Fostering Collaborative Learning in Videoconferencing

Education, Communication & Information, Vol. 5, No. 2, July 2005

Fostering Collaborative Learning in Videoconferencing: the influence of content schemes and collaboration scripts on collaboration outcomes and individual learning outcomes

BERNHARD ERTL, MARKUS REISERER & HEINZ MANDL, Ludwig Maximilian University, Munich, Germany Education, 10.1080/14636310500185927 RECI118575.sgm 1463-631X Original Taylor 5202005 Department BernhardErtl [email protected] 00000July and & Article Francis Communication Francis (print)/1470-6725 2004 PsychologyLeopoldstr. Group Ltd Ltd& (online) Information 13MunichD-80802Germany

ABSTRACT Videoconferencing is expected to become increasingly important for tele-learning environments. This study investigates how to foster collaborative learning through videoconferencing. A collaborative teaching scenario was selected as the learning environment, which required the learners to teach one another theories. In this study, the effects of different types of support for this collaboration were investigated. The main focus is on how both (1) content schemes and (2) collaboration scripts improve the collaboration outcome and foster individual learning outcomes. Results indicate that content schemes as well as collaboration scripts were beneficial to collaboration outcomes. Furthermore, learners supported by a collaboration script seemed to profit more from collaboration than learners without a script.

Introduction In recent years, the capabilities of net-based communication have increased steadily, enabling high-quality desktop videoconferencing. Well-known net-based learning environments can now benefit from the use of desktop videoconferencing scenarios (see Fischer & Mandl, 2003). Consequently, web-based virtual courses and asynchronous learning environments can be enriched or even replaced by videoconferencing elements. However, videoconferencing research has focused mainly on comparing videoconferencing with other settings. In particular, the comparison between videoconferencing and face-to-face situations has played an integral role (O’Connaill et al., ISSN 1463-631X print; 1470-6725 online/05/020147-20 © 2005 Taylor & Francis DOI: 10.1080/14636310500185927

148

B. Ertl et al.

1993; Finn et al., 1997; Schweizer et al., 2003). However, less attention has been dedicated to the question of how collaborative learning in videoconferences could be supported through specific instructional measures (cf. Fischer et al., 2000). This article focuses on support mechanisms for collaborative learning in videoconferencing. In particular, the study investigates the influence of pre-structuring a content-specific and a collaboration-specific collaborative learning scenario. This pre-structuring is implemented through a shared application, which is a key feature of desktop videoconferencing. Specific attention is paid to the creation of shared external representations using a shared computer application. These are understood to be textual and graphical representations of knowledge structures, created by the learners collaboratively. Such jointly created shared external representations can be used to measure the performance of the group and also to measure collaboration outcomes (Hertz-Lazarowitz et al., 1992; Anderson et al., 1997). Shared external representations are of high importance to collaboration in videoconferencing as they are a common and permanently accessible basis for contentspecific discussions between the learning partners in different locations (Roschelle & Teasley, 1995; Dillenbourg & Traum, 1999; Suthers & Hundhausen, 2001; Ertl, 2003). Shared external representations become even more important when the collaborative partners are in possession of different resources, which can only be made accessible to the other conference participants through collaborative efforts. The next section summarizes some common assumptions and findings about collaborative learning in videoconferencing. Then the following sections highlight the role of external representations in learning. Based on this, we will then present specific support measures that foster learners’ collaboration outcomes and promote individual learning outcomes. These support measures take the form of content schemes, which support content-specific collaboration, and collaboration scripts, which structure the course of the collaboration and assign roles to the collaborative partners. Collaborative Learning in Videoconferencing From a socio-elaborative perspective (e.g. Webb, 1989; Renkl, 1997), the collaborative elaboration of learning material plays an important role for individual knowledge acquisition. In collaborative learning scenarios, learners play an active role through self-directed work in learning groups (Cohen, 1994). Moreover, they have the opportunity to construct shared knowledge through social exchange with their learning partners, e.g. when explaining facts to one another, asking questions and giving each other feedback (Fischer, 2002). Through these co-constructive processes, cognitive processes may be initiated which are indispensable for individual knowledge acquisition. Individual learning outcomes are highly dependent on the degree to which these co-constructive processes are activated through discourse. Consequently, the effectiveness of the collaboration group is related to its ability to facilitate the initiation of activities which are often underused in individual learning (Webb, 1989; Cohen, 1994). These assumptions regarding collaborative learning can also be applied to the study of collaborative learning in videoconferencing. To date, research on this topic

