Advertisement

Supporting Collaborative Learning in Videoconferencing Using Collaboration Scripts and Content Schemes

  • Bernhard Ertl
  • Birgitta Kopp
  • Heinz Mandl
Chapter
Part of the Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning book series (CULS, volume 6)

Abstract

Studies have shown that videoconferences are an effective medium for facilitating communication between parties who are separated by distance. Furthermore, studies reveal that videoconferences are effective when used for distance learning, particularly due to their ability to facilitate complex collaborative learning tasks. However, as in face-to-face communication, learners benefit further when they receive additional support for such learning tasks. This chapter provides an overview of two empirical studies that offer general insights regarding some effective and less effective ways to support collaborative learning with videoconferencing. The focus is on collaboration scripts that serve to provide task-specific support and content schemes that serve to pro-vide content-specific support. Based on the results of the two studies, conclusions can be drawn about the support measures for promoting learning. Conclusions can also be reached about the need for employing both content schemes and collaboration scripts to provide learners with the most benefit.

Keywords

Learning Outcome Collaborative Learning Theoretical Concept Support Measure Collaborative Problem 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anderson, A. H., O’ Malley, C, Doherty Sneddon, G., Langton, S., Newlands, A., Mullin, J., Fleming, A. M., & Van der Velden, J. (1997). The impact of VMC on collaborative problem solving: An analysis of task performance, communicative process, and user satisfaction. In K. E. Finn, A. J. Sellen, & S. Wilbur (Eds.), Video mediated communication (pp. 133–155). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, J. R., Reder, L. M, & Simon, H. A. (1996). Situated learning and education. Educational Researcher, 25, 5–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baker, M, & Lund, K. (1997). Promoting reflective interactions in a CSCL environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 13, 175–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bales, R. F. (1950). Interaction process analysis: A method for the study of small groups. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  5. 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
  6. Bruce, V. (1996). The role of the face in communication: Implications for videophone design. Interacting with Computers, 8, 166–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bruhn, J. (2000). Förderung des kooperaliven Lernens über Computernelze. Prozess und Lernerfolg beim dyadischen Lernen mil Desktop-Videokonferenzen [Fostering cooperative learning in computer networks: Process and learning outcome in dyadic learning in desktop-videoconferencing]. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  8. Cohen, E. G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64, 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cohen, E. G., & Lotan, R. A. (1995). Producing equal-status interaction in the heterogeneous classroom. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 99–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453–494). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  11. 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
  12. Dillenbourg, P., & Traum, D. (1999, January). Does a shared screen make a shared solution? Paper presented at the Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning (CSCL), Stanford.Google Scholar
  13. Doise, W., & Mugny, W. (1984). The social development of intellect. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  14. Ertl, B. (2003). Kooperatives Lernen in Videokonferenzen. Förderung von individuellem und gemeinsamem Lernerfolg durch external repräsentierte Strukturangebote [Cooperative learning in videoconferencing. Support of individual and cooperative learning outcomes by representational aids]. Doctoral thesis. Ludwig-Maximilian-University, Munich. Available at: http://edoc.ub.uni-muenchen.de/archive/00001227/01/Ertl_Bernhard_M.pdf.Google Scholar
  15. Ertl, B., Fischer, F., & Mandl, H. (2006). Conceptual and socio-cognitive support for collaborative learning in videoconferencing environments. Computers & Education, 47(3), 289–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ertl, B., Kopp, B., & Mandl, H. (in press). Fostering case based learning in videoconferencing. Journal of Educational Computing Research.Google Scholar
  17. Ertl, B., Reiserer, M, & Mandl, H. (2005). Fostering collaborative learning in videoconferencing: The influence of content schemes and cooperation scripts on shared external representations and individual learning outcomes. Education, Communication & Information, 5, 147–166.Google Scholar
