nach oben

International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning

Erschienen in:

01.03.2013

Enhancing student knowledge acquisition from online learning conversations

verfasst von: Evren Eryilmaz, Jakko van der Pol, Terry Ryan, Philip Martin Clark, Justin Mary

Erschienen in: International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning | Ausgabe 1/2013

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

This article reports a theory-driven experimental study that evaluates the effects of an annotation functionality on online social interaction and individual learning outcomes. The central hypothesis of this study is that directly addressing a part of a text by annotating it and then connecting each annotation with its related discussion can decrease coordinative interaction costs and result in a higher-quality discussion that favors greater gains in individual learning outcomes. To reach our objective, we carried out a theory-driven experimental study that compares two versions of an anchored discussion system: one with annotation functionality and one without it, both displaying the learning material side by side with its associated discussion in one window. Participants were 106 students enrolled in two sections of a blended-format course in health education. We assigned each section to a software condition. The examination of students’ online social interaction centered on a fine-grained content analysis of coordination and knowledge construction activities as well as sequential analysis of knowledge construction activities. The results indicate that annotation functionality decreased coordinative interaction costs and stimulated more elaborated discussions that favored greater gains in individual learning outcomes. Implications for research and practice are discussed.

Vorheriger Artikel On the bridge to learn: Analysing the social organization of nautical instruction in a ship simulator

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Ackerman, M. S., & Halverson, C. (2004). Sharing expertise: The next step for knowledge management. In V. Wulf & M. H. Huysman (Eds.), Social capital and information technology (pp. 273–299). Cambridge: MIT.

Alamargot, D., & Andriessen, J. (2002). The “power” of text production activity in collaborative modelling: Nine recommendations to make a computer supported situation work. In M. Baker, P. Brna, K. Stenning, & A. Tiberghien (Eds.), The role of communication in learning to model (pp. 275–302). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Amadieu, F., Tricot, A., & Mariné, C. (2009). Prior knowledge in learning from a non-linear electronic document: Disorientation and coherence of the reading sequences. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(2), 381–388.CrossRef

Andriessen, J., & Sandberg, J. (1999). Where is education heading and how about AI. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 10, 130–150.

Ayres, P. (2006). Using subjective measures to detect variations of intrinsic cognitive load within problems. Learning and Instruction, 16(5), 389–400.CrossRef

Baker, M., Hansen, T., Joiner, R., & Traum, D. (1999). The role of grounding in collaborative learning tasks. In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Collaborative learning: Cognitive and computational approaches (pp. 31–63). Elsevier Science Publishers.

Baltes, B. B., Dickson, M., Sherman, M. P., Bauer, C. C., & LaGanke, J. (2002). Computer-mediated communication and group decision making: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 87(1), 156–179.CrossRef

Boekaerts, M. & Simons, P. R. J. (1995). Leren en instructie: Psychologie van de leerling en het leerproces [Learning and instruction: Psychology of the learner and his learning process]. Assen: Dekker & Van de Vegt.

Brush, B. A. J., Bargeron, D., Grudin, J., Borning, A., & Gupta, A. (2002). Supporting interaction outside of class: Anchored discussion vs. discussion boards. In G. Stahl (Ed.), Computer support for collaborative learning: Foundations for a CSCL community. Proceedings of CSCL 2002 (pp. 425–434). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.CrossRef

Cakir, M. P., Zemel, A., & Stahl, G. (2009). The joint organization of interaction within a multimodal CSCL medium. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4(2), 115–149.CrossRef

Carlon, S., Woods, D. B., Berg, B., Claywell, L., LeDuc, K., Marcisz, N., et al. (2012). The community of inquiry instrument: Validation and results in online health care disciplines. Computers in Education, 59(2), 215–221.CrossRef

Cierniak, G., Scheiter, K., & Gerjects, P. (2009). Explaining the split-attention effect: Is the reduction of extraneous cognitive load accompanied by an increase in germane cognitive load. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(2), 315–324.CrossRef

Clark, H. H., & Wilkes-Gibbs, D. (1986). Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition, 22(1), 1–39.