Fostering Collaborative Learning in Videoconferencing

149

has focused mainly on the comparison of videoconference settings with face-to-face collaboration (O’Connaill et al., 1993; Anderson et al., 1997). The central questions focused on the degree to which collaborating partners in videoconferencing could achieve results of similar quality to those in face-to-face settings with respect to communication acts and task performance. However, as videoconferences exhibit important characteristics of face-to-face communication (Clark & Brennan, 1991; Mcgrath & Hollingshead, 1994; Dennis & Valacich, 1999), they also have a high potential for enabling virtual collaborative learning arrangements. Amongst these characteristics are the feature of synchronous verbal exchange and the ability to see collaboration partners live. This opportunity should not, however, diminish the fact that videoconferences have certain limitations compared to face-to-face communication. For example, conventional systems do not allow for any eye contact between the participants in the diverse locations (Acker & Levitt, 1987). Also, irrespective of the technical quality of the videoconference, there are various aspects of non-verbal communication that are constrained, often through the fact that only a picture of the participants’ head and chest is transmitted. Therefore, the transmission of body position and gestures is limited (Bruce, 1996; Finn et al., 1997). Despite these limitations, Fischer and Mandl (2003) have concluded that collaborative learning in videoconferences is comparable to face-to-face collaboration. Studies have shown that videoconferences imply no substantial disadvantages when compared to faceto-face collaboration, neither with respect to the different process variables, nor with respect to the success of learning outcomes (Fischer et al., 2000; Pächter, 2003; Schweizer et al., 2003). However, for such results to be achieved, it is prerequisite to have disturbance-free communication without extensive communication delays (O’Connaill et al., 1993). The Effect of Shared External Representations on Collaborative Learning The main difference between face-to-face situations and videoconferences, even when videoconferences support delay-free communication, is that participants are in diverse locations and are only able to communicate through the communication channels supported by the scenario. An audio–video component enables participants to see and hear each other. Furthermore, desktop videoconferences also feature shared computer applications, which enable participants to work on documents together (Dillenbourg & Traum, 1999; Ertl, 2003). From a psychological perspective, this functionality is important for the creation of shared external representations. From our perspective, the concept of shared external representations describes an externalization of knowledge that is created through collaborative efforts. These representations are accessible to all collaborative partners in textual or graphical form (Suthers, 2001; Fischer, 2002). In net-based learning environments, the creation of shared external representations becomes increasingly important, as these form the only permanent knowledge basis for all collaboration partners (Dillenbourg & Traum, 1999; Ertl, 2003). Furthermore, shared external representations play a key role in collaborative knowledge construction when spatially distributed learning partners possess different resources. In collaborative learning, the distribution of learning resources and

150

B. Ertl et al.

knowledge is the basis for resource-interdependent approaches (Aronson et al., 1978; Johnson & Johnson, 1992; Cohen & Lotan, 1995). In these approaches, the learning resources are distributed between the partners such that each participant has access to specific resources. The collaborative effort for the learning partners is to exchange their resources so that after collaboration, all the learning partners have become familiar with the broadest possible range of learning material. These types of collaborative arrangements have a high potential for initiating collaborative learning processes. Learners have to comprehensibly explain any unshared resources; otherwise the mutual communication of the material is not possible. Furthermore, they have to ask and answer comprehension questions to resolve problems with missing resources. It can be assumed that this demanding elaborating and questioning evokes beneficial cognitive learning processes (Webb, 1989; Renkl et al., 1996). Furthermore, this ensures that the learning partners engage actively in the collaboration (Johnson & Johnson, 1992). However, in situations with different learning resources, difficulties sometimes arise for the learning partners who are not able to directly access the information. For this reason, they rely on the contents of the ‘foreign’ learning resource to be communicated appropriately, comprehensibly and comprehensively by the learning partner to enable knowledge acquisition. Studies focusing on collaboration with distributed learning resources show that learning partners who do not have direct access to the learning material have weaker learning outcomes than the learning partners who are in direct possession of the material (Lambiotte et al., 1988; O’Donnell & Dansereau, 2000). Shared external representations can be beneficial when learning with distributed resources. By creating shared external representations, knowledge becomes accessible to all learning partners during the collaboration. The use of shared external representations can help learning partners who do not have access to particular learning materials achieve better learning outcomes (Dillenbourg & Traum, 1999; Suthers & Hundhausen, 2001; Ertl, 2003). Furthermore, Hertz-Lazarowitz et al. (1992) state that these jointly created external representations—the group product—can be seen as a measure of the effectiveness of the group. Therefore, we will refer to them as a collaboration outcome. Supporting Collaborative Learning in Videoconferencing by Pre-structuring Shared External Representations Based on the usefulness of shared external representations, the following sections describe measures for supporting collaborative learning in videoconferencing. Firstly, we will focus on content-specific structures in the form of so-called content schemes. Secondly, we will consider the collaboration-specific structures, which aim to direct collaboration through so-called collaboration scripts. Predefining Content Structures with Content Schemes The concept of content schemes covers external structuring methods regarding the contents and core concepts of the learning material (Brooks & Dansereau, 1983).


151

These core concepts are made available to the learner by representational prestructuring. Suthers and Hundhausen (2001) explain the effects of these types of external structuring methods through their function in making core characteristics of the learning material salient (salience) and thereby leading the learning discourse through their representation (representational guidance). Through these structuring methods, learners are made aware of the presence or absence of the central characteristics. This supports learners by focusing the discussion on the learning material. Representational guidance enables learners to identify any gaps in content, which can then become the focus of the discussion. Suthers (2001) explored various forms of content-specific structuring methods in the context of the acquisition of scientific theories. These studies focused on creating awareness of theoretical concepts, evidence and the relationships between theoretical concepts and evidence. One study compared three different conditions which differed in the form of the contentspecific structures made available to the participants. Results show that groups that created external representations on the basis of graphical or tabular predefined structures were substantially more successful at identifying the relationships between theoretical concepts and evidence as compared to groups that acted without such support. Thus, content-specific structures were able to direct the creation of the external representation and thereby influence the learning discourse in the manner intended. Regarding videoconferencing, there are only a few studies that analyze the effects of content-specific pre-structuring. Fischer et al. (2000) report a study that aims to support learners in discerning the difference between theoretical concepts and evidence through working on case studies. The authors provided the participants with a tool for structured visualizations, which was intended to assist learners in creating shared external representations. This offered the learners contentspecific structures that were conceptualized and tailored to the case study. These structures were intended to encourage learners to construct one (empirical) problem space and one (theoretical) conceptual space and to identify the relationships between the elements of each space. Results indicated that the structuring method positively influenced the learning discourse with respect to various content and process variables. However, this structuring method did not have any substantial effect on learning outcomes. In summary, findings regarding content-specific pre-structuring in collaborative learning scenarios are ambiguous (Bruhn, 2000; Suthers, 2001). Furthermore, the question of the role of content schemes in collaborative learning with distributed learning resources has been largely ignored to date. Thus, there is a need to investigate the degree to which content schemes can help the learner structure contents by creating shared external representations. Investigations should also focus on the degree to which content schemes prove beneficial for those learning partners who are receiving new knowledge through the collaboration. When pre-structuring shares external representations, the question arises as to which provides the best support for learners: a more text-based support, such as tables, or a more graphical support, such as a whiteboard or a tool for structured visualization (Suthers & Hundhausen, 2001; Fischer et al., 2002). In this context,

