Effects of representational guidance during computer-supported collaborative learning

Instructional Science

Volumn 38, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 59-88

  Janssen, Jeroen ^a   Erkens, Gijsbert ^a   Kirschner, Paul A ^a,b   Kanselaar, Gellof ^a  

^a UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^b OPEN UNIVERSITY OF THE NETHERLANDS   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Argumentative tasks; Computer supported collaborative learning; Representational tools; Secondary education; Visualizations

Indexed keywords

EID: 74849115900     PISSN: 00204277     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11251-008-9078-1     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Ainsworth, S. (2006). DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 16, 183-198. doi: 10. 1016/j. learninstruc. 2006. 03. 001.
2. Chinn, C. A., & Anderson, R. C. (1998). The structure of discussions that promote reasoning. Teachers College Record, 100, 315-368.
3. Cicchetti, D. V., Lee, C., Fontana, A. F., & Dowds, B. N. (1978). A computer program for assessing specific category rater agreement for qualitative data. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 38, 805-813. doi: 10. 1177/001316447803800322.
4. Clark, D. B., & Sampson, V. D. (2005). Analyzing the quality of argumentation supported by personally-seeded discussions. In T. Chan & D. D. Suthers (Eds.), Computer-supported collaborative learning 2005: The next 10 years! (pp. 76-85). Taipei, Taiwan: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
5. Clark, D. B., Sampson, V., Weinberger, A., & Erkens, G. (2007). Analytic frameworks for assessing dialogic argumentation in online learning environments. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 343-374. doi: 10. 1007/s10648-007-9050-7.
6. Clark, H. H., & Brennan, S. (1991). Grounding in communication. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine & S. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 127-149). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
7. Cohen, J. (1968). Weighted kappa: Nominal scale agreement with provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit. Psychological Bulletin, 70, 213-220. doi: 10. 1037/h0026256.
8. Cox, R. (1999). Representation construction, externalised cognition and individual differences. Learning and Instruction, 9, 343-363. doi: 10. 1016/S0959-4752(98)00051-6.
9. Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Management Science, 32, 554-571.
10. De Jong, F., Kollöffel, B., van der Meijden, H., Kleine Staarman, J., & Janssen, J. (2005). Regulative processes in individual, 3D and computer supported cooperative learning contexts. Computers in Human Behavior, 21, 645-670. doi: 10. 1016/j. chb. 2004. 10. 023.
11. Dillenbourg, P. (2002). Over-scripting CSCL: The risk of blending collaborative learning with instructional design. In P. A. Kirschner (Ed.), Three worlds of CSCL: Can we support CSCL? (pp. 61-91). Heerlen, The Netherlands: Open Universiteit.
12. Erkens, G. (2005). Multiple episode protocol analysis (MEPA). Version 4. 10. Retrieved October 24, 2005 from http://edugate. fss. uu. nl/mepa/.
13. Erkens, G., & Janssen, J. (2008). Automatic coding of online collaboration protocols. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3(4).
14. Erkens, G., Jaspers, J., Prangsma, M., & Kanselaar, G. (2005). Coordination processes in computer supported collaborative writing. Computers in Human Behavior, 21, 463-486. doi: 10. 1016/j. chb. 2004. 10. 038.
15. Erkens, G., Prangsma, M., & Jaspers, J. (2006). Planning and coordinating activities in collaborative learning. In A. M. O'Donnell, C. E. Hmelo-Silver & G. Erkens (Eds.), Collaborative learning, reasoning, and technology (pp. 233-263). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
16. Fischer, F., Bruhn, J., Gräsel, C., & Mandl, H. (2002). Fostering collaborative knowledge construction with visualization tools. Learning and Instruction, 12, 213-232. doi: 10. 1016/S0959-4752(01)00005-6.
17. Fjermestad, J. (2004). An analysis of communication mode in group support systems research. Decision Support Systems, 37, 239-263.
18. Janssen, J., Erkens, G., & Kanselaar, G. (2007a). Visualization of agreement and discussion processes during computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 1105-1125. doi: 10. 1016/j. chb. 2006. 10. 005.
19. Janssen, J., Erkens, G., Kanselaar, G., & Jaspers, J. (2007b). Visualization of participation: Does it contribute to successful computer-supported collaborative learning? Computers and Education, 49, 1037-1065. doi: 10. 1016/j. compedu. 2006. 01. 004.
20. Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Cook, W. L. (2006). Dyadic data analysis. New York: The Guilford Press.
21. Kirschner, P. A., Strijbos, J. W., Kreijns, K., & Beers, P. J. (2004). Designing electronic collaborative learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(3), 47-66. doi: 10. 1007/BF02504675.
22. 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, 75-86. doi: 10. 1207/s15326985ep4102_1.
23. Krippendorff, K. (1980). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
24. Kuhn, D., & Udell, W. (2003). The development of argument skills. Child Development, 74, 1245-1260. doi: 10. 1111/1467-8624. 00605.
25. Löhner, S., van Joolingen, W. R., & Savelsbergh, E. R. (2003). The effect of external representation on constructing computer models of complex phenomena. Instructional Science, 31(6), 395-418. doi: 10. 1023/A: 1025746813683.
26. Manlove, S., Lazonder, A. W., & De Jong, T. (2006). Regulative support for collaborative scientific inquiry learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22, 87-98. doi: 10. 1111/j. 1365-2729. 2006. 00162. x.
27. McGrath, J. E. (1991). Time, interaction, and performance (TIP). Small Group Research, 22, 147-174. doi: 10. 1177/1046496491222001.
28. Meier, A., Spada, H., & Rummel, N. (2007). A rating scheme for assessing the quality of computer-supported collaboration processes. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2, 63-86. doi: 10. 1007/s11412-006-9005-x.
29. Munneke, L., Andriessen, J., Kanselaar, G., & Kirschner, P. (2007). Supporting interactive argumentation: Influence of representational tools on discussing a wicked problem. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 1072-1088. doi: 10. 1016/j. chb. 2006. 10. 003.
30. Nussbaum, E. M. (2005). The effect of goal instructions and need for cognition on interactive argumentation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30, 286-313. doi: 10. 1016/j. cedpsych. 2004. 11. 002.
31. O'Donnell, A. M., & O'Kelly, J. (1994). Learning from peers: Beyond the rhetoric of positive results. Educational Psychology Review, 6, 321-349. doi: 10. 1007/BF02213419.
32. Olson, G. M., & Olson, J. S. (2000). Distance matters. Human-Computer Interaction, 15, 139-178. doi: 10. 1207/S15327051HCI1523_4.
33. Quintana, C., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Krajcik, J., Fretz, E., Duncan, R. G., et al. (2004). A scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13, 337-386. doi: 10. 1207/s15327809jls1303_4.
34. Saavedra, R., Earley, P., & van Dyne, L. (1993). Complex interdependence in task-performing groups. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 61-72. doi: 10. 1037/0021-9010. 78. 1. 61.
35. Schnotz, W., & Kürschner, C. (2008). External and internal representations in the acquisition and use of knowledge: Visualization effects on mental model construction. Instructional Science, 36, 175-190. doi: 10. 1007/s11251-007-9029-2.
36. Schwartz, D. L. (1995). The emergence of abstract representations in dyad problem solving. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4, 321-354. doi: 10. 1207/s15327809jls0403_3.
37. Schwarz, B. B., Neuman, Y., Gil, J., & Ilya, M. (2003). Construction of collective and individual knowledge in argumentative activity. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 219-256. doi: 10. 1207/S15327809JLS1202_3.
38. Snijders, T. A. B., & Bosker, R. J. (1999). Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling. London: Sage Publications.
39. Stern, E., Aprea, C., & Ebner, H. G. (2003). Improving cross-content transfer in text processing by means of active graphical representation. Learning and Instruction, 13, 191-203. doi: 10. 1016/S0959-4752(02)00020-8.
40. Strijbos, J. W., Martens, R. L., Prins, F. J., & Jochems, W. M. G. (2006). Content analysis: What are they talking about? Computers and Education, 46, 29-48. doi: 10. 1016/j. compedu. 2005. 04. 002.
41. Suthers, D., & Weiner, A.(1995). Groupware for developing critical discussion skills. In J. L. Schnase & E. L. Cunnius (Eds.), Proceedings of the First International Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning (CSCL'95) (pp. 341-348). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
42. Suthers, D. D. (2001). Towards a systematic study of representational guidance for collaborative learning discourse. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 7, 254-277.
43. Suthers, D. D. (2003). Representational guidance for collaborative inquiry. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 27-46). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
44. Suthers, D. D., & Hundhausen, C. D. (2003). An experimental study of the effects of representational guidance on collaborative learning processes. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 183-218. doi: 10. 1207/S15327809JLS1202_2.
45. Teasley, S. D., & Roschelle, J. (1993). Constructing a joint problem space: The computer as a tool for sharing knowledge. In S. P. Lajoie (Ed.), Computers as cognitive tools: Technology in education (pp. 229-258). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
46. Toth, E. E., Suthers, D. D., & Lesgold, A. M. (2002). Mapping to know: The effects of representational guidance and reflective assessment on scientific inquiry. Science Education, 86, 264-286. doi: 10. 1002/sce. 10004.
47. van Amelsvoort, M., Andriessen, J., & Kanselaar, G. (2007). Representational tools in computer-supported collaborative argumentation-based learning: How dyads work with constructed and inspected argumentative diagrams. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16, 485-521.
48. van Amelsvoort, M., Andriessen, J., & Kanselaar, G. (2008). How students structure and relate argumentative knowledge when learning together with diagrams. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 1293-1313. doi: 10. 1016/j. chb. 2007. 05. 004.
49. van Bruggen, J. M., Kirschner, P. A., & Jochems, W. (2002). External representation of argumentation in CSCL and the management of cognitive load. Learning and Instruction, 12, 121-138. doi: 10. 1016/S0959-4752(01)00019-6.
50. van Drie, J., van Boxtel, C., Jaspers, J., & Kanselaar, G. (2005). Effects of representational guidance on domain specific reasoning in CSCL. Computers in Human Behavior, 21, 575-602. doi: 10. 1016/j. chb. 2004. 10. 024.
51. Webb, N. M., & Palincsar, A. S. (1996). Group processes in the classroom. In D. C. Berliner (Ed.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 841-873). New York: Simon and Schuster Macmillan.
52. Zhang, J. J. (1997). The nature of external representations in problem solving. Cognitive Science, 21, 179-217.