Designing for interaction: Six steps to designing computer-supported group-based learning
Introduction
Learning in small groups has been intensively researched since the 1970s. Moreover, the rapid development of computer support for communication and collaboration stimulated its use for pedagogical practices. At the same time a new way of thinking about instruction emerged, to a large extent based on constructivism. According to Reiser (2001), the instructional principles associated with this emergence include requiring learners to (a) solve problems, (b) work together, (c) examine problems from multiple perspectives, (d) become responsible for their own learning process; and (e) become aware of their role in the instructional process. During the past decades (computer-supported) group-based learning CSGBL) has become an important aspect of contemporary education, and is also stimulated through learning environments that increasingly resemble authentic working processes (Bastiaens & Martens, 2000). At present, however, there are no clear guidelines to determine how a CSGBL setting (i.e. learning environment) should be designed (Van Berlo, 2000). Developers question what tasks or work methods should be used (Enkenberg, 2001). Many researchers have indicated considerable variations regarding the quality of interaction and learning outcomes (Häkkinen, Järvelä, & Byman, 2001). To a large extent this is caused by differences in group size, technology used, length of the study, research methodology and unit of analysis (Lipponen, 2001).
At present, the design of CSGBL settings often seems based on subjective decisions regarding tasks, pedagogy and technology. So far, research has mainly focused on the quality of collaborative products or individual learning results, but the outcome is mediated by the quality of group processes (Shaw, 1981). Moreover, there is considerable uncertainty about the relationship between interaction and outcome, because the effect of a CSGBL setting on group interaction is rarely specified a priori (Dillenbourg, 1999). However, recent interest in CSGBL from the instructional design domain may stimulate the development of a more systematic approach to CSGBL design (Gros, 2001).
In this article a framework for a process-oriented methodology to design CSGBL settings is proposed, which focuses on the elicitation of the specified expected interaction. This implies that researchers have a clear concept of interaction and how it relates to their CSGBL setting. Hence, before the process-oriented methodology can be discussed, four issues must be addressed: (a) the applicability of a classic instructional design view to CSGBL, (b) the conceptualisation of interaction, (c) the applicability of the terms ‘cooperative learning’ and ‘collaborative learning’ as design principles, and (d) the possibility to identify critical elements in CSGBL settings affecting interaction, and if so, what they are. These issues will be successively elaborated in 2 Instructional design for CSGBL, 3 Conceptualising interaction, 4 Cooperation versus collaboration: design principle for GBL?, 5 Five critical elements for process-oriented CSGBL design. Next, the design methodology is introduced. Finally, the potential applicability and its limitations will be discussed.
Section snippets
Instructional design for CSGBL
Classic instructional design focuses on individual learning outcomes and tries to control instructional variables to create a learning environment that supports the acquisition of a specific skill (person A will acquire skill B through learning method C). With respect to CSGBL, the use of groups complicates this view. The key questions are whether it is (a) possible and (b) feasible to pre-define independent static conditions of learning or instruction for a group setting. Can all relevant
Conceptualising interaction
Collaboration essentially entails interaction. The issue of ‘how students interact’ has gradually received increasing attention in CSGBL research, but the impact of interaction processes on learning is explained in retrospect, i.e. it is determined whether outcomes were affected by the interaction observed. Retrospective examination of interaction can provide indicative evidence regarding a relationship between outcome and interaction, but there is little certainty that it can be reproduced
Cooperation versus collaboration: design principle for GBL?
During the 1970s and 1980s ‘cooperative learning’ dominated CSGBL practices, but since the beginning of the 1990s ‘collaborative learning’ came into fashion. Although many researchers make a distinction between these perspectives on CSGBL, there is no agreement on what the distinction actually entails. Panitz (n.d.) sees collaboration as a personal philosophy of group interaction and cooperation as a (set of) structure(s) of interaction that facilitates group performance. Slavin (1997) states
Five critical elements for process-oriented CSGBL design
Although instructional design researchers argue to develop an explicit and systematic approach to CSGBL design (Gros, 2001), it is not a new issue. Salomon argued in 1992 that “the whole learning environment, not just the computer program or tool, be designed as a well orchestrated whole (…) this includes curriculum, teachers’ behaviours, collaborative tasks, mode of peer collaboration and interaction, tasks, learning goals and the like” (p. 64).
We propose here a process-oriented approach that
Designing for interaction: a process-oriented methodology
In the introduction to this article, a need for a more systematic approach to CSGBL design was identified. The proposed process-oriented design methodology implies that a conceptualisation of the expected interaction is made explicit in advance and stresses the identification of critical elements that affect the interaction. Based on a literature review, five critical elements have been identified: learning objectives, task type, level of pre-structuring, group size and technology. We recommend
Discussion
Currently, the design of CSGBL settings is commonly motivated with concepts such as ‘cooperative’ versus ‘collaborative’, or ‘positive interdependence’ and ‘individual accountability’. A critical review reveals that neither are substantial enough to serve as a basis for the design of a CSGBL setting. In addition, research results show large variations regarding the relationship between interaction and learning outcomes, caused by differences in length of study, technology used, group size,
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Paul Kirschner, Frans Prins and Jeroen Van Merriënboer for their comments and suggestions.
References (88)
Children as computer users: the case of collaborative learning
Computers & Education
(1998)Instructional design and emerging teaching models in higher education
Computers in Human Behaviour
(2001)Instructional design for computer-supported collaborative learning in primary and secondary education
Computers in Human Behaviour
(2001)How gender influences learners working collaboratively with science simulations
Learning and Instruction
(2000)- et al.
The Jigsaw classroom: a cooperative strategy for an educational psychology course
- Aviv, R. (2000). Educational performance of ALN via content analysis. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 4(2)....
- et al.
Promoting reflective interactions in a computer supported collaborative learning environment
Journal of Computer Assisted Learning
(1997) - et al.
Conditions for web-based learning with real events
- et al.
Impacts of asynchronous learning networks on individual and group problem solving: a field experiment
Group Decision and Negotiation
(1999) Designing social infrastructure: the challenge of building computer-supported learning communities
Collaborative learning and computer-supported groups
Communication Education
Embedding cooperative learning into the design of integrated learning systems: rationale and guidelines
Educational Technology Research & Development
Articulating collaboration in a learning community
Behaviour & Information Technology
Restructuring the classroom: conditions for productive small groups
Review of Educational Research
Scientific discovery learning with computer simulations of conceptual domains
Review of Educational Research
The evolution of research on collaborative learning
What do you mean by collaborative learning?
Computer-supported collaboration in argumentative writing
Group dynamics (2nd ed.)
Effects of workgroup structure and size on student productivity during collaborative work on complex tasks
Elementary School Journal
Symbolic dynamic patterns of written exchanges: hierarchical structures in an electronic problem solving group
Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology, and Life Sciences
Analysis of a global online debate and the development of an interaction analysis model for examining social construction of knowledge in computer conferencing
Journal of Educational Computing Research
Effective discussion through a computer-mediated anchored forum
Journal of the Learning Sciences
Sharing and making perspectives in web-based conferencing
Exploring multiplexity: social network structures in a computer-supported distance learning class
The Information Society
Content analysis of online discussion in an applied educational psychology course
Instructional Science
Collaborating in cyberspace: using computer conferences as a group learning environment
Interactive Learning Environments
Learning networks: a field guide to teaching and learning online
Computer conferencing and content analysis
A methodology for the analysis of patterns of participation within computer mediated courses
Instructional Science
Collaborative environments and task design in the university
Computers in Human Behaviour
Design and analysis of learners’ interaction based on collaborative learning ontology
Student-student interaction: the neglected variable in education
Educational Research
Advanced cooperative learning
Instructional design models for well-structured and ill-structured problem-solving learning outcomes
Educational Technology Research & Development
Communication patterns in computer mediated and face-to-face group problem solving
Educational Technology Research & Development
Cooperative learning
Discourse patterns for mediating peer learning
Cracking the code: learning to collaborate and collaborating to learn in a networked environment [Electronic version]
Case-based learning in CSCL environments
Cited by (223)
What makes peer collaborative problem solving productive or unproductive: A qualitative systematic review
2023, Educational Research ReviewVirtual reality enhanced multi-role collaboration in crane-lift training for modular construction
2023, Automation in ConstructionAssessing collaborative problem-solving skills among elementary school students
2021, Computers and EducationMore than experience? - On the unique opportunities of virtual reality to afford a holistic experiential learning cycle
2021, Internet and Higher EducationCitation Excerpt :The affordance concept has been adopted in the field of information systems, studying the design, use and impact of information technology (Dremel, Herterich, Wulf, & Vom Brocke, 2020; Lehrer, Wieneke, Vom Brocke, Jung, & Seidel, 2018; Seidel, Recker, & Vom Brocke, 2013) as well as in education science as a theoretical foundation for the selection and design of e-learning technologies (Antonenko, Dawson, & Sahay, 2017; Bower, 2008; Kirschner, Strijbos, Kreijns, & Beers, 2004). While traditional instructional design approaches assume a causal relationship between technology, instructional methods, and learning outcomes, the affordance concept allows designers to focus on promoting a certain kind of learning behavior (Strijbos, Martens, & Jochems, 2004). For example, Kirschner et al. (2004) suggested that e-learning environments should offer certain educational, social, and technological affordances to enable the emergence of collaborative learning processes.