Enhancing learning through opening the group model in a synchronous computer-based environment.

This research seeks to apply the concepts of collaborative learning and open learner modelling in order to find out whether seeing their own group learner model helps learners improve their learning in a computer-based collaborative learning environment. There is previous work on giving back information about learning performance as a group but very little, if any, empirical work on the benefits of a group open learner model (GOLM). A major benefit of collaborative learning is to encourage learners to learn further from what they cannot achieve when do it by themselves but they can manage with another. Combining this with viewing and judging the information about learning found in a learner model, it was expected that this would increase their learning awareness in order to improve their learning performance. Without such group learner models, learners might not improve their learning performance in the collaborative learning environment as much as they might. To find out whether opening the group learner models helped learners to improve their learning performance we developed a system called 'GOLeM', and we focused on the learner's score on learning concepts and their degree of confidence in their answer. GOLeM was used as a learning environment to test for evidence in relation to two comparisons of individual performance. The first was a comparison of individual performance between participants in a non computer-based individual learning environment and a computer-based collaborative learning environment. The second respect was to compare the results of learning in two different computer-based collaborative learning environments which were only different in terms of whether or not the learners could see their group learner model. The content of number-conversion is chosen for the domain knowledge. Dialogue games and sentence openers are used to implement a chat-tool to exchange beliefs between peers. Bar charts and textual explanations are used as external representations of learning performance as a group. The system was implemented and tested in two versions: paper-based, for the plausibility of the content and the user interface; and computer-based, for comparing the learning results among three different learning environments regarding the two respects above. To make sure what we built was valid – in terms of suitable content applied to the right target group of learners, we did several tests. These tests consist of a questionnaire with multiple choice questions applied to a small group of participants some of whom have a background in computing, and some have no background in computing. The questionnaire was examined for the suitability of its content and for the target group. A modified questionnaire was used with 122 participants who have a background in computing to validate in relation to the difficulty level and item discrimination. Five questions were selected as representative of the domain knowledge for a paper-based design and applied to six pairs of learners for the suitability of the questions and the number to be used, time taken, user interface, etc before developing the computer-based version. Regarding the comparison between participants in a non computer-based individual learning environment and a computer-based collaborative learning environment, the results show there is a significant difference at the 5% level in terms of learning concept-score and degree of confidence in favour of individual learning performance of learners in collaborative learning environment. Considering the comparison of learning between the two computer-based collaborative learning environments, participants who are able to see their learning performance as a group learner models both before the group test and after each item of the group test, have a slightly higher concept-score and improved degree of confidence than those who cannot see these learner models. Moreover there evidence regarding the participant's self-assessment and peer-assessment, their opinion of the helpfulness of seeing the group learner model and their satisfaction in using this system confirms that further study in this area is justified. It leads to the conclusion that in these specific circumstances, learners benefit more from learning and seeing their group learner model. However the evidence that we have here is not sufficient to answer whether it is likely to be true that other systems like this will always lead the better learning. As a result, we plan to continue our work in both similar and different directions to improve the strength of the conclusion that providing group learner model in a computer-based collaborative learning environment helps learners to benefit from learning. The thesis mainly contributes to both CSCL and AIED communities for further study of GOLeM itself. Regarding the AIED community, GOLeM can be used for the further study on the benefits of seeing learning performance as a group learner model both before and after performing a group-test. Regarding the CSCL community, using this GOLeM with either a larger or a wider variety of groups of learners focusing on knowledge contribution during the group-test for the concrete evidence to support that social interaction has an impact on collaborative learning. The evidence that we have found suggests that being able to see a GOLM improves learning. Though this evidence is not statistically significant, this thesis has provided the most thorough empirical examination of the benefits of a GOLM so far

Enhancing learning through opening the group model in a synchronous computer-based environment

