Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning: Die Rolle des Digitalen bei der Unterstützung von kooperativem Lernen

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Bildung und Digitalität

Zusammenfassung

Kooperatives Lernen in Kleingruppen im Schul- und Hochschulkontext hat sich als lernförderliches Arrangement herausgestellt. Gleichzeitig zeigt die Forschung jedoch auch, dass kooperatives Lernen kein Selbstläufer ist und dass zusätzliche pädagogische Unterstützung Lernenden dabei helfen kann, die Potentiale der Kooperation mit anderen für das Lernen zu nutzen. Im Rahmen dieses Beitrags fokussieren wir auf Computerunterstützung für kooperatives Lernen (computer-supported collaborative learning, CSCL) und zeigen auf, welche Rolle digitale Technik bei der Unterstützung von kooperativem Lernen einnehmen kann. Anhand eines kurzen historischen Überblicks skizzieren wir, wie sich Computerunterstützung zuerst für individuelles Lernen und anschließend für kooperatives Lernen entwickelt hat. Unter Rückgriff auf das Konzept der „Affordanzen“ stellen wir dar, welche Rollen digitale Technik bei der Unterstützung kooperativen Lernens einnehmen kann. Abschließend diskutieren wir die Herausforderungen und Stärken digitaler Technik bei der Unterstützung kooperativen Lernens entlang von Fragen nach dem Zugang zu digitaler Unterstützung, ihrer Skalierbarkeit, ihrer Konfiguration, sowie der Frage nach einer Handlungsautonomie für die Lernenden.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 59.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Eine weitere, einflussreiche Definition fasst kooperatives Lernen als „[…] coordinated, synchronous activity that is the result of a continued attempt to construct and maintain a shared conception of a problem“ (Roschelle und Teasley 1995, S. 70). Hier werden zusätzliche Bestimmungsstücke deutlich: Koordination, Synchronizität und das Ziel, ein gemeinsames Verständnis eines (gemeinsamen) Problems zu entwickeln und aufrecht zu erhalten. Wie in Dillenbourgs Definition steht auch bei Roschelle und Teasley (1995) die Interaktivität um ein gemeinsames Problem im Vordergrund.

  2. 2.

    Bei den von Janssen et al. (2011) und Bachour et al. (2010) eingesetzten GATs wird lediglich die Anzahl der beigetragenen Worte angezeigt. Während die Anzahl der beigetragenen Worte ein gängiger Indikator für Beteiligung an der Gruppenarbeit ist, bildet er lediglich einen Teil des Konzepts „Beteiligung an der Gruppenarbeit“ ab. Für weitere Dimensionen von „Beteiligung“, siehe Hrastinski 2008). Ein Diskussion möglicher Konsequenzen einer solchen Operationalisierung im Rahmen von GATs und dem Ziel einer gleichmäßigen Beteiligung während der Gruppenarbeit findet sich bei Strauß und Rummel (2021b).

  3. 3.

    Zwar kann davon ausgegangen werden, dass ungleichmäßige Beteiligung an der Kooperation mit Unzufriedenheit assoziiert ist (Strauß und Rummel 2021b), jedoch sollte hinterfragt werden, ob gleichmäßige Beteiligung tatsächlich ein erwünschter Zielzustand für eine Gruppenarbeit ist. Eine erste Diskussion dieser Frage findet sich in Strauß und Rummel (2021b). Um die Beteiligung an der Kooperation angemessen zu erfassen, ist es möglicherweise notwendig, weitere Lernerdaten heranzuziehen, die keine reinen Verhaltensdaten sind (multimodal learning analytics, Ochoa 2022).

