G. Kanselaar

Collaborative learning tasks and the elaboration of conceptual knowledge

Abstract In this article we present the results of an experimental study of the influence of task characteristics on the characteristics of elaboration of conceptual knowledge in social interaction. With a pre-test and post-test we measured individual learning outcomes. We constructed a coding scheme that focuses on the communicative functions and propositional content of utterances and on elaborative episodes. The subjects were 40 students who worked in dyads on a collaborative task about electricity in one of four conditions. We compared a concept mapping task with a poster task and investigated the effect of a phase of individual preparation. The post-test scores were significantly higher than the pre-test scores. Individual preparation created better learning results and the asking of more questions. The concept mapping conditions showed more discussion of electricity concepts, collaboratively elaborated conflicts and reasoning, but no higher individual learning outcomes. In the concept mapping conditions, elaboration was related to individual learning outcomes.

Visualization of participation: Does it contribute to successful computer-supported collaborative learning?

This study investigated the effects of visualization of participation during computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL). It is hypothesized that visualization of participation could contribute to successful CSCL. A CSCL-environment was augmented with the Participation Tool (PT). The PT visualizes how much each group member contributes to his or her groups online communication. Using a posttest-only design with a treatment (N=52) and a control group (N=17), it was examined whether students with access to the PT participated more and more equally during collaboration, reported higher awareness of group processes and activities, collaborated differently, and performed better than students without access to the PT. The results show that students used the PT quite intensively. Furthermore, compared to control group students, treatment group students participated more and engaged more in coordination and regulation of social activities during collaboration by sending more statements that addressed the planning of social activities. However, equality of participation, awareness of group processes and quality of the group products was not higher in the treatment condition. Still, the results of this study demonstrate that visualization of participation can contribute to successful CSCL.

Learning through synchronous electronic discussion

Abstract This article reports a study examining university student pairs carrying out an electronic discussion task in a synchronous computer mediated communication (CMC) system (NetMeeting). The purpose of the assignment was to raise students’ awareness concerning conceptions that characterise effective pedagogical interactions, by collaboratively comparing and discussing their analyses of a dialogue between a tutor and a student. To examine whether the use of synchronous CMC could meet this end, students’ dialogues are characterised in terms of their constructive and argumentative contributions, and by their focus on the meaning of concepts. In addition, a comparison was made with a control group in which no peer coach was available with two forms of peer coaching. Peer coaches were focussed either on structuring arguments or on reflectively checking arguments in terms of strength and relevance. First, the results indicate that the study of students’ learning from electronic discussions requires an analysis of focus in relation to argumentation. Second, the coaching instruction did not fulfil our expectations. In this study, students seem to need support to focus on meaning rather than on argumentation in general, but they may also need support to hold overview, to keep track of their discussion and to organise their interface. Text-based electronic communication seems to be sensitive to such issues that may cause meaningful interaction to be disturbed.

Effects of representational guidance on domain specific reasoning in CSCL

Computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) aims at enhancing and supporting peer interaction and the joint construction of products through technology. This study investigated the effects of the joint construction of external representations on the collaborative process and the learning outcomes. By providing representational guidance, the study aimed at promoting co-elaborated and domain-specific reasoning. Since it is assumed that the representational format may be of influence on the collaborative process and outcomes, three representational formats, namely an argumentative diagram, an argument list and a matrix, were compared with a control group. Sixty-five student pairs from pre-university education collaborated on a historical writing task in a CSCL environment. The analyses included analyses of interaction processes in the chat, the quality of the co-constructed representation, the quality of the essay and the scores on the individual posttest. The results indicated that each representational format has its own affordances and constraints. For example, Matrix users talked more about historical changes, whereas Diagram users were more focused on the balance in their argumentation. However, this did not result in differences in the quality of historical reasoning in the essay, nor in outcomes on the posttest.

Supporting interactive argumentation: Influence of representational tools on discussing a wicked problem

This study describes difficulties students can encounter when discussing a wicked problem and in what way two different representational tools can support interactive argumentation between students. About 55 pairs discussed in chat and wrote about genetically modified organisms in a groupware environment, supported by a text-outline or an argumentative diagram. The expectation was that students who were constructing a diagram would argue in a more thorough way, which is called the broadening and deepening in the space of debate. The expectations were partially confirmed. Diagrams help students to argue in a more thorough way, but only in the diagrams itself and not, as expected, in the discussion. This article shows the difficulties of supporting interactive argumentation with representational tools, because of the great amount of other variables in task and learning environment that effect the way students broaden and deepen an argument.