  18. Finn, K. E., Sellen, A. J., & Wilbur, S. B. (Eds.). (1997). Video-mediated communication. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  19. Fischer, F., Bruhn, J., Gräsel, C, & Mandl, H. (2000). Kooperatives Lernen mit Videokonferenzen: Gemeinsame Wissenskonstruktion und individueller Lernerfolg [Collaborative knowledge construction. Analysis and facilitation in computer-supported collaborative scenarios]. Kognitionswissenschaft, 9, 5–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fischer, F., Bruhn, J., Gräsel, C, & Mandl, H. (2002). Fostering collaborative knowledge construction with visualization tools. Learning and Instruction, 12, 213–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Greeno, J. G. (1997). On claims that answer the wrong questions. Educational Researcher, 26, 5–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Heider, F. (1958), The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  23. Hertz-Lazarowitz, R., Kirkus, V. B., & Miller, N. (1992). Implications of current research on cooperative interaction for classroom application. In R, Hertz-Lazarowitz (Ed.), Interaction in cooperative groups: The theoretical anatomy of group learning (pp. 253–280). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Isaacs, E. A., & Tang, J. C. (1997). Studying video-based collaboration in context: From small workgroups to large organizations. In K. E. Finn, A. J. Sellen, & S. Wilbur (Eds.), Video mediated communication (pp. 173–197). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  25. Jeong, H., & Chi, M. T. H. (1999). Construction of shared knowledge during collaborative Learning. Paper presented at the AERA Annual Meeting, Montreal.Google Scholar
  26. Joiner, R., Scanlon, E., O’Shea, T., Smith, R. B., & Blake, C. (2002). Synchronous collaboration support for adults evidence from a series of experiments on videomediated collaboration: Does eye contact matter? In G. Stahl (Ed.), Computer support for collaborative learning: Foundations for a CSCL community (pp. 371–378). Proceedings of the conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning (CSCL) 2002, Boulder, CO. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  27. Kelley, H. H. (1973). The processes of causal attribution. American Psychologist, 28, 107–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kopp, B. (2005). Effekte schematheoretischer Unterstützung auf Argumentation und Lernerfolg beim kooperativen Lernen in Videokonferenzen [Effects of schemata on argumentation and learning outcomes in videoconferencing]. Berlin: Logos.Google Scholar
  29. Kopp, B., Ertl, B., & Mandl, H. (2004). Fostering cooperative case-based learning in video-conferencing: Effects of content schemes and cooperation scripts. In P. Gerjets, P. Kirschner, J. Elen, & R. Joiner (Eds.), Instructional design for effective and enjoyable computer-supported learning. Proceedings of the first joint meeting of the EARLI SIGs Instructional Design and Learning and Instruction with Computers (CD-ROM). Tuebingen: Knowledge Media Research Center.Google Scholar
  30. Kotovsky, K., & Fallside, D. (1989). Representation and transfer in problem solving. In D. Klahr & K. Kotovsky (Eds.), Complex information processing: The impact of Herbert A. Simon (pp. 69–108). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  31. Kotovsky, K., Hayes, J. R., & Simon, H. A. (1985). Why are some problems hard? Evidence from Tower of Hanoi. Cognitive Psychology, 17, 248–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kuhn, D., Weinstock, M., & Flaton, R. (1994). Historical reasoning as theory-evidence coordination. In M. Carretero & J. F. Voss (Eds.), Cognitive and Instructional Processes in History and the Social Sciences (pp. 377–401). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  33. Lambiotte, J. G., Dansereau, D. F., O’Donnell, A. M., Young, M. D., Skaggs, L. P., & Hall, R. H. (1988). Effects of cooperative script manipulations on initial learning and transfer. Cognition and Instruction, 5, 103–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Larkin, J. H. (1989). Display-based problem solving. In D. Klahr & K. Kotovsky (Eds.), Complex information processing: The impact of Herbert A. Simon (pp. 319–341). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  35. Leitão, S. (2000). The potential of argument in knowledge building. Human Development, 43, 332–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Nastasi, B. K., & Clements, D. H. (1992). Social-cognitive behaviours and higher-order thinking in educational computer environments. Learning and Instruction, 2, 215–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. O’Connaill, B., Whittaker, S., & Wilbur, S. (1993). Conversations over video conferences: An evaluation of the spoken aspects of video-mediated communication. Human Computer Interaction, 8, 389–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 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). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  39. O’Donnell, A. M., & Dansereau, D. F. (2000). Interactive effects of prior knowledge and material format on cooperative teaching. Journal of Experimental Education, 68, 101–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. O’Donnell, A. M., & King, A. (Eds.). (1999). Cognitive perspectives on peer learning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  41. Pächter, M. (2003). Wissenskommunikation, Kooperation und Lernen in virtuellen Gruppen [Knowledge communication, cooperation and learning in virtual groups]. Lengerich: Pabst.Google Scholar
  42. Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L, (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Piaget, J. (1932). The moral judgment of the child. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  44. Reiserer, M. (2003). Peer-Teaching in Videokonferenzen. Effekte niedrig-und hoch-strukturierter Kooperationsskripte auf Lernprozess und Lernerfolg [Peer-teaching in videoconferencing. Effects of low-and high structured cooperation scripts on learning process and learning outcomes]. Berlin: Logos.Google Scholar
  45. Renkl, A., Mandl, H., & Gruber, H. (1996). Inert knowledge: Analyses and remedies. Educational Psychologist. 31, 115–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Roschelle, J., & Teasley, S. D, (1995). The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving. In C, O’Malley (Ed.), Computer Supported Collaborative Learning. (pp. 69–97). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  47. Rosenshine, B., & Meister, C. (1992). The Use of Scaffolds for Teaching Higher-Level Cognitive Strategies. Educational Leadership, 26–33.Google Scholar
  48. Rosenshine, B., & Meister, C. (1994). Reciprocal teaching: A review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 64, 479–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rosenshine, B., Meister, C, & Chapman, S. (1996). Teaching students to generate questions: A review of the intervention studies. Review of Educational Research, 66, 181–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Salomon, G. (1992). Effects with and of computers and the study of computer-based learning environments. In E. De Corte, M, C. Linn, H. Mandl, & L. Verschaffel (Eds.), Computer-based learning environments and problem solving (pp. 249–263). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  51. Salomon, G. (1998). Novel constructivist learning environments: Some issues to be concerned with. Research Dialogue in Learning and Instruction, 1, 2–12.Google Scholar
  52. Salomon, G., & Globerson, T. (1989). When teams do not function the way they ought to. International Journal of Educational Research, 13, 89–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Salomon, G., & Perkins, D. N. (1998). Individual and social aspects of learning. Review of Research in Education, 23, 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Scarr, S. (1984). Individuelle Erfahrungsunterschiede: Anlage-und Umwelteinwirkungen auf die Entwicklung des Kindes. In W. E. Fthenakis (Ed.), Tendenzen der Frühpädagogik (pp. 233–225). Düsseldorf: Schwann.Google Scholar
  55. Schank, R. C, & Abelson, R. P. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals and understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  56. Slavin, R. E. (1995). Cooperative learning: Theory, research and practice. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  57. Slotta, J. D., & Linn, M. C. (2000). The knowledge integration environment: Helping students use the internet effectively. In M. J. Jacobson & R. B. Kozma (Eds.), Innovations in science and mathematics education: Advanced designs, for technologies of learning (pp. 193–226). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  58. Sodian, B., Zaitchik, D., & Carey, S. (1991). Young children’s differentiation of hypothetical beliefs from evidence. Child Development, 62, 753–766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Suthers, D. (2001). Towards a systematic study of representational guidance for collaborative learning discourse. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 7, 254–277.Google Scholar
  60. 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.), Procedings of the First European Conference on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (euroCSCL) (pp. 577–584). Maastricht: McLuhan Institute.Google Scholar
  61. Suthers, D. D., & Hundhausen, C, D. (2003). An experimental study of the effects of representational guidance on collaborative learning processes. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 183–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Webb, N. M. (1989). Peer interaction and learning in small groups. International Journal of Educational Research, 13, 21–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Webb, N. M., & Palincsar, A. S. (1996). Group processes in the classroom. In D. C. Berliner (Ed.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 841–873). New York, NY: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  64. Zhang, J. (1997). The nature of external representations in problem solving. Cognitive Science, 21, 179–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Zhang, J., & Norman, D. A. (1994). Representations in distributed cognitive tasks. Cognitive Science, 18, 87–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bernhard Ertl
    • 1
  • Birgitta Kopp
    • 2
  • Heinz Mandl
    • 2
  1. 1.Bundeswehr UniversitätMunich
  2. 2.Ludwig-Maximilians-UniversitätMunich

Personalised recommendations