Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Scripting by assigning roles: Does it improve knowledge construction in asynchronous discussion groups?

  • Published:
International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article describes the impact of learning in asynchronous discussion groups on students’ levels of knowledge construction. A design-based approach enabled the comparison of two successive cohorts of students (N = 223 and N = 286) participating in discussion groups for one semester. Multilevel analyses were applied to uncover the influence of student, group, and task variables on the one hand, and the specific impact of a particular form of scripting – namely the assignment of roles to group members – on the other. Results indicate that a large part of the overall variability in students’ level of knowledge construction can be attributed to the discussion assignment. More intensive and active individual participation in the discussion groups and adopting a positive attitude towards the learning environment also positively relates to a higher level of student knowledge construction. Task characteristics – differences between the consecutive discussion themes – appeared to significantly affect levels of knowledge construction, although further analysis revealed that these differences largely disappeared after correcting for task complexity. Finally, comparisons between both cohorts revealed that the introduction of student roles led to significantly higher levels of knowledge construction. An effect size of 0.5 was detected.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aviv, R., Erlich, Z., & Ravid, G. (2003). Cohesion and roles: Network analysis of CSCL communities. In V. Devedzic, J. M. Spector, D. G. Sampson, & Kinshuk (Eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (pp. 145–150). Athens: ICALT.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Baker, M., & Lund, K. (1997). Promoting reflective interactions in a CSCL environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 13, 175–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bransford, J., & Stein, B. (1984). The ideal problem solver: A guide for improving thinking, learning and creativity. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brousseau, G. (1998). Théorie des situations didactiques. Textes rassemblés et préparés par Balacheff, Cooper, Sutherland, Warfield, Recherches en Didactique des Mathématiques. Grenoble: La Pensée sauvage.

  • Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2, 141–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carey, J. M., & Kacmar, C. J. (1997). The impact of communication mode and task complexity on small group performance and member satisfaction. Computers in Human Behavior, 13, 23–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, D., Weinberger, A., Jucks, I., Spitulnik, M., & Wallace, R. (2003). Designing effective science inquiry in text-based computer supported collaborative learning environments. International Journal of Educational Policy, Research & Practice, 4, 55–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chalmers, C., & Nason, R. A. (2003). Developing primary students’ group metacognitive processes in a computer supported collaborative learning environment. In Proceedings AARE-NZARE 2003 Joint Conference, Auckland. Coldstream: AARE.

  • Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in education research. Educational Researcher, 32, 9–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, E. G. (1994). Designing groupwork. Strategies for the heterogeneous classroom (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, E. B. (1995). Learning by explaining: Fostering collaborative progressive discourse in science. In R. J. Beun, M. Baker, & M. Reiner (Eds.), Dialogue and instruction: Modeling interaction in intelligent tutoring systems (pp. 123–135). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, A., Joseph, D., & Bielaczyc, K. (2004). Design research: Theoretical and methodological issues. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13, 15–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cragan, J. F., & Wright, D. W. (1990). Small group communication research of the 1980’s: A synthesis and critique. Communication Studies, 41, 212–236.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dennen, V. P., & Paulus, T. M. (2005). Researching “collaborative knowledge building” in formal distance learning environments. In T. Koschman, T. W. Chan, & D. D. Suthers (Eds.), Proceedings of CSCL 2005: The next 10 Years! (CD-ROM). Taipei: International Society of the Learning Sciences.

  • De Wever, B., Van Keer, H., Schellens, T., & Valcke, M. (2007). Applying multilevel modelling to content analysis data: Methodological issues in the study of role assignment in asynchronous discussion groups. Learning & Instruction, 17, 436–447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Dillenbourg, P., & Jermann, P. (2003). Elaborating new arguments through a cscl scenario. In G. Andriessen, M. Baker, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments. CSCL series. Amsterdam: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dillenbourg, P., & Jermann, P. (2007). Designing integrative scripts. Cognitive, computational and educational perspectives. In: F. Fischer, I. Kollar, H. Mandl, & J. Haake (Eds.), Scripting computer-supported collaborative learning: Cognitive, computational and educational perspectives (pp. 275–301). New York: Springer.

  • Dillenbourg, P., Baker, M., Blaye, A., & O’Malley, C. (1995) The evolution of research on collaborative learning. In E. Spada, & P. Reiman (Eds.), Learning in humans and machine: Towards an interdisciplinary learning science (pp. 189–211). Oxford: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dochy, F., Moerkerke, G., & Segers, M. (1999). The effect of prior knowledge on learning in educational practice: Studies using prior knowledge state assessment. Evaluation & Research in Education, 8, 345–367.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, A. (2001). Student-centred collaborative learning via face-to-face and asynchronous online communication: What’s the difference? In G. Kennedy, M. Keppel, C. McNaught, & T. Petrovic (Eds.), Meeting at the Crossroads. Proceedings of the 18th Annual Conference of the Australian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education (pp. 169–177). Melbourne: Biomedical Multimedia Unit, The University of Melbourne.

    Google Scholar 

  • Entwistle, N., Tait, H., & McCune, V. (2000). Patterns of response to an approaches to studying inventory across contrasting groups and contexts. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 15, 33–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ewing, J., & Miller, D. (2002). A framework for evaluating computer supported collaborative learning, Educational Technology & Society, 5, 112–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flanagin, A. J., Park, H. S., & Seibold, D. R. (2004). Group performance and collaborative technology: A longitudinal and multilevel analysis of information quality, contribution equity, and members’ satisfaction in computer-mediated groups. Communication Monographs, 71, 352–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flavell, J. H. (1985). Cognitive development. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frey, L. R. (1994). The call of the field: Studying communication in natural groups. In L. R. Frey (Ed.), Group communication in context: Studies of natural groups (pp. ix–xiv). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

    Google Scholar 

  • Garrison, D. R. (1992). Critical thinking and self-directed learning in adult education: An analysis of responsibility and control issues. Adult Education Quarterly, 42, 136–148.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham, M., Scarborough, H., & Goodwin, C. (1999). Implementing computer mediated communication in an undergraduate course—A practical experience. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 3, 32–45. Retrieved March 12, 2007, from http://www.aln.org/publications/jaln/v3n1/v3n1_graham.asp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gunawardena, C. N., Lowe, C. A., & Anderson, T. (1997). Analysis of a global online debate and the development of an interaction analysis model for examining social construction of knowledge in computer conferencing. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 17, 397–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hakkarainen, K., & Palonen, T. (2003). Patterns of female and male students’ participation in peer interaction in computer-supported learning. Computers and Education, 40(16), 327–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hara, N., Bonk, C. J., & Angeli, C. (2000). Content analysis of online discussion in an applied educational psychology course. Instructional Science, 28, 115–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harper, B., Squires, D., & McDougall, A. (2000). Constructivist simulations: A new design paradigm. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 9(2), 115–130.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holsti, O. R. (1969). Content analysis for the social sciences and humanities. Reading: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hox, J. J. (1994). Hierarchical regression models for interviewer and respondent effects. Sociological Methods and Research, 22, 300–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hox, J. J., & Kreft, I. G. (1994). Multilevel analysis methods. Sociological Methods and Research, 22, 283–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hox, J. J., & Maas, C. J. M. (2002). Sample sizes for multilevel modeling. In J. Blasius, J. Hox, E. de Leeuw, & P. Schmidt (Eds.), Social Science Methodology in the New Millennium. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Logic and Methodology (CD-ROM; 2nd ed., expanded).

  • Hurme, T. R., & Järvelä, S. (2001). Metacognitive processes in problem solving with CSCL in mathematics. Paper presented at the first European Conference on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, EURO-CSCL 2001, Maastricht, The Netherlands, March 22–24.

  • Inaba, M. (2006). A CSCL environment that promotes metacognition among learners in the community of practice. Paper presented at the fifth International Conference of the Cognitive Science, Vancouver, Canada, July 26.

  • Jacobson, D. M. (2001). Building different bridges: Technology integration, engaged student learning, and new approaches to professional development. Paper presented at AERA 2001: What we know and how we know it, the 82nd Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA, April 10–14.

  • Kobbe, L., Weinberger, A., Dillenbourg, P., Harrer, A., Hämäläinen, R., & Fischer, F. (2007). Specifying computer-supported collaboration scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2.

  • Kollar, I., Fischer, F., & Hesse, F. W. (2003). Cooperation scripts for computer-supported collaborative learning. In B. Wasson, R. Baggetun, U. Hoppe, & S. Ludvigsen (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning—CSCL 2003, COMMUNITY EVENTS-Communication and Interaction (pp. 59–61). Bergen: InterMedia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kollar, I, Fischer, F., & Slotta, J. (2006). Internal and external collaboration scripts in web based science learning at schools. In: T. Koschmann, D. Suthers, & T.-W. Chan (Eds.), Computer supported collaborative learning 2005: The next 10 years. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lockhorst, D. (2004). Design principles for a CSCL environment in teacher training. Dissertation. Utrecht: Universiteit Utrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mäkitalo, K., Weinberger, A., Häkkinen, P., & Fischer, F. (2004). Uncertainty-reducing cooperation scripts in online learning environments. Retrieved July 14, 2004, from http://www.iwm-kmrc.de/workshops/sim2004/pdf_files/Makitalo_et al.pdf.

