Interaction in computer supported collaborative learningan analysis of the implementation phase

  1. Núria Hernández-Sellés
  2. Pablo-César Muñoz-Carril
  3. Mercedes González-Sanmamed
Revista:
International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education

ISSN: 2365-9440

Ano de publicación: 2020

Número: 17

Tipo: Artigo

DOI: 10.1186/S41239-020-00202-5 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso aberto editor

Outras publicacións en: International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education

Obxectivos de Desenvolvemento Sustentable

Resumo

There is extensive research on interaction frameworks in distance education and studies in Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) have also focused on establishing interaction models. There is still research to be done, though, in order to identify the elements that configure interaction to build up a framework for their integration, aligned with the learning goals. The purpose of this study is to understand the key elements that configure effective interaction in the implementation phase of CSCL and to analyze the different types of interactions that occur during collaborative learning processes. The study was designed under a non-experimental quantitative methodology and 106 learners answered a questionnaire after participating in 5 different higher education subjects implementing CSCL. A factorial analysis of results prove that students identify three types of interaction to be necessary during the implementation phase of collaboration in order to reach knowledge convergence: cognitive, social and organizational interaction. Therefore, instructors and institutions who wish to promote effective CSCL should bear in mind the learning goals together with the social and organizational aspects interwoven in the design, implementation and assessment phases of collaborative learning.

€ Ver financiamento

Información de financiamento

Financiadores

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Akyol, Z., Garrison, D. R., & Ozden, M. Y. (2009). Development of a community of inquiry in online and blended learning contexts. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1(1), 1834–1838. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2009.01.324.
  • Balderas, A., Palomo-Duarte, M., Dodero, J. M., et al. (2018). Scalable authentic assessment of collaborative work assignments in wikis. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 15, 40 https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-018- 0122-1.
  • Bates, A., & Sangrà, A. (2011). Managing Technology in Higher Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  • Bell, S. (2010). Project-based learning for the 21st century: Skills for the future. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 83(2), 39–43 https://doi.org/10.1080/00098650903505415.
  • Blasco-Arcas, L., Buil, I., Hernández-Ortega, B., & Sese, F. J. (2013). Using clickers in class. The role of interactivity, active collaborative learning and engagement in learning performance. Computers & Education, 62, 102–110 https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.compedu.2012.10.019.
  • Borge, M., Ong, Y. S., & Rosé, C. P. (2018). Learning to monitor and regulate collective thinking processes. IJCSCL, 13(1), 61–92 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-018-9270-5.
  • Capdeferro, N., & Romero, M. (2012). Are online learners frustrated with collaborative learning experiences? The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 13(2), 26–44 https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v13i2.1127.
  • Cohen, L., & Manion, L. (1990). Métodos de investigación educativa. Madrid: La Muralla.
  • Crespín, E. (2016). Análisis multivariante. Aplicaciones con SPSS. San Salvador: UFG Editores.
  • Dillenbourg, P., & Hong, F. (2008). The mechanics of CSCL macro scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3(1), 5–23 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-007-9033-1.
  • Evans, C. (2013). Making sense of assessment feedback in higher education. Review of Educational Research, 83(1), 70–120 https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654312474350.
  • Garrison, D.R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2–3), 87–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00016-6
  • Garrison, D. R., & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2005). Facilitating cognitive presence in online learning: Interaction is not enough. American Journal of Distance Education, 19(3), 133–148 https://doi.org/10.1207/s15389286ajde1903_2.
  • Garrison, D. R., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Fung, T. S. (2010). Exploring causal relationships among teaching, cognitive and social presence: Student perceptions of the community of inquiry framework. Internet and Higher Education, 13(1), 31–36 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.10.002.
  • Garrison, D. R., & Shale, D. (1990). Education at a distance: From issues to practice. Melbourne, FL: Krieger https://doi.org/10. 1080/08923649009526713.
  • Gikandi, J. W., Morrow, D., & Davis, N. E. (2011). Online formative assessment in higher education: A review of the literature. Computers & Education, 57(4), 2333–2351 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.06.004.
  • 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.
  • Hernández-Sellés, N., González-Sanmamed, M., & Muñoz-Carril, P. C. (2014). La planificación del aprendizaje colaborativo en entornos virtuales. Comunicar, 42, 25–33 https://doi.org/10.3916/C42-2014-02.
  • Hernández-Sellés, N., Muñoz-Carril, P. C., & González-Sanmamed, M. (2019). Computer-supported collaborative learning: An analysis of the relationship between interaction, emotional support and online collaborative tools. Computers & Education, 138, 1–12 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.04.012.
  • Hillman, D. C., Willis, D. J., & Gunawardena, C. N. (1994). Learner–interface interaction in distance education: An extension of contemporary models and strategies for practitioners. American Journal of Distance Education, 8(2), 30–42 https://doi.org/ 10.1080/08923649409526853.
  • Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Stanne, M. B. (2000). Cooperative learning methods: A meta-analysis. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota.
  • 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 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-36949-5_2.
  • Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Ilgen, D. R. (2006). Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7(3), 77–124 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1529-1006.2006.00030.x.
  • Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P. A., & Jochems, W. (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. https://doi. org/10.1016/S0747-5632(02)00057-2
  • Kuo, Y.-C., Walker, A. E., Schroder, K. E. E., & Belland, B. R. (2014). Interaction, internet self-efficacy, and self-regulated learning as predictors of student satisfaction in online education course. Internet and Higher Education, 20, 35–50 https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.iheduc.2013.10.001.
  • Kwon, K., Liu, Y., & Johnson, L. (2014). Group regulation and social-emotional interactions observed in computer supported collaborative learning: Comparison between good vs. poor collaborators. Computers & Education, 78, 185–200 https://doi. org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.06.004.
  • Lee, E., Chan, C., & van Aalst, J. (2006). Students assessing their own collaborative knowledge building. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(1), 57–87 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-006-6844-4.
  • Lu, J., Lajoie, S.P., & Wiseman, J. (2010) Scaffolding Problem-Based Learning with CSCL Tools in International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5(3), 283–298. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-010-9092-6
  • Macdonald, J. (2003). Assessing online collaborative learning: Process and product. Computers & Education, 40(4), 377–391. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-1315(02)00168-9
  • McMillan, J., & Schumacher, S. (2010). Research in education: Evidence-based inquiry. Harlow: Pearson Addison Wesley.
  • McMillan, N., & Schumacher, S. (2005). Investigación educativa: una introducción conceptual. Madrid: Pearson Addison Wesley.
  • Medina, R., & Suthers, D. (2008). Bringing representational practice from log to light. Proceedings of the 8th international conference on International conference for the learning sciences, 59-66.
  • Molinillo, S., Aguilar-Illescas, R., Anaya-Sánchez, R., & Vallespín-Arán, M. (2018). Exploring the impacts of interactions, social presence and emotional engagement on active collaborative learning in a social web-based environment. Computers & Education, 123, 41–52 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.04.012.
  • Moore, M. G. (1989). Editorial: Three types of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1–7 https://doi.org/10. 1080/08923649309526818.
  • Näykki, P., Isohätälä, J., Järvelä, S., Pöysä-Tarhonen, J., & Häkkinen, P. (2017). (2017) Facilitating socio-cognitive and socioemotional monitoring in collaborative learning with a regulation macro script – An exploratory study. IJCSCL, 12 (3), 251–279.
  • Onrubia, J., & Engel, A. (2012). The role of teacher assistance on the effects of a macro-script in collaborative writing tasks. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 7(1), 161–186 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-011-9125- 9.
  • Pachler, N., Daly, C., Mor, Y., & Mellar, H. (2010). Formative e-assessment: Practitioner cases. Computers & Education, 54(3), 715– 721 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.09.032.
  • Packham, G., Brychan, P., & Miller, C. (2006). Student and tutor perspectives of on-line moderation. Education and Training, 48(4), 241–251 https://doi.org/10.1108/00400910610671915.
  • Pérez-Mateo, M., & Guitert, M. (2012). Which social elements are visible in virtual groups? Addressing the categorization of social expressions. Computers & Education, 58, 1.234–1.246 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.12.014.
  • Pineda, C.; Hennig, C. & Segovia, Y. (2013). Modelos pedagógicos, trabajo colaborativo e interacción en programas virtuales de pregrado en Colombia: Un camino por recorrer. In Educación y tecnología en México y América Latina. Perspectivas y retos, Revista de Universidad y Sociedad del Conocimiento (RUSC). 10 (2) 187–202. https://doi.org/10.7238/rusc.v10i2. 1739
  • Prichard, J. S., Bizo, L., & Stratford, R. J. (2006). The educational impact of team-skills training: Preparing students to work in groups. The British Psychological Society, 76, 119–140 https://doi.org/10.1348/000709904X24564.
  • Puntambekar, S. (2006). Analyzing collaborative interactions: Divergence, shared understanding and construction of knowledge. Computers & Education, 47(3), 332–351 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2004.10.012.
  • Reyes, M. R., Brackett, M. A., Rivers, S. E., White, M., & Salovey, P. (2012). Classroom emotional climate, student engagement, and academic achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, 700–712 https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027268.
  • Rovai, A. P. (2002). Building sense of Community at a Distance. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v3i1.79
  • Sims, R. (2003). Promises of interactivity: Aligning learner perceptions and expectations with strategies for flexible and online learning. Distance Education, 24(1), 87–103. https://doi.org/. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587910303050.
  • Sobreira, P., & Tchounikine, P. (2012). A model for flexibly editing CSCL scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 7(4), 567–592 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-012-9157-9.
  • Stahl, G. (2004). Building collaborative knowing: Elements of a social theory of CSCL. In J.-W. Strijbos, P. Kirschner, & R. Martens (Eds.), What we know about CSCL: And implementing in higher education, (pp. 53–86). Boston, MA: Kluwer https:// doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-7921-4_3.
  • Stahl, G. (2006). Group cognition: Computer support for building collaborative knowledge. Cambridge: MIT Press https://doi.org/ 10.7551/mitpress/3372.001.0001.
  • Stahl, G., Koschmann, T., & Suthers, D. (2006). Computer-supported collaborative learning: An historical perspective. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences, (pp. 409–426). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  • Strijbos, J., Martens, R., & Jochems, W. (2004). Designing for interaction: Six steps to designing computer-supported groupbased learning. Computers & Education, 42, 403–424 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2003.10.004.
  • Tang, K.-Y., Tsai, C.-C., & Lin, T.-C. (2014). Contemporary intellectual structure of CSCL research (2006–2013): A co-citation network analysis with an education focus. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 9(3), 335– 363 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-014-9196-5.
  • Vuopala, E., Hyvönen, P., & Järvelä, S. (2016). Interaction forms in successful collaborative learning in virtual learning environments. Active Learning in Higher Education, 17(1), 25–38 https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787415616730.
  • Weinberger, A., Stegmann, K., & Fischer, F. (2007). Knowledge convergence in collaborative learning: Concepts and assessment. Learning and Instruction, 17(4), 416–426 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.03.007.
  • Williams, K., Morgan, K., & Cameron, B. (2011). How do students define their roles and responsibilities in online learning group projects? Distance Education, 32(1), 49–62 https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2011.565498.
Fonte de datos: Dialnet