This meta-analysis synthesizes research findings on the effects of computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) based on its three main elements: (1) the collaboration per se, (2) the use of computers, and (3) the use of extra learning environments or tools, or supporting strategies in CSCL. In this analysis, 425 empirical studies published between 2000 and 2016 were extracted and coded, and these generated the following findings. First, the collaboration had significant positive effects on knowledge gain (ES [effect size] = 0.42), skill acquisition (ES = 0.64), and student perceptions (ES = 0.38) in computer-based learning conditions. Second, computer use led to positive effects on knowledge gain (ES = 0.45), skill acquisition (ES = 0.53), student perceptions (ES = 0.51), group task performance (ES = 0.89), and social interaction (ES = 0.57) in collaborative learning contexts. Third, the use of extra learning environments or tools produced a medium effect for knowledge gain (ES = 0.55), and supporting strategies resulted in an ES of 0.38 for knowledge gain. Several study features were analyzed as potential moderators.
BakerM.AndriessenJ.LundK.Van AmelsvoortM.QuignardM. (2007). Rainbow: A framework for analysing computer-mediated pedagogical debates. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2, 315–357. doi:10.1007/s11412-007-9022-4
2.
*Benbunan-FichR.HiltzS. R.TuroffM. (2002). A comparative content analysis of face-to-face vs. asynchronous group decision making. Decision Support Systems, 34, 457–469. doi:10.1016/S0167-9236(02)00072-6
3.
BorokhovskiE.BernardR. M.TamimR. M.SchmidR. F.SokolovskayaA. (2016). Technology-supported student interaction in post-secondary education: A meta-analysis of designed versus contextual treatments. Computers & Education, 96, 15–28.
4.
*BrewerS.KleinJ. D. (2006). Type of positive interdependence and affiliation motive in an asynchronous, collaborative learning environment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 54, 331–354. doi:10.1007/s11423-006-9603-3
5.
BrusilovskyP.HenzeN. (2007). Open corpus adaptive educational hypermedia. In BrusilovskyP.KobsaA.NeidlW. (Eds.), The adaptive web: Methods and strategies of web personalization (pp. 671–696). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
6.
*BuderJ.BodemerD. (2008). Supporting controversial CSCL discussions with augmented group awareness tools. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3, 123–139. doi:10.1007/s11412-008-9037-5
7.
*ChenC. M.ChenF. Y. (2014). Enhancing digital reading performance with a collaborative reading annotation system. Computers & Education, 77, 67–81. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.04.010
8.
ChenJ.WangM.GrotzerT. A.DedeC. (2018). Using a three-dimensional thinking graph to support inquiry learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. Advance online publication. doi:10.1002/tea.21450
9.
ChengB.WangM.MercerN. (2014). Effects of role assignment in concept mapping mediated small group learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 23, 27–38.
10.
ClarkD. B.Tanner-SmithE. E.KillingsworthS. S. (2016). Digital games, design, and learning: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 86, 79–122. doi:10.3102/0034654315582065
11.
CohenJ. (1992). Statistical power analysis. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 1(3), 98–101.
12.
CooperH.HedgesL. V.ValentineJ. C. (2009). The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
13.
*CorterJ. E.EscheS. K.ChassapisC.MaJ.NickersonJ. V. (2011). Process and learning outcomes from remotely-operated, simulated, and hands-on student laboratories. Computers & Education, 57, 2054–2067. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.04.009
14.
DedeC. (2009). Immersive interfaces for engagement and learning. Science, 323(5910), 66–69.
15.
*DehlerJ.BodemerD.BuderJ.HesseF. W. (2011). Guiding knowledge communication in CSCL via group knowledge awareness. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 1068–1078. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.05.018
16.
DillenbourgP. (1999). What do you mean by collaborative learning. In DillenbourgP. (Ed.), Collaborative-learning: Cognitive and computational approaches (pp. 1–19). Oxford, England: Elsevier.
17.
DillenbourgP.HongF. (2008). The mechanics of CSCL macro scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3(1), 5–23.
18.
FestingerL. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117–140.
19.
