Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Contribution to a theory of CSCL scripts: taking into account the appropriation of scripts by learners

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

Abstract

This paper presents a contribution to the development of a theory of CSCL scripts, i.e., an understanding of what happens when learners engage in such scripts. It builds on the Script Theory of Guidance (SToG) recently proposed by (Fischer et al. in Educational Psychologist, 48(1), 56–66, 2013). We argue that, when engaged in a collaborative situation structured by a CSCL script, what learners consider is not “the script”, but their appropriation of the script. Appropriation is a complex cognitive process which plays a role in both the recognition/conceptualization of the task to be achieved and its enactment, and is not dependent on the script only: it may be influenced by different external aspects. Therefore SToG and, actually, any theoretical framework attempting to provide an explanation of what happens when learners engage in CSCL scripts, should take into account appropriation issues. We develop our argumentation by focusing on technology-related aspects of appropriation and the role of institutional, domain and motivational aspects.

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

Notes

  1. In order to define notions and contrast perspectives, we use in certain paragraphs a simple mathematical-like formalism. This is, of course, in no way an implicit claim that all aspects which may play a role in script enactment may be enumerated, or that learners’ cognitive processes may be modeled as a formula; it is simply a way to identify notions and processes, which will help us contrast approaches. This formalization completes the textual presentation and its illustration with examples, and may thus be skipped without major prejudice.

  2. In this section, as the arguments we develop look at how users (and not specifically learners) use technologies, we will use the term “user” when remaining general, since learners are considered here as the users of the technology associated with the CSCL script.

  3. Institution is to be taken here in an extensive perspective including aspects such as the classroom as managed by the teacher, the school, the curricula and/or the local or national education system. These aspects are impacted by the society and the culture within which they develop.

References

  • Artigue, M., & Winsløw, C. (2010). International comparative studies on mathematics education: A viewpoint from the anthropological theory of didactics. Recherches en Didactique des Mathématiques, 30(1), 47–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker, M. J., & Lund, K. (1997). Promoting reflective interactions in a computer-supported collaborative learning environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 13, 175–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Betbeder, M.L., & Tchounikine, P. (2003). Symba: A Framework to Support Collective Activities in an Educational Context. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Computers in Education, pp. 188–196, Hong-Kong.

  • Bosch, M. (2015). Doing research within the anthropological theory of the didactic: The case of school algebra. In Selected regular lectures from the 12th international congress on mathematical education (pp. 51–69). Cham: Springer International Publishing Switzerland.

  • Brousseau, G. (1984). The crucial role of the didactical contract in the analysis and construction of situations in teaching and learning mathematics. In H.-G. Steiner (Ed.), Theory of mathematics education (pp. 110–119). Berlin: Springer.

  • Brousseau, G. (1997). Theory of didactical situations in mathematics. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publisher.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cabassut, R. (2005). Argumentation and proof in examples taken from French and German textbooks. In: Proceedings of the 4th Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education, pp. 391–400.

  • Chevallard, Y. (2007). Readjusting didactics to a changing epistemology. European Educational Research Journal, 6, 9–27.

