Learning to collaborate in a computer-mediated setting: observing a model beats learning from being scripted

ABSTRACT

In an earlier study we had tested if observing a model collaboration or following a collaboration script could improve students' subsequent collaboration in a computer-mediated setting and promote their knowledge of what makes good collaboration. Both model and script showed positive effects. The current study was designed to further probe the effects of model and script by comparing them to conditions (model-plus, script-plus) in which the learning was further supported by providing elaboration support (instructional prompts and guided self-explanation). 40 dyads were tested, 8 in each of the following conditions: model plus elaboration, model, script plus elaboration, script, control. Observing a model collaboration with elaboration support yielded the best results over all other conditions on several measures of the quality of collaborative process and on outcome variables. Model without elaboration was second best. The results for the script conditions were mixed; on some variables even below those of the control condition.

References

1. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
2. Chi, M. T. H., Bassok, M., Lewis, M. W., Reimann, P., & Glaser, R. (1989). Self-explanations: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive Science, 13, 145--182.
3. Chi, M. T. H. & Roy, M. (2006). Learning from observing tutoring collaboratively: Insights about tutoring effectiveness from vicarious learning. Manuscript submitted for publication.
4. Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction (pp. 453--494). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
5. Cox, R., McKendree, J., Tobin, R., Lee, J., & Mayes, T. (1999). Vicarious learning from dialogue and discourse. Instructional Science, 27, 431--458.
6. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum.
7. Decker, P. J. (1980). Effects of symbolic coding and rehearsal in behavior-modeling training. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 627--634.
8. Dillenbourg, P. (2002). Over-scripting CSCL: The risks of blending collaborative learning with instructional design. In P. A. Kirschner (Ed.), Three worlds of CSCL. Can we support CSCL (pp. 61--91). Heerlen: Open Universiteit Nederland.
9. Dillenbourg, P., Baker, M., Blaye, A., & O'Malley, C. (1995). The evolution of research on collaborative learning. In P. Reimann & H. Spada (Eds.), Learning in humans and machines: Towards an interdisciplinary learning science (pp. 189--211). Oxford: Elsevier/Pergamon.
10. Finn, K. E., Sellen, A. J., & Wilbur, S. B. E. (1997). Video-mediated communication. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
11. Fischer, F., Mandl, H., Haake, J., & Kollar, I. (Eds.) (in press). Scripting computer-supported communication of knowledge. Cognitive, computational, and educational perspectives. New York: Springer.
12. Hilbert, T., Schworm, S., & Renkl, A. (2004). Learning from worked-out examples: The transition from instructional explanations to self-explanation prompts. In P. Gerjets, J. Elen, R. Joiner & P. Kirschner (Eds.), Instructional design for effective and enjoyable computer-supported learning (pp. 184--192). Tübingen: Knowledge Media Research Center.
13. Köhler, T., & Trimpop, R. (2004). Sehen und gesehen werden: Teleradiologie mittels Desktop- Videoconferencing. {Seeing and being seen: Tele radiology via desktop videoconferencing}, In W. Bungard, B. Koop & C. Liebig (Eds.), Proceedings zur 3. Tagung der Fachgruppe Arbeits- und Organisationspsychologie. Müünchen: Rainer Hampp.
14. Meier, A., Spada, H., & Rummel, N. (submitted). Evaluating collaboration: A rating scheme for assessing the quality of collaborative process. Manuscript submitted for publication.
15. O'Donnell, A. M. (1999). Structuring dyadic interaction through scripted cooperation. In A. M. O'Donnell & A. King (Eds.), Cognitive perspectives on peer learning (pp. 179--196). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
16. Renkl, A. (1997). Learning from worked-out examples: A study on individual differences. Cognitive Science, 21, 1--29.
17. Renkl, A. (2002). Learning from worked-out examples: Instructional explanations supplement self-explanations. Learning & Instruction, 12, 529--556.
18. Renkl, A., Stark, R., Gruber, H., & Mandl, H. (1998). Learning from worked-out examples: The effects of example variability and elicited self-explanations. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 23, 90--108.
19. Rummel, N., & Spada, H. (2005). Learning to collaborate: An instructional approach to promoting collaborative problem-solving in computer-mediated settings. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(2), 201--241.
20. Rummel, N. & Spada, H. (in press). Can people learn computer-mediated collaboration by following a script? In F. Fischer, H. Mandl, J. Haake & I. Kollar, Scripting computer-supported communication of knowledge. Cognitive, computational, and educational perspectives. New York, Springer.
21. Slavin, R. E. (1992). When and why does cooperative learning increase achievement? Theoretical and empirical perspectives. In R. Hertz-Lazarowitz & N. Miller (Eds.), Interaction in cooperative groups: The theoretical anatomy of group learning (pp. 145--173). New York: Cambridge University Press.