Gijsbert Erkens

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.

Mediating team effectiveness in the context of collaborative learning: The importance of team and task awareness

Learning teams in higher education executing a collaborative assignment are not always effective. To remedy this, there is a need to determine and understand the variables that influence team effectiveness. This study aimed at developing a conceptual framework, based on research in various contexts on team effectiveness and specifically team and task awareness. Core aspects of the framework were tested to establish its value for future experiments on influencing team effectiveness. Results confirmed the importance of shared mental models, and to some extent mutual performance monitoring for learning teams to become effective, but also of interpersonal trust as being conditional for building adequate shared mental models. Apart from the importance of team and task awareness for team effectiveness it showed that learning teams in higher education tend to be pragmatic by focusing primarily on task aspects of performance and not team aspects. Further steps have to be taken to validate this conceptual framework on team effectiveness.

Collaborative Concept Mapping: Provoking and Supporting Meaningful Discourse

A N IMPORTANT AIM OF INSTRUCTION in schools is that students learn the concepts that are used within specific domains, and that they improve their ability to use these concepts in their mutually agreed-upon “scientific” meanings. Several authors suggest that students learn domainspecific concepts by using them in spoken communication—through talking about and “with” concepts (Duit & Treagust 1998; Lemke, 1990; Palincsar, Anderson, & David, 1993). From this point of view, then, collaborative learning tasks have a strong potential to contribute to the learning of concepts, because they can provide students with the opportunity to talk about and use them to describe and explain phenomena. In addition to the composition of the group, the group size, the reward structure, and the preparation for group work, the task itself has an important role in shaping the quality of the student interaction (Derry, 1999; Van der Linden, Erkens, Schmidt, & Renshaw, 2000; Webb & Palincsar, 1996). In this article we discuss the potential of collaborative concept-mapping tasks. In our research, we used a concept-mapping task in three experimental studies. Participants in the studies were 15to 16-year-old students from secondary-level physics classes. The students collaborated in pairs on a concept-mapping task that functioned as the introduction to a new course about electricity. In each study, we manipulated the task design and compared the student interaction that emerged in the different task conditions. In all studies, we videotaped and transcribed the student interactions and analyzed the transcripts. Several studies (Horton, McConny, Gallo, Woods, & Hamelin, 1993) have shown that concept mapping results in meaningful learning. Making a concept map helps learners become aware of and reflect on their own (mis)understandings; it helps students take charge of their own meaning-making. Further, it contributes to the development of an integrated conceptual framework. Most of the concept-mapping studies focus on the construction of a concept map by individual students or a teacher. In line with the findings of Roth and Roychoudhury (1993, 1994) and Sizmur and Osborne (1997), we concluded that concept mapping, as a collaborative learning activity, is successful in provoking and supporting a student discourse that contributes to the appropriation of physics concepts. Students in the three studies in which we used concept mapping as a group task showed significant learning gains (van Boxtel, 2000). It appeared that the learning outcomes were related to the quality of the student interaction. The more talk about physics concepts and the more elaborative that talk, the higher the learning outcomes. Carla van Boxtel Jos van der Linden Erik Roelofs Gijsbert Erkens

Group awareness of social and cognitive performance in a CSCL environment: Effects of a peer feedback and reflection tool

A peer feedback tool (Radar) and a reflection tool (Reflector) were used to enhance group performance in a computer-supported collaborative learning environment. Radar allows group members to assess themselves and their fellow group members on six traits related to social and cognitive behavior. Reflector stimulates group members to reflect on their past, present and future group functioning, stimulating them to set goals and formulate plans to improve their social and cognitive performance. The underlying assumption was that group performance would be positively influenced by making group members aware of how they, their peers and the whole group perceive their social and cognitive behavior in the group. Participants were 108 fourth-year high school students working in dyads, triads and groups of four on a collaborative writing task, with or without the tools. Results demonstrate that awareness stimulated by the peer feedback and reflection tools enhances group-process satisfaction and social performance of CSCL-groups.

Toward a Framework for CSCL Research

Although collaborative learning, often supported by computer networks (widely called computer-supported collaborative learning, or CSCL) is currently being implemented at all levels of education, it has not always proven to be the wonder-tool that educators envisioned and has often not lived up to the high expectations that educators had for it. In this introduction to the special issue on CSCL, a framework for research on CSCL is presented. This framework is presented in the form of a 3 × 3 × 3 cube, with the dimensions Level of Learning (cognitive, social, and motivational), Unit of Learning (individual, group/team, and community) and Pedagogical Measures (interactive, representational, and guiding). Based on this framework, the different contributions are discussed, and the empty cells—which should form the basis for further theoretical research—become evident.

