Advertisement

Can People Learn Computer-Mediated Collaboration by Following A Script?

  • Nikol Rummel
  • Hans Spada
Part of the Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning book series (CULS, volume 6)

Abstract

Our central hypothesis is that partners who jointly work on a task in a computer-mediated setting following a collaboration script, can acquire collaborative skills that will help to improve the collaboration in subsequent tasks as well as their outcome. In an experimental study, a collaboration script was provided for a first computer-mediated collaboration in one experimental condition. Meantime, in a different experimental condition, the collaborators observed a model-collaboration. Learning effects of script and model were expected to become evident in the process and outcome of a second, unscripted computer-mediated collaboration. Compared to two control conditions (a condition with unsupported collaboration during the learning phase and a condition without a learning phase) both the script condition and the model condition showed positive effects on process and outcome during the application phase. This leads to the conclusion that collaboration scripts can indeed constitute a promising instructional method to promote collaborative competences and to improve subsequent computer-mediated collaboration.

Keywords

Collaborative Learning Learning Phase Instructional Explanation Good Collaboration 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.

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., et al. (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: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  2. Angiolillo, J. S., Blanchard, H. E., Israelski, E. W., & Mane, A. (1997). A Technology constraints of video mediated communications. In K. E. Finn, A. J. Sellen, & S. B. Wilbur (Eds.), Video mediated communications (pp. 51–74). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  3. Azmitia, M. (1988). Peer interaction and problem-solving: When are two heads better than one? Child Development, 59, 87–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barrows, H. S. (1986). A taxonomy of problem-based learning methods. Medical Education, 20, 481–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berg, K. F. (1993). Structured cooperative learning and achievement in a high school mathematics class. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta.Google Scholar
  6. Bruhn, J. (2000). Förderung des kooperativen Lernens über Computernetze: Prozess und Lernerfolg beim dyadischen Lernen mit Desktop-Videokonferenzen. Frankfurt a. M.: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  7. Bruhn, J., Fischer, F., Gräsel, C, & Mandl, H. (2000). Kooperatives Lernen mit Mapping-Techniken. In H. Mandl & F. Fischer (Eds.), Wissen sichtbar machen. Wissensmanagement mit Mapping-Techniken (pp. 119–132). Göttingen: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
  8. Cameron, T., Barrows, H. S., & Crooks, S. M. (1999). Distributed problem-based learning at Southern Illinois University School of Medicine. In C. Hoadley & J. Roschelle (Eds.), Proceedings of the Computer Support for Collaborative Learning (CSCL) 1999 Conference (pp. 86–94). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  9. Cohen, E. G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64(1), 1–35.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 (pp. 453–494). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  11. Dansereau, D. F. (1988). Cooperative learning strategies. In C. E. Weinstein, E. T. Goetz, & P. A. Alexander (Eds.), Learning and study strategies (pp. 103–120). San Diego, CA: Academic Press Inc.Google Scholar
  12. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. Dillenbourg, P., Baker, M, Blaye, A., & O’Malley, C. (1995). The evolution of research on collaborative learning. In P. Reimann & H. Spada (Eds.), Learning in humans and machines: Towards an interdisciplinary learning science (pp. 189–211). Oxford: Elsevier/Pergamon.Google Scholar
  16. Finn, K. E., Sellen, A.J., & Wilbur, S. B. (Eds.) (1997). Video-mediated communication. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  17. Greeno, J. G. & the Middle School Mathematics through Applications Project Group. (1998). The situativity of knowing, learning and research. American Psychologist, 53, 5–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hermann, F., Rummel, N., & Spada, H. (2001). Solving the case together: The challenge of net-based interdisciplinary collaboration. In P. Dillenbourg, A. Eurelings, & K. Hakkarainen (Eds.), Proceedings of the First European Conference on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (pp. 293–300). Maastricht: McLuhan Institute.Google Scholar
  19. Hesse, F. W., Garsoffsky, B., & Hron, A. (1997). Interface-Design für computerunterstütztes kooperatives Lernen. In L. J. Issing & P. Klimsa (Eds.), Information und Lernen mit Multimedia (pp. 253–267). Weinheim: Psychologie Verlags Union.Google Scholar
  20. Hron, A., Hesse F. W., Reinhard, P., & Picard, E. (1997). Strukturierte Kooperation beim computergestützten kollaborativen Lernen. Unterrichtswissenschaft, 25(1), 56–69.Google Scholar
  21. Köhler, T., & Trimpop, R. (2004). Sehen und gesehen werden: Teleradiologie mittels Desk-top-Videoconferencing. In W. Bungard, B. Koop, & C. Liebig (Eds.), Proceedings zur 3. Tagung der Fachgruppe Arbeits-und Organisationspsychologie. München: Rainer Hampp.Google Scholar
  22. Kollar, I. (2001). Gewissheits-und Ungewissheitsorientierung beim kooperativen Lernen mit Videokonferenzen-der Einfluss verschiedener Strukturierungsmaßnahmen. Unveröffentlichte Magisterarbeit. Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München: Institut für Empirische Pädagogik und Pädagogische Psychologie.Google Scholar
  23. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambrigde, UK: Cambrige University Press.Google Scholar
  24. O’Conaill, B., & Whittaker, S. (1997). Characterizing, predicting and measuring video-mediated communication: A conversational approach. In K. E. Finn, A. J. Sellen, & S. Wilbur (Eds.), Video-mediated communication (pp. 107–131). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  25. 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
  26. 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
  27. Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pfister, H.-R., & Mühlpfordt, M. (2002). Supporting discourse in a synchronous learning environment: The learning protocol approach. In G. Stahl (Ed.), Proceedings of the Computer Support for Collaborative Learning (CSCL) 2002 Conference (pp. 581–589). Hills-dale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  29. Renkl, A. (2002). Worked-out examples: Instructional explanations supplement self-explanations. Learning and Instruction, 12, 529–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Renkl, A., Atkinson, R. K., Maier, U. H., & Staley, R. (2002). From example study to problem solving: Smooth transitions help learning. Journal of Experimental Education, 70, 293–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Renkl, A., Stark, R., Gruber, H., & Mandl, H. (1998). Learning from worked-out examples: The effects of example variability and elicited self-explanations. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 23, 90–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rummel, N., & Spada, H. (2005a). Instructional support for collaboration in desktop video-conference settings: How it can be achieved and assessed. In R. Bromme, F. W. Hesse, & H. Spada (Eds.), Barriers and biases in computer-mediated knowledge communication-and how they may be overcome. Dordrecht, NL: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  33. Rummel, N., & Spada, H. (2005b). Learning to collaborate: An instructional approach to promoting problem-solving in computer-mediated settings. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(2), 201–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Salomon, G. (1993). On the nature of pedagogic computer tools: the case of the Writing Partner. In P. Lajoie & S. J. Derry (Eds.), Computers as cognitive tools (pp. 289–317). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  35. Scardamalia, M, & Bereiter, C. (1985). Fostering the development of self-regulation in children’s knowledge processing. In S. F. Chipman, J. W. Segal, & R. Glaser (Eds.), Thinking and learning skills: Research and open questions (pp. 563–577). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  36. Slavin, R. E. (1983). When does cooperative learning increase student achievement? Psycho-logical Bulletin, 94, 429–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Suthers, D. (2001). Collaborative representations: Supporting face to face and online knowledge-building discourse. Proceedings of the 34 th Hawaii International Conference on the System Sciences (HICSS-34), January 3–6, 2001. Maui, Hawaii (CDROM), Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE).Google Scholar
  38. 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

  • Nikol Rummel
    • 1
  • Hans Spada
    • 1
  1. 1.Albert-Ludwigs-UniversitätFreiburg

Personalised recommendations