Providing different types of group awareness information to guide collaborative learning

被引:64
作者
Schnaubert, Lenka [1 ]
Bodemer, Daniel [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Duisburg Essen, Lotharstr 65, D-47057 Duisburg, Germany
关键词
Computer-supported collaborative learning; Group awareness; Guidance; Metacognition; Self-regulated learning; ARGUMENTATIVE KNOWLEDGE CONSTRUCTION; SOCIALLY SHARED REGULATION; REPRESENTATIONAL GUIDANCE; METACOGNITIVE JUDGMENTS; RESPONSE-CERTITUDE; COGNITIVE CONFLICT; TIME ALLOCATION; SELF-REGULATION; HIGH-CONFIDENCE; CSCL;
D O I
10.1007/s11412-018-9293-y
中图分类号
G40 [教育学];
学科分类号
040101 ; 120403 ;
摘要
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.
引用
收藏
页码:7 / 51
页数:45
相关论文
共 144 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], TRANSFORMING LEARNIN
[2]  
[Anonymous], SPRINGER
[3]  
[Anonymous], 2013, AP COUCHDB
[4]  
[Anonymous], 2009, Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, DOI DOI 10.1142/S1793206809000660
[5]  
[Anonymous], 1983, EVALUATION ED, DOI DOI 10.1016/0191-765X(82)90011-8
[6]  
[Anonymous], 1951, Psychometrika, DOI [10.1007/bf02310555, DOI 10.1007/BF02310555]
[7]  
[Anonymous], 1990, Psychology of learning and motivation, DOI [DOI 10.1016/S0079-7421(08)60053-5, DOI 10.1016/S00797421]
[8]  
[Anonymous], THESIS
[9]  
[Anonymous], ADV PSYCHOL, DOI [DOI 10.1016/S0166-4115(09)60059-5, 10.1016/S0166-4115, DOI 10.1016/S0166-4115]
[10]   Agenda-Based Regulation of Study-Time Allocation: When Agendas Override Item-Based Monitoring [J].
Ariel, Robert ;
Dunlosky, John ;
Bailey, Heather .
JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY-GENERAL, 2009, 138 (03) :432-447