Automatic Coding of Dialogue Acts in Collaboration Protocols

Although protocol analysis can be an important tool for researchers to investigate the process of collaboration and communication, the use of this method of analysis can be time consuming. Hence, an automatic coding procedure for coding dialogue acts was developed. This procedure helps to determine the communicative function of messages in online discussions by recognizing discourse markers and cue phrases in the utterances. Five main communicative functions are distinguished: argumentative, responsive, informative, elicitative, and imperative. A total of 29 different dialogue acts are specified and recognized automatically in collaboration protocols. The reliability of the automatic coding procedure was determined by comparing automatically coded dialogue acts to hand-coded dialogue acts by a human rater. The validity of the automatic coding procedure was examined using three different types of analyses. First, an examination of group differences was used (dialogue acts used by female versus male students). Ideally, the coding procedure should be able to distinguish between groups who are likely to communicate differently. Second, to examine the validity of the automatic coding procedure through examination of experimental intervention, the results of the automatic coding procedure of students, with access to a tool that visualizes the degree of participation of each student, were compared to students who did not have access to this tool. Finally, the validity of the automatic coding procedure of dialogue acts was examined using correlation analyses. Results of the automatic coding procedure of dialogue acts of utterances (form) were related to results of a manual coding procedure of the collaborative activities to which the utterances refer (content). The analyses presented in this paper indicate promising results concerning the reliability and validity of the automatic coding procedure for dialogue acts. However, limitations of the procedure were also found and discussed.

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.

Cognitive Tools and Mindtools for Collaborative Learning

When a computer-based tool or application is used to carry out a specific task in a learning situation—that is, it is used for learning—more effectively or efficiently one speaks of learning with the tool or application. When, possibly, that same tool or application is used to enhance the way a learner works and thinks, and as such has effects that reach further than the learning situation in which it is used, then one speaks of learning from the tool or application. This article concentrates on the latter. It zooms in on the use of mindtools in education—computer programs and applications that facilitate meaningful professional thinking and working—because this is the epitome of learning from ICT. Mindtools and cognitive tools help users represent what they know as they transform information into knowledge and are used to engage in, and facilitate, critical thinking and higher order learning. These tools can be as simple as email and or discussion lists and as complicated as argument mapping and visualization systems. Even more specifically, it deals with one category of such tools, namely conversation tools; tools used to create and facilitate the establishment of technology-supported discourse communities—communities of practice—where collaboration can flourish.

Supporting teachers in guiding collaborating students

The aim of this study was to examine the effects of teacher supporting tools that present summaries, visualizations, and analyses of student participation and discussion on the way teachers guide collaborating groups of students in a digital learning environment. An experimental set-up was used in which authentic student data was converted to simulation vignettes that participants could interact with, enabling them to act as the teacher. The vignettes contained groups that had a problem concerning participation or discussion. When presented with the supporting tools, teachers and student teachers were better able to spot the problems regarding participation, intervened more often in problematic groups as time progressed, and displayed more specific explanations of their actions. Effects of two learning analytics (LA) tools on teacher behavior are investigated.A unique combination of an experimental set-up with authentic vignettes is used.Teachers show better ability to diagnose problems concerning participation of students.Teachers display more specific explanations of their actions.

Technology-Enhanced Learning Environments to Support Students' Argumentation

Technology-enhanced learning environments offer a range of features to facilitate active learning through evidence-based argumentation (e.g., Fabos & Young, 1999; Kollar et al., 2005; Marttunen & Laurinen, 2001; Pea, 1994; Roschelle & Pea, 1999; Schellens & Valcke, 2006). This chapter examines the affordances of these environments, the research behind their development, and the expected benefit of technology-enhanced argumentation. We discuss environments specifically developed for science education as well as other environments that have strong relevance for argumentation in science education. We organize our discussion around two main categories of support for argumentation: facilitating collaborative argumentation and facilitating the construction of individual arguments and contributions. After discussing representative features for supporting argumentation within online environments, we discuss the integration of subsets of these features within four environments in alignment with the specific pedagogical goals and theoretical commitments of their developers. Finally, we discuss future directions for research on argumentation and learning in technology-enhanced environments.