This research seeks to apply the concepts of collaborative learning and open learner modelling in order to find out whether seeing their own group learner model helps learners improve their learning in a computer-based collaborative learning environment. There is previous work on giving back information about learning performance as a group but very little, if any, empirical work on the benefits of a group open learner model (GOLM). A major benefit of collaborative learning is to encourage learners to learn further from what they cannot achieve when do it by themselves but they can manage with another. Combining this with viewing and judging the information about learning found in a learner model, it was expected that this would increase their learning awareness in order to improve their learning performance. Without such group learner models, learners might not improve their learning performance in the collaborative learning environment as much as they might. To find out whether opening the group learner models helped learners to improve their learning performance we developed a system called 'GOLeM', and we focused on the learner's score on learning concepts and their degree of confidence in their answer. GOLeM was used as a learning environment to test for evidence in relation to two comparisons of individual performance. The first was a comparison of individual performance between participants in a non computer-based individual learning environment and a computer-based collaborative learning environment. The second respect was to compare the results of learning in two different computer-based collaborative learning environments which were only different in terms of whether or not the learners could see their group learner model. The content of number-conversion is chosen for the domain knowledge. Dialogue games and sentence openers are used to implement a chat-tool to exchange beliefs between peers. Bar charts and textual explanations are used as external representations of learning performance as a group. The system was implemented and tested in two versions: paper-based, for the plausibility of the content and the user interface; and computer-based, for comparing the learning results among three different learning environments regarding the two respects above. To make sure what we built was valid – in terms of suitable content applied to the right target group of learners, we did several tests. These tests consist of a questionnaire with multiple choice questions applied to a small group of participants some of whom have a background in computing, and some have no background in computing. The questionnaire was examined for the suitability of its content and for the target group. A modified questionnaire was used with 122 participants who have a background in computing to validate in relation to the difficulty level and item discrimination. Five questions were selected as representative of the domain knowledge for a paper-based design and applied to six pairs of learners for the suitability of the questions and the number to be used, time taken, user interface, etc before developing the computer-based version. Regarding the comparison between participants in a non computer-based individual learning environment and a computer-based collaborative learning environment, the results show there is a significant difference at the 5% level in terms of learning concept-score and degree of confidence in favour of individual learning performance of learners in collaborative learning environment. Considering the comparison of learning between the two computer-based collaborative learning environments, participants who are able to see their learning performance as a group learner models both before the group test and after each item of the group test, have a slightly higher concept-score and improved degree of confidence than those who cannot see these learner models. Moreover there evidence regarding the participant's self-assessment and peer-assessment, their opinion of the helpfulness of seeing the group learner model and their satisfaction in using this system confirms that further study in this area is justified. It leads to the conclusion that in these specific circumstances, learners benefit more from learning and seeing their group learner model. However the evidence that we have here is not sufficient to answer whether it is likely to be true that other systems like this will always lead the better learning. As a result, we plan to continue our work in both similar and different directions to improve the strength of the conclusion that providing group learner model in a computer-based collaborative learning environment helps learners to benefit from learning. The thesis mainly contributes to both CSCL and AIED communities for further study of GOLeM itself. Regarding the AIED community, GOLeM can be used for the further study on the benefits of seeing learning performance as a group learner model both before and after performing a group-test. Regarding the CSCL community, using this GOLeM with either a larger or a wider variety of groups of learners focusing on knowledge contribution during the group-test for the concrete evidence to support that social interaction has an impact on collaborative learning. The evidence that we have found suggests that being able to see a GOLM improves learning. Though this evidence is not statistically significant, this thesis has provided the most thorough empirical examination of the benefits of a GOLM so far.EThOS - Electronic Theses Online ServiceGBUnited Kingdo

Designing multi-touch tabletop interaction techniques to support co-located Group Information Management

Co-located group information management (GIM) is a form of groupware with the aim of enabling users to collaboratively find, store, maintain, organise and share personal and/or group information in support of a group activity. Existing systems aimed at partially supporting GIM activities have been implemented on single user devices. These systems make use of asynchronous communication that may hinder collaboration by misinterpretation, information leaks, etc. Few systems exist, with limited functionality, that support co-located GIM. Multi-touch tabletop interaction has given rise to a new approach for supporting Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW). Multi-touch tabletops allow multiple users to naturally interact with a computer device using a shared display and gesture interaction. The tabletop environment also enables users to sit in a natural environment and synchronously communicate without bulky desktops or laptops. Multi-touch tabletops provide the hardware necessary to support co-located GIM. Existing multi-touch interaction techniques were analysed and proved insufficient to support the advanced functional requirements of GIM. The goal of this research was therefore to support co-located GIM by designing new multi-touch tabletop interaction techniques. An architecture was proposed to support co-located GIM with new multi-touch interaction techniques. A software prototype was developed based on the proposed architecture to facilitate the main activities of GIM and to collaboratively compile documents. The prototype was named CollaGIM (Colla – collaborative, GIM – group information management). CollaGIM supports the main activities of GIM using natural gesture interaction on a multi-touch tabletop. An evaluation of the software was conducted by means of a user study where 15 teams of two people participated. High task success rates and user satisfaction results were achieved, which showed that CollaGIM was capable of supporting co-located GIM using the new multi-touch tabletop interaction techniques. CollaGIM also positively supported collaboration between users

Conceptualizing and supporting awareness of collaborative argumentation

In this thesis, we introduce “Argue(a)ware”. This is a concept for an instructional group awareness tool which aims at supporting social interactions in co-located computer-supported collaborative argumentation settings. Argue(a)ware is designed to support the social interactions in the content (i.e., task-related) and in the relational (i.e., social and interpersonal) space of co-located collaborative argumentation (Barron, 2003). The support for social interactions in the content space of collaboration is facilitated with the use of collaborative scripts for argumentation (i.e., instructions and scaffolds of argument construction) as well with the use of an argument mapping tool (i.e., visualization of argumentation outcomes in a form of diagrams) (Stegmann, Weinberger, & Fischer, 2007; van Gelder, 2013). The support for social interactions in the relational space of collaboration is facilitated with the use of different awareness mechanisms from the CSCL and the CSCW research fields (i.e., monitoring, mirroring and awareness notification tools). In this thesis, we examined how different awareness mechanisms facilitate the regulation of collaborative processes in the relational space of collaborative argumentation. Moreover, we studied how they affect the perceived team effectiveness (i.e., process outcome) and group performance (i.e., learning outcome) in the content space of collaboration. Thereby, we studied also the effects of the design of the awareness mechanisms on the application of the mechanisms and the user experience with them. In line with the design-based research paradigm, we attempted to simultaneously improve and study the effect of Argue(a)ware on collaborative argumentation (Herrington, McKenney, Reeves & Oliver, 2007). Through a series of design-based research studies we tested and refined the prototypes of the instructional group awareness tool. Moreover, we studied the ecological validity of dominant awareness and instructional theories in the context of co-located computer-supported collaborative argumentation. The underlying premise of the Argue(a)ware tool is that a combination of awareness and instructional support will result in increased awareness of collaboration, which will, in turn, mediate the regulation of collaborative processes. Moreover, we assume that successful regulation of collaboration will result in high perceived team effectiveness and the group performance in turn. In the first phase of development of the Argue(a)ware tool, we built support of the content space of collaborative argumentation with argument scaffold elements in a pedagogical face-to-face macro-script and an argument mapping tool. Furthermore, we extended the use of the script for supporting the relational space of collaboration by embedding awareness prompts for reflecting on collaboration during regular breaks in the script. Following, we designed two variations of the same pedagogical face-to-face macro-script which differ with respect to the type of group awareness prompts they used for supporting the relational space of collaboration i.e. behavioral and social. Upon designing the two script variations, we conducted a longitudinal, multiple-case study with ten groups of Media Informatics master students (n = 28, in groups of three or two, group=case, 4 sessions x70 min, Behavioural Awareness Script group= 5, Social Awareness Script group =5.) where each group was conceptualized as a case. Students collaborated every time for arguing to solve one different ill-structured problem and for transferring their arguments in the argument mapping tool Rationale. Thereby, we intended to investigate the effects of different awareness prompts on (a) collaborative metacognitive processes i.e., regulation, reflection, and evaluation (b) the relation between collaborative metacognitive processes and the quality of collaborative argumentation as well as (c) the impact of the two script variations on perceived team effectiveness and (d) what was experience with the different parts of the script variations in the two groups and how this fits into the design framework by Buder (2011). The quantitative analysis of argument outcomes from the groups yield no significant difference between the groups that worked with the BAS and the SAS variations. No significant difference between the script variations with respect to the results from the team effectiveness questionnaires was found either. Prompts for regulating collaboration processes were found to be the most successfully and consistently applied ones, especially in the most successful cases from both script variations and have influenced the argumentation outcomes. The awareness prompts afforded an explicit feedback display format (e.g. assessment of participation levels of self- and others) through discussion (Buder, 2011). The prompted explicit feedback display format (i.e., ratings of one’s self and of others) was criticized for running only on subjective awareness information on participation, contribution efforts and performance in the role. This resulted in evaluation apprehension phenomena (Cottrell, 1972) and evaluation bias (i.e., users may have not assessed themselves or others frankly) (Ghadirian et al., 2016). The awareness prompts for reflection and evaluation did reveal frictions in the plan making process (i.e., dropping out of the plan for collaboration) in the least successful groups. Problems with group dynamics (i.e., free-loading and presence of dominance) but were not powerful enough to trigger the desired changes in the behaviors of the students. The prompts for evaluating the collaboration in both script variations had no apparent connection to argumentation outcomes. The results indicated that dominant presence phenomena inhibited substantive argumentation in the least successful groups. They also indicated that the role-assignment influenced the group dynamics by helping student’s making clear the labor division in the group. In the second phase of development of the Argue(a)ware tool, the focus is on structuring and regulating social interactions in the relational space of collaborative argumentation by means of scripted roles and role-based awareness scaffolds. We designed support for mirroring participation in the role (i.e., a role-based awareness visualization) and support for monitoring participation, coordination and collaboration efforts in the role (i.e., self-assessment questionnaire). Moreover, we designed additional support for guiding participation in the role i.e., role-based reminders as notifications on smartwatches. In a between-subjects study, ten groups of three university students each (n = 30, Mage =22y, mixed educational backgrounds, 1x90min) worked with two variants of the Argue(a)ware for arguing to solve one ill-structured problem and transferring their arguments in the argument mapping tool Rationale. Next, to that, students should monitor their progress in their role with the role-based awareness visualization and the self-assessment questionnaire with the basic awareness support (role-based awareness visualization with the intermediate self-assessment) and the enhanced awareness support (additional role-based awareness reminders). Half of the groups worked only with the role-based awareness visualization and the self-assessment questionnaire (Basic Awareness Condition-BAC) while the other half groups received additional text-based awareness notifications via smartwatches that were sent to students privately (Enhanced Awareness Condition- EAC). Thereby, we tested the use of different