Scripting Collaborative Learning Processes: A Cognitive Perspective

  • Alison King
Part of the Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning book series (CULS, volume 6)


Scripting collaborative learning is an effective approach to promoting learning in both face-to-face and on-line computer learning contexts. Although the term script originated in cognitive psychology, it is used in educational contexts to describe ways of structuring interaction and scaffolding collaborative learning through the use of roles, activities, and sequencing of activities. There are several specific types of learning activities that numerous lines of research have shown enhance learning during interaction, however, these activities rarely occur spontaneously during naturally-occurring group collaboration. Also, it is not always clear what individuals learn during collaboration, how they learn it, and the underlying cognitive mechanisms that account for learning collaboratively. Four illustrative approaches to scripting face-to-face collaboration are presented. Each approach is examined to reveal how roles, activities, and sequence of activities, are used to structure collaborative learning and what particular cognitive, metacognitive, and socio-cognitive processes their scripts are intended to induce in learners. The expectation for some scripts is that over time learners will internalize the roles, activities, and sequence; and, once learners can play all of the roles of a script on their own, they will self-regulate their learning without the aid of an external script. However, the wide range of differences in both the complexity and goals of scripts affects their potential for internalization, and some external scripts are not intended to be discontinued even if roles are internalized.


Collaborative Learning Cognitive Perspective Metacognitive Process American Educational Research Journal Fact Question 
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. Bargh, J. A., & Schul, Y. (1980). On the cognitive benefits of teaching. Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 593–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bearison, D. J. (1982). New directions in studies of social interactions and cognitive growth. In F. C. Serafica (Ed.), Social-cognitive development in context (pp. 199–221). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  3. Bell, P. (2004). Promoting students’ argument construction and collaborative debate in the classroom. In M. C. Linn, E. A. Davis, & P. Bell (Eds.), Internet environments for science education (pp. 114–144). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  4. Britton, B. K., Van Dusen, L., Glynn, S. M., & Hemphill, D. (1990). The impact of inferences on instructional text. In A. C. Graesser & G. H. Bower (Eds.), Inferences and text comprehension (pp. 53–87). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  5. Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1986). Psychological theory and the study of learning disabilities. American Psychologist, 41, 1059–1068.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chan, C. K. K., Burtis, P. J., Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1992). Constructive activity in learning from text. American Educational Research Journal, 29, 97–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chi, M. T. H., deLeeuw, N., Chiu, M. H., & LaVancher C. (1994). Eliciting self explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18, 439–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chi, M. T. H., & VanLehn, K. A. (1991). The content of physics self-explanations. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1, 69–105.Google Scholar
  9. Cobb, P. (1988). The tensions between theories of learning and instruction in mathematics education. Educational Psychologist, 23, 78–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cohen, E. G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64(1), 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  12. De Lisi, R., & Golbeck, S. L. (1999). Implications of piagetian theory for peer learning. In A. O’Donnell & A. King (Eds.), Cognitive Perspectives on Peer Learning (pp. 3–37). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  13. Gick, M. L. (1986). Problem-solving strategies. Educational Psychologist, 21, 99–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Graesser, A. C. (1992). Questioning mechanisms during complex learning. Technical report, Cognitive Science Program, Office of Naval Research, Arlington.Google Scholar
  15. Herrenkohl, L. R., & Guerra, M. R. (1998). Participant structures, scientific discourse, and student engagement in fourth grade. Cognition and Instruction, 16, 431–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hogan, K., Nastasi, B. K., & Pressley, M. (1999). Discourse patterns and collaborative scientific reasoning in peer and teacher-guided discussions. Cognition and Instruction, 17, 379–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R.T. (1993). Creative and critical thinking through Academic Controversy. American Behavioral Scientist, 37, 40–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kiewra, K. A. (1989). A review of note-taking: The encoding-storage paradigm and beyond. Educational Psychology Review, 1, 147–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. King, A. (1989). Effects of self-questioning training on college students’ comprehension of lectures. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 14, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. King, A. (1991). Effects of training in strategic questioning on children’s problem-solving performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 307–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. King, A. (1994). Guiding knowledge construction in the classroom: Effects of teaching children how to question and how to explain. American Educational Research Journal, 30, 338–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. King, A. (1997). ASK to THINK-TEL WHY®©: A model of transactive peer tutoring for scaffolding higher-level complex learning, in Educational Psychologist, 32(4), 221–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. King, A. (1998). Transactive peer tutoring: distributing cognition and metacognition. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 57–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. King, A. (1999). Discourse patterns for mediating peer learning. In A. O’Donnell & A. King (Eds.), Cognitive Perspectives on Peer Learning (pp 3–37). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  25. King, A., & Rosenshine, B. (1993). Effects of guided cooperative questioning on children’s knowledge construction. Journal of Experimental Education, 61, 127–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. King, A., Staffieri, A., & Adelgais, A. (1998). Mutual peer tutoring: Effects of structuring tutorial interaction to scaffold peer learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 134–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Kuhn, D., Shaw, V., & Felton, M. (1997). Effects of dyadic interaction on argumentative reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 15, 287–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Larson, C. O., Dansereau, D. F., Goetz, E. T., & Young, M. D. (1985). Cognitive style and cooperative learning: Transfer of effects. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southwest Educational Research Association, Austin, TX.Google Scholar
  30. Leont’ev, A. N. (1932). Studies in the cultural development of the child, 3: The development of vocabulary attention in the child. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 37, 52–81.Google Scholar
  31. Lepper, M. R., Aspinwall, L. G., Mumme, D. L., & Chabay, R. W. (1990). Self-perception and social perception processes in tutoring: Subtle social control strategies of expert tutors. In Self-inference processes: The Ontario Symposium (pp. 217–237). Hillsdale, NJ: ErlbaumGoogle Scholar
  32. Luria, A. R. (1928). The problem of the cultural behavior of the child. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 35, 493–506.Google Scholar
  33. Mugny, G., & Doise, W. (1978). Socio-cognitive conflict and the structure of individual and collective performances. European Journal of Social Psychology, 8, 181–192.Google Scholar
  34. O’Donnell, A., & Dansereau, D. F. (1992). Scripted cooperation in student dyads: A method for analyzing and enhancing academic learning and performance. In Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. & Miller, N. (Eds.), Interaction in cooperative groups: The theoretical anatomy of group learning (pp. 120–141). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Palincsar, A. S., & Herrenkohl, L. R. (1999). Designing collaborative contexts: Lessons from three research programs. In A. O’Donnell & A. King (Eds.), Cognitive Perspectives on Peer Learning (pp. 151–177). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  37. Perret-Clermont, A. (1980). Social interaction and cognitive development in children. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  38. Piaget, J. (1985). The equilibrium of cognitive structures: The central problem of intellectual development. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  39. Pressley, M., McDaniel, M. A., Turnure, J. E., Wood, E., & Ahmad, M. (1987). Generation and precision of elaboration: Effects on intentional and incidental learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 13, 291–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pressley, M., Symons, S., McDaniel, M. A., Snyder, B. L., & Turnure, J. E. (1988). Elaborative interrogation facilitates acquisition of confusing facts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(3), 268–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pressley, M., Wood, E., Woloshyn, V. E., Martin, V. King, A., & Menke, D. (1992). Encouraging mindful use of prior knowledge: Attempting to construct explanatory answers facilitates learning. Educational Psychologist, 27, 91–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Roschelle, J. (1992). Learning by collaboration: Convergent conceptual change. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2, 235–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rosenshine, B., & Meister, C. (1994). Reciprocal teaching: A review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 64, 479–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Salomon, G. (1997). No distribution without individuals’ cognition: A dynamic interactional view. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 111–138). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  46. 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
  47. Schank, R. C, & Abelson, R. P. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals and understandings. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  48. Spurlin, J. E., Dansereau, D. E., Larson, C. O., & Brooks, C. W. (1984). Cooperative learning strategies in processing descriptive text: Effects of role and activity level of the learner. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 451–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. U. S. Department of Education (1986). What works: Research about teaching and learning. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  50. Vaughan J. L., & Estes, T. H. (1986). Reading and reasoning beyond the primary grades. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  51. Vedder, P. (1985). Cooperative learning: A study on processes and effects of cooperation between primary school children. Gronigen, The Netherlands: University of Gronigen.Google Scholar
  52. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Webb, N. M. (1989). Peer interaction and learning in small groups. International Journal of Educational Research, 13, 21–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Webb, N., Ender, P., & Lewis, S. (1986). Problem solving strategies and group processes in small group learning computer programming. American Educational Research Journal, 23, 243–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Webb, N., & Farivar, S. (1994). Promoting helping behavior in cooperative small groups in middle school mathematics. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 369–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Webb, N. M., & Palincsar, A. S. (1996). Group processes in the classroom. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Cafree (Eds.), Handbook of Educational Psychology (pp. 841–873). New York: Simon & Shuster Macmillan.Google Scholar
  57. Weinberger, A., Fischer, F., & Mandl, H. (2002). Fostering computer-supported collaboration with cooperation scripts and scaffolds. In G. Stahl (Ed.), Computer support for collaborative learning: Foundations of a CSCL community (pp. 573–574). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  58. Wright, L. (1995). Argument and deliberation: A plea for understanding. Journal of Philosophy, 92, 565–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alison King
    • 1
  1. 1.California Slate University San MarcosSan Marcos

Personalised recommendations