Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Examining the effect of problem type in a synchronous computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) environment

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Educational Technology Research and Development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study investigated the effect of well- vs. ill-structured problem types on: (a) group interactional activity, (b) evolution of group participation inequities, (c) group discussion quality, and (d) group performance in a synchronous, computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) environment. Participants were 60 11th-grade science students working in three-member groups (triads) who were randomly assigned to solve a well- or an ill-structured problem scenario on Newtonian Kinematics. Although groups solving ill-structured problems generated more problem-centered interactional activity (a positive effect), they also exhibited participation patterns that were more inequitable (a negative effect) than groups solving well-structured problems. Interestingly, inequities in member participation patterns exhibited a high sensitivity to initial exchange and tended to get “locked-in” early in the discussion, ultimately lowering the quality of discussion and, in turn, the group performance. Findings and their implications for theory, methodology, and scaffolding of CSCL groups are discussed.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Ill- and well-structured problem solving refer to groups solving ill- and well-structured problems respectively.

  2. Note that partial η2 is an estimate of the effect size. As a rule of thumb, partial η2 =  .01 is considered small, .06 medium, and .14 large (Cohen, 1977). Further note that a strong multivariate effect can have a large effect size.

  3. Note that one could also regress PCA on problem type to get β (standardized regression coefficient) as the path coefficient. This is because the value of β in simple linear regression models with only one predictor equals the Pearson’s correlation between the predictor and the dependent variable (Kline, 1998).

  4. Note that the pair-wise correlation between PCA and PI was low and statistically not significant, r(20) =  .226, p =  .169, suggesting that multicollinearity among the two predictors was not an issue.

References

  • Arrow, H., Mcgrath, J. E., & Berdahl, J. L. (2000). Small groups as complex systems. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Albanese, M., & Mitchell, S. (1993). Problem-based learning: A review of the literature on its outcomes and implementation issues. Academic Medicine, 68(1), 52–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barab, S. A., Hay, K. E., & Yamagata-Lynch, L. C. (2001). Constructing networks of action-relevant episodes: An in-situ research methodology. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10(1&2), 63–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barron, B. (2003). When smart groups fail. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(3), 307–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bar-Yam, Y. (2003). Dynamics of complex systems. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bransford, J.D., & Nitsch, K. E. (1978). Coming to understand things we could not previously understand. In J. F. Kavanaugh & W. Strange (Eds.), Speech and language in the laboratory, school, and clinic. Harvard, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T. H. (1997). Quantifying qualitative analyses of verbal data: A practical guide. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6(3), 271–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cho, K. L., & Jonassen, D. H. (2002). The effects of argumentation scaffolds on argumentation and problem solving. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 50(3), 5–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, E. G. (1994). Designing groupwork: Strategies for heterogeneous classrooms. (Eds.), New York: Teachers College Press.

  • Cohen, E. G., Lotan, R. A., Abram, P. L., Scarloss, B. A., & Schultz, S. E. (2002). Can groups learn? Teachers College Record, 104(6), 1045–1068.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. NY: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dillenbourg, P. (1999). Collaborative learning: Cognitive and computational approaches. NY: Elsevier Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dillenbourg, P. (2002). Over-scripting CSCL: The risks of blending collaborative learning with instructional design. In P. A. Kirschner (Eds.), Three Worlds of CSCL: Can we support CSCL? (pp. 61–91). Heerlen: Open Universiteit Nederland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erkens, G., Andriessen, J., & Peters, N. (2003). Interaction and performance in computer-supported collaborative tasks. In H. van Oostendorp (Eds.), Cognition in a Digital World(pp. 225–252). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, F., & Mandl, H. (2005). Knowledge convergence in computer-supported collaborative learning: The role of external representation tools. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(3), 405–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gallagher, S. A., Stepien, W. J., & Rosenthal, H. (1992). The effects of problem-based learning on problem solving. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36(4), 195–200.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ge, X., & Land, S. M. (2003). Scaffolding students’ problem-solving processes in an ill-structured task using question prompts and peer interactions. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 51(1), 21–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hmelo, C. E. (1998). Problem-based learning: Effects on the early acquisition of cognitive skill in medicine.The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7, 173–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 235–266.

