This research describes a methodology for applying design- and management-based scaffolding techniques aimed to enhance cooperative behavior. Based on assumptions of how successful online learning groups act together, we developed feedback-based mechanisms that aimed at contributing to group functions of well-being, member support, and productive learning outcomes. The collaborative online learning environments were enriched by functions such as tracking, analyzing, and feeding back parameters of participation, collaboration, motivation, and emotional state to group members. Two studies were conducted to analyze effects of these mechanisms. In the first study, we showed advantages of feedback on processes of group well-being, parameters of participation, and interaction. In the second study, we combined feedback approach for monitoring and fostering collaborative behavior with a design-based approach using distributed learning resources. Results suggest that by distributing learning material, collaboration can be positively influenced. However, this intervention had no substantial effect on cognitive outcomes or group climate. In addition, monitoring students' interactions and providing feedback on collaboration triggered collaborative behavior, facilitated problem-solving processes, and enhanced group climate.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AronsonE. (1984). Förderung von Schulleistung, Selbstwert und prosozialem Verhalten: Die Jigsaw-Methode [Enhancement of performance in school, self value and pro social behavior: The Jigsaw method]. In L HuberG.Rotering-SteinbergS., & WahlD. (Hrsg.). Kooperatives Lernen [Cooperative learning] (pp. 48–59). Weinheim: Beltz-Verlag.
2.
ArrowH.McGrathJ. E., & BerdahlJ. L. (2000). Small groups as complex systems.Thousand Oaks: Sage.
3.
BarronB., & SearsD. (2002). Advancing understanding of learning in interaction: How ways of participating can influence joint performance and individual learning. In StahlG. (Ed.), Computer support for collaborative learning: Foundations for a CSCL community (pp. 593–594). Hillsdale, NY: Erlbaum.
4.
BarrosB., & VerdejoM. F. (1999). An approach to analyse collaboration when shared structured workspaces are used for carrying out group learning processes. In LajoieS. P. & VivetM. (Eds.), Artificial intelligence in education: Open learning environments (pp. 449–456). Amsterdam: IOS Press.
5.
BarrosB., & VerdejoM. F. (2000). Analyzing student interaction processes in order to improve collaboration. The DEGREE approach. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 11, 221–241.
6.
Buckingham ShumS. (1997). Balancing formality with informality: User centered requirements for knowledge management technologies. AAAI Spring Symposium (Mar. 24–26, 1997), Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA: AAAI Press.
7.
ConklinE. J. (1993). Capturing organizational memory. In BaeckerR. M. (Ed.). Groupware and computer-supported cooperative work (pp. 561–565). San Francisco: Morgan Kaufman.
8.
DiehlC.RanneyM., & SchankP. (2001). Model-based feedback supports reflective activity in collaborative argumentation. In DillenbourgP.EurelingsA., & HakkarainenK. (Eds.), European perspectives on computer-supported collaborative learning (pp. 189–196), Netherlands: Universiteit Maastricht.
9.
DillenbourgP. & TraumD. (1996). Grounding in multi-modal task-oriented collaboration. Paper presented at the European Conference on AI in Education, Lisboa, Portugal.
10.
DillenbourgP., & TraumD. (2006). Sharing Solutions: Persistence and grounding in multimodal collaborative problem solving. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(1), 121–151.
HannafinM.LandS. & OliverK. (1999). Open learning environments: Foundations, methods, and models. In ReigeluthC. M. (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models (pp. 115–140). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
13.
HermannF.RummelN., & SpadaH. (2001). Solving the case together: The challenge of net-based interdisciplinary collaboration. In DillenbourgP.EurelingsA., & HakkarainenK. (Eds.), European perspectives on computer-supported collaborative learning. Proceedings of the European conference on computer-supported collaborative learning (pp. 293–300). Maastricht, NL: McLuhan Institute.
14.
JermannP.SollerA., & LesgoldA. (2004) Computer software support for collaborative learning. In StrijbosJ.-W.KirschnerP., & MartensR. (Eds.), What we know about CSCL in higher education (pp. 141–166). Amsterdam: Kluwer.
15.
KieslerS., & SproullL. (1992). Group decision making and communication technology. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 52, 96–123.
16.
KomisV.AvourisN., & FidasC. (2003). A study on heterogeneity during real time collaborative problem solving. In WassonB.LudvigsenS., & HoppeH.-U. (Eds.), Designing for change in networked learning environments (pp. 411–420). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
LancasterC. J.BradleyE.SmithI. K.ChessmanA.Stroup-BenhamC. A., & CampM. G. (1997). The effect of PBL on students' perceptions of learning environment. Academic Medicine, 72(10, Suppl. 1), 10–12.
19.
MarshallR. E. (1978). Measuring the medical school learning environment. Journal of Medical Education, 53, 98–104.
20.
McGrathJ. E. (1991). Time, interaction, and performance (TIP). A theory of groups. Small Group Research, 22(2), 147–174.
21.
McGrathJ. E., & HollingsheadA. B. (1994). Groups interacting with technology.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
22.
MuehlenbrockM. (2001). Action-based collaboration analysis for group learning.Amsterdam: IOS Press.
23.
MuehlenbrockM., & HoppeU. (1999). Computer supported interaction analysis of group problem solving. In HoadleyC. & RoschelleJ. (Eds.), Proceedings of the conference on computer supported collaborative learning (CSCL-99) (pp. 398–405). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
24.
MuehlenbrockM.TewissenF., & HoppeH. U. (1998). A framework system for intelligent support in open distributed learning environments. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 9, 256–274.
25.
PalinscarA. S., & BrownA. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117–175.
26.
PfisterR., & MühlpfordtM. (2002). Supporting discourse in a synchronous learning environment: The learning protocol approach. In StahlG. (Ed.), Computer support for collaborative learning: Foundations for a CSCL community (pp. 581–582). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
27.
ReimannP. (2003). How to support groups in learning: More than problem solving. In AlevenV. (Ed.), Artificial Intelligence in Education (AIED 2003): Supplementary Proceedings (pp. 3–16). Sydney: University of Sydney.
28.
ReiserB. (2002). Why scaffolding should sometimes makes tasks more difficult for learners. In StahlG. (Ed.), Computer support for collaborative learning: Foundations for a CSCL community (pp. 255–264). Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.
29.
ReisererM.ErtlB., & MandlH. (2002). Fostering collaborative knowledge construction in desktop videconferencing: Effects of content schemes and cooperation scripts in peer-teaching settings. In StahlG. (Ed.), Computer support for collaborative learning: Foundations for a CSCL community (pp. 379–388). Boulder, CO: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
30.
RummelN.SpadaH.HermannF.CasparF., & SchornsteinK. (2002). Promoting the coordination of computer-mediated interdisciplinary collaboration. In StahlG. (Ed.), Computer support for collaborative learning: Foundations for a CSCL community (pp. 558–560). Hillsdale, NY: Erlbaum.
31.
SadlerP. M.CoyleH. P., & SchwarzM. (2000). Engineering competitions in the middle school classroom: Key elements in developing effective design challenges. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(3), 299–327.
32.
SalmonG. (2000). E-moderating.London: Kogan Page.
33.
SollerA.JermannP.MuehlenbrockM., & MonesA. M. (2003). From mirroring to guiding: A review of the state of the art technology for supporting collaborative learning. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 2, 40–62.
SollerA., & LesgoldA. (2000). Knowledge acquisition for adaptive collaborative learning environments. In American Association for Artificial Intelligence, Proceedings of the AAAI fall symposium: Learning how to do things (pp. 57–64). Cambridge: MIT Press.
36.
SuthersD. (2001). Towards a systematic study of representational guidance for collaborative learning discourse. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 7(3). Electronic publication http://www.jucs.org/jucs_7_3/towards_a_systematic_study
37.
ZumbachJ.HillersA., & ReimannP. (2003). Supporting distributed problem-based learning: The use of feedback in online learning. In RobertsT. (Ed.), Online collaborative learning: Theory and practice (pp. 86–103). Hershey, PA: Idea.
38.
ZumbachJ. & ReimannP. (1999). Combining computer supported collaborative argumentation and problem-based learning: An approach for designing online learning environments. Workshop Computer Supported Collaborative Argumentation at the CSCL99 conference December 10th to 16th in Stanford, CA.
39.
ZumbachJ., & ReimannP. (2002). Enhancing learning from hypertext by inducing a goal orientation: Comparing different approaches. Instructional Science, 30, 243–267.
40.
ZumbachJ., & ReimannP. (2003). Influence of feedback on distributed problem based learning. In WassonB.LudvigsenS., & HoppeH.-U. (Eds.), Designing for change in networked learning environments (pp. 219–228). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
41.
ZumbachJ.SchönemannJ., & ReimannP. (2005). Analyzing and supporting collaboration in cooperative computer-mediated communication. In KoschmannT.SuthersD., & ChanT. W. (Eds.), Computer supported collaborative learning 2005: The next 10 years! (pp. 758–767). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