Literatur

  • Aleven, V., B. M. McLaren, J. Sewall, & K. R. Koedinger. 2009. A new paradigm for intelligent tutoring systems: Example-tracing tutors. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education 19 (2): 105–154.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aronson, E. 1978. The Jigsaw Classroom. Beverly Hills, CA, USA: SAGE Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arthur, W. B. 2009. The nature of technology. What it is and how it evolves. London: Penguin Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aßmann, S., N. Brüggen, V. Dander, H. Gapski, G. Sieben, A. Tillmann, & I. Zorn. 2017. Digitale Datenerhebung und -verwertung als Herausforderung für Medienbildung und Gesellschaft. Ein medienpädagogisches Diskussionspapier zu Big Data und Data Analytics. In Medienpädagogik, Hrsg. C. Trültzsch-Wijnen, 183–192. Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bachour, K., F. Kaplan, & P. Dillenbourg. 2010. An interactive table for supporting participation balance in face-to-face collaborative learning. Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Ubiquitous Computing September 30-October 3, 2009, Orlando, Florida, USA 3 (3): 203–213. https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2010.18.

  • Baker, M., T. Hansen, R. Joiner, & D. Traum. 1999. The role of grounding in collaborative learning tasks. In Collaborative learning. Cognitive and computational approaches, Hrsg. P. Dillenbourg, 31–63. Amsterdam: Pergamon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bayne, S. 2015. What’s the matter with ‘technology-enhanced learning’? Learning, Media and Technology 40 (1): 5–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2014.915851.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beers, P. J., H. P. A. Boshuizen, P. A. Kirschner, & W. H. Gijselaers. 2005. Computer support for knowledge construction in collaborative learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior 21 (4), S. 623–643. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2004.10.036.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bodemer, D., J. Janssen, & L. Schnaubert. 2018. Group awareness tools for computer-supported collaborative learning. In International Handbook of the Learning Sciences, Hrsg. F. Fischer, C. E. Hmelo-Silver, S. R. Goldman und P. Reimann, 351–358. Milton: Routledge.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Borge, M., Y. S. Ong, & C. P. Rosé. 2018. Learning to monitor and regulate collective thinking processes. In: International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 13 (1), S. 61–92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-018-9270-5.

  • Brandenburger, J., M. Constapel, H. Hellbrück, & M. Janneck. 2020. Analysis of types, positioning and appearance of visualizations in online teaching environments to improve learning experiences. In Advances in human factors in training, education, and learning sciences, Bd. 963, Hrsg. W. Karwowski, T. Ahram und S. Nazir, 355–366. Cham: Springer International Publishing.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Brod, G. 2020. Generative Learning: Which Strategies for What Age? Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09571-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, J., M. Wang, P. A. Kirschner, & C.-C. Tsai. 2018. The role of collaboration, computer use, learning environments, and supporting strategies in CSCL: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research 88 (6): 799–843. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654318791584.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, H. H., & S. E. Brennan. 1991. Grounding in communication. Perspectives on socially shared cognition (13): 127–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Constapel, M., D. Doberstein, H. U. Hoppe, & H. Hellbrück. 2019. IKARion: Enhancing a learning platform with intelligent feedback to improve team collaboration and interaction in small groups. 18th International Conference on Information Technology Based Higher Education and Training (ITHET), Magdeburg, Germany: 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1109/ITHET46829.2019.8937348.

  • Cress, U., & J. Kimmerle. 2013. Computervermittelter Wissensaustausch als Soziales Dilemma: Ein Überblick. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie 27 (1–2): 9–26. https://doi.org/10.1024/1010-0652/a000085.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crook, C. 1994. Computers and the Collaborative Experience of Learning. London: Taylor and Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Jong, T., & W. R. van Joolingen. 1998. Scientific discovery learning with computer simulations of conceptual domains. Review of Educational Research 68 (2): 179–201. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543068002179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dillenbourg, P. 1999. What do you mean by ‘collaborative learning’? In Collaborative learning. Cognitive and computational approaches, Hrsg. P. Dillenbourg, 1–19. Amsterdam: Pergamon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dillenbourg, P. 2002. Over-scripting CSCL: The risks of blending collaborative learning with instructional design. In Three worlds of CSCL. Can we support CSCL? (hal-00190230), Hrsg. Paul A. Kirschner, S. 61–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dillenbourg, P., M. J. Baker, A. Blaye, & C. O’Malley. 1996. The evolution of research on collaborative learning. In Learning in Humans and Machine: Towards an interdisciplinary learning science, Hrsg. E. Spada und P. Reimann, 189–211. Oxford: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dillenbourg, P., & P. Tchounikine. 2007. Flexibility in macro-scripts for computer-supported collaborative learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 23 (1): 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2007.00191.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dirkx, K. J. H., G. Camp, L. Kester, & P. A. Kirschner. 2019. Do secondary school students make use of effective study strategies when they study on their own? Applied Cognitive Psychology 33 (5): 952–957. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3584.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dorfman, R. 1979. A formula for the gini coefficient. The Review of Economics and Statistics 61 (1), S. 146–149. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1924845. Zugegriffen: 28. Juni 2022.