  • Howe, C., Tolmie, A., Anderson, A., & MacKenzie, M. (1992). Conceptual knowledge in physics: The role of group interaction in computer supported learning. Learning and Instruction, 2, 161–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Towards a design theory of problem solving. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 48(4), 63–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H. & Kwon, H. I. (2001). Communication patterns in computer-mediated vs. face-to-face group problem solving. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 49(1), 35–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kapur, M. (2006). Productive failure. In S. Barab, K. Hay, & D. Hickey (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference on the Learning Sciences (pp. 307–313). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

  • Kapur, M., & Kinzer, C. (2007). Sensitivities to early exchange in synchronous computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) groups. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL, USA.

  • Kapur, M., Voiklis, J., Kinzer, C., & Black, J. (2006). Insights into the emergence of convergence in group discussions. In S. Barab, K. Hay, & D. Hickey (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference on the Learning Sciences (pp. 300–306). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

  • Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford: New York and London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lam, S. K. (1997). The effects of group decision support systems and task structures on group communication and decision quality. Journal of Management Information Systems, 13(4), 193–215.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, E. Y. C., Chan, C. K. K., & van Aalst., J. (2006). Students assessing their own collaborative knowledge building. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(1), 57–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Light, P., & Glachan, M. (1985). Facilitating of problem solving through peer interaction. Educational Psychology, 5, 217–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Littleton, K., & Hakkinen, P. (1999). Learning together: Understanding the processes of computer-supported collaborative learning. In P. Dillenbourg (Eds.), Collaborative learning: Cognitive and computational approaches (pp. 20–30).Oxford: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poole, M. S., & Holmes, M. E. (1995). Decision development in computer-assisted group decision making. Human Communications Research, 22(1), 90–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenholtz, S. J. (1985). Treating problems of academic status. In J. Berger & M. Zelditch, Jr. (Eds.), Status, rewards, and influence (pp. 445–470). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rourke, L., & Anderson, T. (2004). Validity in quantitative content analysis. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 52(1), 5–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2003). Knowledge building. In J. W. Guthrie (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Education. New York, USA: Macmillan Reference.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schellens, T., Van Keer, H., Valcke, M., & De Wever, B. (2005). The impact of role assignment as a scripting tool on knowledge construction in asynchronous discussion groups. In T. Koschmann, D. Suthers, & T. W. Chan (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning 2005 (pp. 557–566). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

  • Schwartz, D. L. (1999). The productive agency that drives collaborative learning. In P. Dillenbourg (Eds.), Collaborative learning: Cognitive and computational approaches (pp. 197–218). NY: Elsevier Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shin, N., Jonassen, D. H., & McGee, S. (2003). Predictors of well-structured and ill-structured problem solving in an astronomy simulation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(1), 6–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spada, H., Meier, A., Rummel, N., & Hauser, S. (2005). A new method to assess the quality of collaborative process in CSCL. In T. Koschmann, D. Suthers, & T. W. Chan (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning 2005 (pp. 622–631). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

  • Spiro, R. J., & Jehng, J. (1990). Cognitive flexibility and hypertext: Theory and technology for the non-linear and multi-dimensional traversal of complex subject matter. In D. Nix & R. Spiro (Eds.), Cognition, Education, and Multimedia. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stevens, J. P. (2002). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suthers, D. D. (2006). Technology affordances for intersubjective meaning making: A research agenda for CSCL. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(3), 315–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suthers, D., & Hundhausen, C. (2003). An empirical study of the effects of representational guidance on collaborative learning. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(2), 183–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weinberger, A., Stegman, 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.), Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning 2005 (pp. 717–726). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, 1 Nanyang Walk, Singapore, 637616, Singapore

    Manu Kapur

  2. Teachers College, Columbia University, 525 W 120th Street, New York, 10027, NY, USA

    Charles K. Kinzer

Authors
  1. Manu Kapur
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Charles K. Kinzer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Manu Kapur.

Appendix – problem scenarios

Appendix – problem scenarios

The well-structured problem used in the study

You are an inspector for a car insurance company. You’ve been assigned the following case:

A car was involved in a head-on collision with a delivery truck on a straight road. The collision caused a 67 cm deep dent in the front of the car and a 5 cm deep dent in the front of the truck. Witnesses say that it all happened so fast that neither driver had any time to brake. Based on the injuries sustained by the drivers, the doctor estimated the force of the collision to be between 120,000 N and 150,000 N. According to the car’s information manual, its mass is 540 kg. The driver of the car has a mass of 60 kg. The speed limit on the road is 60 kmph.

The driver of the car, insured by your company, is claiming insurance to cover the cost of repair due to the accident. However, if he was speeding, your company has the right to reject his claim. Would you accept or reject the driver’s claim? Present your case as best you can.

The ill-structured problem used in the study

You have recently been hired as an inspector for the India Insurance Company. On your first day you are sent to the site of an accident between a small car and a delivery truck. As you arrive, the ambulance is carrying away the driver of the small car who seems conscious but bruised and shaken up. Opening your work file, you find your assignment:

 

Dear new inspector,

At 7:30 am this morning, a driver insured by our company (policy #241-575-374B) collided with a delivery truck in a small alley in downtown Ghaziabad. Although the accepted speed limit in the alley is 25 kmph, the damage seems rather large. Please determine whether we can apply clause 315-6 to the policy holder. Note that doing this requires a solid body of evidence. Although I don’t recall your first name, I do recall being told good things about the quality and thoroughness of your work. Please submit your report to me with your analysis and recommendation by today.

Sincerely,

Amit "the Boss"

P.S.: Since this is your first day, I have attached clause 315-6 to this letter.

Clause 315–6: - The policy will cover the cost of repair for collisions involving the policy holder. In the eventuality where the policy holder is found criminally responsible1, or reckless2 in his or her driving, the insurance company will assume 50% of the repair costs and reserves the right to increase the premium over the following 5 years. In order for the company to pay any amount, the holder agrees to yield access to any medical files related to the accidents.

1The term criminally responsible refers to driving under the influence of substances such as alcohol, or illicit substances such as heroin or cocaine.

2The term reckless refers to driving without respecting the driving code - such as cutting through more than two lanes in less than 100 m or driving more than 35kmph above the prescribed speed limit.

Customer File

Policy No:

241-575-374B

Name:

Mr. Rahul Singh

Age:

52 yrs

Driving Experience:

24 yrs

Previous Claims:

1993 – 20,000 Rupees; 1981 – 5,000 Rupees

Policy Type:

2 way insurance, including: Fire, Theft, & Vandalism (Max 100,000 Rupees)

Civil Responsibility:

1,000,000 Rupees

Deductible:

1000 Rupees

Insured car:

Zen

To carry out your investigation, you go through a number of steps such as (a) interviewing eye-witnesses, (b) analyzing the accident scene, (c) accessing the driver’s medical file, and (d) interviewing the treating Emergency Room (ER) physician.

Eye witness’ account

"I saw the car coming into the alley. I’m not too sure how fast it was going. I heard a big BANG! It all happened so fast. It looked like the driver didn’t see the truck. I am not sure but I don’t even think the car had time to brake."

Accident Scene

  • Mass of the car (from the car’s information manual) = 540 kg

  • Head-on collision between the car and the truck.

  • Front end of car collapsed: 17′′ (43 cm) remaining between front license plate and centre of front wheel.

  • Front end of truck slightly dented: about 2′′(5 cm) in depth.

  • Slight evidence of skid marks: only about 6′′ (15 cm).

  • Original distance between front license plate and centre of front wheel (from the car manual): about 43.3′′ (110 cm)

Medical Chart

BP (Blood Pressure):

105/65

HR (Heart Rate):

100

Weight:

60 kg

Notes:

Blue-black bump on forehead; Major belt laceration on neck, and chest.

Drug/Alcohol Screen:

Negative

Treating ER Physician

Dr:

That seat belt saved his life. This was a considerable impact.

You:

How could you tell?

Dr:

Well, from experience I could tell you that the depth of the wound from the seat belt corresponds to an impact ranging between 20 g and 25 g.

You:

Wow! 20 to 25 times the gravitational acceleration, that’s enormous. How confident are you of this value?

Dr:

Well it certainly is more than 20 g but not profound enough for 25 g. Well, I have to run now, I’m being paged.

You:

OK. Thank you for your time.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kapur, M., Kinzer, C.K. Examining the effect of problem type in a synchronous computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) environment. Education Tech Research Dev 55, 439–459 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-007-9045-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-007-9045-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation