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

• 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