Are you with me or not? Temporal synchronicity and transactivity during CSCL

Anouschka van Leeuwen · S.C.A. Buis

51 citations0/0 files storedJournal of Computer Assisted Learning

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods Online and Blended Learning Visual and Cognitive Learning Processes

Abstract

Abstract Do the simultaneous alignment of student activities (temporal synchronicity) and students successively building on each other's reasoning (transactivity) predict the quality of collaborative learning products? To address this question, we used a mixed‐method approach to study 74 first‐year university students who were randomly assigned to work in dyads on an ill‐defined problem of biodiversity collapse in tropical forests within a computer‐supported collaborative learning setting. The quantitative analysis revealed that neither temporal synchronicity nor transactivity was related to the quality of group products. The qualitative analysis of chat transcripts revealed that the variability between the groups could be explained by group dynamics, students' prior knowledge, confidence in managing the learning task, collaborative strategy and communication skills. The study findings could be used to optimize collaboration by informing students directly of their activities or the teachers that scaffold these activities. Lay Description What is already known about this topic: Collaborative learning effort is influenced by how well students coordinate their activities across time and transact on each other's ideas. What this paper adds: This study examines the relation between temporal synchronicity, transactivity and the quality of group products in the context of synchronous computer‐supported collaborative learning. Neither temporal synchronicity nor transactivity was found to be directly related to the quality of group products. Implications for practice and/or policy: Collaboration groups require socio‐cognitive support not only based on the attunement of their efforts but also based on differences within groups.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 51 citations exist upstream.

References

1977The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data 2003Identifying the pitfalls for social interaction in computer-supported collaborative learning environments: a review of the research 2003When Smart Groups Fail 1995Joint attention as social cognition.2006Computer-supported collaborative learning: An historical perspective 2005A framework to analyze argumentative knowledge construction in computer-supported collaborative learning 2014Cognitive Perspectives on Peer Learning 2013New Frontiers: Regulating Learning in CSCL

Cited by

2021Metacognition in Collaborative Learning 2019Are we together or not? The temporal interplay of monitoring, physiological arousal and physiological synchrony during a collaborative exam 2019The potential of temporal analysis: Combining log data and lag sequential analysis to investigate temporal differences between scaffolded and non-scaffolded group inquiry-based learning processes 2019Uncovering the sequential patterns in transformative and non-transformative discourse during collaborative inquiry learning 2020

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.