Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Roles for Structuring Groups for Collaboration

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
International Handbook of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning

Part of the book series: Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Series ((CULS,volume 19))

Abstract

The emergence of productive collaboration benefits from support for group interaction. Structuring is a broad way to refer to such support, as part of which roles have become a boundary object in computer-supported collaborative learning. The term structuring is related to—yet distinct from—other approaches to support such as scaffolding, structured interdependence, and scripting. Roles can be conceived as a specific (set of) behavior(s) that can be taken up by an individual within a group. They can be assigned in advance or emerge during group interaction. Roles raise individual group member’s awareness of their own and fellow group member’s responsibilities, and they make an individual’s responsibilities toward the group’s functioning visible for all group members. In future research, pedagogical issues with respect to role design, assignment, and rotation as well as automated detection and visualization of emergent roles, should be addressed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 189.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aronson, E., & Bridgeman, D. (1979). Jigsaw groups and the desegregated classroom: In pursuit of common goals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 5(4), 438–446. https://doi.org/10.1177/014616727900500405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arvaja, M., Rasku-Puttonen, H., Häkkinen, P., & Eteläpelto, A. (2003). Constructing knowledge through a role play in a web-based learning environment. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 28(4), 319–341. https://doi.org/10.2190/4FAV-EK1T-XV4H-YNXF.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brush, T. A. (1998). Embedding cooperative learning into the design of integrated learning systems: Rationale and guidelines. Educational Technology Research and Development, 46(3), 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02299758.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buder, J., Bodemer, D., & Ogata, H. (this volume). Group awareness. In U. Cress, C. Rosé, A. F. Wise, & J. Oshima (Eds.), International handbook of computer-supported collaborative learning. Cham: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, B., Håklev, S., & Rosé, C. P. (this volume). Collaborative learning at scale. In U. Cress, C. Rosé, A. F. Wise, & J. Oshima (Eds.), International handbook of computer-supported collaborative learning. Cham: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, E. G. (1994a). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64(1), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543064001001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, E. G. (1994b). Designing groupwork: Strategies for the heterogeneous classroom (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Hei, M., Strijbos, J. W., Sjoer, E., & Admiraal, W. F. (2016). Thematic review of approaches to design group learning activities in higher education: The development of a comprehensive framework. Educational Research Review, 18, 33–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2016.01.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Wever, B., Schellens, T., Van Keer, H., & Valcke, M. (2008). Structuring asynchronous discussion groups by introducing roles: Do students act in line with assigned roles? Small Group Research, 39(6), 770–794. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496408323227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Wever, B., Van Keer, H., Schellens, T., & Valcke, M. (2010a). Structuring asynchronous discussion groups: Comparing scripting by assigning roles with regulation by cross-age peer tutors. Learning and Instruction, 20(5), 349–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.03.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Wever, B., Van Keer, H., Schellens, T., & Valcke, M. (2010b). Roles as a structuring tool in online discussion groups: The differential impact of different roles on social knowledge construction. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(4), 516–523. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2009.08.008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, the Netherlands: Open Universiteit Nederland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dillenbourg, P., & Jermann, P. (2007). Designing integrative scripts. In F. Fischer, I. Kollar, H. Mandl, & J. Haake (Eds.), Scripting computer-supported collaborative learning: Cognitive, computational and educational perspectives (pp. 277–303). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Driskell, T., Driskell, J. E., Burke, C. S., & Salas, E. (2017). Team roles: A review and integration. Small Group Research, 48(4), 482–511. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496417711529.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erkens, G., & Janssen, J. (2008). Automatic coding of dialogue acts in collaboration protocols. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3(4), 447–470. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-008-9052-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, F., Kollar, I., Stegmann, K., & Wecker, C. (2013). Toward a script theory of guidance in computer-supported collaborative learning. Educational Psychologist, 48(1), 56–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2012.748005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forsyth, D. R. (1999). Group dynamics (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gasevic, D., Joksimovic, S., Eagan, B. R., & Shaffer, D. (2019). SENS: Network analytics to combine social and cognitive perspectives of collaborative learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 92, 562–577. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.07.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gu, X., Shao, Y., Guo, X., & Lim, C. P. (2015). Designing a role structure to engage students in computer-supported collaborative learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 24, 13–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2014.09.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hämäläinen, R., De Wever, B., Waaramaa, T., Laukkanen, A.-M., & Lämsä, J. (2018). It’s not only what you say, but how you say it: Investigating the potential of prosodic analysis as a method to study teacher’s talk. Frontline Learning Research, 6(3), 204–227. https://doi.org/10.14786/flr.v6i3.371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hammond, M. (1999). Issues associated with participation in online forums—the case of the communicative learner. Education & Information Technologies, 4, 353–367. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009661512881.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hara, N., Bonk, C. J., & Angeli, C. (2000). Content analysis of online discussion in an applied educational psychology course. Instructional Science, 28(2), 115–152. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:100376472.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hare, A. P. (1994). Types of roles in small groups: A bit of history and a current perspective. Small Group Research, 25(3), 433–448. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496494253005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoadley, C. (2010). Roles, design, and the nature of CSCL. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(4), 551–555. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2009.08.012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Järvelä, S., & Hadwin, A. F. (2013). New frontiers: Regulating learning in CSCL. Educational Psychologist, 48(1), 25–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2012.748006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Järvelä, S., Kirschner, P. A., Panadero, E., Malmberg, J., Phielix, C., Jaspers, J., Koivuniemi, M., & Järvenoja, H. (2015). Enhancing socially shared regulation in collaborative learning groups: Designing for CSCL regulation tools. Educational Technology Research and Development, 63(1), 125–142. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-014-9358-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1994). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive and individualistic learning (4th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2009). An educational psychology success story: Social interdependence theory and cooperative learning. Educational Researcher, 38(5), 365–379. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X09339057.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kagan, S. (1994). Cooperative learning. San Juan Capistrano: Kagan Cooperative Learning.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, A. (1997). ASK to THINK-TEL WHY®©: A model of transactive peer tutoring for scaffolding higher-level complex learning. Educational Psychologist, 32(4), 221–235. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3204_3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kobbe, L., Weinberger, A., Dillenbourg, P., Harrer, A., Hämäläinen, R., Häkkinen, P., & Fischer, F. (2007). Specifying computer-supported collaboration scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(2–3), 211–224. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-007-9014-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kollar, I., Fischer, F., & Hesse, F. W. (2006). Collaboration scripts: A conceptual analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 18(2), 159–185. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-006-9007-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D., Shaw, V., & Felton, M. (1997). Effects of dyadic interaction on argumentative reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 15(3), 287–315. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci1503_1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lämsä, J., Espinoza, C., Araya, R., Viiri, J. G., Abelino, J., Gormaz, R., & Hämäläinen, R. (2019). Automatic content analysis in collaborative inquiry-based learning. Paper presented at the 13th Biennial Conference of the European Science Education Research Association (ESERA). Bologna, Italia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Law, N., Zhang, J., & Peppler, K. (this volume). Sustainability and scalability of CSCL innovations. In U. Cress, C. Rosé, A. F. Wise, & J. Oshima (Eds.), International handbook of computer-supported collaborative learning. Cham: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mu, J., Stegmann, K., Mayfield, E., Rosé, C., & Fischer, F. (2012). The ACODEA framework: Developing segmentation and classification schemes for fully automatic analysis of online discussions. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 7(2), 285–305. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-012-9147-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mudrack, P. E., & Farrell, G. M. (1995). An examination of functional role behaviour and its consequences for individuals in group settings. Small Group Research, 26(4), 542–571. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496495264005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Donnell, A. M., & Dansereau, D. F. (1992). Scripted cooperation in student dyads: A method for analyzing and enhancing academic learning and performance. In R. Hertz-Lazarowitz & N. Miller (Eds.), Interaction in cooperative groups. The theoretical anatomy of group learning (pp. 120–141). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ouyang, F., & Chang, Y. (2019). The relationships between social participatory roles and cognitive engagement levels in online discussions. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(3), 1396–1414. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12647.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pata, K., Sarapuu, T., & Lehtinen, E. (2005). Tutor scaffolding styles of dilemma solving in network-based role-play. Learning and Instruction, 15(6), 571–587. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2005.08.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pinantoan, A. (2013). Instructional scaffolding: A definitive guide. Retrieved from https://www.opencolleges.edu.au/informed/teacher-resources/scaffolding-in-education-a-definitive-guide/

  • Schank, R. C., & Abelson, R. P. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals and understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schellens, T., Van Keer, H., De Wever, B., & Valcke, M. (2007). Scripting by assigning roles: Does it improve knowledge construction in asynchronous discussion groups? International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(2-3), 225–246. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-007-9016-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schellens, T., Van Keer, H., De Wever, B., & Valcke, M. (2009). Tagging thinking types in asynchronous discussion groups: Effects on critical thinking. Interactive Learning Environments, 17(1), 77–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820701651757.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharan, S., Sharan, Y., & Tan, I. G.-C. (2013). The group investigation approach to cooperative learning. In C. E. Hmelo-Silver, C. A. Chinn, C. K. K. Chan, & A. O’Donnell (Eds.), The international handbook of collaborative learning (pp. 351–369). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharan, Y., & Sharan, S. (1992). Expanding cooperative learning through group investigation. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A. (1969). The sciences of the artificial. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slavin, R. E. (1995). Cooperative learning: Theory, research and practice (2nd ed.). Needham, Heights: Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slavin, R. E. (1996). Research on cooperative learning and achievement: What we know, what we need to know. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21(1), 43–69. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1996.0004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spada, H. (2010). Of scripts, roles, positions, and models. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(4), 547–550. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CHB.2009.08.011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stempfle, J., Hübner, O., & Badke-Schaub, P. (2001). A functional theory of task role distribution in work groups. Group Process & Intergroup Relations, 4(2), 138–159. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430201004002005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strijbos, J. W., & De Laat, M. F. (2010). Developing the role concept for computer-supported collaborative learning: An explorative synthesis. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(4), 495–505. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2009.08.014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strijbos, J. W., Martens, R. L., & Jochems, W. M. G. (2004a). Designing for interaction: Six steps to designing computer-supported group-based learning. Computers and Education, 42(4), 403–424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2003.10.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strijbos, J. W., Martens, R. L., Jochems, W. M. G., & Broers, N. J. (2004b). The effect of functional roles on group efficiency: Using multilevel modeling and content analysis to investigate computer-supported collaboration in small groups. Small Group Research, 35(2), 195–229. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496403260843.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strijbos, J. W., Martens, R. L., Jochems, W. M. G., & Broers, N. J. (2007). The effect of functional roles on perceived group efficiency during computer-supported collaborative learning: A matter of triangulation. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(1), 353–380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2004.10.016.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strijbos, J. W., & Weinberger, A. (2010). Emerging and scripted roles in computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(4), 491–494. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2009.08.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vogel, F., Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (this volume). Collaboration scripts: Guiding, internalizing, and adapting. In U. Cress, C. Rosé, A. F. Wise, & J. Oshima (Eds.), International handbook of computer-supported collaborative learning. Cham: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Webb, N. (1989). Peer interaction and learning in small groups. International Journal of Educational Research, 13(1), 21–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-0355(89)90014-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webb, N. M. (2013). Information processing approaches to collaborative learning. In C. E. Hmelo-Silver, C. A. Chinn, C. K. K. Chan, & A. O’Donnell (Eds.), The international handbook of collaborative learning (pp. 19–40). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wise, A. F., Knight, S., & Buckingham Shum, S. (this volume). Collaborative learning analytics. In U. Cress, C. Rosé, A. F. Wise, & J. Oshima (Eds.), International handbook of computer-supported collaborative learning. Cham: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wise, A. F., Saghafian, M., & Padmanabhan, P. (2012). Towards more precise design guidance: Specifying and testing the functions of assigned student roles in online discussions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60(1), 55–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-011-9212-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89–100. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00381.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zheng, L., Huang, R., & Yu, J. (2014). The impact of different roles on motivation, group cohesion, and learning performance in computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL). In Proceedings of the IEEE 14th International conference on advanced learning technologies (pp. 294–296). New York: IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICALT.2014.91.

    Google Scholar 

Further Readings

  • De Hei, M., Strijbos, J. W., Sjoer, E., & Admiraal, W. F. (2016). Thematic review of approaches to design group learning activities in higher education: The development of a comprehensive framework. Educational Research Review, 18, 33–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2016.01.001. This paper describes a thematic review on collaborative learning design that resulted in the Group Learning Activities Instructional Design (GLAID) framework, comprising eight components: (1) interaction, (2) learning objectives and outcomes, (3) assessment, (4) task characteristics, (5) structuring, (6) guidance, (7) group constellation, and (8) facilities.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Wever, B., Schellens, T., Van Keer, H., & Valcke, M. (2008). Structuring asynchronous discussion groups by introducing roles: Do students act in line with assigned roles? Small Group Research, 39(6), 770–794. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496408323227. This study investigated to what extent first-year bachelor students enacted assigned roles (source searcher, theoretician, summarizer, moderator, and starter) in an online asynchronous discussion environment. Quantitative content analysis was applied and the study showed that all participants enacted the roles they were assigned and that they did not neglect other activities while discussing.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoadley, C. (2010). Roles, design, and the nature of CSCL. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(4), 551–555. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2009.08.012. This commentary as part of the special issue on “Scripted and emergent roles” (Strijbos & Weinberger), reflects not only on the included studies but also on the concept of roles in general as well as their specific potential as a boundary object for CSCL research.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strijbos, J. W., & De Laat, M. F. (2010). Developing the role concept for computer-supported collaborative learning: An explorative synthesis. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(4), 495–505. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2009.08.014. This paper reports a framework to synthesize and conceptualize roles, by discerning three dimensions: Assigned versus emergent roles, product-oriented versus process-oriented roles, and the granularity of roles in terms of micro (role as task), meso (role as pattern), and macro (role as stance).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wise, A. F., Saghafian, M., & Padmanabhan, P. (2012). Towards more precise design guidance: Specifying and testing the functions of assigned student roles in online discussions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60(1), 55–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-011-9212-7. This paper explored assigned student roles in online discussions and identified a set of seven common functions. Based on this literature review, a targeted set of role descriptions was created, together with a content analysis scheme to assess the fulfillment of the functions. Role assignment was implemented and analyzed in an empirical study.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Tecolab Research Unit, Department of Educational Studies, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium

    Bram De Wever

  2. Faculty of Behavioural and Social Sciences, Department of Educational Sciences, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands

    Jan-Willem Strijbos

Authors
  1. Bram De Wever
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jan-Willem Strijbos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bram De Wever .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Leibniz-Institut für Wissensmedien, Tübingen, Germany

    Ulrike Cress

  2. Language Technologies Institute and Human-Computer Interaction Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

    Carolyn Rosé

  3. Department of Administration Leadership, and Technology, New York University, New York, NY, USA

    Alyssa Friend Wise

  4. Faculty of Informatics, Shizuoka University, Hamamatsu-shi, Shizuoka, Japan

    Jun Oshima

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

De Wever, B., Strijbos, JW. (2021). Roles for Structuring Groups for Collaboration. In: Cress, U., Rosé, C., Wise, A.F., Oshima, J. (eds) International Handbook of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Series, vol 19. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-65291-3_17

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-65291-3_17

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-65290-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-65291-3

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation