FUNCTIONAL VERSUS SPONTANEOUS ROLES DURING COMPUTER-SUPPORTED COLLABORATIVE LEARNING

This paper reports the effect of functional roles on computer-supported collaborative learning. Thirtythree students in ten groups, equally distributed over two research conditions (role versus nonrole), returned an evaluation questionnaire assessing their computer-supported collaborative learning experience. Principal axis factoring revealed a latent variable interpreted as: perceived group efficiency (PGE). Multilevel modelling (MLM) yielded a positive marginal effect. Groups in the role condition appear to be more aware of their efficiency, when compared to groups in the nonrole condition, regardless of performance. Content analysis of e-mail communication of all groups in both conditions revealed that students in role groups contribute more ‘coordination’ focussed statements. A second content analysis was performed to assess the extent to which the functional roles were executed or spontaneous roles emerged in nonrole groups. Results reveal that the functional roles were indeed performed by the role groups, whereas a cross case matrix of task division descriptions by nonrole groups revealed a typical pattern of splitting the collaborative task in individual components.

[1]  Jan-Willem Strijbos,et al.  Content analysis: What are they talking about? , 2006, Comput. Educ..

[2]  Kimberly A. Neuendorf,et al.  The Content Analysis Guidebook , 2001 .

[3]  E. Berscheid,et al.  Group Dynamics: The Psychology of Small Group Behavior. 3rd ed. , 1981 .

[4]  P. E. Mudrack,et al.  An Examination of Functional Role Behavior and Its Consequences for Individuals in Group Settings , 1995 .

[5]  Pierre Dillenbourg,et al.  What we know about CSCL and implementing it in higher education , 2004 .

[6]  Vic Lally,et al.  Complexity, theory and praxis: Researching collaborative learning and tutoring processes in a networked learning community , 2003 .

[7]  Pierre Dillenbourg,et al.  Over-scripting CSCL: The risks of blending collaborative learning with instructional design , 2002 .

[8]  J. Stevens.  Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Social Sciences , 1986 .

[9]  J. Bonito.  The Analysis of Participation in Small Groups , 2002 .

[10]  Vic Lally,et al.  A Quartet in E , 2003, CSCL.

[11]  Thomas A. Brush,et al.  Embedding cooperative learning into the design of integrated learning systems: Rationale and guidelines , 1998 .

[12]  P. Dillenbourg,et al.  The evolution of research on collaborative learning , 1996 .

[13]  Matthew B. Miles,et al.  Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook , 1994 .

[14]  Starr Roxanne Hiltz,et al.  Impacts of Asynchronous Learning Networks on Individual and Group Problem Solving: A Field Experiment , 1999 .

[15]  Curtis J. Bonk,et al.  Content analysis of online discussion in an applied educational psychology course , 2000 .

[16]  J. R. Landis,et al.  The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. , 1977, Biometrics.

[17]  R. Gonzalez.  Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Social Sciences , 2003 .

[18]  Kai Pata,et al.  Framework for Scaffolding the Development of Problem Representations by Collaborative Design , 2003, CSCL.

[19]  M. E. Shaw.  Group dynamics : the psychology of small group behavior , 1971 .

[20]  Armin Weinberger,et al.  Scripts for Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning , 2003 .

[21]  Jan-Willem Strijbos,et al.  Designing for interaction: Six steps to designing computer-supported group-based learning , 2004, Comput. Educ..

[22]  A. Hare.  Types of Roles in Small Groups , 1994 .

[23]  Daniel C. A. Hillman,et al.  A New Method for Analyzing Patterns of Interaction , 1999 .