This article focuses on facilitating learners' collaborative knowledge construction in case-based learning scenarios. The article first describes how case-based learning can promote knowledge acquisition and then discusses the characteristics of videoconferencing in such scenarios. Then we focus our attention on the process and outcomes of the collaborative case solution. Following this, we concentrate on the issue of instructional support and present two methods which could particularly facilitate learners in their collaborative case-solving: collaboration scripts and content schemes. The empirical section describes an experimental study with 150 participants who collaborated in groups of three via videoconferencing. These triads were assigned randomly to one of four conditions, which involved using a collaboration script and a content scheme. Results reveal that the collaboration script reduced the level of learners' content-specific negotiation and the content scheme reduced the level of strategic negotiation. The content scheme significantly improved the collaborative case solution. Furthermore, learners' strategic negotiation also had a positive association with the collaborative case solution.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AndersonA. H.O'MalleyC.Doherty SneddonG.LangtonS.NewlandsA.MullinJ.FlemingA. M., & Van der VeldenJ. (1997). The impact of VMC on collaborative problem solving: An analysis of task performance, communicative process, and user satisfaction. In FinnK. E.SellenA. J., & WilburS. (Eds.), Video mediated communication (pp. 133–155). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
2.
BardE. G.AndersonA. H.SotilloC.AylettM.Doherty SneddonG., & NewlandsA. (2000). Controlling the intelligibility of referring expressions in dialogue. Journal of Memory and Language, 42(1), 1–22.
3.
BereiterC. (2002). Education and mind in the knowledge age.Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
4.
BrooksL. W., & DansereauD. F. (1983). Effects of structural schema training and text organization on expository prose processing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 811–820.
5.
BruhnJ. (2000). Förderung des kooperativen Lernens über Computernetze. Prozess und Lernerfolg beim dyadischen Lernen mit Desktop-Videokonferenzen [Facilitating collaborative learning in videoconferencing. Learners' processes and outcomes during dyadic learning in desktop-videoconferencing]. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
6.
ClarkH. H., & BrennanS.E.(1991). Grounding in communication. In ResnickL. B. (Ed.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 127–149). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
7.
De CorteE. (2003). Designing learning environments that foster the productive use, acquired knowledge, and skills. In De CorteE.VerschaffelL.EntwistleN., & MerrienboerJ. J. G. v. (Eds.), Powerful learning environments: Unravelling basic components and dimensions (pp. 21–33). Amsterdam: Pergamon.
8.
DillenbourgP. (2002). Over-scripting CSCL: The risks of blending collaborative learning with instructional design. In KirschnerP. A. (Ed.), Three worlds of CSCL: Can we support CSCL? (pp. 61–91). Heerlen: Open Universiteit Nederland.
9.
DillenbourgP., & TraumD. (2006). Sharing solutions: Persistence and grounding in multimodal collaborative problem solving. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(1), 121–151.
10.
DobsonM. (1999). Information enforcement and learning with interactive graphical systems. Learning and Instruction, 9(4), 365–390.
11.
ErtlB.FischerF., & MandlH. (2006). Conceptual and socio-cognitive support for collaborative learning in videoconferencing environments. Computers & Education, 47(3), 298–315.
12.
ErtlB.KoppB., & MandlH. (2005). Effects of an individual's prior knowledge on collaborative knowledge construction and individual learning outcomes in videoconferencing. In KoschmannT.SuthersD., & ChanC. (Eds.), Computer supported collaborative learning 2005: the next 10 years! (pp. 145–154). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
13.
ErtlB.ReisererM., & MandlH. (2005). Fostering collaborative learning in videoconferencing: The influence of content schemes and collaboration scripts on collaboration outcomes and individual learning outcomes. Education, Communication & Information, 5(2), 147–166.
14.
FischerF.BruhnJ.GräselC., & MandlH. (2000). Kooperatives Lernen mit Videokonferenzen: Gemeinsame Wissenskonstruktion und individueller Lernerfolg [Collaborative learning in videoconferencing. Collaborative knowledge construction and individual learning outcomes]. Kognitionswissenschaft, 9, 5–16.
15.
FischerF.BruhnJ.GräselC., & MandlH. (2002). Fostering collaborative knowledge construction with visualization tools. Learning and Instruction, 12, 213–232.
16.
FundZ. (2002). Cognitive support in computerized science problem solving: Eliciting external representation and improving search strategies. In BrnaP.BakerM.StenningK., & TiberghienA. (Eds.), The role of communication in learning to model (pp. 127–154). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
17.
GijbelsD.DochyF.van den BosscheP., & SegersM. (2005). Effects of problem-based learning: A meta-analysis from the angle of the assessment. Review of Educational Research, 75, 27–61.
18.
HayesJ. R., & FlowerL. S. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing process. In GreggL. W. & SteinbergE. R. (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 3–30). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
19.
HeiderF. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations.New York: Wiley.
20.
Hertz-LazarowitzR.KirkusV. B., & MillerN. (1992). Implications of current research on cooperative interaction for classroom application. In Hertz-LazarowitzR. (Ed.), Interaction in cooperative groups: The theoretical anatomy of group learning (pp. 253–280). New York: Cambridge University Press.
21.
JoinerR. (1995). The negotiation of dialogue focus: An investigation of dialogue processes in joint planning in a computer based task. In O'MalleyC. (Ed.), Computer supported collaborative learning. (pp. 203–222). Berlin: Springer.
22.
KelleyH. H. (1973). The processes of causal attribution. American Psychologist, 28, 107–128.
23.
KotovskyK., & FallsideD. (1989). Representation and transfer in problem solving. In KlahrD. & KotovskyK. (Eds.), Complex information processing: The impact of Herbert A. Simon (pp. 69–108). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
24.
KotovskyK.HayesJ. R., & SimonH. A. (1985). Why are some problems hard? Evidence from Tower of Hanoi. Cognitive Psychology, 17, 248–294.
25.
LarkinJ. H. (1989). Display-based problem solving. In KlahrD. & KotovskyK. (Eds.), Complex information processing: The impact of Herbert A. Simon (pp. 319–341). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
MandlH.ErtlB., & KoppB. (2006). Computer support for collaborative learning environments. In VerschaffelL.DochyF.BoekaertsM., & VosniadouS. (Eds.), Instructional psychology: Past, present and future trends: Fifteen essays in honor of Erik De Corte (pp. 223–237). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
28.
MayerR. E. (2001). Multimedia learning.New York: Cambridge University Press.
29.
NewellA., & SimonH. A. (1972). Human problem solving.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
30.
O'ConnaillB.WhittakerS., & WilburS. (1993). Conversations over video conferences: An evaluation of the spoken aspects of video-mediated communication. Human Computer Interaction, 8, 389–428.
31.
O'DonnellA. M., & DansereauD. F. (1992). Scripted cooperation in student dyads: A method for analyzing and enhancing academic learning and performance. In Hertz-LazarowitzR. & MillerN. (Eds.), Interactions in cooperative groups. The theoretical anatomy of group learning (pp. 120–141). New York: Cambridge University Press.
32.
O'DonnellA. M., & DansereauD. F. (2000). Interactive effects of prior knowledge and material format on cooperative teaching. Journal of Experimental Education, 68, 101–118.
33.
O'DonnellA. M., & KingA. (Eds.). (1999). Cognitive perspectives on peer learning.Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
34.
PalincsarA. S., & BrownA. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117–175.
35.
PeperR. J., & MayerR. E. (1986). Generative effects of note-taking during science lectures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 34–38.
36.
ReiserB. J. (2002). Why scaffolding should sometimes make tasks more difficult for learners. In StahlG. (Ed.), Computer support for collaborative learning: foundations for a CSCL community (pp. 255–264). Boulder, CO: Erlbaum.
RoschelleJ., & TeasleyS. D. (1995). The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving. In O'MalleyC. (Ed.), Computer supported collaborative learning. (pp. 69–97). Berlin: Springer.
39.
RosenshineB., & MeisterC. (1994). Reciprocal teaching: A review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 64, 479–530.
40.
RosenshineB.MeisterC., & ChapmanS. (1996). Teaching students to generate questions: A review of the intervention studies. Review of Educational Research, 66, 181–221.
41.
RummelN., & SpadaH. (2005). Learning to collaborate: An instructional approach to promoting collaborative problem-solving in computer-mediated settings. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14, 201–241.
42.
ShapiroA. M. (2004). How including prior knowledge as a subject variable may change outcomes of learning research. American Educational Research Journal, 41, 159–189.
43.
SherinB. L.ReiserB. J., & EdelsonD. (2004). Scaffolding analysis: Extending the scaffolding metaphor to learning artifacts. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 387–421.
44.
SuthersD. (2001). Towards a systematic study of representational guidance for collaborative learning discourse. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 7, 254–277.
45.
SuthersD. D., & HundhausenC. D. (2001). Learning by constructing collaborative representations: An empirical comparison of three alternatives. In DillenbourgP.EurelingsA., & HakkarainenK. (Eds.), Proceedings of the first European conference on computer-supported collaborative learning (euroCSCL) (pp. 577–584). Maastricht: McLuhan Institute.
