Sensitivities to early exchange in synchronous computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) groups

This study reports the impact of high sensitivity to early exchange in 11th-grade, CSCL triads solving well- and ill-structured problems in Newtonian Kinematics. A mixed-method analysis of the evolution of participation inequity (PI) in group discussions suggested that participation levels tended to get locked-in relatively early on in the discussion. Similarly, high (low) quality member contributions made earlier in a discussion did more good (harm) than those made later on. Both PI and differential impact of member contributions suggest a high sensitivity to early exchange; both significantly predicting the eventual group performance, as measured by solution quality. Consequently, eventual group performance could be predicted based on what happened in the first 30-40% of a discussion. In addition to drawing theoretical and methodological implications, implications for scaffolding CSCL groups are also discussed.

[1]  Marlene Scardamalia,et al.  Educational Applications of a Networked Communal Database , 1992, Interact. Learn. Environ..

[2]  Sheldon M. Ross,et al.  Stochastic Processes , 2018, Gauge Integral Structures for Stochastic Calculus and Quantum Electrodynamics.

[3]  S. Schulz-Hardt,et al.  Productive conflict in group decision making: genuine and contrived dissent as strategies to counteract biased information seeking☆ , 2002 .

[4]  Liam Rourke,et al.  Validity in quantitative content analysis , 2004 .

[5]  Daniel D. Suthers,et al.  Technology affordances for intersubjective meaning making: A research agenda for CSCL , 2006, Int. J. Comput. Support. Collab. Learn..

[6]  Manu Kapur.  Productive Failure , 2006, ICLS.

[7]  Tammy Schellens,et al.  The impact of role assignment as scripting tool on knowledge construction in asynchronous discussion groups , 2005, CSCL.

[8]  John B. Black,et al.  Insights into the Emergence of Convergence in Group Discussions , 2006, ICLS.

[9]  James F. Kavanagh,et al.  Speech and language in the laboratory, school, and clinic , 1978 .

[10]  David H. Jonassen,et al.  Toward a design theory of problem solving , 2000 .

[11]  Jörg Zumbach,et al.  Analyzing and supporting collaboration in cooperative computer-mediated communication , 2005, CSCL.

[12]  MISSING-VALUE MISSING-VALUE,et al.  Knowledge Building , 2017 .

[13]  J. Driskell,et al.  Beauty as Status , 1983, American Journal of Sociology.

[14]  Penelope L. Peterson,et al.  The Social Context of Instruction. Group Organization and Group Processes. [Papers Presented at a Conference Held at The Wisconsin Center for Education Research (Madison, May 1982).]. , 1987 .

[15]  Gerry Stahl,et al.  Group cognition in computer-assisted collaborative learning , 2005, J. Comput. Assist. Learn..

[16]  Noreen M. Webb.  Sex Differences in Interaction and Achievement in Cooperative Small Groups , 1984 .

[17]  Shlomo Sharan,et al.  Language and learning in the cooperative classroom , 1988 .

[18]  Nikol Rummel,et al.  A new method to assess the quality of collaborative process in CSCL , 2005, CSCL.

[19]  Manu Kapur,et al.  Examining the effect of problem type in a synchronous computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) environment , 2007 .

[20]  Brigid Barron.  When Smart Groups Fail , 2003 .

[21]  Manu Kapur,et al.  The effect of problem type on collaborative problem solving in a synchronous computer-mediated environment; American Educational Research Association , 2005 .

[22]  Simon S. K. Lam,et al.  The Effects of Group Decision Support Systems and Task Structures on Group Communication and Decision Quality , 1997, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[23]  J. Guthrie.  Encyclopedia of Education , 2002 .

[24]  E. Cohen,et al.  EXPECTATION STATES AND INTERRACIAL INTERACTION IN SCHOOL SETTINGS , 1982 .

[25]  Rachel A. Lotan,et al.  Can Groups Learn , 2002 .

[26]  M. Chi.  Quantifying Qualitative Analyses of Verbal Data: A Practical Guide , 1997 .

[27]  John B. Black,et al.  An Emergentist Account of Collective Cognition in Collaborative Problem Solving , 2006 .

[28]  Marlene Scardamalia,et al.  Computer-Supported Intentional Learning Environments , 1989 .

[29]  Elizabeth G. Cohen,et al.  Designing Groupwork: Strategies for the Heterogeneous Classroom , 1986 .

[30]  Yaneer Bar-Yam,et al.  Dynamics Of Complex Systems , 2019 .

[31]  D. Jonassen,et al.  Communication patterns in computer mediated versus face-to-face group problem solving , 2001 .

[32]  Holly Arrow,et al.  Small Groups as Complex Systems: Formation, Coordination, Development, and Adaptation , 2000 .

[33]  M. Scardamalia,et al.  Postmodernism, Knowledge Building, and Elementary Science , 1997, The Elementary School Journal.

[34]  Sasha A. Barab,et al.  Constructing Networks of Action-Relevant Episodes: An In Situ Research Methodology , 2001 .

[35]  Tammy Schellens,et al.  Learning in asynchronous discussion groups: a multilevel approach to study the influence of student, group and task characteristics , 2007, Behav. Inf. Technol..