Socio-Cognitive Scaffolding with Computer-Supported Collaboration Scripts: a Meta-Analysis

Educational Psychology Review

Volumn 29, Issue 3, 2017, Pages 477-511

  Vogel, Freydis ^a   Wecker, Christof ^b   Kollar, Ingo ^c   Fischer, Frank ^b  

^a TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF MUNICH   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MUNICH   (Germany)

^c UNIVERSITY OF AUGSBURG   (Germany)

Author keywords

Collaboration scripts; Collaboration skills; Computer supported collaborative learning; Domain specific knowledge; Socio cognitive scaffolding; Transactivity

Indexed keywords

EID: 84961795006     PISSN: 1040726X     EISSN: 1573336X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10648-016-9361-7     Document Type: Review

References (67)

1. Anderson, J. R. (1992). Automaticity and the ACT theory. The American Journal of Psychology, 105(2), 165–180. doi:10.2307/1423026.
2. Andriessen, J., Baker, M., & Suthers, D. (2003). Argumentation, computer support, and the educational context of confronting cognitions. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 1–25). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
3. Begg, C. B. (1994). Publication bias. In H. M. Cooper & L. V. Hedges (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 399–409). New York, NY: Sage.
4. Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
5. Chi, M. T. H. (2009). Active-constructive-interactive: A conceptual framework for differentiating learning activities. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1(1), 73–105. doi:10.1111/j.1756-8765.2008.01005.x.
6. Chi, M. T. H., & Wylie, R. (2014). The ICAP framework: Linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes. Educational Psychologist, 49(4), 219–243. doi:10.1080/00461520.2014.965823.
7. Clark, D. B., & Sampson, V. D. (2007). Personally-seeded discussions to scaffold online argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 29(3), 253–277. doi:10.1080/09500690600560944.
8. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
9. Cohen, G. C. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64(1), 1–35. doi:10.3102/00346543064001001.
10. De Wever, B., Van Keer, H., Schellens, T., & Valcke, M. (2010). Structuring asynchronous discussion groups: Comparing scripting by assigning roles with regulation by cross-age peer tutors. Learning and Instruction, 20(5), 349–360. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.03.001.
11. *Demetriadis, S., Egerter, T., Hanisch, F., & Fischer, F. (2011). Peer review-based scripted collaboration to support domain-specific and domain-general knowledge acquisition in computer science. Computer Science Education, 21(1), 29–56. doi:10.1080/08993408.2010.539069
12. 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 University.
13. Dillenbourg, P., & Hong, F. (2008). The mechanics of CSCL macro scripts. International Journal of Computer- Supported Collaborative Learning, 3(1), 5–23. doi:10.1007/s11412-007-9033-1.
14. Duval, S., & Tweedie, R. (2000a). A nonparametric “trim and fill” method of accounting for publication bias in metaanalysis. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 95(449), 89–98. doi:10.1080/01621459.2000.1047390.
15. Duval, S., & Tweedie, R. (2000b). Trim and fill: A simple funnel-plot-based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics, 56(2), 455–463. doi:10.1111/j.0006-341X.2000.00455.x.
16. *Ertl, B., Fischer, F., & Mandl, H. (2006). Conceptual and socio-cognitive support for collaborative learning in videoconferencing environments. Computers & Education, 47(3), 298–315. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2004.11.001
17. *Ertl, B., Kopp, B., & Mandl, H. (2008). Supporting learning using external representations. Computers & Education, 51(4), 1599–1608. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.03.001
18. Fischer, F., Kollar, I., Stegmann, K., & Wecker, C. (2013). Toward a script theory of guidance in computersupported collaborative learning. Educational Psychologist, 48(1), 56–66. doi:10.1080/00461520.2012.748005.
19. *Gelmini-Hornsby, G., Ainsworth, S., & O’Malley, C. (2011). Guided reciprocal questioning to support children’s collaborative storytelling. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6(4), 577–600. doi:10.1007/s11412-011-9129-5
20. *Gijlers, H., & de Jong, T. (2009). Sharing and confronting propositions in collaborative inquiry learning. Cognition and Instruction, 27(3), 239–268. doi:10.1080/07370000903014352
21. Greenhouse, J. B., & Iyengar, S. (1994). Sensitivity analysis and diagnostics. In H. M. Cooper & L. V. Hedges (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 383–398). New York, NY: Sage.
22. *Haake, J. M., & Pfister, H.-R. (2010). Scripting a distance-learning university course: Do students benefit from net-based scripted collaboration? International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5(2), 191– 210. doi:10.1007/s11412-010-9083-7
23. Hämäläinen, R., & Arvaja, M. (2009). Scripted collaboration and group-based variations in a higher education CSCL context. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 53(1), 1–16. doi:10.1080/00313830802628281.
24. Hedges, L. (1981). Distribution theory for Glass’s estimator of effect size and related estimators. Journal of Educational Statistics, 6(2), 107–128. doi:10.2307/1164588.
25. Hedges, L., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
26. Howard, B. C. (1996, February). A meta-analysis of scripted cooperative learning. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Eastern Educational Research Association, Boston, MA. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED404353.pdf
27. *Huang, H.-W., Wu, C.-W., & Chen, N.-S. (2012). The effectiveness of using procedural scaffoldings in a paperplus- smartphone collaborative learning context. Computers & Education, 59(2), 250–259. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.01.015
28. Hummel, H. G. K., van Houcke, J., Nadolski, R. J., van der Hiele, T., Kurvers, H., & Löhr, A. (2011). Scripted collaboration in serious gaming for complex learning: Effects of multiple perspectives when acquiring water management skills. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(6), 1029–1041. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2010.01122.x.
29. Ismail, H. N., & Alexander, J. M. (2005). Learning within scripted and nonscripted peer-tutoring sessions: The Malaysian context. The Journal of Educational Research, 99(2), 67–77. doi:10.3200/JOER.99.2.67-77.
30. Jeong, A., & Joung, S. (2007). Scaffolding collaborative argumentation in asynchronous discussions with message constraints and message labels. Computers & Education, 48(3), 427–445. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2005.02.002.
31. King, A. (1992). Facilitating elaborative learning through guided student-generated questioning. Educational Psychologist, 27(1), 111–126. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep2701_8.
32. King, A. (1998). Transactive peer tutoring: Distributing cognition and metacognition. Educational Psychology Review, 10(1), 57–74. doi:10.1023/A:1022858115001.
33. King, A. (2007). Scripting collaborative learning processes: A cognitive perspective. In F. Fischer, I. Kollar, H. Mandl, & J. M. Haake (Eds.), Scripting computer-supported collaborative learning—cognitive, computational, and educational perspectives (pp. 13–37). New York: Springer.
34. Kirschner, P. A., Strijbos, J. W., Kreijns, K., & Beers, P. (2004). Designing electronic collaborative learning environments. Educational Technology Research & Development, 52(3), 47–66. doi:10.1007/BF02504675.
35. Kobbe, L., Weinberger, A., Dillenbourg, P., Harrer, A., Hämäläinen, R., Häkkinen, P., & Fischer, F. (2007). Specifying computer-supported collaboration scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(2–3), 211–224. doi:10.1007/s11412-007-9014-4.
36. Kollar, I., Fischer, F., & Hesse, F. W. (2006). Collaboration scripts—a conceptual analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 18(2), 159–185. doi:10.1007/s10648-006-9007-2.
37. *Kollar, I., Fischer, F., & Slotta, J. D. (2007). Internal and external scripts in computer-supported collaborative inquiry learning. Learning and Instruction, 17(6), 708–721. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.09.021
38. Koschmann, T. (1996). Paradigm shifts and instructional technology: An introduction. In T. Koschmann (Ed.), CSCL: Theory and practice of an emerging paradigm (pp. 1–26). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
39. Kuhn, D., Shaw, V., & Felton, M. (1997). Effects of dyadic interaction on argumentative reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 15(3), 103–121. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci1503_1.
40. Kwon, S. Y., & Cifuentes, L. (2009). The comparative effect of individually-constructed vs. collaborativelyconstructed computer-based concept maps. Computers & Education, 52(2), 365–375. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.09.012.
41. *Mäkitalo, K., Weinberger, A., Häkkinen, P., Järvelä, S., & Fischer, F. (2005). Epistemic cooperation scripts in online learning environments: Fostering learning by reducing uncertainty in discourse? Computers in Human Behavior, 21(4), 603–622. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2004.10.033
42. *Molinari, G., Sangin, M., Dillenbourg, P., & Nüssli, M.-A. (2009). Knowledge interdependence with the partner, accuracy of mutual knowledge model and computer-supported collaborative learning. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 24(2), 129–144. doi:10.1007/BF03173006
43. Mugny, G., & Doise, W. (1978). Socio-cognitive conflict and structure of individual and collective performances. European Journal of Social Psychology, 8(2), 181–192. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420080204.
44. Noroozi, O., Weinberger, A., Biemans, H. J. A., Mulder, M., & Chizari, M. (2012). Argumentation-based computer supported collaborative learning (ABCSCL): A systematic review and synthesis of fifteen years of research. Educational Research Review, 7(2), 79–106. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2011.11.006.
45. *Noroozi, O., Teasley, S. D., Biemans, H. J. A., Weinberger, A., & Mulder, M. (2013). Facilitating learning in multidisciplinary groups with transactive CSCL scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 8(2), 189–223. doi:10.1007/s11412-012-9162-z
46. Orwin, R. G. (1994). Evaluating coding decisions. In H. Cooper & L. V. Hedges (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 139–162). New York: Sage.
47. Raudenbush, S. W. (1994). Random effects models. In H. Cooper & L. V. Hedges (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 301–321). New York: Sage.
48. *Rienties, B., Giesbers, B., Tempelaar, D., Lygo-Baker, S., Segers, M., & Gijselaers, W. (2012). The role of scaffolding and motivation in CSCL. Computers & Education, 59(3), 893–906. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.04.010
49. *Rummel, N., & Spada, H. (2005). Learning to collaborate: An instructional approach to promoting collaborative problem solving in computer-mediated settings. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(2), 201–241. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls1402_2
50. *Rummel, N., Spada, H., & Hauser, S. (2009). Learning to collaborate while being scripted or by observing a model. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4(1), 69–92. doi:10.1007/s11412-008-9054-4
51. *Rummel, N., Mullins, D., & Spada, H. (2012). Scripted collaborative learning with the Cognitive Tutor Algebra. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 7(2), 307–339. doi:10.1007/s11412-012-9146-z
52. Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513–536. doi:10.1002/tea.20009.
53. Schank, R. C. (1999). Dynamic memory revisited. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
54. *Schellens, T., Van Keer, H., De Wever, B., & Valcke, M. (2007). Scripting by assigning roles: Does it improve knowledge construction in asynchronous discussion groups? International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(2–3), 225–246. doi:10.1007/s11412-007-9016-2
55. Schwarz, B., & Linchevski, L. (2007). The role of task design and argumentation in cognitive development during peer interaction: The case of proportional reasoning. Learning and Instruction, 17(5), 510–531. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.09.009.
56. *Stegmann, K., Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2007). Facilitating argumentative knowledge construction with computer-supported collaboration scripts. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(4), 421–447. doi:10.1007/s11412-007-9028-y
57. Stegmann, K., Mu, J., Gehlen-Baum, V., & Fischer, F. (2011). The myth of over-scripting: Can novices be supported too much? In H. Spada, G. Stahl, N. Miyake, & N. Law (Eds.), CSCL2011 conference proceedings. Vol. 1: Long papers. Connecting computer-supported collaborative learning to policy and practice (pp. 406–413). International Society of the Learning Sciences.
58. *Stegmann, K., Wecker, C., Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2012). Collaborative argumentation and cognitive elaboration in a computer-supported collaborative learning environment. Instructional Science, 40(2), 297–323. doi:10.1007/s11251-011-9174-5
59. Tabak, I. (2004). Synergy: A complement to emerging patterns of distributed scaffolding. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 305–335. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls1303_3.
60. Teasley, S. D. (1997). Talking about reasoning: How important is the peer in peer collaborations? In L. B. Resnick, R. Saljo, C. Pontecorvo, & B. Burge (Eds.), Discourse, Tools, and Reasoning: Situated Cognition and Technologically Supported Environments (pp. 361--384). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
61. *Ulicsak, M. H. (2004). “How did it know we weren’t talking?” An investigation into the impact of self-assessments and feedback in a group activity. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20(3), 205–211. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2004.00083.x
62. *Van Aalst, J., & Chan, C. K. K. (2007). Student-directed assessment of knowledge building using electronic portfolios. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16(2), 175–220. doi:10.1080/10508400701193697
63. Webb, N. M., Franke, M. L., De, T., Chan, A. G., Freund, D., Shein, P., & Melkonian, D. K. (2009). “Explain to your partner”: Teachers’ instructional practices and students’ dialogue in small groups. Cambridge Journal of Education, 39(1), 49–70. doi:10.1080/03057640802701986.
64. Wecker, C., & Fischer, F. (2011). From guided to self-regulated performance of domain-general skills: The role of peer monitoring during the fading of instructional scripts. Learning & Instruction, 21(6), 746–756. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.05.001.
65. *Weinberger, A., Ertl, B., Fischer, F., & Mandl, H. (2005). Epistemic and social scripts in computer-supported collaborative learning. Instructional Science, 33(1), 1–30. doi:10.1007/s11251-004-2322-4
66. *Weinberger, A., Stegmann, K., & Fischer, F. (2010). Learning to argue online: Scripted groups surpass individuals (unscripted groups do not). Computers in Human Behavior, 26(4), 506–515. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2009.08.007
67. Yeh, S. W., Lo, J. J., & Huang, J. J. (2011). Scaffolding collaborative technical writing with procedural facilitation and synchronous discussion. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6(3), 397–419. doi:10.1007/s11412-011-9117-9.