Who benefits from a low versus high guidance CSCL script and why?

Computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) scripts can foster learners’ deep text comprehension. However, this depends on (a) the extent to which the learning activities targeted by a script promote deep text comprehension and (b) whether the guidance level provided by the script is adequate to induce the targeted learning activities effectively; both may be moderated by the learners’ prior knowledge. Inspired by the ICAP framework (Chi and Wylie in Educ Psychol 49:219–243, 2014), we designed a low (LGS) and a high guidance script (HGS) to support learners in performing interactive activities. These activities include generating outputs that go beyond the text, while simultaneously referring to the co-learner. In an experiment, 88 undergraduates were assigned randomly to either the LGS or HGS condition. After reading a text paragraph, LGS participants thought about discussion points for the upcoming collaborative discussion, while HGS participants were (a) prompted to generate outputs individually that go beyond the text and (b) exchange them with their co-learner to provide information about the co-learner’s comprehension state (awareness induction). Subsequently, dyads in both conditions discussed the paragraph in a chat to improve their text comprehension. Prior knowledge moderated the effect of the script guidance level on deep text comprehension: low prior knowledge learners benefitted from the HGS, whereas high prior knowledge learners profited from the LGS. Moderated mediation analyses revealed that these effects can be traced back to patterns of learning activities which differed regarding learners’ prior knowledge. Based on these results, possible directions for future research on CSCL scripting and ICAP are discussed.

[1]  M. Wittrock Generative Processes of Comprehension , 1989 .

[2]  Michelene T. H. Chi,et al.  Active-Constructive-Interactive: A Conceptual Framework for Differentiating Learning Activities , 2009, Top. Cogn. Sci..

[3]  Carol K. K. Chan,et al.  Constructive Activity in Learning From Text , 1992 .

[4]  Arthur C. Graesser,et al.  When Are Tutorial Dialogues More Effective Than Reading? , 2007, Cogn. Sci..

[5]  Stephanie D. Teasley Talking about reasoning : How important is the peer in peer collaboration? , 1997 .

[6]  N. Rummel,et al.  Learning to Collaborate: An Instructional Approach to Promoting Collaborative Problem Solving in Computer-Mediated Settings , 2005 .

[7]  Richard E. Clark,et al.  Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching , 2006 .

[8]  F. Fischer,et al.  Computer-Supported Collaboration Scripts , 2009 .

[9]  Hans Spada,et al.  Barriers and Biases in Computer-Mediated Knowledge Communication , 2010 .

[10]  Hans-Rüdiger Pfister,et al.  How to Support Synchronous Net-Based Learning Discourses: Principles and Perspectives , 2005 .

[11]  Jan M. Zottmann,et al.  Collaboration Scripts in Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning , 2013 .

[12]  F. Fischer,et al.  Collaboration Scripts – A Conceptual Analysis , 2006 .

[13]  Abdelmonem A Afifi,et al.  Methods for improving regression analysis for skewed continuous or counted responses. , 2007, Annual review of public health.

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

[15]  F. Fischer,et al.  Socio-Cognitive Scaffolding with Computer-Supported Collaboration Scripts: a Meta-Analysis , 2017 .

[16]  Jeroen Janssen,et al.  Visualization of agreement and discussion processes during computer-supported collaborative learning , 2007, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[17]  M. Chi,et al.  Dialogue Patterns in Peer Collaboration That Promote Learning , 2015 .

[18]  Joseph P. Magliano,et al.  Chapter 9 Toward a Comprehensive Model of Comprehension , 2009 .

[19]  M. Chi,et al.  Instruction Based on Self-Explanation , 2010 .

[20]  Päivi Häkkinen,et al.  Educational Perspectives on Scripting CSCL , 2007 .

[21]  Susan R. Goldman,et al.  Students making sense of informational text: Relations between processing and representation , 1998 .

[22]  Danielle S. McNamara,et al.  Deep‐Level Comprehension of Science Texts: The Role of the Reader and the Text , 2005 .

[23]  Antje Proske,et al.  INTERACTIVE LEARNING TASKS , 2015 .

[24]  Rod D. Roscoe,et al.  Understanding Tutor Learning: Knowledge-Building and Knowledge-Telling in Peer Tutors’ Explanations and Questions , 2007 .

[25]  Timothy J. Nokes-Malach,et al.  Overcoming Collaborative Inhibition through Error Correction: A Classroom Experiment , 2012 .

[26]  A. Renkl Learning mathematics from worked-out examples: Analyzing and fostering self-explanations , 1999 .

[27]  Rod D. Roscoe,et al.  Tutor learning: the role of explaining and responding to questions , 2008 .

[28]  Kristopher J Preacher,et al.  Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models , 2008, Behavior research methods.

[29]  K. VanLehn,et al.  Testing the instructional fit hypothesis: the case of self-explanation prompts , 2011 .

[30]  John Dunlosky,et al.  Improving Students’ Learning With Effective Learning Techniques: Promising Directions From Cognitive and Educational Psychology , 2012 .

[31]  Rod D. Roscoe Self-monitoring and knowledge-building in learning by teaching , 2014 .

[32]  M. Valcke,et al.  Socially shared metacognitive regulation during reciprocal peer tutoring: identifying its relationship with students’ content processing and transactive discussions , 2014, Instructional Science.

[33]  Daniel Bodemer,et al.  Knowledge awareness in CSCL: A psychological perspective , 2009, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[34]  F. Paas,et al.  Making the Black Box of Collaborative Learning Transparent: Combining Process-Oriented and Cognitive Load Approaches , 2010 .

[35]  M. Chi,et al.  The ICAP Framework: Linking Cognitive Engagement to Active Learning Outcomes , 2014 .

[36]  L. Cronbach,et al.  Aptitudes and instructional methods: A handbook for research on interactions , 1977 .

[37]  P. Kirschner,et al.  Toward a Framework for CSCL Research , 2013 .

[38]  R. Mayer,et al.  Eight Ways to Promote Generative Learning , 2016 .

[39]  Armin Weinberger,et al.  Principles of Transactive Computer- Supported Collaboration Scripts , 2011 .

[40]  Takashi Yamauchi,et al.  Learning from human tutoring , 2001, Cogn. Sci..

[41]  W. Kintsch The Construction-Integration Model of Text Comprehension and Its Implications for Instruction , 2004 .

[42]  E. Cohen Restructuring the Classroom: Conditions for Productive Small Groups , 1994 .

[43]  Stephanie D. Teasley,et al.  Facilitating learning in multidisciplinary groups with transactive CSCL scripts , 2012, International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning.

[44]  D. McNamara SERT: Self-Explanation Reading Training , 2004 .

[45]  Michelene T. H. Chi,et al.  Knowledge convergence and collaborative learning , 2007 .

[46]  J. Simons,et al.  Inference in Regression Models of Heavily Skewed Alcohol Use Data: A Comparison of Ordinary Least Squares, Generalized Linear Models, and Bootstrap Resampling , 2007, Psychology of addictive behaviors : journal of the Society of Psychologists in Addictive Behaviors.

[47]  Nikol Rummel,et al.  The Mediating Role of Interactive Learning Activities in CSCL: An Input-Process-Outcome Model , 2015, CSCL.

[48]  C. Hmelo‐Silver,et al.  Seven Affordances of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning: How to Support Collaborative Learning? How Can Technologies Help? , 2016 .

[49]  M. Chi,et al.  Eliciting Self‐Explanations Improves Understanding , 1994 .

[50]  J. Janssen,et al.  Coordinated Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning: Awareness and Awareness Tools , 2013 .

[51]  J. Elizabeth Richey,et al.  When Is It Better to Learn Together? Insights from Research on Collaborative Learning , 2015 .

[52]  Danielle S. McNAMARA and Joseph P. Magliano,et al.  Self-Explanation and Metacognition: The Dynamics of Reading , 2009 .

[53]  A. Hayes Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach , 2013 .

[54]  Armin Weinberger,et al.  Computer-Supported Collaboration Scripts Perspectives from Educational Psychology and Computer Science , 2009 .

[55]  Walter Kintsch,et al.  Comprehension: A Paradigm for Cognition , 1998 .

[56]  M. Diehl,et al.  Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: Toward the solution of a riddle. , 1987 .

[57]  Heinz Mandl,et al.  Effects of an individual's prior knowledge on collaborative knowledge construction and individual learning outcomes in videoconferencing , 2005, CSCL.

[58]  Arthur B. Markman A Tribute to Larry Erlbaum , 2007, Cogn. Sci..

[59]  Slava Kalyuga,et al.  The Expertise Reversal Effect , 2003 .

[60]  Karsten Stegmann,et al.  The Myth of Over-scripting: Can Novices be Supported Too Much? , 2011 .

[61]  Cindy E. Hmelo,et al.  Effects of High and Low Prior Knowledge on Construction of a Joint Problem Space , 2000 .

[62]  Anne Deiglmayr,et al.  Weak versus strong knowledge interdependence: A comparison of two rationales for distributing information among learners in collaborative learning settings , 2015 .

[63]  Eric F. Rietzschel,et al.  Productivity is not enough: A comparison of interactive and nominal brainstorming groups on idea generation and selection. , 2006 .

[64]  Ton de Jong,et al.  Sharing and Confronting Propositions in Collaborative Inquiry Learning , 2009 .

[65]  Jörg Wittwer,et al.  Why Instructional Explanations Often Do Not Work: A Framework for Understanding the Effectiveness of Instructional Explanations , 2008 .

[66]  A. King Discourse patterns for mediating peer learning. , 1999 .

[67]  F. Fischer,et al.  Toward a Script Theory of Guidance in Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning , 2013, Educational psychologist.

[68]  M. Berkowitz,et al.  Measuring the developmental features of moral discussion. , 1983 .

[69]  S. Trauzettel-Klosinski,et al.  Standardized assessment of reading performance: the New International Reading Speed Texts IReST. , 2012, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[70]  Daniel G. Morrow,et al.  The effect of expertise on collaborative problem solving , 2012 .