Learning by Constructing Collaborative Representations: An Empirical Comparison of Three Alternatives.

Given the explosive growth in the use of computer media for learning and the wide range of choices available to designers of online learning tools, it is crucial to understand how these design choices may influence learning. This study evaluated the influence of tools for constructing representations of evi- dential models on collaborative learning processes and outcomes. Pairs of participants worked with one of three representations while investigating complex science and public health problems. Dependent vari- ables included quantity of discourse about evidential relations ("for" and "against") and two learning out- come measures. Significant effects of tools on learning processes were found, although there appears to have been insufficient time for these process differences to influence learning outcomes.

[1]  Ann L. Brown,et al.  Guided discovery in a community of learners. , 1994 .

[2]  A. Collins,et al.  Epistemic forms and Epistemic Games: Structures and Strategies to Guide Inquiry , 1993 .

[3]  J. Novak.  Concept mapping: A useful tool for science education , 1990 .

[4]  Daniel D. Suthers,et al.  Representational support for collaborative inquiry , 1999, Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences. 1999. HICSS-32. Abstracts and CD-ROM of Full Papers.

[5]  Kristine Nagel,et al.  Integrating and guiding collaboration: lessons learned in computer-supported collaborative learning research at Georgia Tech , 1997, CSCL.

[6]  Philip Bell,et al.  Using argument representations to make thinking visible for individuals and groups , 1997, CSCL.

[7]  Herbert A. Simon,et al.  Why a Diagram is (Sometimes) Worth Ten Thousand Words , 1987, Cogn. Sci..

[8]  Michael J. Baker,et al.  Promoting reflective interactions in a CSCL environment , 1997, J. Comput. Assist. Learn..

[9]  Jon Oberlander,et al.  A cognitive theory of graphical and linguistic reasoning: logic and implementation. Cognitive Science , 1995 .

[10]  J. Roschelle.  Designing for cognitive communication: epistemic fidelity or mediating collaborative inquiry? , 1997, Computers, Communication and Mental Models.

[11]  R. Slavin.  Cooperative Learning: Theory, Research and Practice , 1990 .

[12]  H. Simon,et al.  What makes some problems really hard: Explorations in the problem space of difficulty , 1990, Cognitive Psychology.

[13]  Kristine Nagel,et al.  Intra-group and intergroup: an exploration of learning with complementary collaboration tools , 1997, CSCL.

[14]  Daniel D. Suthers,et al.  An integrated approach to implementing collaborative inquiry in the classroom , 1997, CSCL.

[15]  N. Webb.  Peer interaction and learning in small groups , 1989 .

[16]  Christopher M. Hoadley,et al.  The Multimedia Forum Kiosk and SpeakEasy , 1995, MULTIMEDIA '95.

[17]  Etienne Wenger,et al.  Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation , 1991 .

[18]  M. Scardamalia,et al.  Higher Levels of Agency for Children in Knowledge Building: A Challenge for the Design of New Knowledge Media , 1991 .

[19]  Jon Oberlander,et al.  A Cognitive Theory of Graphical and Linguistic Reasoning: Logic and Implementation , 1995, Cogn. Sci..

[20]  Mark Guzdial,et al.  Information ecology of collaborations in educational settings: influence of tool , 1997, CSCL.

[21]  Jiajie Zhang,et al.  The Nature of External Representations in Problem Solving , 1997, Cogn. Sci..

[22]  L. R. Novick,et al.  Transferring symbolic representations across nonisomorphic problems. , 1994 .