The Myth of Over-scripting: Can Novices be Supported Too Much?

Despite the fact that many researchers in CSCL use the term over-scripting to interpret negative effects of scripts, the term is not clearly defined. Our contribution is to reframe the term according to concepts of internal and external scripts. We further conceptualize potential interferences between internal and external scripts in terms of cognitive processes and motivation. In an empirical study (N = 81) we varied the degree of an argumentative script (low vs. medium vs. high) and examined the effects on processes and outcomes of argumentative knowledge construction. Our results show positive effects of the medium and high degree of scripting on argumentative knowledge construction. We found negative effects of the medium and high degree of scripting on motivation, however, but low motivation did not negatively interfere with knowledge acquisition. Furthermore, our reframing of over-scripting allowed us to differentiate between under-scripting, over-scripting and, finally, malfunctional scripts.

[1]  M. Valcke,et al.  The Impact of Role Assignment on Knowledge Construction in Asynchronous Discussion Groups , 2005 .

[2]  B. Weiner.  An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. , 1985, Psychological review.

[3]  Karsten Stegmann,et al.  Learning to argue online: Scripted groups surpass individuals (unscripted groups do not) , 2010, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[4]  Pieter J. Beers,et al.  Computer support for knowledge construction in collaborative learning environments , 2005, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[5]  Päivi Häkkinen,et al.  Specifying computer-supported collaboration scripts , 2007, Int. J. Comput. Support. Collab. Learn..

[6]  Carolyn Penstein Rosé,et al.  An Interactive Tool for Supporting Error Analysis for Text Mining , 2010, NAACL.

[7]  Frank Fischer,et al.  Internal and external scripts in computer-supported collaborative inquiry learning , 2007, Learning and Instruction.

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

[9]  F. Fischer,et al.  A framework to analyze argumentative knowledge construction in computer-supported collaborative learning , 2006, Comput. Educ..

[10]  R. Dienstbier,et al.  Perspectives on motivation , 1991 .

[11]  E. Deci,et al.  A motivational approach to self: integration in personality. , 1990, Nebraska Symposium on Motivation. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation.

[12]  M. Baker.  COMPUTER-MEDIATED ARGUMENTATIVE INTERACTIONS FOR THE CO-ELABORATION OF SCIENTIFIC NOTIONS , 2003 .

[13]  Anastasios Karakostas,et al.  Adaptation patterns in systems for scripted collaboration , 2009, CSCL.

[14]  S. Toulmin.  The uses of argument , 1960 .

[15]  P. Dillenbourg,et al.  Three worlds of CSCL: Can we support CSCL? , 2002 .

[16]  E. Deci,et al.  The effects of instructors' autonomy support and students' autonomous motivation on learning organic chemistry: A self-determination theory perspective , 2000 .

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

[18]  Karsten Stegmann,et al.  Collaborative argumentation and cognitive elaboration in a computer-supported collaborative learning environment , 2012 .

[19]  Roger C. Schank,et al.  SCRIPTS, PLANS, GOALS, AND UNDERSTANDING , 1988 .

[20]  Michael J. Baker,et al.  Arguing to Learn: Confronting Cognitions in Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Environments , 2003 .