    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., & Tchounikine, P. (2007). Flexibility in macro-scripts for CSCL. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(1), 1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engeström, Y., Miettinen, R., & Punamäki, R. L. (1999). Perspectives on activity theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, F., Mandl, H., Haake, J., & Kollar, I. (2007). Scripting computer-supported collaborative learning – cognitive, computational, and educational perspectives, Computer-supported collaborative learning series. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hernández-Leo, D., Asensio-Pérez, J. I., Dimitriadis, Y., & Villasclaras-Fernández, E. D. (2010). Generating CSCL scripts: From a conceptual model of pattern languages to the design a real situation (Appendix). In P. Goodyear & S. Retalis (Eds.), Technology enhanced learning, design patterns and pattern languages. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hersant, M., & Perrin-Glorian, M. J. (2005). Characterization of an ordinary teaching practice with the help of the theory of didactic situations. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 59(1–3), 113–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kobbe, L., Weinberger, A., Dillenbourg, P., Harrer, A., Hämäläinen, R., Häkkinen, P., & Fischer, F. (2007). Specifying computer-supported collaboration scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(2–3), 211–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kollar, I., Fischer, F., & Hesse, F. W. (2006). Collaboration scripts—A conceptual analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 18, 159–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kollar, I., Fischer, F., & Slotta, J. D. (2007). Internal and external scripts in computer-supported collaborative inquiry learning. Learning and Instruction, 17, 708–721.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miao, Y., Hoeksema, K., Hoppe, U., & Harrer, A. (2005). CSCL scripts: Modelling features and potential use. In International Computer Supported Collaborative Learning Conference (CD-Rom), Taipei (Taiwan).

  • Norman, D. A. (1993). Things that make us smart. Reading: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rabardel, P. (2001). Instrument mediated activity in situations. In A. Blandford, J. Vanderdonckt, & P. Gray (Eds.), People and computers XV - interactions without frontiers (pp. 17–30). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

  • Rabardel, P. (2003). From artefact to instrument. Interacting with Computers, 15(5), 641–645.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarrazy, B. (2002). Effects of variability on responsiveness to the didactic contract in problem-solving among pupils of 9-10 years. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 17(4), 321–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schank, R. C., & Abelson, R. P. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals and understanding. An inquiry into human knowledge structures. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schellens, T., Van Keer, H., De Wever, B., & Valcke, M. (2007). Scripting by assigning roles: Does it improve knowledge construction in asynchronous discussion groups? International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2, 225–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schoonenboom, J. (2008). The effect of a script and a structured interface in grounding discussions. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3, 327–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slof, B., Erkens, G., Kirschner, P. A., Jaspers, J., & Janssen, J. (2010). Guiding students’ online complex learning-task behavior through representational scripting. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 927–939.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stahl, G. (2016). The group as paradigmatic unit of analysis: The contested relationship of CSCL to the learning sciences. In M. A. Evans, M. J. Packer, & R. K. Sawyer (Eds.), Reflections on the learning sciences (ch. 5). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stegmann, K., Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2007). Facilitating argumentative knowledge construction with computer-supported collaboration scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(4), 421–447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tchounikine, P. (2008). Operationalizing macro-scripts in CSCL technological settings. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3(2), 193–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tchounikine, P. (2011). Computer science and educational software design – A resource for multidisciplinary work in technology enhanced learning. Berlin: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-20003-8_6.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Tchounikine, P. (2013). Clarifying design for orchestration: Orchestration and orchestrable technology, scripting and conducting. Computers & Education, 69, 500–503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tchounikine, P. (2016). Designing for appropriation: A theoretical account. Human Computer Interaction. doi:10.1080/07370024.2016.1203263 (in press, downloadable from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07370024.2016.1203263).

    Google Scholar 

  • Vergnaud, G. (1998). Towards a cognitive theory of practice. In J. Kilpatrick & A. Sierpinska (Eds.), Mathematics education as a research domain: A search for identity (pp. 227–240). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weinberger, A., Ertl, B., Fischer, F., & Mandl, H. (2005). Epistemic and social scripts in computer-supported collaborative learning. Instructional Science, 33(1), 1–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weinberger, A., Stegmann, K., & Fischer, F. (2010). Learning to argue online: Scripted groups surpass individuals (unscripted groups do not). Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 506–515.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University Grenoble Alpes, LIG, Grenoble, France

    Pierre Tchounikine

Authors
  1. Pierre Tchounikine
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pierre Tchounikine.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tchounikine, P. Contribution to a theory of CSCL scripts: taking into account the appropriation of scripts by learners. Intern. J. Comput.-Support. Collab. Learn 11, 349–369 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-016-9240-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-016-9240-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation