Small Group Processes on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning

  • Andrea Guazzini
  • Cristina Cecchini
  • Elisa Guidi
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9934)


Today, information and communication technologies (ICTs) are often applied to assist learning processes. Peculiar objectives of ICT use in this topic are to facilitate collaboration and to increase learning through sharing and distributing knowledge. This study aimed to investigate the effects that a small group has on the individual and collaborative learning. A virtual environment was used to study the dynamics of social behaviors in collaborative and non-collaborative experimental conditions. Our results seem to support the hypothesis that social scripts are started, even when people are in non-interactive situations, and this is shown in virtual environments, too. Such outcomes, and the virtual interactions content analysis may suggest useful advices about collective reasoning and e-learning dynamics, which are very relevant topics in the study of web communities and educational communities.


Virtual dynamics Group dynamics Gender difference DRM paradigm Content analysis 



This work was partially funded by the European Commission, under the FP7 EINS Open Call Project FOCAL.


  1. 1.
    Barros-Castro, R.A., Midgley, G., Pinzón, L.: Systemic intervention for computer-supported collaborative learning. Syst. Res. Behav. Sci. 32(1), 86–96 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Popov, V., Noroozi, O., Barrett, J.B., Biemans, H.J.A., Teasley, S.D., Slof, B., Mulder, M.: Perceptions and experiences of, and outcomes for, university students in culturally diversified dyads in a computer-supported collaborative learning environment. Comput. Hum. Behav. 32, 186–200 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Harris, C.B., Paterson, H.M., Kemp, R.I.: Collaborative recall and collective memory: what happens when we remember together? Memory 16(3), 213–230 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Harris, C.B., Barnier, A.J., Sutton, J.: Consensus collaboration enhances group and individual recall accuracy. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 65(1), 179–194 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Nokes-Malach, T.J., Richey, J.E., Gadgil, S.: When is it better to learn together? Insights from research on collaborative learning. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 27, 645–656 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Roediger, H.L., McDermott, K.B.: Creating false memories: remembering words not presented in lists. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Memory Cognit. 21, 803–814 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Basden, B.H., Basden, D.R., Bryner, S., Thomas III, R.L.: A comparison of group and individual remembering: does collaboration disrupt retrieval strategies? J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Memory Cognit. 23(5), 1176–1189 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Maki, R.H., Weigold, A., Arellano, A.: False memory for associated word lists in individuals and collaborating groups. Memory Cognit. 36, 598–603 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Thorley, C., Dewhurst, S.A.: Collaborative false recall in the DRM procedure: effects of group size and group pressure. Eur. J. Cognit. Psychol. 19(6), 867–881 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Olszewska, J., Ulatowska, J.: Encoding strategy affects false recall and recognition: evidence from categorical study material. Adv. Cognit. Psychol. 9(1), 44–52 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Prinsen, F., Volman, M.L.L., Terwel, J.: The influence of learner characteristics on degree and type of participation in a CSCL environment. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 38(6), 1037–1055 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bennett, J., Hogarth, S., Lubben, F., Campbell, B., Robinson, A.: Talking science: the research evidence on the use of small group discussions in science teaching. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 32(1), 69–955 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ding, N., Bosker, R.J., Harskamp, E.G.: Exploring gender and gender pairing in the knowledge elaboration processes of students using computer-supported collaborative learning. Comput. Educ. 56(2), 325–336 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Zhan, Z., Fong, P.S.W., Mei, H., Liang, T.: Effects of gender grouping on students’ group performance, individual achievements and attitudes in computer-supported collaborative learning. Comput. Hum. Behav. 48, 587–596 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Harskamp, E., Ding, N., Suhre, C.: Group composition and its effect on female and male problem-solving in science education. Educ. Res. 50(4), 307–318 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sopka, S., Biermann, H., Rossaint, R., Rex, S., Jäger, M., Skorning, M., Heussen, N., Beckers, S.K.: Resuscitation training in small-group setting-gender matters. Scand. J. Trauma resuscitation Emerg. Med. 21(1), 1–10 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Liu, N., Lim, J., Zhong, Y.: Joint effects of gender composition, anonymity in communication and task type on collaborative learning. In: PACIS 2007 Proceedings, vol. 85 (2007)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Benbunan-Fich, R., Hiltz, S.R., Turoff, M.: A comparative content analysis of face-to-face vs. asynchronous group decision making. Decis. Support Syst. 50(4), 457–469 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P.A., Jochems, W.: Identifying the pitfalls for social interaction in computer-supported collaborative learning environments: a review of the research. Comput. Hum. Behav. 19(3), 335–353 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Arbaugh, J.B., Benbunan-Fich, R.: The importance of participant interaction in online environments. Decis. Support Syst. 43(3), 853–865 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Potter, R.E., Balthazard, P.A.: Virtual team interaction styles: assessment and effects. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 56(4), 423–443 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Guazzini, A., Lió, P., Bagnoli, F., Passarella, A., Conti, M.: Cognitive network dynamics in chatlines. Procedia Comput. Sci. 1(1), 2355–2362 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Guazzini, A., Vilone, D., Bagnoli, F., Carletti, T., Grotto, R.L.: Cognitive network structure: an experimental study. Adv. Complex Syst. 15(06), 1250084 (2012)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Meade, M.L., Gigone, D.: The effect of information distribution on collaborative inhibition. Memory 19(5), 417–428 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Pennebaker, J.W., Chung, C.K., Ireland, M., Gonzales, A., Booth, R.J.: The Development and Psychometric Properties of LIWC2007., Austin (2007)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Tausczik, Y.R., Pennebaker, J.W.: The psychological meaning of words: LIWC and computerized text analysis methods. J. Lang. Soc. Psychol. 29(1), 24–54 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kirschner, F., Paas, F., Kirschner, P.A.: Task complexity as a driver for collaborative learning efficiency: the collective working memory effect. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 25(4), 615–624 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Michailidou, A., Economides, A.: Gender and diversity in collaborative virtual teams. In: Orvis, K.L., Lassiter, A.L.R. (eds.) Computer Supported Collaborative Learning: Best Practices and Principles for Instructors, pp. 199–224. IGI Global, Hershey (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrea Guazzini
    • 1
  • Cristina Cecchini
    • 2
  • Elisa Guidi
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Education and Psychology and CSDCUniversità di FirenzeFlorenceItaly
  2. 2.Department of Information Engineering and CSDCUniversità di FirenzeFlorenceItaly

Personalised recommendations