  • Dourish, P., & V. Bellotti. 1992. Awareness and coordination in shared workspaces. In Proceedings of the 1992 ACM conference on Computer-supported cooperative work – CSCW ’92. the 1992 ACM conference. Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 01.11.1992–04.11.1992, Hrsg. M. Mantel und R. Baecker, 107–114. New York, New York, USA: ACM Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubovi, I., & I. Tabak. 2020. An empirical analysis of knowledge co-construction in YouTube comments. Computers & Education 156: 103939. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103939.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunlosky, J., & K. A. Rawson. 2015. Practice tests, spaced practice, and successive relearning: Tips for classroom use and for guiding students’ learning. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology 1 (1): 72–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/stl0000024.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duval, E., & K. Verbert. 2012. Learning Analytics. eleed 8. https://eleed.campussource.de/archive/8/3336.Zugegriffen: 13. Dezember 2018.

  • Farrokhnia, M., H. J. Pijeira-Díaz, O. Noroozi, & J. Hatami. 2019. Computer-supported collaborative concept mapping: The effects of different instructional designs on conceptual understanding and knowledge co-construction. Computers & Education 142: 103640. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103640.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, F., I. Kollar, K. Stegmann, & C. Wecker. 2013. Toward a script theory of guidance in computer-supported collaborative learning. Educational Psychologist 48 (1): 56–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2012.748005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gao, H., E. Shen, S. Losh, & J. Turner. 2007. A review of studies on collaborative concept mapping: What have we learned about the technique and what Is next? Journal of Interactive Learning Research 18 (4): 479–492. https://www.learntechlib.org/p/21702/. Zugegriffen: 28. Juni 2022.

  • Hadwin, A. F., A. Bakhtiar, & M. Miller. 2018. Challenges in online collaboration. Effects of scripting shared task perceptions. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 13 (3): 301–329. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-018-9279-9.

  • Hadwin, A. F., S. Järvelä, & M. Miller. 2011. Self-regulated, co-regulated, and socially shared regulation of learning. In Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance, Hrsg. B. J. Zimmerman und D. H. Schunk, 65–84. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harding, L. M. 2018. Students of a feather “flocked” together: A group assignment method for reducing free-riding and improving group and individual learning outcomes. Journal of Marketing Education 40 (2): 117–127. https://doi.org/10.1177/0273475317708588.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hattie, J. 2009. Visible learning. A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heimbuch, S., & D. Bodemer. 2014. Supporting awareness of content-related controversies in a Wiki-based learning environment. In Proceedings of The International Symposium on Open Collaboration – OpenSym ’14. The International Symposium. Berlin, Germany, 27.08.2014–29.08.2014, Hrsg. D. Riehle, J. M. Gonzalez-Barahona, G. Robles, K. M. Möslein, I. Schieferdecker, U. Cress et al., 1–4. New York, New York, USA: ACM Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holmes, W., K. Porayska-Pomsta, K. Holstein, E. Sutherland, T. Baker, S. Shum et al. 2021. Ethics of AI in education: Towards a community-wide framework. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-021-00239-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holstein, K. 2018. Towards Teacher-AI Hybrid Systems. Companion Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Learning Analytics & Knowledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holstein, K., V. Aleven, & N. Rummel. 2020. A conceptual framework for human-AI hybrid adaptivity in education. To appear in Proceedings of the 21st Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (AIED).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoppe, H. U., D. Doberstein, & T. Hecking. 2020. Using sequence analysis to determine the well-functioning of small groups in large online courses. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-020-00229-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hrastinski, S. 2008. What is online learner participation? A literature review. Computers & Education 51 (4): 1755–1765. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.05.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hrastinski, S. 2009. A theory of online learning as online participation. Computers & Education 52 (1): 78–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.06.009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsu, Y.-C., & Ching, Y.-H. 2013. Mobile computer-supported collaborative learning: A review of experimental research. British Journal of Educational Technology 44 (5): E111–E114. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Janssen, J., G. Erkens, & P. A. Kirschner. 2011. Group awareness tools: It’s what you do with it that matters. Computers in Human Behavior 27 (3): 1046–1058. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.06.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Järvelä, S., P. A. Kirschner, E. Panadero, J. Malmberg, C. Phielix, J. Jaspers et al. 2015. Enhancing socially shared regulation in collaborative learning groups: Designing for CSCL regulation tools. Educational Technology Research and Development 63 (1): 125–142. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-014-9358-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Järvenoja, H., & S. Järvelä. 2009. Emotion control in collaborative learning situations: do students regulate emotions evoked by social challenges? The British journal of educational psychology 79 (3): 463–481. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709909X402811.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jeong, H., & C. E. Hmelo-Silver. 2016. Seven affordances of computer-supported collaborative learning: How to Support collaborative learning? How can technologies help? Educational Psychologist 51 (2): 247–265. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2016.1158654.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jermann, P., & P. Dillenbourg. 2008. Group mirrors to support interaction regulation in collaborative problem solving. Computers & Education 51 (1): 279–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2007.05.012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jordan, M. I. 2019. Artificial intelligence. The revolution hasn’t happened yet. Harvard Data Science Review 1.1. https://doi.org/10.1162/99608f92.f06c6e61.

  • Kaendler, C., M. Wiedmann, N. Rummel, & H. Spada. 2015. Teacher competencies for the implementation of collaborative learning in the classroom: A framework and research review. Educational Psychology Review 27 (3): 505–536. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-014-9288-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalyuga, S. 2007. Expertise reversal effect and its implications for learner-tailored instruction. Educational Psychology Review 19 (4): 509–539. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-007-9054-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khalil, H., & M. Ebner. 2014. MOOCs completion rates and possible methods to improve retention – A literature review. Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications: 1236–1244.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kiemer, K., C. Wekerle, & I. Kollar. 2018. Kooperationsskripts beim technologieunterstützten Lernen. In Lernen mit Bildungstechnologien, Bd. 5., Hrsg. H. Niegemann und A. Weinberger, 1–15. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kimmerle, J., J. Moskaliuk, A. Oeberst, & U. Cress. 2015. Learning and Collective Knowledge Construction With Social Media: A Process-Oriented Perspective. Educational Psychologist 50 (2): 120–137. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2015.1036273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, A. 2007. Scripting collaborative learning processes. A cognitive perspective. In Scripting Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning: Cognitive, Computational and Educational Perspectives, Hrsg. F. Fischer, I. Kollar, H. Mandl und J. M. Haake, 13–37. Boston, MA: Springer US, S. 13–37. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-36949-5_2.

  • Knight, S., & S. Buckingham Shum. 2017. Theory and Learning Analytics. In Handbook of Learning Analytics: Society for Learning Analytics Research (SoLAR), Hrsg. C. Lang, G. Siemens, A. Wise und D. Gasevic, 17–22. https://doi.org/10.18608/hla17.

