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
[81]  
King A, 2007, COMPUT-SUPP COLLAB L, V6, P13
[82]   From Cognitive Load Theory to Collaborative Cognitive Load Theory [J].
Kirschner, Paul A. ;
Sweller, John ;
Kirschner, Femke ;
Zambrano, Jimmy R. .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COMPUTER-SUPPORTED COLLABORATIVE LEARNING, 2018, 13 (02) :213-233
[83]   Do Learners Really Know Best? Urban Legends in Education [J].
Kirschner, Paul A. ;
van Merrienboer, Jeroen J. G. .
EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGIST, 2013, 48 (03) :169-183
[84]  
Kollar I, 2018, INTERNATIONAL HANDBOOK OF THE LEARNING SCIENCES, P340
[85]   The intricate relationships between monitoring and control in metacognition: Lessons for the cause-and-effect relation between subjective experience and behavior [J].
Koriat, A ;
Ma'ayan, H ;
Nussinson, R .
JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY-GENERAL, 2006, 135 (01) :36-69
[86]   The combined contributions of the cue-familiarity and accessibility heuristics to feelings of knowing [J].
Koriat, A ;
Levy-Sadot, R .
JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY-LEARNING MEMORY AND COGNITION, 2001, 27 (01) :34-53
[87]   Views That Are Shared With Others Are Expressed With Greater Confidence and Greater Fluency Independent of Any Social Influence [J].
Koriat, Asher ;
Adiv, Shiri ;
Schwarz, Norbert .
PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY REVIEW, 2016, 20 (02) :176-193
[88]   The relationships between monitoring, regulation and performance [J].
Koriat, Asher .
LEARNING AND INSTRUCTION, 2012, 22 (04) :296-298
[89]   Study efficacy and the region of proximal learning framework [J].
Kornell, Nate ;
Metcalfe, Janet .
JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY-LEARNING MEMORY AND COGNITION, 2006, 32 (03) :609-622
[90]   Feedback in Written Instruction: The Place of Response Certitude [J].
Kulhavy, Raymond W. ;
Stock, William A. .
EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY REVIEW, 1989, 1 (04) :279-308