Advertisement

Educational Perspectives on Scripting CSCL

  • Päivi Häkkinen
  • Kati Mäkitalo-Siegl
Part of the Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning book series (CULS, volume 6)

Abstract

This chapter discusses different educational approaches to collaboration scripts. When carefully designed, scripts can push learners to that kind of situations in which meaningful interaction can take place. However, many conditions need to be met for this to happen in authentic classroom contexts. One of the biggest educational challenges in instructional design of computer-supported collaboration scripts is to better integrate them into wider social planes such as overall classroom activities. Scripts could also be considered as contextual and situated resources in collaborative learning environments. Furthermore, a challenge for future research is to explore how external scripts can be gradually replaced by individual self-regulation. In order to face many of these challenges, longer-term follow-up studies should be conducted in research on collaboration scripts.

Keywords

Instructional Design Collaborative Learning Online Learning Environment Epistemic Activity Computer Support Collaborative Learn 
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. Barron, B. (2003). When small groups fail. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(3), 307–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Crook, C. (2000). Motivation and the Ecology of Collaborative Learning. In R. Joiner, K. Littleton, D. Faulkner, & D. Miell (Eds.) Rethinking Collaborative Learning (pp. 161–178). Free Association Books: London.Google Scholar
  3. 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 University of the Netherlands.Google Scholar
  4. Dochy, P. (2005, August). ‘Learning lasting for life’ and ‘assessment’: How far did we progress? Residential address at the 20th anniversary of the European Association for Re-search on Learning and Instruction, at the 11th Conference of the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction (EARLI), Nicosia, Cyprus. Retrieved September 14, 2005, from http://www.earli.org/about/articles/EARLI2005%20presidential%20 address%20FINAL.pdf.Google Scholar
  5. E-Learning Nordic 2006. (2006). Copenhagen: Ramboll Management.Google Scholar
  6. Fischer, F., Wecker, C, Schrader, J., Gerjets, P. H., & Hesse, F. W. (2005, August). Use-inspired basic research on the orchestration of computer-supported processes of learning and instruction. Presentation at the SIG Invited Symposium “Instructional design and empirical research: experiments and/or design experiments” the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction (EARLI) conference, Nicosia, Cyprus.Google Scholar
  7. Kobbe, L., Weinberger, A., Dillenbourg, P., Harrer, A., Hämäläinen, R., & Fischer, F. (submitted). Specifying Computer-Supported Collaboration Scripts.Google Scholar
  8. Kollar, I., Fischer, F., & Slotta, J. D. (2005). Internal and external collaboration scripts in webbased science learning at schools. In T. Koschmann, D. Suthers, & T.-W. Chan (Eds.), Computer Supported Collaborative Learning 2005: The Next 10 Years (pp. 331–340). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  9. 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. 121–140). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Pintrich, P. R., Marx, R. W., & Boyle, R. A. (1993). Beyond cold conceptual change: The role of motivational beliefs and classroom contextual factors in the process of conceptual change. Review of’ Educational Research, 63, 167–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Schank, R., & Abelson, R. P. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals and understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  12. Stahl, G. (2005). Group cognition in computer-assisted collaborative learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(2), 79–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Weinberger, A. (2003). Scripts for computer-supported collaborative learning. Effects of social and epistemic collaboration scripts on collaborative knowledge construction. Doctoral thesis. Ludwig-Maximilian University, Munich. Available at: http://edoc.ub.uni-muenchen.de/archive/00001120/01/Weinberger_Armin.pdf.Google Scholar
  14. Weinberger, A., Ertl, B., Fischer, F., & Mandl, H. (2005). Epistemic and social scripts in computer-supported collaborative learning. Instructional Science, 33(1), 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Päivi Häkkinen
    • 1
  • Kati Mäkitalo-Siegl
    • 2
  1. 1.University of JyväskyläFinland
  2. 2.Knowledge Media Research CenterTübingen

Personalised recommendations