  • Koschmann, T. D. 1996. Paradigm shifts in instructional technology. An introduction. In CSCL. Theory and practice of an emerging paradigm, Hrsg. T. D. Koschmann, 1–23. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum (Computers, cognition, and work).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kreijns, K., P. A. Kirschner, & W. M. G. Jochems. 2003. Identifying the pitfalls for social interaction in computer-supported collaborative learning environments. A review of the research. Computers in Human Behavior 19 (3): 335–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0747-5632(02)00057-2.

  • Kumar, R., & J. Kim. 2014. Special issue on intelligent support for learning in groups. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education 24 (1): 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-013-0013-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lave, J., & E. Wenger. 1991. Situated learning. Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehtinen, E. 2003. Computer-supported collaborative learning: An approach to powerful learning environments. http://www.gerrystahl.net/teaching/spring05/erno’s%20paper.pdf. Zugegriffen: 28. Juni 2022.

  • Lei, S. A., B. N. Kuestermeyer, & K. A. Westmeyer. 2010. Group composition affecting student interaction and achievement: Instructors’ perspectives. Journal of Instructional Psychology 37 (4): 317–325.

    Google Scholar 

  • Long, P., & G. Siemens. 2011. Penetrating the fog: Analytics in learning and education. EDUCAUSE Review 46 (5): 30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macgilchrist, F. 2019. Digitale Bildungsmedien im Diskurs. Wertesysteme, Wirkkraft und alternative Konzepte. Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte 27–28: 18–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Magnisalis, I., S. Demetriadis, & A. Karakostas. 2011. Adaptive and Intelligent Systems for Collaborative Learning Support. A Review of the Field. IEEE Trans. Learning Technol. 4 (1): 5–20. https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2011.2.

  • Margaryan, A., M. Bianco, & A. Littlejohn. 2015. Instructional quality of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs). Computers & Education 80: 77–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.08.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matschke, C., J. Kimmerle, J. Moskaliuk, T. Schümmer, & U. Cress. 2014. Motivation bei der Nutzung von Web 2.0 in der Bildung. Lernen im Web: 239–258.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norman, D. A. 1999. Affordances, conventions, and design. Interactions (May-June): 38–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noroozi, O., A. Weinberger, H. J. A. Biemans, M. Mulder, & M. Chizari. 2013. Facilitating argumentative knowledge construction through a transactive discussion script in CSCL. Computers & Education 61: 59–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.08.013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Donnell, A. M., & C. E. Hmelo-Silver. 2013. Introduction: What is collaborative learning? An Overview. In The international handbook of collaborative learning, Hrsg. C. E. Hmelo-Silver, 1–16. New York: Routledge (Educational psychology handbook series).

    Google Scholar 

  • Ochoa, X. 2022. Multimodal learning analytics – Rationale, process, examples, and direction. In The Handbook of Learning Analytics. 2nd Edition, Hrsg. C. Lang, G. Siemens, A. F. Wise, D. Gašević und A. Merceron. Vancouver: SoLAR. https://solaresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/hla22/hla22_chapter_6_ochoa.pdf. Zugegriffen: 28. Juni 2022.

  • Oeberst, A., I. Halatchliyski, J. Kimmerle, & U. Cress. 2014. Knowledge construction in Wikipedia: A systemic-constructivist analysis. Journal of the Learning Sciences 23 (2): 149–176. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2014.888352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OECD. 2017. PISA 2015 Results (Volume V). Paris: OECD Publishing.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ollesch, L., S. Heimbuch, & D. Bodemer. 2021. Improving learning and writing outcomes: Influence of cognitive and behavioral group awareness tools in wikis. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 16 (2): 225–259. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-021-09346-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Otto, B., F. Perels, & B. Schmitz. 2011. Selbstreguliertes Lernen. In Empirische Bildungsforschung, Hrsg. H. Reinders, H. Ditton, B. Gniewosz und C. Gräsel, 33–44. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Pai, H.-H., D. A. Sears, & Y. Maeda. 2015. Effects of small-group learning on transfer: A meta-analysis. Educ Psychol Rev 27 (1): 79–102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-014-9260-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Partnership for 21st Century Skills. 2008. 21st Century Skills, Education & Competitiveness. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED519337.pdf. Zugegriffen: 22. April 2022.