152

B. Ertl et al.

Suthers and Hundhausen (2001) report findings indicating that the pre-structuring of the shared application is actually the motor for representational guidance and beneficial collaborative activities. The type of structure used (i.e. graphical or tabular) does not appear to be a factor. Dobson (1999) also states that there is a difference between the power of the visualization features of a tool and the usability of this tool. For example, a more text-based tool may be suited better for inexperienced learners than a full-featured graphics tool, as it may protect learners from cognitive overload (Sweller et al., 1998). Initiating Beneficial Collaborative Learning Processes through Collaboration Scripts Another method for promoting collaborative learning in videoconferencing is the preparation of so-called collaboration scripts. This approach differs from content schemes as the scripts do not structure domain-specific contents, but rather attempt to direct learners to apply strategies known to be supportive for learning. There are several methods of instruction that can be categorized as script-based collaboration. Examples from face-to-face collaboration are the methods of reciprocal teaching (Palincsar & Brown, 1984; Brown & Palincsar, 1989) and scripted cooperation (e.g. O’Donnell & Dansereau, 1992). Without reporting results in detail, it has been proven that these types of collaboration scripts promote collaborative learning (Rosenshine & Meister, 1994). Thus, script-based approaches have also taken on a prominent role in supporting web-based collaborative learning. Until now, the implementation of collaboration scripts has mainly taken place in text-based collaborative arrangements (Baker & Lund, 1997; Hron et al., 1997; Weinberger, 2003). Thus, the question becomes the degree to which collaboration scripts can positively influence learning processes and learning outcomes in the context of videoconferencing. To benefit from the application of collaboration scripts, it seems necessary to tailor the collaboration script to the requirements of the collaboration scenario. Considering the importance of shared external representations in videoconferencing, such collaboration scripts should consequently teach learners how to create shared external representations. Furthermore, when using collaboration scripts in the context of distributed resources, special attention should be paid to the learning partners who do not have direct access to the learning material. These learning partners should be encouraged to perform collaborative activities as intensely as possible to benefit as much as possible from collaboration. Research Questions This study investigates the degree to which a content scheme and a collaboration script can affect collaboration outcomes and individual learning outcomes. Research Question 1: To what degree do content schemes and collaboration scripts affect collaboration outcomes? Research Question 2: To what degree do content schemes and collaboration scripts affect individual learning outcomes?


153

In order to examine the relevance of shared external representations for learning outcomes, the relationships between collaboration outcomes and individual learning outcomes will be analyzed. Research Question 3: To what degree do collaboration outcomes and individual learning outcomes relate to one another?

Method Participants and Design Eighty-six undergraduate students of educational psychology took part in the experiment. The median age of the participants was 22. As is characteristic for students of education, more females than males were part of the sample. The participants were randomly split into 43 dyads and were assigned to one of four conditions of a 2 × 2 factorial design. Two factors were varied for the study: content scheme (with/ without) and collaboration script (with/without). Ten to twelve dyads worked in each of the four conditions. Attention was paid to ensure the participants did not know each other before collaboration. The study was part of a complex learning scenario. In this article, only the components of the learning scenario necessary for understanding the data presented herein will be described. Learning Environment and Procedure for the Study The learning environment consisted of an individual and a collaborative learning unit. In the individual learning unit (35 mins), one person from each dyad acquired knowledge about an educational theory using a text about genotype–environment effects (1253 words). This text contained information about theoretical concepts and evidence. After this individual learning unit, learners started on the collaborative learning unit using the videoconference (approx. 40 mins). The person who had acquired knowledge about the theory of genotype–environment effects functioned as the teacher during this collaborative learning unit. The second person assumed the role of learner during collaboration. The learner in the teacher role had to familiarize the learner in the learner role with theoretical concepts and evidence about genotype– environment effects. In particular, learners were given the task (1) to study the most important contents of the text with respect to theoretical concepts and evidence and (2) to discuss their own reflections, ideas and comments on the topic. Through the use of a shared application, learners had the opportunity to collaboratively create shared external representations of theoretical concepts, evidence and personal elaborations. During the experiment, the learners were in different locations and communicated using a desktop videoconferencing system. Thus, there was no faceto-face contact between the participants. However, the videoconference featured an audiovisual communication channel and a shared application to capture the shared external representations.