*FischerF.MandlH. (2005). Knowledge convergence in computer-supported collaborative learning: The role of external representation tools. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14, 405–441. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls1403_3
20.
*FrailichM.KesnerM.HofsteinA. (2009). Enhancing students’ understanding of the concept of chemical bonding by using activities provided on an interactive website. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 289–310. doi:10.1002/tea.20278
21.
FransenJ.WeinbergerA.KirschnerP. A. (2013). Team effectiveness and team development in CSCL. Educational Psychologist, 48(1), 9–24. doi:10.1080/00461520.2012.747947
22.
*GenlottA. A.GrönlundÅ. (2016). Closing the gaps: Improving literacy and mathematics by ICT-enhanced collaboration. Computers & Education, 99, 68–80. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2016.04.004
23.
*GielenM.De WeverB. (2015). Structuring peer assessment: Comparing the impact of the degree of structure on peer feedback content. Computers in Human Behavior, 52, 315–325. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.06.019
24.
*GijlersH.de JongT. (2013). Using concept maps to facilitate collaborative simulation-based inquiry learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 22, 340–374. doi:10.1080/10508406.2012.748664
25.
HaleK. S.StanneyK. M. (2014). Handbook of virtual environments: Design, implementation, and applications. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
26.
HareA. P. (1994). Types of roles in small groups: A bit of history and a current perspective. Small Group Research, 25, 433–448. doi:10.1177/1046496494253005
27.
HattieJ.TimperleyH. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77, 81–112. doi:10.3102/003465430298487
28.
HedgesL. V.VeveaJ. L. (1998). Fixed- and random-effects models in meta-analysis. Psychological Methods, 3, 486–504.
29.
*Hoic-BozicN.Holenko DlabM.MornarV. (2016). Recommender system and Web 2.0 tools to enhance a blended learning model. IEEE Transactions on Education, 59(1), 39–44. doi:10.1109/TE.2015.2427116
30.
HovardasT.TsivitanidouO. E.ZachariaZ. C. (2014). Peer versus expert feedback: An investigation of the quality of peer feedback among secondary school students. Computers & Education, 71, 133–152. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2013.09.019
31.
HsiaoH. S.ChangC. S.LinC. Y.ChangC. C.ChenJ. C. (2014). The influence of collaborative learning games within different devices on student’s learning performance and behaviours. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 30, 652–669.
32.
*HsiehY. H.TsaiC. C. (2012). The effect of moderator’s facilitative strategies on online synchronous discussions. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 1708–1716. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.04.010
33.
*HuangY. M.LiuC. H. (2009). Applying adaptive swarm intelligence technology with structuration in web-based collaborative learning. Computers & Education, 52, 789–799. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.12.002
34.
*HwangW. Y.HuS. S. (2013). Analysis of peer learning behaviors using multiple representations in virtual reality and their impacts on geometry problem solving. Computers & Education, 62, 308–319. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.005
*JanssenJ.ErkensG.KanselaarG.JaspersJ. (2007). Visualization of participation: Does it contribute to successful computer-supported collaborative learning?Computers & Education, 49, 1037–1065. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2006.01.004
37.
*JanssenJ.ErkensG.KirschnerP. A.KanselaarG. (2010). Effects of representational guidance during computer-supported collaborative learning. Instructional Science, 38(1), 59–88. doi:10.1007/s11251-008-9078-1
38.
JeongH.Hmelo-SilverC. E.JoK.ShinM. (2016, January). CSCL in STEM education: Preliminary findings from a meta-analysis. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 49th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), Hawaii.
39.
JeongH.Hmelo-SilverC. E.YuY. (2014). An examination of CSCL methodological practices and the influence of theoretical frameworks 2005–2009. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 9, 305–334. doi:10.1007/s11412-014-9198-3
40.
*KeF. (2008). Alternative goal structures for computer game-based learning. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3, 429–445. doi:10.1007/s11412-008-9048-2
41.
KirschnerF.PaasF.KirschnerP. A. (2011). Task complexity as a driver for collaborative learning efficiency: The collective working-memory effect. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25, 615–624. doi:10.1002/acp.1730
42.