  • Phielix, C., F. J. Prins, P. A. Kirschner, G. Erkens, & J. Jaspers. 2011. Group awareness of social and cognitive performance in a CSCL environment. Effects of a peer feedback and reflection tool. Computers in Human Behavior 27 (3): 1087–1102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.06.024.

  • Price, K. H., D. A. Harrison, & J. H. Gavin. 2006. Withholding inputs in team contexts: member composition, interaction processes, evaluation structure, and social loafing. The Journal of applied psychology 91 (6): 1375–1384. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.6.1375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prinsloo, P., & S. Slade. 2017. Ethics and learning a: Charting the (un)charted. In Handbook of Learning Analytics: Society for Learning Analytics Research (SoLAR), Hrsg. C. Lang, G. Siemens, A. Wise und D. Gasevic, 49–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Radkowitsch, A., F. Vogel, & F. Fischer. 2020. Good for learning, bad for motivation? A meta-analysis on the effects of computer-supported collaboration scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 15 (1): 5–47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-020-09316-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rau, M. A., H. E. Bowman, & J. W. Moore. 2017. An adaptive collaboration script for learning with multiple visual representations in chemistry. Computers & Education 109: 38–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.02.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Renkl, A. 2007. Kooperatives Lernen. In Handbuch für Psychologie, Bd. Pädagogische Psychologie, Hrsg. W. Schneider und M. Hasselhorn, 84–94. Göttingen: Hogrefe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, J. C., Y. Maeda, J. Lv, & S. Caskurlu. 2017. Social presence in relation to students’ satisfaction and learning in the online environment: A meta-analysis. Computers in Human Behavior 71: 402–417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.02.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Risko, E. F., & S. J. Gilbert. 2016. Cognitive Offloading. Trends in cognitive sciences 20 (9): 676–688. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2016.07.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roschelle, J., & S. D. Teasley. 1995. The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving. In Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, Hrsg. C. O’Malley, 69–97. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Rosé, C. P., & O. Ferschke. 2016. Technology support for discussion based learning: From computer supported collaborative learning to the future of massive open online courses. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education 26 (2): 660–678. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-016-0107-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rummel, N. 2018. One framework to rule them all? Carrying forward the conversation started by Wise and Schwarz. Intern. J. Comput.-Support. Collab. Learn 13 (1): 123–129. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-018-9273-2.

  • Rummel, N., & A. Deiglmayr. 2016. Common Ground und Grounding. In Medienpsychologie: Schlüsselbegriffe und Konzepte, Hrsg. N. Krämer, S. Schwan, D. Unz und M. Suckfüll, 390–397. Stuttgart: Verlag W. Kohlhammer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rummel, N., & H. Spada. 2005. Learning to collaborate. An instructional approach to promoting collaborative problem solving in computer-mediated settings. Journal of the Learning Sciences 14 (2): 201–241. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1402_2.

  • Rummel, N., E. Walker, & V. Aleven. 2016. Different futures of adaptive collaborative learning support. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education 26 (2): 784–795. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-016-0102-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scardamalia, M. 2004. CSILE/Knowledge Forum. In Education and technology. An encyclopedia, Hrsg. A. Kovalchick und K. Dawson, 183–192. Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scardamalia, M., & C. Bereiter. 1996. Computer support for knowledge-building communities. In CSCL. Theory and practice of an emerging paradigm, Hrsg. T. D. Koschmann, 249–268. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum (Computers, cognition, and work).

    Google Scholar 

  • Schnaubert, L., & D. Bodemer. 2019. Providing different types of group awareness information to guide collaborative learning. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 14 (1): 7–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-018-9293-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schnaubert, L., & D. Bodemer. 2022. Group awareness and regulation in computer-supported collaborative learning. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-022-09361-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schorn, J. M., & B. J. Knowlton. 2021. Interleaved practice benefits implicit sequence learning and transfer. Memory & cognition 49 (7): 1436–1452. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-021-01168-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. 1979. Information processing models of cognition. Annual Review of Psychology (30): 63–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skinner, B. F. 1958. Teaching machines. Science 128 (3330): 969–977. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1755240. Zugegriffen: 13. Dezember 2018.

  • Slade, S., & P. Prinsloo. 2013. Learning analytics. Ethical issues and dilemmas. American Behavioral Scientist 57 (10): 1510–1529. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764213479366.

  • Slavin, R. E. 1996. Research on cooperative learning and achievement: What we know, what we need to know. Contemporary Educational Psychology 21 (1): 43–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soller, A., A. Martínez, P. Jermann, & M. Muehlenbrock. 2005. From mirroring to guiding: A review of state of the art technology for supporting collaborative learning. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education (15): 261–290.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stahl, G. 2005. Group cognition in computer-assisted collaborative learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 21: 79–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stahl, G. 2006. Group cognition. Computer support for building collaborative knowledge. Cambridge Mass.: MIT Press (Acting with technology).

    Google Scholar 

  • Stahl, G., T. D. Koschmann, & D. Suthers. 2006. Computer-supported collaborative learning: An historical perspective. In Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences, Hrsg. R. K. Sawyer, 409–426. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stasser, G., & W. Titus. 1985. Pooling of unshared information in group decision making: Biased information sampling during discussion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 48 (6): 1467–1478. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.48.6.1467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stoyanova, F., & N. Krämer. 2019. Please Don’t Shoot the Messenger! Prompts in Online Learning Groups-Influences of Nudging Messages’ Sender and Publicness on Recipients’ Perception and Attribution. In A Wide Lens: Combining Embodied, Enactive, Extended, and Embedded Learning in Collaborative Settings: 13th International Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, Hrsg. K. Lund, G. P. Niccolai, E. Lavoué, C. E. Hmelo-Silver, G. Gweon und M. Baker, 256–263. Lyon, France: International Society of the Learning Sciences.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strauß, S., & N. Rummel. 2019. Online-gestützte Hochschullehre. Gestaltung von Maßnahmen für virtuelle Kleingruppenarbeit. Weiterbildung (6): 36–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strauß, S., & N. Rummel. 2021a. Problematic interaction patterns during online-collaboration. A library and a survey. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning – CSCL 2021a, Hrsg. C. E. Hmelo-Silver, B. de Wever und J. Oshima, 19–26. Bochum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strauß, S., & N. Rummel. 2021b. Promoting regulation of equal participation in online collaboration by combining a group awareness tool and adaptive prompts. But does it even matter? International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning: 67–104. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-021-09340-y.

  • Strauß, S., N. Rummel, F. Stoyanova, & N. Krämer. 2018. Developing a library of typical problems for collaborative learning in online courses. In Rethinking Learning in the Digital Age: Making the Learning Sciences Count, 13th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS) 2018, Hrsg. J. Kay und R. Luckin, 1045–1048. London, UK: International Society of the Learning Sciences.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sweller, J. 2005. Implications of cognitive load theory for multimedia learning. In The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning, Hrsg. R. E. Mayer, 19–30. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Tchounikine, P. 2016. Contribution to a theory of CSCL scripts: taking into account the appropriation of scripts by learners. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 11 (3): 349–369. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-016-9240-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tchounikine, P. 2019. Learners’ agency and CSCL technologies: towards an emancipatory perspective. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 69 (1): 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-019-09302-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tenenbaum, H. R., N. E. Winstone, P. J. Leman, & R. E. Avery. 2020. How effective is peer interaction in facilitating learning? A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology 112 (7): 1303–1319. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsovaltzi, D., A. Weinberger, L. Schmitt, H. Bellhäuser, A. Müller, J. Konert et al. 2019. Group formation in the digital age: Relevant characteristics, their diagnosis, and combination for productive collaboration. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, CSCL 2019, Hrsg. K. Lund, G. P. Niccolai, E. Lavoué, C. E. Hmelo-Silver, G. Gweon und M. Baker, 719–726. Lyon, France: International Society of the Learning Sciences (ISLS).

