The usefulness of roles to support small group performance can often be read; however, their effect is rarely empirically assessed. This article reports the effects of functional roles on group performance, efficiency, and collaboration during computer-supported collaborative learning. A comparison of 33 questionnaire observations, distributed over 10 groups in two research conditions (role and nonrole) revealed no main effect for performance (grade). A latent variable was interpreted as perceived group efficiency (PGE). Multilevel modeling yielded a positive, marginal effect for PGE. Groups in the role condition appear to be more aware of their efficiency as compared to groups in the nonrole condition, regardless of whether they performed well or poorly. Content analysis reveals more task-content focused statements in the role condition; however, this was not as we hypothesized (i.e., the premise that roles decrease coordination). In fact, roles appear to stimulate coordination that simultaneously increases the amount of task-content focused statements.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Baker, M. J., & Lund, K. (1997). Promoting reflective interactions in a computer-supported collaborative learning environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 13, 175-193.
2.
Benbunan-Fich, R., & Hiltz, S. R. (1999). Impacts of asynchronous learning networks on individual and group problem solving: A field experiment. Group decision and Negotiation, 8, 409-426.
3.
Bielaczyc, K. (2001). Designing social infrastructure: The challenge of building computer-supported learning communities. In P. Dillenbourg, A. Eurelings, & K. Hakkarainen (Eds.), European perspectives on computer-supported collaborative learning: Proceedings of the 1st European conference on computer-supported collaborative learning (pp. 106-114). Maastricht, the Netherlands: University of Maastricht.
4.
Bonito, J. A. (2002). The analysis of participation in small groups: Methodological and conceptual issues related to interdependence. Small Group Research, 33, 412-438.
5.
Brush, T. A. (1998). Embedding cooperative learning into the design of integrated learning systems: Rationale and guidelines. Educational Technology Research & Development, 46, 5-18.
6.
Centre for Multi level Modelling. (2003). ML-wiN (Version 1.10) [Computersoftware]. London: Institute of Education, Centre for Multilevel Modelling.
7.
Clarebout, G., Elen, J., & Lowyck, J. (1999, August). An invasion in the classroom: Influence on instructional and epistemological beliefs. Paper presented at the 8th biannual conference of the European Association of Research on Learning and Instruction (EARLI), Göteborg, Sweden.
8.
Cratylus. (1994). Need for closure (Dutch version). Amsterdam: Vrije Universiteit, Department of Social Psychology.
9.
De Grada, E., & Kruglanski, A. W. (1999). Motivated cognition and group interaction: Need for closure affects the contents and processes of collective negotiation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 346-365.
10.
Fahy, P. J., Crawford, G., & Ally, M. (2001). Patterns of interaction in a computer conference transcript. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning. Retrieved July 25, 2003, from http://www.irrodl.org/content/v2.1/fahy.html
11.
Forsyth, D. R. (1999). Group dynamics (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
12.
Häkkinen, P., Järvelä, S., & Byman, A. (2001). Sharing and making perspectives in web-based conferencing. In P. Dillenbourg, A. Eurelings, & K. Hakkarainen (Eds.), European perspectives on computer-supported collaborative learning: Proceedings of the 1st European conference on computer-supported collaborative learning (pp. 285-292). Maastricht, the Netherlands: University of Maastricht.
13.
Hara, N., Bonk, C. J., & Angeli, C. (2000). Content analysis of online discussion in an applied educational psychology course. Instructional Science, 28, 115-152.
14.
Hare, A. P. (1994). Types of roles in small groups: A bit of history and a current perspective. Small Group Research, 25, 443-448.
15.
Hermans, H. J. M. (1976). PMT: Prestatie motivatie test handleiding [Achievement motivation questionnaire manual]. Amsterdam: Swets & Zeitlinger.
16.
Hillman, D. C. A. (1999). A new method for analyzing patterns of interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 13(2), 37-47.
17.
Johnson, D. W. (1981). Student-student interaction: The neglected variable in education. Educational Researcher, 10, 5-10.
18.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Johnson-Holubec, E. (1992). Advanced cooperative learning. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.
19.
Jonassen, D. H., & Kwon, H. I. (2001). Communication patterns in computer mediated and face-to-face group problem solving. Educational Technology Research & Development, 49, 35-51.
20.
Kagan, S. (1994). Cooperative learning. San Juan Capistrano, CA: Kagan Cooperative Learning.
21.
Koschmann, T. (1996). Paradigm shifts and instructional technology: An introduction. In T. Koschmann (Ed.), CSCL: Theory and practice of an emerging paradigm (pp. 1-23). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
22.
Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P. A., & Jochems, W. M. G. (2003). Identifying the pitfalls for social interaction in computer-supported collaborative learning environments: A review of the research. Computers in Human Behaviour, 19, 335-353.
23.
Kynigos, C. (1999). Perspectives in analysing classroom interaction data on collaborative computer-based mathematical projects. In C. Hoadley & J. Roschelle (Eds.), Computer support for collaborative learning (CSCL) 1999 (pp. 333-340). Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University.
24.
Lally, V., & De Laat, M. (2003). Complexity, theory and praxis: Researching collaborative learning and tutoring processes in a networked learning community. Instructional Science, 31, 7-39.
25.
Landis, J., & Koch, G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159-174.
26.
Lehtinen, E., Hakkarainen, K., Lipponen, L., Rahikainen, M., & Muukkonen, H. (1999). Computer supported collaborative learning: A review of research and development (The J.H.G.I. Giesbers Reports on Education No. 10). Nijmegen, the Netherlands: University of Nijmegen, Department of Educational Sciences.
27.
Lipponen, L. (2001). Computer-supported collaborative learning: From promises to reality. Unpublished doctoral dissertation (Series B, Humaniora, 245). University of Turku, Turku, Finland.
28.
Martens, R. L. (1998). The use and effects of embedded support devices in independent learning. Doctoral dissertation, Utrecht, the Netherlands: Lemma.
29.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. London: Sage.
30.
Mok, M. (1995). Sample size requirements for 2-level designs in educational research. Multilevel Modelling Newsletter, 7(2), 11-15. Retrieved May 17, 2002, from http://multilevel.ioe.ac.uk/publref/new7-2.pdf
31.
Mudrack, P. E., & Farrell, G. M. (1995). An examination of functional role behaviour and its consequences for individuals in group settings. Small Group Research, 26, 542-571.
32.
Neuendorf, K. A. (2002). The content analysis guidebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
33.
Pata, K., & Sarapuu, T. (2003). Framework for scaffolding the development of problem based representations by collaborative design. In B. Wasson, S. Ludvigsen, & U. Hoppe (Eds.), Designing for change (pp. 189-198). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
34.
Reiserer, M., Ertl, B., & Mandl, H. (2002). Fostering collaborative knowledge construction in desktop videoconferencing: Effects of content schemes and cooperation scripts in peer teaching settings [Electronic version]. In G. Stahl (Ed.), Computer support for collaborative learning: Foundations for a CSCL community (pp. 379-388). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
35.
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.
36.
Ryser, G. R., Beeler, J. E., & McKenzie, C. M. (1995). Effects of a computer-supported intentional learning environment (CSILE) on students’ self-concept, self-regulatory behaviour, and critical thinking ability. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 13, 375-385.
37.
Saavedra, R., Early, P. C., & Van Dyne, L. (1993). Complex interdependence in task-performing groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 61-72.
38.
Savicki, V., Kelley, M., & Lingenfelter, D. (1996). Gender, group composition, and task type in small task groups using computer-mediated communication. Computers in Human Behaviour, 12, 549-565.
39.
Schellens, T., & Valcke, M. (2002). Asynchrone discussiegroepen: Een onderzoek naar de invloed op cognitieve kennisverwerving [Asynchronous discussion groups: Investigating the influence on cognitive knowledge gain]. Pedagogische Studieën, 79, 451-468.
40.
Shaw, M. E. (1981). Group dynamics: The psychology of small group behaviour (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
41.
Slavin, R. E. (1980). Cooperative learning in teams: State of the art. Educational Psychologist, 15, 93-111.
42.
Slavin, R. E. (1995). Cooperative learning: Theory, research and practice (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
43.
Snijders, T. A. B., & Bosker, R. J. (1999). Multilevel analysis. Londen: Sage.
44.
Stahl, G. (Ed.). (2002). Computer support for collaborative learning: Foundations for a CSCL community [Electronic version]. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
45.
Stevens, J. (1996). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (3rd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
46.
Strijbos, J. W. (2000). Vragenlijst samenwerkingsoriëntatie [Questionnaire collaboration orientation]. Heerlen, the Netherlands: Open Universiteit Nederland.
47.
Strijbos, J. W., & Martens, R. L. (2001). Group-based learning: Dynamic interaction in groups. In P. Dillenbourg, A. Eurelings, & K. Hakkarainen (Eds.), European perspectives on computer-supported collaborative learning: Proceedings of the 1st European conference on computer-supported collaborative learning (pp. 569-576). Maastricht, the Netherlands: University of Maastricht.
48.
Strijbos, J. W., Martens, R. L., & Jochems, W. M. G. (in press). Designing for interaction: Six steps to designing computer-supported group-based learning. Computers & Education.
49.
Strijbos, J. W., Martens, R. L., Prins, F. J., & Jochems, W. M. G. (2003). Content analysis: What are they talking about? Manuscript submitted for publication.
50.
Suthers, D. D., & Hundhausen, C. D. (2002). The effects of representations in students elaboration in collaborative inquiry [Electronic version]. In G. Stahl (Ed.), Computer support for collaborative learning: Foundations for a CSCL community (pp. 472-480). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
51.
Valcke, M. (1999). Educational re-design of courses to support large groups of university students by building upon the potential of ICT. The Journal for the integrated study of artificial intelligence, cognitive science and applied epistemology, 16, 16-25.
52.
Wood, D. (2001, March 23). Contingent tutoring and computer based training. Keynote presented at the 1st European conference on computer-supported collaborative learning, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