  • Monge, P. R. (1990). Theoretical and analytical issues in studying organizational processes. Organization Science, 1, 406–430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muirhead, B. (2000) Enhancing social Interaction in computer-mediated distance education. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 3, 4–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Donnell, A. N., & 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.), Interactions in cooperative groups. The theoretical anatomy of group learning (pp. 120–141). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Polya, G. (1957). How to solve it. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poole, M. S., Keyton, J., & Frey, L. R. (1999). Group communication methodology: Issues and considerations. In L. R. Frey, D. S. Gouran, & M. S., Poole (Eds.), The handbook of group communication theory and research (pp. 92–117). Newbury Park: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quinn, C. N. (1997) Engaging learning. ITForum Paper #18. Retrieved July 12, 2004, from http://itech1.coe.uga.edu/itforum/paper18/paper18.html.

  • Rasbash, J., Browne, W., Goldstein, H., Yang, M., Plewis, I., Healy, M. et al. (1999). A user’s guide to MLwiN. London: Institute of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rourke, L., & Anderson, T. (2004). Validity in quantitative content analysis. Educational Technology Research & Development, 52, 5–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Methodological issues in the content analysis of computer conference transcripts. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 12, 8–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salomon, G., & Globerson, T. (1989). When teams do not function the way they ought to. International Journal of Educational Research, 13, 89–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schellens, T., & Valcke, M. (2005). Collaborative learning in asynchronous discussion groups: What about the impact on cognitive processing? Computers in Human Behavior, 21, 957–975.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schellens, T., Van Keer, H., Valcke, M., & De Wever, B. (2005). Learning in asynchronous discussion groups: A multilevel approach to study the influence of student, group, and task characteristics. Behaviour & Information Technology, 36, 704–745.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, C. R. (1999). Communication technology and group communication. In L. Frey, D. Gouran, & M. Poole (Eds.), The handbook of group communication theory and research (pp. 432–472). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shotsberger, P. G. (1997). Emerging roles for instructors and learners in the web-based instruction classroom. In: B. H. Khan (Ed.), Web-based instruction (pp. 101–106). Englewood Cliffs: Educational Technology Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simons, P. R. J. (2000). Computer-supported collaborative learning in primary, secondary and vocational education. New perspectives for learning—briefing paper 31. Retrieved from http://www.pjb.co.uk/npl/bp31.htm.

  • Stahl, G. (2003). Building collaborative knowing: Elements of a social theory of learning. In: J.-W. Strijbos, P. Kirschner, & R. Martens (Eds.), What we know about CSCL in higher education (pp. 53–85). Amsterdam (The Netherlands): Kluwer.

  • Stevens, J. (1996). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (3rd ed.). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strijbos, J. W., Martens, R. L., Jochems, W., & Broers, N. J. (2004). The effect of functional roles on group efficiency: Using multilevel modelling and content analysis to investigate computer-supported collaboration in small groups. Small Group Research, 35, 195–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tagg, A. C. (1994). Leadership from within: Student moderation of computer conferences. The American Journal of Distance Education, 8, 40–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vonderwell, S. (2003). An examination of asynchronous communication experiences and perspectives of students in an online course: A case study. Internet and Higher Education, 6, 77–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wallas, G. (1921). The art of thought. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weinberger, A. (2003). Scripts for computer-supported collaborative learning. Effects of social and epistemic cooperation scripts on collaborative knowledge construction. Doctoral dissertation, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität.

  • Weinberger, A., Reiserer, M., Ertl, B., Fischer, F., & Mandl, H. (2005). Facilitating collaborative knowledge construction in computer-mediated learning environments with cooperation scripts. In R. Bromme, F. W. Hesse, & H. Spada (Eds.), Barriers and biases in computer-mediated knowledge communication. Boston: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weinberger, A., Stegmann, K., & Fischer, F. (2005). Computer-supported collaborative learning in higher education: Scripts for argumentative knowledge construction in distributed groups. In: T. Koschmann, D. Suthers, & T.-W. Chan (Eds.), Computer supported collaborative learning 2005: The next 10 years (pp. 717–726). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhu, E. (1996). Meaning negotiation, knowledge construction, and mentoring in a distance learning course. In Proceedings of Selected Research and Development Presentations at the 1996 National Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technolgy (pp. 821–844). Indeanapolis: ERIC documents: ED 397 849.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Educational Studies, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, Ghent University, Henri Dunantlaan 2, 9000, Gent, Belgium

    Tammy Schellens, Hilde Van Keer, Bram De Wever & Martin Valcke

Authors
  1. Tammy Schellens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hilde Van Keer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Bram De Wever
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Martin Valcke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tammy Schellens.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Schellens, T., Van Keer, H., De Wever, B. et al. Scripting by assigning roles: Does it improve knowledge construction in asynchronous discussion groups?. Computer Supported Learning 2, 225–246 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-007-9016-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-007-9016-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation