction, and evaluation (pp. 103–120). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  7. 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? Heerlen: Open Universiteit Nederland.Google Scholar
  8. Ertl, B., Reiserer, M., & Mandl, H. (2002). Kooperatives Lernen in Videokonferenzen. Unterrichtswissenschaft, 30, 339–356.Google Scholar
  9. Fischer, F. (2002). Gemeinsame Wissenskonstruktion-Theoretische und methodologische Aspekte. Psychologische Rundschau, 53, 119–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Furuta, R., & Stotts, P. D. (1994, October). Interpreted collaboration protocols and their use in groupware prototyping. In Proc. of the 1994 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW’94) (pp. 121–131). New York: ACM Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gagné, R., Briggs, L., & Wager, W. (1992). Principles of instructional design (4th ed.). Fort Worth: HBJ College Publishers.Google Scholar
  12. Haake, J. M., Haake, A., Schümmer, T., Bourimi, M., & Landgraf, B. (2004). End-user controlled group formation and access rights management in a shared workspace system. In Proc. of ACM CSCW 2004, Chicago, November 6–10, (pp. 554–563). New York: ACM Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Haake, J. M., Schümmer, T., Bourimi, M., Landgraf, B., & Haake, A. (2004). CURE — Eine Umgebung für selbstorganisiertes Gruppenlernen. i-com Zeilschrift für interaktive und kooperative Medien, 3(2), 20–26.Google Scholar
  14. Haake, J. M., Schümmer, T., Haake, A., Bourimi, M., & Landgraf, B. (2004). Supporting flexible collaborative distance learning in the CURE platform. Proceedings of the Hawaii International Conference On System Sciences (HICSS-37), IEEE Press.Google Scholar
  15. Haake, J. M., & Schümmer, T. (2003a). Supporting collaborative exercises for distance learning. Proceedings of the Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, HICSS-36, IEEE Press.Google Scholar
  16. Haake, J. M., & Schümmer, T. (2003b). Supporting collaborative exercises for distance learning. In B. Wasson, S. Ludvigscn, & U. Hoppe (Eds.), Designing for Change in Networked Learning Environments, (pp. 125–134). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  17. Hall, R. H., Dansereau, D. F., & Skaggs, L. P. (1990). The cooperative learner. Learning & Individual Differences, 2(3), 327–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Herring, S. (1999). Interactional coherence in CMC. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 4. Retrieved from Scholar
  19. Hesse, F. W., Garsoffky, B., & Hron, A. (1997). Interface-Design für computerunterstütztes kooperatives Lernen. In L. J. Issing & P. Klimsa (Eds.), Information und Lernen mit Multimedia (pp. 252–267). Weinheim: Psychologie Verlags Union.Google Scholar
  20. Hesse, F. W., & Hron, A. (1999). Dialogue structuring in computer supported synchronous discussion groups. Advanced research in computers and communications in education. Proceedings of ICCE’99, 1, 350–355.Google Scholar
  21. Hopcroft, J. E., & Ullman, J. E. (1979). Introduction to automata theory, languages and computations. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  22. Hoppe, H. U., Gassner, K., Mühlenbrock, M., & Tewissen, F. (2000). Distributed visual language environments for cooperation and learning-applications and intelligent support. Group Decision & Negotiation, 9, 205–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hron, A., Hesse, F. W., Cress, U., & Giovis, C. (2000). Implicit and explicit dialogue structuring in virtual learning groups. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 53–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. IMS-LD (2003). IMS Learning Design Information Model. Final Specification, IMS Global Learning Consortium. Retrieved from Scholar
  25. Jermann, P., Soller, A., & Muehlenbrock, M. (2001). From mirroring to guiding: A review of state of the art technology for supporting collaborative learning. In P. Dillenbourg, A. Eurelings, & K. Hakkarainen (Eds.), Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning EuroCSCL-2001 (pp. 324–331). Maastricht: The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  26. Jucks, R., Paechter, M., & Tatar, D. G. (2003). Learning and collaboration in online discourses. International Journal of Educational Policy, Research, & Practice, 4, 117–146.Google Scholar
  27. Marjanovic, O., & Orlowska, M.E. (2000). Making flexible learning more glexible. IEEE International Workshop on Advanced Learning Technologies IWALT’2000, December 2000, New Zealand.Google Scholar
  28. 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: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  29. 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). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  30. O’Donnell, A. M., & King, A. (Eds.). (1999). Cognitive perspectives on peer learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  31. Pfister, H. R. (2005). How to support synchronous net-based learning discourses: Principles and perspectives. In R. Bromme, F. W. Hesse, & H. Spada (Eds.), Barriers and biases in computer-mediated knowledge construction (pp. 39–57). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pfister, H.-R., & Mühlpfordt, M. (2002). Supporting discourse in a synchronous learning environment: The learning protocol approach. In G. Stahl (Ed.), Computer Support for Collaborative learning: Foundations for a CSCL Community. Proceedings of CSCL2002-Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, Boulder, Colorado (pp. 581–589). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Available at: Scholar
  33. Pfister, H.-R., Mühlpfordt, M., & Müller, W. (2003). Lernprotokollunterstütztes Lernen-ein Vergleich zwischen unstrukturiertem und systemkontrolliertem diskursivem Lernen im Netz. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 211, 98–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pfister, H.-R., Wessner, M., Holmer, T., & Steinmetz, R. (1999). Evaluating distributed computer-supported cooperative learning (D-CSCL): A framework and some data. In Proceedings of the 2 nd International Conference on New Learning Technologies (NLT99) (pp. 234–241).Google Scholar
  35. Schank, R. C., & Abelson, R. P. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals, and understanding: An inquiry into human knowledge structures. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  36. Schank, R. C., & Abelson, R. P. (1995). Knowledge and memory: The real story. In R. S. Wyer Jr. (Ed.), Advances in Social Cognition (Vol. VIII, pp. 1–85). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  37. Slavin, R. E. (1992). When and why does cooperative learning increase achievement? Theoretical and empirical perspectives. In R. Hertz-Lazarowitz & N. Miller (Eds.), Interaction in cooperative groups: The theoretical anatomy of group learning (pp. 145–173). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Slavin, R. E. (1995). Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  39. Sweller, J., van Merrienboer, J., & Paas, F. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 251–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Weinberger, A., Fischer, F., & Mandl, H. (2003). Gemeinsame Wissenskonstruktion in computervermittelter Kommunikation: Wirkungen von Kooperationsskripts auf den Erwerb anwendungsorientierten Wissens. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 211(2), 86–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Weinberger, A., & Mandl, H. (2003). Computer-mediated knowledge communication. Studies in Communication Science, 3, 81–105.Google Scholar
  42. Wessner, M., Dawabi, P., & Haake, J. M., (2002). L3-An infrastructure for collaborative learnflow. In G. Stahl (Ed.), Proceedings of the Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) 2002, (pp. 698–699). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  43. Wessner, M., & Pfister, H.-R. (in press). Points of cooperation: Integrating cooperative learning into web-based courses. In H. U. Hoppe, M. Ikeda, & H. Ogata (Eds.), New technologies for collaborative learning, Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jörg M. Haake
    • 1
  • Hans-Rüdiger Pfister
    • 2
  1. 1.FernUniversitätHagen
  2. 2.Universität LüneburgLüneburg

Personalised recommendations