    Google Scholar 

  • Tzimas, D., & S. Demetriadis. 2021. Ethical issues in learning analytics: A review of the field. Educational Technology Research and Development 69 (2): 1101–1133. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-021-09977-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Laar, E., A. J. A. M. van Deursen, J. A. G. M. van Dijk, & J. de Haan. 2017. The relation between 21st-century skills and digital skills: A systematic literature review. Computers in Human Behavior 72: 577–588. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.03.010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Leeuwen, A. 2015. Learning analytics to support teachers during synchronous CSCL: balancing between overview and overload. Journal of Learning Analytics 2 (2): 138–162. https://doi.org/10.18608/jla.2015.22.11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Leeuwen, A., & N. Rummel. 2019. Orchestration tools to support the teacher during student collaboration: a review. Unterrichtswissenschaft 47 (2): 143–158. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42010-019-00052-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Leeuwen, A., N. Rummel, & T. van Gog. 2019. What information should CSCL teacher dashboards provide to help teachers interpret CSCL situations? International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 114 (4): 57. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-019-09299-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vygotskij, L., & M. Cole, Hrsg. 1978. Mind in society. The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, E., N. Rummel, & K. R. Koedinger. 2014. Adaptive intelligent support to improve peer tutoring in algebra. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education 24 (1): 33–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-013-0001-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webb, N. M. 2013. Information processing approaches to collaborative learning. In The International Handbook of Collaborative Learning, Hrsg. C. E. Hmelo-Silver, C. A. Chinn, C. K. K. Chan und A. M. O’Donnell, 19–40. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis (Educational Psychology Handbook).

    Google Scholar 

  • Wegner, D. M. 1995. A computer network model of human transactive memory. Social Cognition 13 (3): 319–339. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.1995.13.3.319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weinberger, A., & F. Fischer. 2006. A framework to analyze argumentative knowledge construction in computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers & Education 46 (1): 71–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2005.04.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wichmann, A., T. Hecking, M. Elson, N. Christmann, T. Herrmann, & H. U. Hoppe. 2016. Group formation for small-group learning. In Proceedings of the 12th International Symposium on Open Collaboration – OpenSym ’16. the 12th International Symposium. Berlin, Germany, 17.08.2016–19.08.2016, Hrsg. A. I. Wasserman, 1–4. New York, New York, USA: ACM Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wichmann, A., & N. Rummel. 2013. Improving revision in wiki-based writing: Coordination pays off. Computers & Education 62: 262–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.017.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wirth, J., J. Künsting, & D. Leutner. 2009. The impact of goal specificity and goal type on learning outcome and cognitive load. Computers in Human Behavior 25 (2): 299–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2008.12.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wise, A. F., & B. B. Schwarz. 2017. Visions of CSCL: eight provocations for the future of the field. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 12 (4): 423–467. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-017-9267-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zurita, G., & M. Nussbaum. 2007. A conceptual framework based on Activity Theory for mobile CSCL. British Journal of Educational Technology 38 (2): 211–235. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2006.00580.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Bochum, Deutschland

    Sebastian Strauß & Nikol Rummel

Authors
  1. Sebastian Strauß
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nikol Rummel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sebastian Strauß .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Institut für Erziehungswissenschaft, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Bochum, Deutschland

    Sandra Aßmann

  2. Institut für Erziehungswissenschaft, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Bochum, Deutschland

    Norbert Ricken

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Strauß, S., Rummel, N. (2023). Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning: Die Rolle des Digitalen bei der Unterstützung von kooperativem Lernen. In: Aßmann, S., Ricken, N. (eds) Bildung und Digitalität. Springer VS, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-30766-0_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-30766-0_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer VS, Wiesbaden

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-658-30765-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-658-30766-0

  • eBook Packages: Education and Social Work (German Language)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation