nach oben

International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning

Erschienen in:

04.01.2019

Providing different types of group awareness information to guide collaborative learning

verfasst von: Lenka Schnaubert, Daniel Bodemer

Erschienen in: International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning | Ausgabe 1/2019

Einloggen

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

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

Cognitive group awareness tools are a means to guide collaborative learning activities by providing knowledge-related information to the learners. While positive effects of such tools are firmly established, there is no consistency with regard to the awareness information used and a wide range of target concepts exist. However, attempts to compare and integrate the effects of different types of group awareness information are rare. To reduce this gap, our study aims to compare metacognitive and cognitive group awareness information, combining CSCL research and research on metacognition. In our experimental study, 260 university students discussed assumptions on blood-sugar regulation and diabetes mellitus in dyads. We tested the effects of providing cognitive group awareness information on the learners’ assumptions (factor 1) and metacognitive group awareness information on their confidence (factor 2) on individual metacognitive and cognitive outcome measures and on the learners’ regulation of the collaborative process, i.e., the selection of discussion topics based on confidence in knowledge (confidence-based regulation) and based on agreement regarding assumptions (conflict-based regulation). We found that visualizing information strongly impacts joint regulation and that learners seem to integrate the information provided to steer their learning. However, while the learners gained knowledge and confidence during collaboration, providing group awareness information did not have the expected impact on learning outcomes. Reasons and implications of these results in light of previous research on metacognition and group awareness are discussed.

Vorheriger Artikel Highlighting tools and technologies for collaborative learning

Nächster Artikel Improving the quality of vocational students’ collaboration and knowledge acquisition through instruction and joint reflection

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

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Apache Software Foundation. (2013). Apache CouchDB [computer program]. Wakefield: Apache Software Foundation.

Ariel, R., Dunlosky, J., & Bailey, H. (2009). Agenda-based regulation of study-time allocation: When agendas override item-based monitoring. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 138(3), 432–447. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015928.

Bodemer, D. (2011). Tacit guidance for collaborative multimedia learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(3), 1079–1086. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.05.016.

Bodemer, D., & Dehler, J. (2011). Group awareness in CSCL environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(3), 1043–1045. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.07.014.

Bodemer, D., Janssen, J., & Schnaubert, L. (2018). Group awareness tools for computer-supported collaborative learning. In F. Fischer, C. E. Hmelo-Silver, S. R. Goldman, & P. Reimann (Eds.), International handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 351–358). New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis.

Bodemer, D., & Scholvien, A. (2014). Providing knowledge-related partner information in collaborative multimedia learning: Isolating the core of cognitive group awareness tools. In C.-C. Liu, H. Ogata, S. C. Kong, & A. Kashihara (Eds.), Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on computers in education ICCE 2014 (pp. 171–179). Nara: APSCE.

Buchs, C., Butera, F., Mugny, G., & Darnon, C. (2004). Conflict elaboration and cognitive outcomes. Theory Into Practice, 43(1), 23–30. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4301_4.

Buder, J. (2011). Group awareness tools for learning: Current and future directions. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(3), 1114–1117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.07.012.

Buder, J., & Bodemer, D. (2008). Supporting controversial CSCL discussions with augmented group awareness tools. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3(2), 123–139. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-008-9037-5.

Butler, D. L., & Winne, P. H. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning: A theoretical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65(3), 245–281.

Butterfield, B., & Metcalfe, J. (2001). Errors committed with high confidence are hypercorrected. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory & Cognition, 27(6), 1491–1494. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.27.6.1491.

Butterfield, B., & Metcalfe, J. (2006). The correction of errors committed with high confidence. Metacognition and Learning, 1(1), 69–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-006-6894-z.

Clark, H. H., & Brennan, S. E. (1991). Grounding in communication. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 127–149). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Clark, H. H., & Murphy, G. L. (1982). Audience design in meaning and reference. Advances in Psychology, 9(C), 287–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4115(09)60059-5.

Crano, W., & Prislin, R. (2006). Attitudes and persuasion. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 345–374. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190034.

Creedon, P. J., Hayes, A. F. (2015). Small sample mediation analysis: How far can you push the bootstrap? Presented at the Annual conference of the Association for Psychological Science, New York, NY, US.

Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02310555.

Dehler, J., Bodemer, D., & Buder, J. (2007). Fostering audience design of computer-mediated knowledge communication by knowledge mirroring. In C. Chinn, G. Erkens, & S. Puntambekar (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th computer supported collaborative learning conference (pp. 168–170). New Brunswick: International Society of the Learning Sciences.

Dehler, J., Bodemer, D., Buder, J., & Hesse, F. W. (2009). Providing group knowledge awareness in computer-supported collaborative learning: Insights into learning mechanisms. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 4(2), 111–132. https://doi.org/10.1142/S1793206809000660.

Dehler, J., Bodemer, D., Buder, J., & Hesse, F. W. (2011). Guiding knowledge communication in CSCL via group knowledge awareness. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(3), 1068–1078. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.05.018.

Dillenbourg, P., & Bétrancourt, M. (2006). Collaboration load. In J. Elen & R. E. Clark (Eds.), Handling complexity in learning environments: Research and theory (pp. 142–163). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Dillenbourg, P., & Evans, M. (2011). Interactive tabletops in education. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6(4), 491–514. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-011-9127-7.

Dillenbourg, P., & Hong, F. (2008). The mechanics of CSCL macro scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3(1), 5–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-007-9033-1.

Dillenbourg, P., Järvelä, S., & Fischer, F. (2009). The evolution of research on computer-supported collaborative learning. In N. Balacheff, S. Ludvigsen, T. de Jong, A. Lazonder, & S. Barnes (Eds.), Technology-enhanced learning: Principles and products (pp. 3–19). Dordrecht: Springer.

Dinsmore, D. L., Alexander, P. A., & Loughlin, S. M. (2008). Focusing the conceptual lens on metacognition, self-regulation, and self-regulated learning. Educational Psychology Review, 20(4), 391–409. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-008-9083-6.

Dinsmore, D. L., & Parkinson, M. M. (2013). What are confidence judgments made of? Students’ explanations for their confidence ratings and what that means for calibration. Learning and Instruction, 24, 4–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.06.001.

Doise, W., Mugny, G. (1984). Sociocognitive conflict. In M. Argyle (Ed.), The social development of the intellect (Vol. 10, pp. 77–101). Amsterdam: Pergamon. Retrieved from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B978008030215750010X.

Doise, W., Mugny, G., & Perret-Clermont, A.-N. (1975). Social interaction and the development of cognitive operations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 5(3), 367–383. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420050309.

Dourish, P., & Bellotti, V. (1992). Awareness and coordination in shared workspaces. In M. Mantel & R. Baecker (Eds.), Proceedings of the 1992 ACM conference on computer-supported cooperative work (pp. 107–114). Toronto: ACM Press. https://doi.org/10.1145/143457.143468.

Drachsler, H., & Greller, W. (2012). The pulse of learning analytics understandings and expectations from the stakeholders. In Proceedings of the 2Nd international conference on learning analytics and knowledge (pp. 120–129). New York: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2330601.2330634.

Dunlosky, J., & Hertzog, C. (2000). Updating knowledge about encoding strategies: A componential analysis of learning about strategy effectiveness from task experience. Psychology and Aging, 15(3), 462–474. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.15.3.462.

Dunlosky, J., & Metcalfe, J. (2009). Metacognition. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

Dunlosky, J., & Rawson, K. A. (2012). Overconfidence produces underachievement: Inaccurate self evaluations undermine students’ learning and retention. Learning and Instruction, 22(4), 271–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.08.003.

Efklides, A., Samara, A., & Petropoulou, M. (1999). Feeling of difficulty: An aspect of monitoring that influences control. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 14(4), 461–476. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03172973.

Engelmann, T., Dehler, J., Bodemer, D., & Buder, J. (2009). Knowledge awareness in CSCL: A psychological perspective. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(4), 949–960. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2009.04.004.

Engelmann, T., & Hesse, F. W. (2010). How digital concept maps about the collaborators’ knowledge and information influence computer-supported collaborative problem solving. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5(3), 299–319. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-010-9089-1.

Engelmann, T., & Hesse, F. W. (2011). Fostering sharing of unshared knowledge by having access to the collaborators’ meta-knowledge structures. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 2078–2087. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.06.002.

Erkens, G., Jaspers, J., Prangsma, M., & Kanselaar, G. (2005). Coordination processes in computer supported collaborative writing. Computers in Human Behavior, 21(3), 463–486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2004.10.038.

Erkens, M., Bodemer, D., & Hoppe, H. U. (2016). Improving collaborative learning in the classroom: Design and evaluation of a text mining based grouping and representing. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 11(4), 387–415. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-016-9243-5.

Fazio, L. K., & Marsh, E. J. (2009). Surprising feedback improves later memory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16(1), 88–92. https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.16.1.88.

Field, A. P., & Wilcox, R. R. (2017). Robust statistical methods: A primer for clinical psychology and experimental psychopathology researchers. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 98, 19–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2017.05.013.

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.

Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906–911. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906.

Fransen, J., Kirschner, P. A., & Erkens, G. (2011). Mediating team effectiveness in the context of collaborative learning: The importance of team and task awareness. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(3), 1103–1113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.05.017.

Fraundorf, S. H., & Benjamin, A. S. (2016). Conflict and metacognitive control: The mismatch-monitoring hypothesis of how others’ knowledge states affect recall. Memory, 24(8), 1108–1122. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2015.1069853.

Friedrich, S., Konietschke, F., Pauly, M. (2017). MANOVA.RM: Analysis of multivariate data and repeated measures designs (Version 0.2.1).

Fritz, M. S., Taylor, A. B., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2012). Explanation of two anomalous results in statistical mediation analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 47(1), 61–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2012.640596.

Gijlers, H. (2005). Confrontation and co-construction: Exploring and supporting collaborative scientific discovery learning with computer simulations (Doctoral dissertation). University of Twente, Enschede. Retrieved from http://doc.utwente.nl/50896/.

Gijlers, H., Saab, N., van Joolingen, W. R., de Jong, T., & van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M. (2009). Interaction between tool and talk: How instruction and tools support consensus building in collaborative inquiry-learning environments. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25(3), 252–267. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2008.00302.x.

Greller, W., & Drachsler, H. (2012). Translating learning into numbers: A generic framework for learning analytics. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 15(3), 42–57.

Hacker, D. J., Dunlosky, J., & Graesser, A. C. (2009). A growing sense of agency. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Handbook of metacognition in education (pp. 1–4). New York: Routledge.

Hancock, T. E., Stock, W. A., & Kulhavy, R. W. (1992). Predicting feedback effects from response-certitude estimates. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 30(2), 173–176. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03330431.

Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York: The Guilford Press.

Hayes, A. F., & Cai, L. (2007). Using heteroskedasticity-consistent standard error estimators in OLS regression: An introduction and software implementation. Behavior Research Methods, 39(4), 709–722. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03192961.

Hayes, A. F., & Preacher, K. J. (2014). Statistical mediation analysis with a multicategorical independent variable. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 67(3), 451–470. https://doi.org/10.1111/bmsp.12028.

Heimbuch, S., & Bodemer, D. (2018). Interaction of guidance types and the need for cognitive closure in wiki-based learning. PeerJ, 6, e5541. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.5541.

Hesse, F. (2007). Being told to do something or just being aware of something? An alternative approach to scripting in CSCL. In F. Fischer, I. Kollar, H. Mandl, & J. M. Haake (Eds.), Scripting computer-supported communication of knowledge – Cognitive, computational and educational perspectives (pp. 91–98). New York: Springer.

Higgins, S., Mercier, E., Burd, E., & Hatch, A. (2011). Multi-touch tables and the relationship with collaborative classroom pedagogies: A synthetic review. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6(4), 515–538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-011-9131-y.

Hines, J. C., Touron, D. R., & Hertzog, C. (2009). Metacognitive influences on study time allocation in an associative recognition task: An analysis of adult age differences. Psychology and Aging, 24(2), 462–475. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014417.

Hunt, D. P. (2003). The concept of knowledge and how to measure it. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 4(1), 100–113. https://doi.org/10.1108/14691930310455414.

Hurme, T.-R., Palonen, T., & Järvelä, S. (2006). Metacognition in joint discussions: An analysis of the patterns of interaction and the metacognitive content of the networked discussions in mathematics. Metacognition and Learning, 1(2), 181–200. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-006-9792-5.

Iiskala, T., Vauras, M., Lehtinen, E., & Salonen, P. (2011). Socially shared metacognition of dyads of pupils in collaborative mathematical problem-solving processes. Learning and Instruction, 21(3), 379–393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2010.05.002.

Janssen, J., & Bodemer, D. (2013). Coordinated computer-supported collaborative learning: Awareness and awareness tools. Educational Psychologist, 48(1), 40–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2012.749153.

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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2006.10.005.

Janssen, J., Erkens, G., & Kirschner, P. A. (2011a). Group awareness tools: It’s what you do with it that matters., 27(3). doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.06.002

Janssen, J., Erkens, G., Kirschner, P. A., & Kanselaar, G. (2011b). Multilevel analysis in CSCL research. In S. Puntambekar, G. Erkens, & C. Hmelo-Silver (Eds.), Analyzing interactions in CSCL (pp. 187–205). Boston: Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-7710-6_9.

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.

Järvelä, S., Kirschner, P. A., Hadwin, A., Järvenoja, H., Malmberg, J., Miller, M., & Laru, J. (2016). Socially shared regulation of learning in CSCL: Understanding and prompting individual- and group-level shared regulatory activities. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 11(3), 263–280. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-016-9238-2.

Järvelä, S., Kirschner, P. A., Panadero, E., Malmberg, J., Phielix, C., Jaspers, J., et al. (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.

Jarvis, B. G. (2012). MediaLab (Version 2012) [computer software]. New York: Empirisoft Corporation.

Jermann, P., & Dillenbourg, P. (2003). Elaborating new arguments through a CSCL script. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 205–226). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-0781-7_8.

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

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2009b). Energizing learning: The instructional power of conflict. Educational Researcher, 38(1), 37–51. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X08330540.

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Tjosvold, D. (2000). Constructive controversy: The value of intellectual opposition. In M. Deutsch & P. T. Coleman (Eds.), The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice (pp. 65–85). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Johnson, R., Brooker, C., Stutzman, J., Hultman, D., & Johnson, D. W. (1985). The effects of controversy, concurrence seeking, and individualistic learning on achievement and attitude change. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 22(3), 197–205. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660220302.

Kalyuga, S. (2013). Effects of learner prior knowledge and working memory limitations on multimedia learning. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 83, 25–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.06.005.

Kelley, K. (2017). MBESS (Version 4.0.0).

King, A. (1992). Facilitating elaborative learning through guided student-generated questioning. Educational Psychologist, 27(1), 111–126. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2701_8.

King, A. (2007). Scripting collaborative learning processes: A cognitive perspective. In F. Fischer, I. Kollar, H. Mandl, & J. M. Haake (Eds.), Scripting computer-supported collaboratorive learning: Cognitive, computational and educational perspectives (pp. 13–37). New York: Springer.

Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., Kirschner, F., & Zambrano R., J. (2018). From cognitive load theory to collaborative cognitive load theory. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 13(2), 213–233. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-018-9277-y.

Kirschner, P. A., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2013). Do learners really know best? Urban legends in education. Educational Psychologist, 48(3), 169–183. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2013.804395.

Kollar, I., Wecker, C., & Fischer, F. (2018). Scaffolding and scripting (computer-supported) collaborative learning. In F. Fischer, C. E. Hmelo-Silver, S. R. Goldman, & P. Reimann (Eds.), International handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 340–350). New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis.

Koriat, A. (2012). The relationships between monitoring, regulation and performance. Learning and Instruction, 22(4), 296–298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.01.002.

Koriat, A., Adiv, S., & Schwarz, N. (2015). Views that are shared with others are expressed with greater confidence and greater fluency independent of any social influence. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 20(2), 176–193. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868315585269.

Koriat, A., & Levy-Sadot, R. (2001). The combined contributions of the cue-familiarity and accessibility heuristics to feelings of knowing. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27(1), 34–53. https://doi.org/10.1037//0278-7393.27.1.34.

Koriat, A., Ma’ayan, H., & Nussinson, R. (2006). The intricate relationships between monitoring and control in metacognition: Lessons for the cause-and-effect relation between subjective experience and behavior. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135(1), 36–69. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.135.1.36.

Kornell, N., & Metcalfe, J. (2006). Study efficacy and the region of proximal learning framework. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32(3), 609–622. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.32.3.609.

Kulhavy, R. W., & Stock, W. A. (1989). Feedback in written instruction: The place of response certitude. Educational Psychology Review, 1(4), 279–308. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01320096.

Kulhavy, R. W., Stock, W. A., Hancock, T. E., Swindell, L. K., & Hammrich, P. L. (1990). Written feedback: Response certitude and durability. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 15(4), 319–332. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-476X(90)90028-Y.

Leclercq, D. (1983). Confidence marking: Its use in testing. Evaluation in Education, 6(2), 161–287. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-765X(82)90011-8.

Leclercq, D. (1993). Validity, reliability, and acuity of self-assessment in educational testing. In D. Leclercq & J. E. Bruno (Eds.), Item banking: Interactive testing and self-assessment (pp. 114–131). Berlin, Germany: Springer. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-58033-8_11

Leclercq, D., & Poumay, M. (2004). Objective assessment of subjectivity: Degrees of certainty and partial knowledge. In Presented at the 2nd biennial meeting of the EARLI special interest group 16 metacognition. Amsterdam: NL.

Lee, G., & Kwon, J. (2001). What do we know about students‘ cognitive conflict in science classroom: A theoretical model of cognitive conflict process. In P. A. Rubba, J. A. Rye, W. J. Di Biase, & B. A. Crawford (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2001 annual meeting of the Association for the Education of teachers in science (pp. 309–325). Costa Mesa: Association for the Education of Teachers in Science.

Lee, G., Kwon, J., Park, S.-S., Kim, J.-W., Kwon, H.-G., & Park, H.-K. (2003). Development of an instrument for measuring cognitive conflict in secondary-level science classes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(6), 585–603. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10099.

Levine, J. M., Resnick, L. B., & Higgins, E. T. (1993). Social foundations of cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 44(1), 585–612. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.44.020193.003101.

Lowry, N., & Johnson, D. W. (1981). Effects of controversy on epistemic curiosity, achievement, and attitudes. The Journal of Social Psychology, 115(1), 31–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1981.9711985.

Maki, R. H. (1998a). Predicting performance on text: Delayed versus immediate predictions and tests. Memory & Cognition, 26(5), 959–964. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03201176.

Maki, R. H. (1998b). Test predictions over text material. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 117–144). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

McNeish, D. (2017). Thanks coefficient alpha, we’ll take it from here. Psychological Methods, 32(3). https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000144.

Metcalfe, J., & Finn, B. (2008). Evidence that judgments of learning are causally related to study choice. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15(1), 174–179. https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.15.1.174.

Metcalfe, J., & Finn, B. (2011). People’s hypercorrection of high-confidence errors: Did they know it all along? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition, 37(2), 437–448. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021962.

Metcalfe, J., & Kornell, N. (2005). A region of proximal learning model of study time allocation. Journal of Memory and Language, 52(4), 463–477. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2004.12.001.

Miller, M., & Hadwin, A. (2015). Scripting and awareness tools for regulating collaborative learning: Changing the landscape of support in CSCL. Computers in Human Behavior, 52, 573–588. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.01.050.

Mitchum, A. L., Kelley, C. M., & Fox, M. C. (2016). When asking the question changes the ultimate answer: Metamemory judgments change memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 145(2), 200–219. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039923.

Mugny, G., Butera, F., Sanchez-Mazas, M., & Perez, J. A. (1995). Judgments in conflict: The conflict elaboration theory of social influence. In B. Boothe, R. Hirsig, A. Helminger, & R. Volkart (Eds.), Perception, evaluation, interpretation. Seattle: Hogrefe & Huber.