Clark, J. (2001). Stimulation collaboration and discussion in online learning environments. Internet and Higher Education, 4(2), 119–124.CrossRef

Cobos, R., & Pifarré, M. (2008). Collaborative knowledge construction in the web supported by the KnowCat system. Computers in Education, 50(3), 962–978.CrossRef

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Cress, U., & Kimmerle, J. (2008). A systemic and cognitive view on collaborative knowledge building with wikis. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3(2), 105–122.CrossRef

De Jong, F., Kollöffel, B., Van der Meijden, H., Staarman, J. K., & Janssen, J. (2005). Regulative processes in individual, 3D and computer supported cooperative learning contexts. Computers in Human Behavior, 21(4), 645–670.CrossRef

Dennen, V. (2008). Looking for evidence of learning: Assessment and analysis methods for online discourse. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(2), 205–219.CrossRef

Dillenbourg, P. (1999). What do you mean by “collaborative learning”? In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Collaborative learning: Cognitive and computational approaches (pp. 1–19). Oxford: Elsevier.

Dillenbourg, P., & Bétrancourt, M. (2006). Collaboration load. In J. Elen & R. E. Clark (Eds.), Handling complexity in learning environments: Research and theory (pp. 141–165). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Ding, N. (2009). Visualizing the sequential process of knowledge elaboration in computer-supported collaborative problem solving. Computers in Education, 52(2), 509–519.CrossRef

Engelmann, T., Dehler, J., Bodemer, D., & Buder, J. (2009). Knowledge awareness in CSCL: A psychological perspective. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(4), 949–960.CrossRef

Erkens, G., Jaspers, J., Prangsma, M., & Kanselaar, G. (2005). Coordination processes in computer supported collaborative writing. Computers in Human Behavior, 21(3), 463–486.CrossRef

Eryilmaz, E., Alrushiedat, N., Kasemvilas, S., Mary, J., & Van der Pol, J. (2009). The effect of anchoring online discussion on collaboration and cognitive load. In: Proceedings of 15th Americas Conference on Information Systems, San Francisco, California.

Eryilmaz, E., Ryan, T., Van der Pol, J., Kasemvilas, S., & Mary, J. (2013). Fostering quality and flow of online learning conversations by artifact-centered discourse systems. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 14(1).

Fiedler, K., Schott, M., & Meiser, T. (2011). What mediation analysis can (not) do. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(6), 1231–1236.CrossRef

Garrison, D. R., & Arbaugh, J. B. (2007). Researching the community of inquiry framework: Review, issues and future directions. The Internet and Higher Education, 10(3), 157–172.CrossRef

Garrison, D. R., Innes, M. C., & Fung, T. S. (2010). Exploring causal relationships among teaching, cognitive and social presence: Student perceptions of the community of inquiry framework. Internet and Higher Education, 13(1–2), 31–36.CrossRef

Gunawardena, C. N. (1995). Social presence theory and implications for interaction and collaborative learning in computer conferences. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 1(2), 147–166.

Guzdial, M., & Turns, J. (2000). Effective discussion through a computer-mediated anchored forum. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(4), 437–469.CrossRef

Häkkinen, P., & Järvelä, S. (2006). Sharing and constructing perspectives in web-based conferencing. Computers in Education, 47(4), 433–447.CrossRef

Harasim, L. (2000). Shift happens online education as a new paradigm in learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 3(1–2), 41–61.CrossRef

Hayes, A. F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling. Manuscript submitted for publication. http://www.afhayes.com/public/process2012.pdf.

Hayes, A. F. (2009). Beyond baron and kenny: Statistical mediation analysis in the new millennium. Communication Monographs, 76(4), 408–420.CrossRef

Hayes, A. F., & Krippendorff, K. (2007). Answering the call for a standard reliability measure for coding data. Communication Methods and Measures, 1(1), 77–89.CrossRef

Herrmann, T., & Kienle, A. (2008). Context-oriented communication and the design of computer-supported discursive learning. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3(3), 273–299.CrossRef

Hewitt, J. (2003). How habitual online practices affect the development of asynchronous discussion threads. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 28(1), 31–45.CrossRef

Hewitt, J. (2005). Toward an understanding of how threads die in asynchronous computer conferences. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(4), 567–589.CrossRef

Hiltz, S. R., Coppola, N., Rotter, N., & Turoff, M. (2000). Measuring the importance of collaborative learning for the effectiveness of ALN: A multi-measure, multi-method approach. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 4(2), 103–125.

Jamaludin, A., Chee, Y., & Mei Lin Ho, C. (2009). Fostering argumentative knowledge construction through enactive role play in Second Life. Computers in Education, 53(2), 317–329.CrossRef

Janssen, J., Erkens, G., & Kanselaar, G. (2007). Visualization of agreement and discussion processes during computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(3), 1105–1125.CrossRef

Janssen, J., Kirschner, F., Erkens, G., Kirschner, P. A., & Paas, F. (2010). Making the black box of collaborative learning transparent: Combining process-oriented and cognitive load approaches. Educational Psychology Review, 22(2), 139–154.CrossRef

Jeong, A., & Frazier, S. (2008). How day of posting affects level of critical discourse in asynchronous discussions and computer supported collaborative argumentation. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5), 875–887.CrossRef

Kapur, M. (2011). Temporality matters: Advancing a method for analyzing problem-solving processes in a computer-supported collaborative environment. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6(1), 39–56.CrossRef

Kapur, M., & Kinzer, C. K. (2007). Examining the effect of problem type in a synchronous computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) environment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(5), 439–459.CrossRef

King, A. (2007). Scripting collaborative learning processes: A cognitive perspective. Scripting computer-supported collaborative learning, 13–37. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-36949-5_2.

King, A. (2002). Structuring peer interaction to promote high-level cognitive processing. Theory into Practice, 41(1), 33–39.CrossRef

Kirschner, P. A., Martens, R. L., & Strijbos, J. W. (2004). CSCL in higher education? A framework for designing multiple collaborative environments (pp. 3–30) Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Kirschner, F., Paas, F., & Kirschner, P. A. (2009a). A cognitive load approach to collaborative learning: United brains for complex tasks. Educational Psychology Review, 21(1), 31–42.CrossRef

Kirschner, F., Paas, F., & Kirschner, P. A. (2009b). Individual and group-based learning from complex cognitive tasks: Effects on retention and transfer efficiency. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(2), 306–314.CrossRef

Kobbe, L., Weinberger, A., Dillenbourg, P., Harrer, A., Hämäläinen, R., Häkkinen, P., et al. (2007). Specifying computer-supported collaboration scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(2), 211–224.CrossRef

Mäkitalo, K., Salo, P., Häkkinen, P., & Järvelä, S. 2001. Analysing the mechanisms of common ground in collaborative web-based interaction. In P. Dillenbourg, A. Eurelings & K. Hakkarainen (Eds.), European perspectives on computer-supported collaborative learning. Proceedings of the First European Conference on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (pp. 445–453). Maastricht, The Netherlands: University of Maastricht.

Mayer, R. H. (1999). Designing instruction for constructivist learning. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory, Volume II (pp. 141–160). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Meier, A., Spada, H., & Rummel, N. (2007). A rating scheme for assessing the quality of computer-supported collaboration processes. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(1), 63–86.CrossRef

Morgan, R., Whorton, J., & Gunsalus, C. (2000). A comparison of short-term and long-term retention: Lecture combined with discussion versus cooperative learning. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 27(1), 53–58.