degrees of awareness support in the two conditions with respect to their impact on a) self-perceived awareness of performance in the role and of collaboration and coordination efforts (measured with the same questionnaire at two time points), b) on perceive team effectiveness, c) group performance. We hypothesized that students in EAC will perform better thanks to the additional awareness reminders that increased the directivity and influenced their awareness in the role. The mixed methods analysis revealed that the awareness reminders, when perceived on time, succeeded in guiding collaboration (i.e., resulted in more role-specific behaviors). Students in the EAC condition improved their awareness over time (between the two measurements). These results indicated that enhanced awareness support in the form of additional guidance through awareness reminders can boost the awareness of students’ performance in the role as well as the awareness of their coordination and collaboration efforts over time by directing them back to the mirroring and monitoring tools. Moreover, students in EAC exhibited higher perceived team effectiveness than the students in BAC. However, no significant differences in building of shared mental models or performing in mutual performance monitoring were found between the groups. However, students in BAC and EAC did not differ significantly with respect to the formal correctness or evidence sufficiency of their group argumentation outcomes. Moreover, technical difficulties with the smartphones used as delivery devices for the awareness reminders (i.e., low vibration modus) hindered the timely perception of the reminders and thus their effect on participation. Finally, the questionnaire on the experience with the different parts of Argue(a)ware system indicated the need for exploring further media for supporting the awareness reminders to avoid the overwhelming effects of the multiple displays of the system and enhancing higher perceptiveness of the reminders with low interruption costs for other group members. The rather high satisfaction with the use of the role-based awareness visualization and the positive comments on the motivating aspects of monitoring how the personal success contributes to the group performance indicate that the group mirror succeeded in making group norms visible to group members in a non-obtrusive way. The high interpersonal comparability of performances without moderating the group ‘s interaction directly in the basic awareness condition was proven to be the favored design approach compared to the combination of group mirror and awareness reminders in the enhance awareness condition. In the third phase of development of Argue(a)ware, we focused on designing and testing different notification modes on different ubiquitous mobile devices for facilitating the next prototype of a notification system for role-based awareness reminders. Thereby, the aim of the system was again to guide students’ active participation in collaborative argumentation. More specifically, we focused on raising students’ attention to the reminders and triggering a prompter reaction to the contents of the reminders whilst avoiding a high interruption cost for the primary task (i.e., arguing for solving the problem at hand) in the group. These goals were translated into design challenges for the design of the role-based awareness notification system. The system should afford low interruptions, high reaction and high comprehension of notifications. Notification systems with this particular configuration of IRC values are known as "secondary display" systems (McCrickard et al., 2003). Next, we designed three low-fidelity prototypes for a role-based notification system for delivering awareness reminders: The first ran on a smartwatch and afforded text-based information with vibration and light notification modalities. The second ran on smartphone and afforded text-based information with vibrotactile and light-based notification modalities. Finally, the third prototype run on a smart-ring which afforded graphical- based (i.e. abstract light) information with and light and vibration notification modalities. To test the suitability of these prototypes for acting as “secondary display” systems, we conducted a within-subjects user study where three university students (n= 3, Mage=28, mixed educational background) argued for solving three different problem cases and producing an argument map in each of the three consecutive meetings (max 90min) in the Argue(a)ware instructional system. Students were assigned the roles of writer, corrector and devil`s advocate and were instructed to maintain the same role across the three meetings. In each meeting, students worked with a different role-based awareness notification prototype, where they received a notification indicating their balloon is not growing bigger after five minutes of not exhibiting any role-specific behaviors. The role-based awareness notification prototypes aimed at introducing timely interventions which would prompt students to check on their own progress in the role and the group progress as visualized by the role-based awareness visualization on the large display. Ultimately, this should prompt them to reflect on the awareness information from the visualization and adapt their behaviors to the desired behavior standards over time. Results showed that students perceived the notifications from all media mostly based on vibration cues. Thereby, the vibration cues on the wrist (smartwatch) were considered the least disruptive to the main task compared to the vibration cues on finger (smartwatch) and the vibration cues on the desk (smartphone). Students also declared that vibration cues on wrist prompted the fastest reaction i.e., attending to notification by interacting with the smartwatch. These results indicate that vibration cues on the wrist can be a suitable notification mechanism for increasing the perceived urgency of the message and prompting the reaction on it without causing great distraction to the main task, as studies previous studies showed before (Pielot, Church, & deOliveira, 2013; Hernández-Leo, Balestrini, Nieves & Blat, 2012). Based on very limited qualitative data on light as notification modality and awareness representation type no inferences could be made about its influence on the cost of interruption, reaction and comprehension parameters comprehensiveness. The qualitative and quantitative data on the experience with different media as awareness notification systems indicate that smartwatches may be the most suitable medium for acting as awareness notification medium with a “secondary display” IRC configuration (low-high-high). However, this inference needs to be tested in terms of a follow up study. In the next study, the great limitations of study (limited data due to low power and mal-structured measurement instruments) need to be repaired. Finally, the focus should be on comparing notification modalities of one medium (e.g., smartphone) based on a larger set of participants and with the use of objective measurements for the IRC parameter values (Chewar, McCrickard & Sutcliffe, 2004). Finally, we draw conclusions based on the findings from the three studies with respect to the role of awareness mechanisms for facilitating collaborative processes and outcomes and provide replicable and generalizable design principles. These principles are formed as heuristic statements and are subject to refinement by further research (Bell, Hoadley, & Linn, 2004; Van den Akker, 1999). We conclude with the limitations of the study and ideas for future work with Argue(a)ware

Epistemic and social scripts in computer-supported collaborative learning

Collaborative learning in computer-supported learning environments typically means that learners work on tasks together, discussing their individual perspectives via text-based media or videoconferencing, and consequently acquire knowledge. Collaborative learning, however, is often sub-optimal with respect to how learners work on the concepts that are supposed to be learned and how learners interact with each other. One possibility to improve collaborative learning environments is to conceptualize epistemic scripts, which specify how learners work on a given task, and social scripts, which structure how learners interact with each other. In this contribution, two studies will be reported that investigated the effects of epistemic and social scripts in a text-based computer-supported learning environment and in a videoconferencing learning environment in order to foster the individual acquisition of knowledge. In each study the factors ‘epistemic script’ and ‘social script’ have been independently varied in a 2×2-factorial design. 182 university students of Educational Science participated in these two studies. Results of both studies show that social scripts can be substantially beneficial with respect to the individual acquisition of knowledge, whereas epistemic scripts apparently do not to lead to the expected effects

Collaborative trails in e-learning environments

This deliverable focuses on collaboration within groups of learners, and hence collaborative trails. We begin by reviewing the theoretical background to collaborative learning and looking at the kinds of support that computers can give to groups of learners working collaboratively, and then look more deeply at some of the issues in designing environments to support collaborative learning trails and at tools and techniques, including collaborative filtering, that can be used for analysing collaborative trails. We then review the state-of-the-art in supporting collaborative learning in three different areas – experimental academic systems, systems using mobile technology (which are also generally academic), and commercially available systems. The final part of the deliverable presents three scenarios that show where technology that supports groups working collaboratively and producing collaborative trails may be heading in the near future

Epistemic and Social Scripts in Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning

Collaborative learning in computer-supported learning environments typically means that learners work on tasks together, discussing their individual perspectives via text-based media or videoconferencing, and consequently acquire knowledge. Collaborative learning, however, is often sub-optimal with respect to how learners work on the concepts that are supposed to be learned and how learners interact with each other. Therefore, instructional support needs to be implemented into computer-supported collaborative learning environments. One possibility to improve collaborative learning environments is to conceptualize scripts that structure epistemic activities and social interactions of learners. In this contribution, two studies will be reported that investigated the effects of epistemic and social scripts in a text-based computer-supported learning environment and in a videoconferencing learning environment in order to foster the individual acquisition of knowledge. In each study the factors "epistemic script" and "social script" have been independently varied in a 2×2-factorial design. 182 university students of Educational Science participated in these two studies. Results of both studies show that social scripts can be substantially beneficial with respect to the individual acquisition of knowledge, whereas epistemic scripts apparently do not lead to the expected effects.Unter kooperativem Lernen in computerunterstützten Lernumgebungen versteht man typischerweise, dass Lernende Wissen erwerben indem sie gemeinsam Aufgaben bearbeiten und dabei ihre individuellen Perspektiven mittels textbasierter Medien oder in Videokonferenzen diskutieren. Kooperatives Lernen scheint aber häufig suboptimal zu sein in Bezug auf die inhaltliche Bearbeitung der zu lernenden Konzepte sowie hinsichtlich der sozialen Interaktionen der Lernenden. Eine Möglichkeit kooperative Lernumgebungen zu verbessern besteht darin, Skripts zu konzeptualisieren, die epistemische Aktivitäten und soziale Interaktionen von Lernenden unterstützen. In diesem Beitrag werden zwei Studien berichtet, die die Wirkungen epistemischer und sozialer Skripts auf den individuellen Wissenserwerb in einer text- bzw. einer videobasierten computerunterstützten Lernumgebung untersuchen. In beiden Studien wurden die Faktoren "epistemisches Skript" und "soziales Skript" unabhängig voneinander in einem 2×2-faktoriellen Design miteinander variiert. 182 Studierende der Pädagogik der LMU München nahmen an diesen beiden Studien teil. Die Ergebnisse beider Studien deuten darauf hin, dass soziale Skripts individuellen Wissenserwerb substanziell fördern können, während epistemische Skripts scheinbar nicht zu den erwarteten Ergebnissen führen

Support of the collaborative inquiry learning process: influence of support on task and team regulation

Regulation of the learning process is an important condition for efficient and effective learning. In collaborative learning, students have to regulate their collaborative activities (team regulation) next to the regulation of their own learning process focused on the task at hand (task regulation). In this study, we investigate how support of collaborative inquiry learning can influence the use of regulative activities of students. Furthermore, we explore the possible relations between task regulation, team regulation and learning results. This study involves tenth-grade students who worked in pairs in a collaborative inquiry learning environment that was based on a computer simulation, Collisions, developed in the program SimQuest. Students of the same team worked on two different computers and communicated through chat. Chat logs of students from three different conditions are compared. Students in the first condition did not receive any support at all (Control condition). In the second condition, students received an instruction in effective communication, the RIDE rules (RIDE condition). In the third condition, students were, in addition to receiving the RIDE rules instruction, supported by the Collaborative Hypothesis Tool (CHT), which helped the students with formulating hypotheses together (CHT condition). The results show that students overall used more team regulation than task regulation. In the RIDE condition and the CHT condition, students regulated their team activities most often. Moreover, in the CHT condition the regulation of team activities was positively related to the learning results. We can conclude that different measures of support can enhance the use of team regulative activities, which in turn can lead to better learning results

A review of the empirical studies of computer supported human-to-human communication

This paper presents a review of the empirical studies of human-to-human communication which have been carried out over the last three decades. Although this review is primarily concerned with the empirical studies of computer supported human-to-human communication, a number of studies dealing with group work in non-computer-based collaborative environments, which form the basis of many of the empirical studies of the recent years in the area of CSCW, are also discussed. The concept of person and task spaces is introduced and then subsequently used to categorise the large volume of studies reported in this review. This paper also gives a comparative analysis of the findings of these studies, and draws a number of general conclusions to guide the design and evaluation of future CSCW systems

Exploring Current Practice of Using Technology to Support Collaborative Argumentation in Science Classrooms

The purpose of this qualitative study was to explore how middle school science teachers enact the practice of using technology to support collaborative argumentation in their science classroom. This study employed qualitative case study and drew on data sources of interviews and observations. This study identified two themes. Six teachers regarded scientific argumentation as an important science practice, but five of them integrated this practice into their science class without formally introducing it. All teachers integrated different forms of technology to engage students in scientific argumentation. In this study, the findings suggested there is a need to provide professional development for teachers to learn about scientific argumentation. The findings can be used as a basis for the design and development of professional development training experiences for in-servic