Mugny, G., & Doise, W. (1978). Socio-cognitive conflict and structure of individual and collective performances. European Journal of Social Psychology, 8(2), 181–192. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420080204.

Nelson, T. O., Dunlosky, J., Graf, A., & Narens, L. (1994). Utilization of metacognitive judgments in the allocation of study during multitrial learning. Psychological Science, 5(4), 207–213. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1994.tb00502.x.

Nelson, T. O., & Leonesio, J. R. (1988). Allocation of self-paced study time and the “labor-in-vain effect.”. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14(4), 676–686. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.14.4.676.

Nelson, T. O., & Narens, L. (1990). Metamemory: A theoretical framework and new findings. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), Psychology of learning & motivation (Vol. 26, pp. 125–173). New York: Academic Press.

Nickerson, R. S. (1999). How we know—And sometimes misjudge—What others know: Imputing one’s own knowledge to others. Psychological Bulletin, 125(6), 737–759. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.125.6.737.

Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84(3), 231–259. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.3.231.

Nova, N., Wehrle, T., Goslin, J., Bourquin, Y., & Dillenbourg, P. (2007). Collaboration in a multi-user game: Impacts of an awareness tool on mutual modeling. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 32(2), 161–183. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-006-0065-8.

Panadero, E., & Järvelä, S. (2015). Socially shared regulation of learning: A review. European Psychologist, 20(3), 190–203. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000226.

Price, P. C., & Stone, E. R. (2004). Intuitive evaluation of likelihood judgment producers: Evidence for a confidence heuristic. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 17(1), 39–57. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.460.

Rosenshine, B., Meister, C., & Chapman, S. (1996). Teaching students to generate questions: A review of the intervention studies. Review of Educational Research, 66(2), 181–221. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543066002181.

Sangin, M., Molinari, G., Nüssli, M.-A., & Dillenbourg, P. (2008). Knowing what the peer knows: The differential effect of knowledge awareness on collaborative learning performance of asymmetric pairs. In P. Dillenbourg & M. Specht (Eds.), Times of convergence. Technologies across learning contexts (pp. 384–394). Berlin, Germany: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-540-87605-2_43

Sangin, M., Molinari, G., Nüssli, M.-A., & Dillenbourg, P. (2011). Facilitating peer knowledge modeling: Effects of a knowledge awareness tool on collaborative learning outcomes and processes. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(3), 1059–1067. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.05.032.

Schnaubert, L., & Bodemer, D. (2016). How socio-cognitive information affects individual study decisions. In C.-K. Looi, J. Polman, U. Cress, & P. Reimann (Eds.), Transforming learning, empowering learners: The international conference of the learning sciences (ICLS) 2016 (pp. 274–281). Singapore: International Society of the Learning Sciences.

Schnaubert, L., & Bodemer, D. (2017). Prompting and visualising monitoring outcomes: Guiding self-regulatory processes with confidence judgments. Learning and Instruction, 49, 251–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.03.004.

Schnaubert, L., & Bodemer, D. (2018). What interdependence can tell us about collaborative learning: A statistical and psychological perspective. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 13(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41039-018-0084-x.

Scholvien, A., Bodemer, D. (2013). Information cueing in collaborative multimedia learning. In N. Rummel, M. Kapur, M. Nathan, & S. Puntambekar (Eds.), To See the World and a Grain of Sand: Learning across Levels of Space, Time, and Scale: CSCL 2013 Conference Proceedings Volume 2 — Short Papers, Panels, Posters, Demos & Community Events (Vol. 2, pp. 149–152). Madison, WI.

Schraw, G. (2009). A conceptual analysis of five measures of metacognitive monitoring. Metacognition and Learning, 4(1), 33–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-008-9031-3.

Schraw, G., Kuch, F., & Gutierrez, A. P. (2013). Measure for measure: Calibrating ten commonly used calibration scores. Learning and Instruction, 24, 48–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.08.007.

Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979). Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 86(2), 420–428. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.86.2.420.

Soderstrom, N. C., Clark, C. T., Halamish, V., & Bjork, E. L. (2015). Judgments of learning as memory modifiers. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 41(2), 553–558. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038388.

Soller, A., Martínez, A., Jermann, P., & Muehlenbrock, M. (2005). From mirroring to guiding: A review of state of the art technology for supporting collaborative learning. Int. J. Artif. Intell. Ed., 15(4), 261–290.

Son, L. K., & Metcalfe, J. (2000). Metacognitive and control strategies in study-time allocation. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26(1), 204–221. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.1.204.

Stegmann, K., Wecker, C., Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2012). Collaborative argumentation and cognitive elaboration in a computer-supported collaborative learning environment. Instructional Science, 40(2), 297–323. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-011-9174-5.

Stegmann, K., Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2007). Facilitating argumentative knowledge construction with computer-supported collaboration scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(4), 421–447. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-007-9028-y.

Suthers, D. D. (2001). Towards a systematic study of representational guidance for collaborative learning discourse. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 7, 254–277.

Suthers, D. D., & Hundhausen, C. D. (2003). An experimental study of the effects of representational guidance on collaborative learning processes. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(2), 183–218. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327809JLS1202_2.

Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learning and Instruction, 4(4), 295–312. https://doi.org/10.1016/0959-4752(94)90003-5.

Sweller, J., van Merrienboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. G. W. C. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251–296. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022193728205.

Tenney, E. R., Small, J. E., Kondrad, R. L., Jaswal, V. K., & Spellman, B. A. (2011). Accuracy, confidence, and calibration: How young children and adults assess credibility. Developmental Psychology, 47(4), 1065–1077. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023273.

Thiede, K. W. (1999). The importance of monitoring and self-regulation during multitrial learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 6(4), 662–667. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03212976.

Thiede, K. W., Anderson, M. C. M., & Therriault, D. (2003). Accuracy of metacognitive monitoring affects learning of texts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(1), 66–73. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.1.66.

Thiede, K. W., & Dunlosky, J. (1999). Toward a general model of self-regulated study: An analysis of selection of items for study and self-paced study time. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25(4), 1024–1037. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.25.4.1024.

Valcke, M. (2002). Cognitive load: Updating the theory? Learning and Instruction, 12(1), 147–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(01)00022-6.

Vernon, D., & Usher, M. (2003). Dynamics of metacognitive judgements: Pre- and post retrieval mechanisms. Journal of Experimental Psychology, Learning, Memory and Cognition, 29(3), 339–346. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.29.3.339.

Weinberger, A., Ertl, B., Fischer, F., & Mandl, H. (2005). Epistemic and social scripts in computer-supported collaborative learning. Instructional Science, 33(1), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-004-2322-4.

Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2006). A framework to analyze argumentative knowledge construction in computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers & Education, 46(1), 71–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2005.04.003.

Wilcox, R. (2012). Introduction to robust estimation and hypothesis testing (3rd ed.). Boston: Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-386983-8.00020-2.

Winne, P. H., & Hadwin, A. F. (1998). Studying as self-regulated learning. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 277–304). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Wise, A. F., & Schwarz, B. B. (2017). Visions of CSCL: Eight provocations for the future of the field. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 12(4), 423–467. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-017-9267-5.

Yates, J. F., Price, P. C., Lee, J.-W., & Ramirez, J. (1996). Good probabilistic forecasters: The ‘consumer’s’ perspective. International Journal of Forecasting, 12(1), 41–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-2070(95)00636-2.

Titel: Providing different types of group awareness information to guide collaborative learning
verfasst von: Lenka Schnaubert
Daniel Bodemer
Publikationsdatum: 04.01.2019
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning / Ausgabe 1/2019
Print ISSN: 1556-1607
Elektronische ISSN: 1556-1615
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-018-9293-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 1/2019

Imagining with improvised representations in CSCL environments

Instrumental genesis in the design studio

Improving the quality of vocational students’ collaboration and knowledge acquisition through instruction and joint reflection

Highlighting tools and technologies for collaborative learning

Premium Partner