Mühlpfordt, M., & Wessner, M. (2005). Explicit referencing in chat supports collaborative learning. In T. Kosschmann, D. Suthers, & T. W. Chan (Eds.), Computer supported collaborative learning: The next 10 years (pp. 460–469). Mahwah: Lawrance Erlbaum.

Murphy, E., & Manzanares, R. M. A. (2005). Reading between the lines: Understanding the role of latent content in the analysis of online asynchronous discussions. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2(6), 23–32.

Murray, B. (2000). Reinventing class discussion online. Monitor on Psychology, 31(4), 54–56.

Onrubia, J., & Engel, A. (2009). Strategies for collaborative writing and phases of knowledge construction in CSCL environments. Computers in Education, 53(4), 1256–1265.CrossRef

Paas, F. G. W. C., & Van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (1994). Variability of worked examples and transfer of geometrical problem-solving skills: A cognitive-load approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(1), 122–133.CrossRef

Pena-Shaff, J., & Nicholls, C. (2004). Analyzing student interactions and meaning construction in computer bulletin board discussions. Computers in Education, 42(3), 243–265.CrossRef

Pfister, H. R., & Mühlpfordt, M. (2002). Supporting discourse in a synchronous learning environment: The learning protocol approach. In G. Stahl (Ed.), Proceedings of the Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (pp. 581–582). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Phillips, D. C. (1995). The good, the bad, and the ugly: The many faces of constructivism. Educational researcher, 24(7), 5–12.

Poesio, M., & Muskens, R. (1997). The dynamics of discourse situations. In P. Dekker, M. Stokhof (Eds.), Proceedings of the 11th Amsterdam Colloquium, (pp. 247–252). University of Amsterdam, ILLC, December.

Ponnusawmy, H., & Santally, M. I. (2008). Promoting (quality) participation in online forums: A study of the use of forums in two online modules at the University of Mauritius. International Journal of Instructional Technology & Distance Learning, 5(4), 1550–6908.

Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879–891.CrossRef

Preacher, K. J., & Kelley, K. (2011). Effect size measures for mediation models: Quantitative strategies for communicating indirect effects. Psychological methods, 16(2), 93.

Riffe, D., Lacy, S., & Fico, F. (1998). Analyzing media messages: Using quantitative content analysis in research. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Roschelle, J. (1992). Learning by collaborating: Convergent conceptual change. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(3), 235–276.CrossRef

Rothkopf, E. Z. (1970). The concept of mathemagenic activities. Review of Educational Research, 40(3), 325–336.

Schnotz, W., & Kürschner, C. (2007). A reconsideration of cognitive load theory. Educational Psychology Review, 19(4), 469–508.CrossRef

Schwartz, D. L., & Lin, X. D. (2000). Computers, productive agency, and the effort after shared meaning. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 12(2), 3–33.

Shea, P., & Bidjerano, T. (2009). Community of inquiry as a theoretical framework to foster epistemic engagement and cognitive presence in online education. Computers in Education, 52(3), 543–553.CrossRef

Simons, P. R. J. (2000). Towards a constructivistic theory of self-directed learning. Self-learning, 1–12. http://igitur-archive.library.uu.nl/ivlos/2005-0622-190617/5701.pdf.

Slof, B., Erkens, G., Kirschner, P. A., Jaspers, J., & Janssen, J. (2010). Guiding students' online complex learning-task behavior through representational scripting. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(5), 927–939.CrossRef

Slof, B., Erkens, G., Kirschner, P. A., Janssen, J., & Phielix, C. (2010). Fostering complex learning-task performance through scripting student use of computer supported representational tools. Computers in Education, 55(4), 1707–1720.CrossRef

Stahl, G. (2000). A model of collaborative knowledge building. Proc. Fourth International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS 2000) (pp. 70–77). Ann Arbor, MI.

Strijbos, J. W., Martens, R. L., Prins, F. J., & Jochems, W. M. G. (2006). Content analysis: What are they talking about? Computers in Education, 46(1), 29–48.CrossRef

Suthers, D. (2001). Collaborative representations: Supporting face-to-face and online knowledge-building discourse. Paper presented at the 34th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Hawaii, USA.

Suthers, D. (2006). Technology affordances for intersubjective meaning making: A research agenda for CSCL. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(3), 315–337.CrossRef

Suthers, D., & Xu, J. (2002). Kukakuka: An online environment for artifact-centered discourse. Paper presented at the Eleventh World Wide Web Conference (WWW 2002). Honolulu, Hawaii, USA.

Suthers, D., Girardeau, L., & Hundhausen, C. (2003). Deictic roles of external representations in face-to-face and online collaboration. In B. Wasson, S. Ludvigsen, & U. Hoppe (Eds.), Designing for change in networked learning environments, Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning (pp. 173–182). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Suthers, D., Vatrapu, R., Medina, R., Joseph, S., & Dwyer, N. (2008). Beyond threaded discussion: Representational guidance in asynchronous collaborative learning environments. Computers in Education, 50(4), 1103–1127.CrossRef

Suthers, D. D., Dwyer, N., Medina, R., & Vatrapu, R. (2010). A framework for conceptualizing, representing, and analyzing distributed interaction. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5(1), 5–42.CrossRef

Sweller, J., & Chandler, P. (1994). Why some material is difficult to learn. Cognition and Instruction, 12(3), 185–233.CrossRef

Takeda, T., & Suthers, D. (2002). Online workspaces for annotation and discussion of documents. Poster presented at the International Conference on Computers in Education, 2002.

Timmers, C., & Veldkamp, B. (2011). Attention paid to feedback provided by a computer-based assessment for learning on information literacy. Computers in Education, 56(3), 923–930.CrossRef

Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Uren, V., Buckingham, S., Li, G., Domingue, J., & Motta, E. (2003). Scholarly publishing and argument in hyperspace. Presented at the 12th International World Wide Web Conference. Budapest, Hungary.

Van der Pol, J., Admiraal, W. F., & Simons, P. R. J. (2006a). The affordance of anchored discussion for the collaborative processing of academic texts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(3), 339–357.CrossRef

Van der Pol, J., Admiraal, W., & Simons, P. R. J. (2006b). Context enhancement for co-intentionality and co-reference in asynchronous CMC. AI & Society, 20(3), 301–313.CrossRef

Van Merriënboer, J. P., Kirschner, P. A., & Loesbeth, K. (2003). Taking the load off a learners mind: Instructional design for complex learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 5–13.CrossRef

Veerman, A., Andriessen, J., & Kanselaar, G. (1999). Collaborative learning through computer-mediated argumentation. International Society of the Learning Sciences, 31(4), 77–86.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Whitworth, B., Gallupe, B., & McQueen, R. (2000). A cognitive three-process model of computer-mediated group interaction. Group Decision and Negotiation, 9(5), 431–456.CrossRef

Wolfe, J. (2008). Annotations and the collaborative digital library: Effects of an aligned annotation interface on student argumentation and reading strategies. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3(2), 141–164.CrossRef

Yang, Y., Newby, T., & Robert, B. (2008). Facilitating interactions through structured web-based bulletin boards: A quasi-experimental study on promoting learners’ critical thinking skills. Computers in Education, 50(4), 1572–1585.CrossRef

Titel: Enhancing student knowledge acquisition from online learning conversations
verfasst von: Evren Eryilmaz
Jakko van der Pol
Terry Ryan
Philip Martin Clark
Justin Mary
Publikationsdatum: 01.03.2013
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning / Ausgabe 1/2013
Print ISSN: 1556-1607
Elektronische ISSN: 1556-1615
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-012-9163-y

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2013

Student sensemaking with science diagrams in a computer-based setting

Recalibrating reference within a dual-space interaction environment

Learning across levels

On the bridge to learn: Analysing the social organization of nautical instruction in a ship simulator

Analyzing group coordination when solving geometry problems with dynamic geometry software

Premium Partner