Comparing the effects of a collaboration script and collaborative reflection on promoting knowledge about good collaboration and effective interaction

Abstract

Abstract A key challenge in CSCL research is to find ways to support learners in becoming effective collaborators. While the effectiveness of external collaboration scripts is well established, there is a need for research into support that acknowledges learners’ autonomy during collaboration. In the present study, we compare an external collaboration script and a reflection scaffold to a control condition and examine their effects on learners’ knowledge about effective collaboration and on their groups’ interaction quality. In an experimental study that employed a 1× three-factorial design, 150 university students collaborated in groups of three to solve two information pooling problems. These groups either received an external collaboration script during collaboration, no support during collaboration but a reflection scaffold before beginning to collaborate on the second problem, or no support for their collaboration. Multilevel modeling suggests that learners in the reflection condition gained more knowledge about effective collaboration than learners who collaborated guided by an external collaboration script or learners who did not receive any support. However, we found no effect of the script or the reflection scaffold on the quality of interaction in the subsequent collaboration. Explorative analyses suggest that learners acquired knowledge particularly about those interactions that are required for solving information pooling tasks (e.g., sharing information). We discuss our findings by contrasting the design of the external collaboration script and the reflection scaffold to identify potential mechanisms behind scripting and collaborative reflection and to what extent these forms of support foster collaboration skills and engagement in productive interaction.

Cite this work

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

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 23 citations exist upstream.

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