KirschnerP. A. (2001). Using integrated electronic environments for collaborative teaching/learning. Learning and Instruction, 10(Suppl. 1), 1–9.
43.
KirschnerP. A.ErkensG. (2013). Toward a framework for CSCL research. Educational Psychologist, 48, 1–8. doi:10.1080/00461520.2012.750227
44.
KirschnerP. A.KirschnerF.JanssenJ. (2014). The collaboration principle in multimedia learning. In MayerR. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed., pp. 547–575). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
45.
KirschnerP. A.KreijnsK.JochemsW. (2003). Measuring the perceived quality of social space in distributed learning groups. In WassonB.LudvigsenS.HoppeU. (Eds.), Designing for change in networked learning environment (pp. 323–332). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
46.
KollarI.FischerF.HesseF. W. (2006). Collaboration scripts: A conceptual analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 18, 159–185. doi:10.1007/s10648-006-9007-2
47.
*KolloffelB.EysinkT. H. S.de JongT. (2011). Comparing the effects of representational tools in collaborative and individual inquiry learning. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6, 223–251. doi:10.1007/s11412-011-9110-3
48.
KreijnsK.KirschnerP. A.JochemsW. (2003). Identifying the pitfalls for social interaction in computer-supported collaborative learning environments: A review of the research. Computers in Human Behavior, 19, 335–353. doi:10.1016/S0747-5632(02)00057-2
49.
KreijnsK.KirschnerP. A.JochemsW.Van BuurenH. (2004). Determining sociability, social space, and social presence in (a)synchronous collaborative groups. Cyberpsychology and Behavior, 7, 155–172. doi:10.1089/109493104323024429
50.
*KwonS. Y.CifuentesL. (2009). The comparative effect of individually-constructed vs. collaboratively-constructed computer-based concept maps. Computers & Education, 52, 365–375. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.09.012
51.
KyndtE.RaesE.LismontB.TimmersF.CascallarE.DochyF. (2013). A meta-analysis of the effects of face-to-face cooperative learning. Do recent studies falsify or verify earlier findings?Educational Research Review, 10, 133–149.
52.
*LanY. J.SungY. T.ChangK. E. (2009). Let us read together: Development and evaluation of a computer-assisted reciprocal early English reading system. Computers & Education, 53, 1188–1198. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.06.002
53.
*LinT. J.DuhH. B. L.LiN.WangH. Y.TsaiC. C. (2013). An investigation of learners’ collaborative knowledge construction performances and behavior patterns in an augmented reality simulation system. Computers & Education, 68, 314–321. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2013.05.011
54.
*LinY. T.ChangC. H.HouH. T.WuK. C. (2016). Exploring the effects of employing Google Docs in collaborative concept mapping on achievement, concept representation, and attitudes. Interactive Learning Environments, 24, 1552–1573. doi:10.1080/10494820.2015.1041398
55.
LipseyM. W.WilsonD. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
56.
*LiuT. Y.TanT. H.ChuY. L. (2009). Outdoor natural science learning with an RFID-supported immersive ubiquitous learning environment. Educational Technology & Society, 12, 161–175.
57.
LouY.AbramiP. C.D’ApolloniaS. (2001). Small group and individual learning with technology: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 71, 449–521.
58.
ManouselisN.DrachslerH.VuorikariR.HummelH.KoperR. (2011). Recommender systems in technology enhanced learning. In RicciF.RokachL.ShapiraB.KantorP. B. (Eds.), Recommender systems handbook (pp. 387–415). Boston, MA: Springer.
59.
*MercierE. M.HigginsS. E. (2013). Collaborative learning with multi-touch technology: Developing adaptive expertise. Learning and Instruction, 25, 13–23.
60.
*MichinovN.PrimoisC. (2005). Improving productivity and creativity in online groups through social comparison process: New evidence for asynchronous electronic brainstorming. Computers in Human Behavior, 21, 11–28. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2004.02.004
61.
*MorenoR. (2009). Constructing knowledge with an agent-based instructional program: A comparison of cooperative and individual meaning making. Learning and Instruction, 19, 433–444. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.02.018
62.
MorrisR.HadwinA. F.GressC. L. Z.MillerM.FiorM.ChurchH.WinneP. H. (2010). Designing roles, scripts, and prompts to support CSCL in gStudy. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 815–824. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2008.12.001
63.
NesbitJ. C.AdesopeO. O. (2006). Learning with concept and knowledge maps: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 76, 413–448.
64.
*NorooziO.BiemansH. J. A.WeinbergerA.MulderM.ChizariM. (2013). Scripting for construction of a transactive memory system in multidisciplinary CSCL environments. Learning and Instruction, 25, 1–12. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.10.002
65.
*NorooziO.TeasleyS. D.BiemansH. J. A.WeinbergerA.MulderM. (2013). Facilitating learning in multidisciplinary groups with transactive CSCL scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 8, 189–223. doi:10.1007/s11412-012-9162-z
66.
*NorooziO.WeinbergerA.BiemansH. J. A.MulderM.ChizariM. (2012). Argumentation-based computer supported collaborative learning (ABCSCL): A synthesis of 15 years of research. Educational Research Review, 7, 79–106. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2011.11.006
67.
OkitaS. Y.TurkayS.KimM.MuraiY. (2013). Learning by teaching with virtual peers and the effects of technological design choices on learning. Computers & Education, 63, 176–196.
68.
PellegrinoJ. W.HiltonM. L. (2013). Education for life and work: Developing transferable knowledge and skills in the 21st century. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
69.
*PetersonA. T.RosethC. J. (2015). Effects of four CSCL strategies for enhancing online discussion forums: Social interdependence, summarizing, scripts, and synchronicity. International Journal of Educational Research, 76, 147–161. doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2015.04.009
70.
*RebetezC.BétrancourtM.SanginM.DillenbourgP. (2010). Learning from animation enabled by collaboration. Instructional Science, 38, 471–485. doi:10.1007/s11251-009-9117-6
71.
RestaP.LaferrièreT. (2007). Technology in support of collaborative learning. Educational Psychology Review, 19(1), 65–83.
72.
*RosethC. J.SaltarelliA. J.GlassC. R. (2011). Effects of face-to-face and computer-mediated constructive controversy on social interdependence, motivation, and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103, 804–820. doi:10.1037/a0024213
73.
SalomonG.PerkinsD. N. (1998). Individual and social aspects of learning. Review of Research in Education, 23, 1–24.
74.
*SaltarelliA. J.RosethC. J. (2014). Effects of synchronicity and belongingness on face-to-face and computer-mediated constructive controversy. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106, 946–960. doi:10.1037/a0036898
75.
SlavinR. E.LakeC.GroffC. (2009). Effective programs in middle and high school mathematics: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 79, 839–911.
76.
SlavinR. E.SmithD. (2009). The relationship between sample sizes and effect sizes in systematic reviews in education. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31, 500–506. doi:10.3102/0162373709352369
77.
*SmithJ.WilsonS. B.BanksJ.ZhuL.Varma-NelsonP. (2014). Replicating peer-led team learning in cyberspace: Research, opportunities, and challenges. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51, 714–740. doi:10.1002/tea.21163
78.
SpringerL.StanneM. E.DonovanS. S. (1999). Effects of small-group learning on undergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 69, 21–51.
79.
StahlG. (2006). Group cognition: Computer support for building collaborative knowledge. Cambridge: MIT Press.
80.
StahlG.KoschmannT.SuthersD. (2006). Computer-supported collaborative learning: An historical perspective. In SawyerR. K. (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 409–426). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
81.
*StrijbosJ. W.MartensR. L.JochemsW. M. G.BroersN. J. (2004). The effect of functional roles on group efficiency: Using multilevel modeling and content analysis to investigate computer-supported collaboration in small groups. Small Group Research, 35, 195–229.
82.
SuA. Y. S.YangS. J. H.HwangW. Y.ZhangJ. (2010). A Web 2.0-based collaborative annotation system for enhancing knowledge sharing in collaborative learning environments. Computers & Education, 55, 752–766. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.03.008
83.
*SungH. Y.HwangG. J. (2013). A collaborative game-based learning approach to improving students’ learning performance in science courses. Computers & Education, 63, 43–51. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.11.019
Tanner-SmithE. E.TiptonE. (2014). Robust variance estimation with dependent effect sizes: Practical considerations including a software tutorial in Stata and SPSS. Research Synthesis Methods, 5(1), 13–30.
86.
*TrautmannN. M. (2009). Interactive learning through web-mediated peer review of student science reports. Educational Technology Research and Development, 57, 685–704. doi:10.1007/s11423-007-9077-y
87.
TsaiC. W. (2010). Do students need teacher’s initiation in online collaborative learning?Computers & Education, 54, 1137–1144. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.10.021
88.
*TsaiC. W. (2013). An effective online teaching method: The combination of collaborative learning with initiation and self-regulation learning with feedback. Behaviour and Information Technology, 32, 712–723.
89.
*TsaushuM.TalT.SagyO.KaliY.GepsteinS.ZilbersteinD. (2012). Peer learning and support of technology in an undergraduate biology course to enhance deep learning. CBE Life Sciences Education, 11, 402–412. doi:10.1187/cbe.12-04-0042
90.
*TsueiM. (2011). Development of a peer-assisted learning strategy in computer-supported collaborative learning environments for elementary school students. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42, 214–232. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.01006.x
91.
*Van DrieJ.Van BoxtelC.JaspersJ.KanselaarG. (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
92.
VogelF.WeckerC.KollarI.FischerF. (2017). Socio-cognitive scaffolding with computer-supported collaboration scripts: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 29, 477–511.
93.
WangM.ChengB.ChenJ.MercerN.KirschnerP. A. (2017). The use of web-based collaborative concept mapping to support group learning and interaction in an online environment. Internet and Higher Education, 34, 28–40. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2017.04.003
94.
WangM.YuanB.KirschnerP. A.KushnirukA. W.PengJ. (2018). Reflective learning with complex problems in a visualization-based learning environment with expert support. Computers in Human Behavior, 87, 406–415. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2018.01.025
95.
WeckerC.FischerF. (2014). Where is the evidence? A meta-analysis on the role of argumentation for the acquisition of domain-specific knowledge in computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers & Education, 75, 218–228.
96.
*WeinbergerA.ErtlB.FischerF.MandlH. (2005). Epistemic and social scripts in computer-supported collaborative learning. Instructional Science, 33, 1–30. doi:10.1007/s11251-004-2322-4
97.
WeinbergerA.FischerF. (2006). A framework to analyze argumentative knowledge construction in computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers & Education, 46, 71–95.
98.
*WeinbergerA.StegmannK.FischerF. (2010). Learning to argue online: Scripted groups surpass individuals (unscripted groups do not). Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 506–515.
99.
*WorkmanM. (2004). Performance and perceived effectiveness in computer-based and computer-aided education: Do cognitive styles make a difference?Computers in Human Behavior, 20, 517–534. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2003.10.003
100.
WuB.WangM. (2012). Integrating problem solving and knowledge construction through dual mapping. Knowledge Management & E-Learning, 4, 248–257.
101.
*XiaoY.LuckingR. (2008). The impact of two types of peer assessment on students’ performance and satisfaction within a Wiki environment. Internet and Higher Education, 11, 186–193. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2008.06.005
102.
*YangK. Y.HehJ. S. (2007). The impact of internet virtual physics laboratory instruction on the achievement in physics, science process skills and computer attitudes of 10th-grade students. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16, 451–461. doi:10.1007/s10956-007-9062-6
103.
*YangY. T. C. (2015). Virtual CEOs: A blended approach to digital gaming for enhancing higher order thinking and academic achievement among vocational high school students. Computers & Education, 81, 281–295. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.10.004
104.
YuF. Y. (2001). Competition within computer-assisted cooperative learning environments: Cognitive, affective, and social outcomes. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 24, 99–117. doi:10.2190/3U7R-DCD5-F6T1-QKRJ
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