Representational Tools in Computer-Supported Collaborative Argumentation-Based Learning: How Dyads Work With Constructed and Inspected Argumentative Diagrams

This article investigates the conditions under which diagrammatic representations support collaborative argumentation-based learning in a computer environment. Thirty dyads of 15- to 18-year-old students participated in a writing task consisting of 3 phases. Students prepared by constructing a representation (text or diagram) individually. Then they discussed the topic and wrote a text in dyads. They consolidated their knowledge by revising their individual representation. There were 3 conditions: Students could use either (a) the individual texts they wrote, (b) the individual diagrams they constructed, or (c) a diagram that was constructed for them based on the text they wrote. Results showed that students who constructed a diagram themselves explored the topic more than students in the other conditions. We also found differences in the way collaborating dyads used their representations. Dyads who engaged in deep discussion used their representations as a basis for knowledge construction. In contrast, dyads who engaged in only shallow discussion used their representations solely to copy information to their collaborative text. We conclude that diagrammatic representations can improve collaborative learning, but only when they are used in a co-constructive way.

Collaborative argumentation in academic education

The general purpose of this research is todiscover principles for the design ofeducational tasks that provoke collaborativeargumentation. The specific research questionconcentrates on the relationship betweenquestion asking and argumentation and isexamined in three different collaborativelearning tasks involving advanced universitystudents. These studies aim at providingcriteria for organising educational situationsthat elicit argumentation during which opinionschange and new knowledge is being created,within constraints (course duration, examcriteria, student expectations) set by currenthigher education. We discuss some factorsinfluencing argumentation (the role of thestudent, peer, tutor, task, instruction andmedium) and specific attention is paid toquestion asking. Then we report three studiesconducted at our educational department. Thesestudies involve comparable students, a similardomain, but differ in many other respects: themode of communication (oral, typewritten), thepresence of the tutor, instruction onargumentation and/or question asking, assignedtask goals (competition, consensus), and thetype of required outcome. Each study revealsprominence of different types of questions andquestion generation mechanisms. In addition,the relations found between question asking andargumentation change between studies. Incomparing and interpreting these studies, wediscuss results in the light of provokingcollaborative argumentation in regular academiclearning situations.

Learning Environment Perceptions of European University Students

This article describes a study of the experiences of 610 Dutch students and 241 European students who studied at least three months abroad within the framework of an international exchange program. The Dutch students went to a university in another European country and the foreign students went to a Dutch university. Using a new questionnaire called the Inventory of Perceived Study Environment (IPSE), students, perceptions of eight characteristics of the university learning environment were measured concerning the home university, the host university and the ideal learning environment. With this instrument, the learning environment can be described in terms analogous to the learning strategies performed. Large differences were found between the different countries in university learning environments, but students from different countries had strikingly similar opinions concerning their desired learning environment. There was a strong preference for activating instruction with a low threshold in teacher-student interaction and more room for student alternatives.

The Use of Textbooks as a Tool During Collaborative Physics Learning

Abstract The study examined how features of student interaction, and the way an individual student contributes to that interaction (his or her participation), relates to the improvement of conceptual understanding within the domain of physics. The study also investigated how textbooks are used during collaborative work and how that use affects the quality of student interaction and outcomes. The participants were 56 students aged 15 or 16. The students worked in dyads on a concept-mapping task that functioned as an introduction for a new course about electricity. A condition in which the students were provided with 2 textbooks was compared with a condition without the availability of textbooks. The use of textbooks had a negative influence on the amount of elaboration and coconstruction in the student interaction. Individual learning outcomes were positively related to the amount of collaborative elaboration in the student interaction.

Designing argumentation tools for collaborative learning

The focus of education has shifted towards working actively, constructively and collaboratively, as this is believed to enhance learning. The studies discussed here deals with the influence of different CMC (Computer Mediated Communication) tools on argumentation processes during collaboration. The purpose of our research is to investigate the effect of computer supported environments and its tools on the final product through differences in the participants’ collaboration processes. In this chapter we will concentrate on students collaboratively taking part in argumentation via CMC systems. Computer environments that support collaborative writing can emphasize both the constructivist and collaborative aspects through its active and interactive nature.