154

B. Ertl et al.

At the beginning and at the end of the learning session, subject-specific knowledge was assessed on an individual basis. Realization Both the factors of collaboration script and content scheme were implemented by prestructuring the shared application. This means that the shared application was prestructured for the learners with elements of the content scheme and the collaboration script. In the following, the three experimental conditions will be described; learners in the control condition used the learning environment without any additional support. Content scheme. The learners using this support measure had a content scheme at their disposal during the collaboration. The content scheme structured the shared application with respect to following categories: theoretical concepts, evidence, consequences and individual opinion. Learners were tasked with describing basic theoretical concepts in the category entitled theoretical concepts and were asked to present the studies that supported the theory in the category entitled evidence. Furthermore, learners were asked to elaborate on personal ideas about the usefulness and limitations of the theory in the category entitled consequences, and were asked for a personal evaluation of the theory in the category individual opinion. Thus, the content scheme helped learners differentiate between theoretical concepts and evidence. It also supported them in explaining the text in their own words and also enabled them to couple this with their own prior knowledge. The fairly abstract categories of the content scheme were made more concrete by prompts contained in each category (see Table I). Collaboration script. The collaboration script structured the collaboration in two different respects: first of all, it provided the learners with four different phases of collaboration. It also provided specific activities for the learners in the teacher and learner role, which were different for each phase (see Table II). The first phase of the collaboration script was dedicated to the learner in the teacher role who was asked to teach the text. The task of this learner, who had read TABLE I.

Structure of the content scheme.

Theoretical concepts

Evidence

What are the core concepts of the theory? What are the most important statements of the theory? Consequences Which pedagogical interventions can be derived from the theory? Which limitations of pedagogical interventions are set by the theory?

How was the theory examined? Which findings support the theory? Individual opinion What do we like about the theory? What do we not like? Which of our own experiences confirm the theory? Which of your own experiences contradict the theory?

Fostering Collaborative Learning in Videoconferencing TABLE II.

155

Tasks of the teacher and learner role in the collaboration script. Teacher role

Phase 1: Communicate Phase 2: Deepen the understanding Phase 3: Reflection Phase 4: Discussion

Learner role

Explaining the text material Supporting the learner

Asking comprehension questions Rehearsing and typing the information received in the shared application Individual reflection and elaboration, based on the shared application Discussing on the basis of Discussing on the basis of reflection with reflection with the partner the partner and capturing the results of the discussion in the shared application

the text first, was to explain the contents of the text. The partner in the learner role was asked to listen, to take notes independently and to query the information as soon as anything became unclear. In the second phase, the learners deepened their comprehension of the text by working collaboratively on a shared external representation of the contents of the text. The partner in the learner role had the task of summarizing core concepts regarding theory and evidence and writing them down in the shared application. The learner in the teacher role supported him/her during this activity. In the third phase of the collaboration script, both learning partners reflected individually. They were asked to generate their own reflections, ideas and comments about the content of the text. In the fourth phase, a discussion of the text and individual reflection took place. The learners could incorporate their own thoughts from the previous learning phases into the discussion. The partner in the learner role was asked to capture important notes from the discussion in the shared external representation. The learner in the teacher role supported this activity. Combination of collaboration script and content scheme. When the collaboration script and the content scheme were used in combination, the collaboration was also sequenced in four phases. In the first phase of the collaboration script, the learners had only the central questions on the theoretical concepts and evidence available in the shared application. However, the learners did not have the opportunity to make entries in this application. During the second phase, the learners entered notes regarding theoretical concepts and evidence in the shared application. The third phase was carried out individually and the prompts on consequences and on individual opinion were simply visible on the screen. In the fourth phase, the learners discussed and noted important aspects of this discussion in the shared application. Data Sources Collaboration outcome: shared external representation. In order to measure the collaboration outcome, the shared external representations were analyzed with respect to the areas of theoretical concepts, evidence and personal elaborations. For this purpose, we identified units of meaning in the text. A unit of meaning was

156

B. Ertl et al.

defined as a core concept of the subject area, e.g. ‘the genotype is the individual genetic information’. Consequently, a coding scheme was developed in which all units of meaning of the text were listed separately in a clearly identifiable way and without thematic overlap. For each unit of meaning included in the application, the learners received one point. The points were then either summed together into a score for theoretical concepts or for evidence. For the assessment of the personal elaborations, a similar method was employed. These were indefinite, as they could contain the learner’s prior personal experiences, e.g. ‘in school, more attention should be paid to the active genotype–environment effect’. Thus, all appropriate units of meaning in the application were summed together. For ensuring inter-rater reliability of the analysis, 10% of each sub-area was marked by two different evaluators. The consistency between the evaluations for each sub-area was r > .94. Individual learning outcome: free recall. After the collaborative learning unit, individual knowledge acquisition was assessed by a free recall test (5 mins). In this test, learners were asked to write out the most important theoretical concepts of the text from memory. This test was analyzed in a manner similar to the analysis of the collaboration outcome: units of meaning were identified in the individual test according to the coding scheme described above. Inter-rater reliability of this test was r = .94. Individual learning outcome: cued recall. After the free recall test, participants completed a test in the form of cued recall items on core concepts of the text (5 mins). In total, a score of 16 points could be achieved in the cued recall test. The reliability of this test was satisfactory (α = .7). Monitoring Variables To monitor the learning assumptions, individuals’ prior knowledge was assessed based on the cued recall test. Furthermore, emotional–motivational variables were surveyed using different scales. These included (1) tolerance for ambiguity based on 10 items and (2) the interest regarding the subject matter based on three items. Results Monitoring Learning Assumptions The learners in each of the conditions did not differ in the amount of prior knowledge that they possessed. The amount of prior knowledge was low in all conditions. Also, learners in the various conditions did not differ in relation to tolerance for ambiguity and interest. Therefore, the varying degrees of learning assumptions did not influence the internal validity of the study. Collaboration Outcome: shared external representations (Research Question 1) The presentation of results for collaboration outcomes reflects the areas of theoretical concepts, evidence and personal elaborations.


157

Theoretical concepts. In relation to the area of theoretical concepts, the learners captured, on average, 13.6 (of an empirical maximum of 22) units of meaning (see Table III). In this area, there were significant effects of both methods of intervention. On the one hand, there was the effect of the collaboration script (F(1,38) = 4.63; p < .05; η2 = .11), which showed that the learners with the collaboration script captured more units of meaning in this area. On the other hand, the effect of the content scheme (F(1,38) = 8.89; p < .01; η2 = .19) showed that the content scheme led to significantly fewer units of meaning captured in the area of theoretical concepts. Evidence. If these results are compared with the area of evidence, it becomes clear that here the differences were the opposite, despite being demonstrated to a lesser degree (mean: 7.40 of 12; see Table III). The learners with the content scheme were able to name more units of meaning from the area of evidence, and the learners supported by the collaboration script were able to name fewer. These effects were not significant. However, there was a tendency (F(1,38) = 3.11; p < .1) for learners with the content scheme to score better. The collaboration script had no significant effects (F(1,38) = 3.32; n.s.). Personal elaborations. The third task for the learners was to generate personal elaborations that were related to the learning material. Looking at the values in Table III reveals a clear effect of the content scheme: learners with the content scheme had significantly more elaborations (mean: 3.33 of empirical max. 7; see Table III) than learners without the content scheme (F(1,38) = 59.98; p < .01; η2 = .61). Furthermore, there was an interaction between the two factors of content scheme and collaboration script (F(1,38) = 9.27; p < .01; η2 = .20). The combination of both support measures led to a lower score than would be expected if using each method of intervention on its own. Fig. 1 shows the sum of all units of meaning of the three sub-areas of the collaboration outcomes. It becomes clear that the learners in the combined condition were able to name the most units of meaning, while the learners in the control group produced the least units of meaning. In all conditions, the sum of theoretical concepts and evidence was about the same, with the exception of the content scheme condition, in which this sum was noticeably lower. FIG. 1. Distribution of the units of meaning in the areas of theory, evidence and elaborations in the different conditions.

TABLE III.

Collaboration outcomes with respect to theory concepts, evidence and elaborations. Theory concepts

Condition

Evidence

Elaborations

M

(SD)

M

(SD)

M

(SD)

Control Content Scheme

14.58 9.60

(5.48) (3.75)

7.83 8.60

(4.63) (2.84)

0.83 6.50

(0.94) (2.07)

Collaboration Script

16.18

(2.48)

5.27

(3.04)

2.09

(1.81)

Content Scheme and Collaboration Script

13.60

(4.30)

8.00

(1.89)

4.50

(1.43)

158

B. Ertl et al.

FIG. 1. Distribution of the units of meaning in the areas of theory, evidence and elaborations in the different conditions.

Figs 2 and 3 illustrate two examples of the collaboration outcome. Learners who worked on the contents shown in Fig. 2 had no support, while learners working on the contents shown in Fig. 3 were supported by a content scheme and a collaboration script. Comparing both figures reveals that learners in both conditions invested nearly the same amount of effort on theoretical concepts—learners without

FIG. 2.

An example of learners’ collaboration outcome (working without any support).


159

FIG. 3. An example of learners’ collaboration outcome (working with support of collaboration script and content scheme).

support possibly even a little more. However, regarding evidence, learners without support merely stated ‘evidence from twin and adoption studies’, while learners with the content scheme and the collaboration script elaborated extensively about evidence (see Fig. 3). Regarding personal elaborations, learners without support omitted this topic (see Fig. 2). However, learners without the content scheme focused more frequently on the interdependencies between the concepts of genotype, phenotype and environment as seen in Fig. 2. The highly structured nature of the content scheme seemed to inhibit such activities.

160

B. Ertl et al.

Individual Learning Outcomes (Research Question 2)

support of collaboration script and content scheme). FIG. 3. 2. An example of learners’ collaboration outcome (working with without any support).

Individual learning outcome was measured through two post-tests, free recall and cued recall. In this section, only the results of the learners in the learner role are reported, as they are a measure of the knowledge acquired during collaboration. Free recall With respect to free recall, there were no noteworthy differences between the four conditions (see Table IV). The variance between the learners in each condition was quite high. However, learners with the content scheme were able to recall most units of meaning freely from memory, while learners in the control condition recalled the least (mean: 7.74 of max. 18; F(3,38) < 1; n.s.). Cued recall The results of the learners in cued recall were between 45% and 57% of the maximum (mean: 7.93; theoretical maximum: 16, see Table IV). The learners with the collaboration script achieved markedly higher individual learning outcomes than learners without. However, this effect was not significant. Statistically, only a tendency could be shown (F(1,39) = 3.54; p < .1). The Relationship Between Collaboration Outcomes and Individual Learning Outcomes (Research Question 3) The third research question involved the correlation between collaboration outcomes and individual learning outcomes. When analyzing the results, a significant correlation of medium size between the theoretical concepts in the shared application and the theoretical concepts in the post-test could be found (see Table V). All other correlations were not significant. Discussion Collaboration Outcomes The results of the study show meaningful effects of both the collaboration script and content scheme with respect to the collaboration outcome. The collaboration script TABLE IV. Individual learning outcomes of the learners in the learner role with respect to free recall and cued recall. Free recall Condition Control Group Content Scheme Collaboration Script Content Scheme and Collaboration Script

Cued recall

M

(SD)

M

(SD)

7.09 8.30 8.00 7.60

(4.87) (3.83) (2.97) (5.99)

7.15 7.28 9.07 8.27

(3.49) (1.79) (2.45) (1.70)


161

TABLE V. Correlations between collaboration outcomes (CO) and individual learning outcomes (ILO) for all learners.

Theory concept CO Evidence CO Elaborations CO

Free recall (ILO)

Cued recall (ILO)

.33* −.23 .15

.02 .11 .01

*The correlation is significant at a level of .05 (two-sided).

was shown to be especially effective in the area of theory concepts. In this area, the learners who were supported by the collaboration script were able to capture more theoretical concepts than other learners. The content scheme mainly influenced the area of elaborations: the learners using content schemes generated more written elaborations than learners without the content scheme. However, learners with the content scheme seemed to generate elaborations at the expense of theory concepts. When supported by a content scheme and a collaboration script, learners seemed to focus on the contents of all three sub-areas in the most appropriate way, which means that they elaborated more, but not at the cost of neglecting theory concepts. The statistical interaction effect of content scheme and collaboration script may substantiate this point of view. The effectiveness of the content scheme can be attributed to representational guidance, which encouraged learners to externally represent more units of meaning relating to evidence and elaborations. When comparing Figs 2 and 3, it becomes clear that the structure of the content scheme provided representational anchors for dealing with evidence and elaborations. However, this structure was also a constraint for learners: they focused on the most important concepts and neglected some interdependent aspects of these concepts. These results are in line with previous research: comparable results were reported by Suthers (2001) and Suthers and Hundhausen (2003). In general, it seems that content schemes focus learners on contents or categories, which may be neglected by learners without the content scheme. On the other hand, content schemes constrain learners by inhibiting the learner from establishing relationships not provided by the content scheme (Cox, 1999; Dobson, 1999). This may be an ambiguity of content schemes. In contrast, the effectiveness of the collaboration script in encouraging learners to externally represent more theoretical concepts may be explained quite differently. Learners using the collaboration script had to deal with the text material twice. In phase 1 of the collaboration script, the learner in the teacher role communicated the most important aspects of the text. In phase 2, the partner in the learner role repeated these contents and noted them. This structure seemed to particularly activate the learners in the learner role (Renkl et al., 1996) and helped both learners apply beneficial discussion strategies (Rosenshine & Meister, 1994; Reiserer, 2003). However, due to time constraints, learners may have focused their attention on understanding theory and dealing with theoretical concepts at the cost of neglecting evidence.

162

B. Ertl et al.

In looking at Fig. 1 and comparing the condition of the collaboration script with the combined condition, it becomes clear that the total sum of the units of meaning with respect to theory and evidence was almost the same in both groups. However, on the basis of the representational guidance in the content scheme, there were more units of meaning on evidence noted in the combined condition. This indicates that using both content schemes and collaboration scripts is most beneficial for learners. Similar results showing the efficiency of content-specific and collaboration-specific support can also be found in the area of collaborative problem-solving (e.g. Kopp et al., 2004). Individual Learning Outcomes In contrast to their clear effects on collaboration outcomes, the support measures had no clear effect on individual learning outcomes. Tendencies indicate beneficial effects of the collaboration script, however not at a level which is statistically significant. The content scheme had no effect on learning outcomes. Thus, the question becomes why the strong effects during collaboration did not affect individual learning outcomes. One reason for this may be the task of collaborative teaching. Since learners acquired their knowledge only during collaboration, their individual learning styles (traits) may have negated effects of the interventions when completing the post-test. Thus, in order to apply beneficial support measures for collaboration outcomes and individual learning outcomes, a differentiated task analysis is necessary (Ertl et al., in press). Relationships Between Collaborative and Individual Learning Outcomes When analyzing the relationship between collaboration outcomes and individual learning outcomes, results show that the sub-area of theoretical concepts within collaboration outcomes correlates with the number of theoretical concepts the partner in the learner role was able to provide in the post-test (see Table V). This relationship is of importance because this partner did not have access to the text and therefore relied on the concepts written down in the shared application. This result reveals the important role the shared external representation plays for the learners to reach a shared understanding when learning collaboratively with distributed resources (Roschelle & Teasley, 1995; Dillenbourg & Traum, 1999). Summary This particular type of support for collaboration with distributed resources is important for two reasons. Firstly, videoconferencing-based learning environments that use these support measures can be beneficial for learning scenarios with distributed resources (Aronson et al., 1978; Johnson & Johnson, 1992; Cohen & Lotan, 1995; O’Donnell & Dansereau, 2000). In addition, such shared external representations may also be beneficial for other kinds of collaboration with distributed resources, e.g. tele-tutoring and collaboration between experts and laypersons (Geyken et al., 1998; Nückles & Stürz, in press) or collaboration between experts within two different domains (Rummel & Spada, 2005).


163

The assertion can be made that both the collaboration script and the content scheme demonstrate positive effects when used as instructional support measures for collaborative learning in videoconferences (Ertl et al., in press). The content scheme works on a content-specific level and the collaboration script works to structure the collaboration. The results of this investigation also indicate that shared external representations have a key function for collaborative learning in videoconferencing. Therefore, it is essential for future research in this field to gain deeper insights into this area. This may be specifically achieved through detailed process analysis of how the creation of shared external representations affects the structure and contents of the learning discourse. Conclusions Finally, several conclusions can be drawn. The first is that further investigation is needed on how content schemes should be built to focus learners during collaboration and to investigate how content schemes can benefit individual learning outcomes. A first step in this direction can be found in Ertl et al. (in press), comparing three different types of content schemes and showing features of content schemes that are particularly beneficial for supporting learners. Secondly, research must increasingly focus on processes that occur during collaboration. With respect to this issue, discourse processes should be analyzed with respect to the effects of support measures. Furthermore, studies should be conducted on the degree to which collaboration outcomes influence individual learning outcomes in a more contentspecific way, as opposed to just using simple correlations. Thirdly, it is key to investigate how these support strategies are implemented in the field. The effectiveness of the support measures must be substantiated with a more heterogeneous sample and in videoconferences of a larger group size than dyads. Acknowledgements This research has been funded by DFG (German Research Foundation, Project MA 978/13–1). Correspondence: Dr Bernhard Ertl, Dr Markus Reiserer & Prof. Dr Heinz Mandl, Ludwig Maximilian University, Department of Psychology, Leopoldstr. 13, 80802 Munich, Germany; e-mail: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

REFERENCES ACKER, S.R. & LEVITT, S.R. (1987) Designing videoconference facilities for improved eye contact, Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 31, pp. 181–191. ANDERSON, A.H., O’MALLEY, C., DOHERTY SNEDDON, G., LANGTON, S., NEWLANDS, A., MULLIN, J., FLEMING, A.M. & VAN DER VELDEN, J. (1997) The impact of VMC on collaborative problem solving: an analysis of task performance, communicative process, and user satisfaction, in: K.E. FINN, A.J. SELLEN & S. WILBUR (Eds) Video Mediated Communication, pp. 133–155 (Mahwah, NJ, Erlbaum).

164

B. Ertl et al.

ARONSON, E., BLANEY, N., STEPHAN, C., SIKES, J. & SNAPP, M. (1978) The Jigsaw Classroom (Beverly Hills, CA, Sage). BAKER, M. & LUND, K. (1997) Promoting reflective interactions in a CSCL environment, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 13, pp. 175–193. BROOKS, L.W. & DANSEREAU, D.F. (1983) Effects of structural schema training and text organization on expository prose processing, Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, pp. 811–820. BROWN, A.L. & PALINCSAR, A.S. (1989) Guided, cooperative learning and individual knowledge acquisition, in: L.B. RESNICK (Ed.) Knowing, Learning, and Instruction: essays in honor of Robert Glaser, pp. 393–451 (Hillsdale, NJ, Erlbaum). BRUCE, V. (1996) The role of the face in communication: implications for videophone design, Interacting with Computers, 8, pp. 166–176. BRUHN, J. (2000) Förderung des kooperativen Lernens über Computernetze. Prozess und Lernerfolg beim dyadischen Lernen mit Desktop-Videokonferenzen [Fostering cooperative learning in computer networks: process and learning outcome in dyadic learning in desktop-videoconferencing] (Frankfurt am Main, Peter Lang). CLARK, H.H. & BRENNAN, S.E. (1991) Grounding in communication, in: L.B. RESNICK (Ed.) Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition, pp. 127–149 (Washington, DC, American Psychological Association). COHEN, E.G. (1994) Restructuring the classroom: conditions for productive small groups, Review of Educational Research, 64, pp. 1–35. COHEN, E.G. & LOTAN, R.A. (1995) Producing equal-status interaction in the heterogeneous classroom, American Educational Research Journal, 32, pp. 99–120. COX, R. (1999) Representation construction, externalised cognition and individual differences, Learning and Instruction, 9, pp. 343–363. DENNIS, A.R. & VALACICH, J.S. (1999) Rethinking media richness: towards a theory of media synchronicity, paper presented at the 32nd Annual Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences. DILLENBOURG, P. & TRAUM, D. (1999) Does a shared screen make a shared solution?, paper presented at the Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning (CSCL), Stanford, CA, January. DOBSON, M. (1999) Information enforcement and learning with interactive graphical systems, Learning and Instruction, 9, pp. 365–390. ERTL, B. (2003) Kooperatives Lernen in Videokonferenzen. Förderung von individuellem und gemeinsamem Lernerfolg durch external repräsentierte Strukturangebote [Cooperative learning in videoconferencing. Support of individual and cooperative learning outcomes by representational aids], Ph.D. dissertation, Ludwig Maximilian University, Munich, online at http://edoc.ub.uni-muenchen.de/ archive/00001227/01/Ertl_Bernhard_M.pdf (accessed 25 October 2004). ERTL, B., FISCHER, F. & MANDL, H. (in press) Conceptual and socio-cognitive support for collaborative learning in videoconferencing environments, Computers and Education. FINN, K.E., SELLEN, A.J. & WILBUR, S.B. (Eds) (1997) Video-mediated Communication (Mahwah, NJ, Erlbaum). FISCHER, F. (2002) Gemeinsame Wissenskonstruktion – Theoretische und methodologische Aspekte [Collaborative knowledge-construction—theoretical and methodological aspects], Psychologische Rundschau, 53, pp. 119–134. FISCHER, F. & MANDL, H. (2003) Being there or being where? Videoconferencing and cooperative learning, in: H. V. OOSTENDORP (Ed.) Cognition in a Digital World, pp. 205–223 (Mahwah, NJ, Erlbaum). FISCHER, F., BRUHN, J., GRÄSEL, C. & MANDL, H. (2000) Kooperatives Lernen mit Videokonferenzen: Gemeinsame Wissenskonstruktion und individueller Lernerfolg [Collaborative knowledge construction. Analysis and facilitation in computer-supported collaborative scenarios], Kognitionswissenschaft, 9, pp. 5–16. FISCHER, F., BRUHN, J., GRÄSEL, C. & MANDL, H. (2002) Fostering collaborative knowledge construction with visualization tools, Learning and Instruction, 12, pp. 213–232. GEYKEN, A., MANDL, H. & REITER, W. (1998) Selbstgesteuertes Lernen mit Tele-Tutoring [Self-directed learning with tele-tutoring], in: R. SCHWARZER (Ed.) MultiMedia und TeleLearning [Multimedia and tele-learning], pp. 181–196 (Frankfurt, Campus). HERTZ-LAZAROWITZ, R., KIRKUS, V.B. & MILLER, N. (1992) Implications of current research on cooperative interaction for classroom application, in: R. HERTZ-LAZAROWITZ (Ed.) Interaction in Cooperative Groups: the theoretical anatomy of group learning, pp. 253–280 (New York, Cambridge University Press).


165

HRON, A., HESSE, F.-W., REINHARD, P. & PICARD, E. (1997) Strukturierte Kooperation beim computerunterstützten kollaborativen Lernen [Structured cooperation in computer-supported collaborative learning], Unterrichtswissenschaft, 25, pp. 56–69. JOHNSON, D.W. & JOHNSON, R.T. (1992) Positive interdependence: key to effective cooperation, in: R. HERTZ-LAZAROWITZ (Ed.) Interaction in Cooperative Groups: the theoretical anatomy of group learning, pp. 174–199 (New York, Cambridge University Press). KOPP, B., ERTL, B. & MANDL, H. (2004) Fostering cooperative case-based learning in videoconferencing: effects of content schemes and cooperation scripts, in: P. GERJETS, P. KIRSCHNER, J. ELEN & R. JOINER (Eds) Instructional Design for Effective and Enjoyable Computer-supported Learning. Proceedings of the First Joint Meeting of the EARLI SIGs Instructional Design and Learning and Instruction with Computers, pp. 29–36 (Tübingen, Knowledge Media Research Center) (CD-ROM). LAMBIOTTE, J.G., DANSEREAU, D.F., O’DONNELL, A.M., YOUNG, M.D., SKAGGS, L.P. & HALL, R.H. (1988) Effects of cooperative script manipulations on initial learning and transfer, Cognition and Instruction, 5, pp. 103–121. MCGRATH, J.E. & HOLLINGSHEAD, A.B. (1994) Groups Interacting with Technology: ideas, evidence, issues, and an agenda (Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage). NÜCKLES, M. & STÜRZ, A. (in press) The assessment tool. A method to support asynchronous communication between computer experts and laypersons, Computers in Human Behavior. O’CONNAILL, B., WHITTAKER, S. & WILBUR, S. (1993) Conversations over video conferences: an evaluation of the spoken aspects of video-mediated communication, Human Computer Interaction, 8, pp. 389–428. O’DONNELL, A.M. & DANSEREAU, D.F. (1992) Scripted cooperation in student dyads: a method for analyzing and enhancing academic learning and performance, in: R. HERTZ-LAZAROWITZ & N. MILLER (Eds) Interactions in Cooperative Groups. The Theoretical Anatomy of Group Learning, pp. 120–141 (New York, Cambridge University Press). O’DONNELL, A.M. & DANSEREAU, D.F. (2000) Interactive effects of prior knowledge and material format on cooperative teaching, Journal of Experimental Education, 68, pp. 101–118. PÄCHTER, M. (2003) Wissenskommunikation, Kooperation und Lernen in virtuellen Gruppen [Knowledge communication, cooperation and learning in virtual groups] (Lengerich, Pabst). PALINCSAR, A.S. & BROWN, A.L. (1984) Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities, Cognition and Instruction, 1, pp. 117–175. REISERER, M. (2003) Peer-Teaching in Videokonferenzen. Effekte niedrig- und hochstrukturierter Kooperationsskripte auf Lernprozess und Lernerfolg [Peer teaching in videoconferening. Effects of low and high structured cooperation scripts on learning process and learning outcome] (Berlin, Logos). RENKL, A. (1997) Lernen durch Lehren [Learning through teaching] (Wiesbaden, Deutscher UniversitätsVerlag). RENKL, A., MANDL, H. & GRUBER, H. (1996) Inert knowledge: analyses and remedies, Educational Psychologist, 31, pp. 115–121. ROSCHELLE, J. & TEASLEY, S.D. (1995) The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving, in: C. O’MALLEY (Ed.) Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, pp. 69–97 (Berlin, Springer). ROSENSHINE, B. & MEISTER, C. (1994) Reciprocal teaching: a review of the research, Review of Educational Research, 64, pp. 479–530. RUMMEL, N. & SPADA, H. (2005) Learning to collaborate: an instructional approach to promoting collaborative problem-solving in computer-mediated settings, Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14, pp. 210–241. SCHWEIZER, K., PAECHTER, M. & WEIDENMANN, B. (2003) Blended learning as a strategy to improve collaborative task performance, Journal of Educational Media, 28, pp. 211–224. SUTHERS, D. (2001) Towards a systematic study of representational guidance for collaborative learning discourse, Journal of Universal Computer Science, 7, pp. 254–277. SUTHERS, D.D. & HUNDHAUSEN, C.D. (2001) Learning by constructing collaborative representations: an empirical comparison of three alternatives, in: P. DILLENBOURG, A. EURELINGS & K. HAKKARAINEN (Eds) Proceedings of the First European Conference on Computer-supported Collaborative Learning (euroCSCL), pp. 577–584 (Maastricht, McLuhan Institute). SUTHERS, D.D. & HUNDHAUSEN, C.D. (2003) An experimental study of the effects of representational guidance on collaborative learning processes, Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, pp. 183–218.

166

B. Ertl et al.

SWELLER, J., VAN MERRIENBOËR, J.J.G. & PAAS, F.G.W.C. (1998) Cognitive architecture and instructional design, Educational Psychology Review, 10, pp. 251–296. WEBB, N.M. (1989) Peer interaction and learning in small groups, International Journal of Educational Research, 13, pp. 21–39. WEINBERGER, A. (2003) Scripts for computer-supported collaborative learning, Ph.D. dissertation, Ludwig Maximilian University, Munich, online at http://edoc.ub.uni-muenchen.de/archive/00001120/ 01/Weinberger_Armin.pdf (accessed 25 October 2004).