Learning and interaction in groups with computers: when do ability and gender matter?

In the research reported in this paper, we attempt to identify the background and process factors influencing the effectiveness of groupwork with computers in terms of mathematics learning. The research used a multi-site case study design in six schools and involved eight groups of six mixed-sex, mixed-ability pupils (aged 9-12) undertaking three research tasks – two using Logo and one a database. Our findings suggest that, contrary to other recent research, the pupil characteristics of gender and ability have no direct influence on progress in group tasks with computers. However, status effects – pupils' perceptions of gender and ability – do have an effect on the functioning of the group, which in turn can impede progress for all pupils concerned

Group work and the change of obstacles over time: The influence of learning style and group composition

It is through working in groups that students develop cooperative learning skills and experience. However, group work activity often leads students into a difficult experience, especially for first-year students who are not familiar with group work activities at university. This study explores obstacles faced by first-year students during their group work activities. It investigates whether a group of students with a similar learning style (homogeneous group) experience different obstacles compared to a group of students with a diverse learning style (heterogeneous group). In addition, to identify the difference, if any, between a group formed by a tutor and one where the students form the group themselves, tutor and self-allocated group allocations are explored. This study focuses on obstacles experienced by these students during group work activities. Using a sample of more than 200 students over a period of 3 years, the types and the changes of obstacles in different stages of group life are explored. The findings show that students experience obstacles which can be classified into personal and social, leadership and management, and task-related obstacles. Those obstacles were not static but increased over time. The study also investigates the impact of different methods of forming groups and whether this impacted on obstacles experienced. Overall, different interventions prompted different patterns of obstacle development

Socio-cognitive scaffolding with collaboration scripts: a meta-analysis

Scripts for computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) offer socio-cognitive scaffolding for learners to engage in collaborative activities that are considered beneficial for learning. Yet, CSCL scripts are often criticized for hampering naturally emerging collaboration. Research on the effectiveness of CSCL scripts has shown divergent results. This article reports a meta-analysis about the effects of CSCL scripts on domain-specific knowledge and collaboration skills. Results indicate that CSCL scripts as a kind of socio-cognitive scaffolding can enhance learning outcomes substantially. Learning with CSCL scripts leads to a small positive effect on domain-specific knowledge (d = 0.20) and a large positive effect on collaboration skills (d = 0.95) compared to unstructured CSCL. Further analyses reveal that CSCL scripts are particularly effective for domain-specific learning when they prompt transactive activities (i.e., activities in which a learner’s reasoning builds on the contribution of a learning partner) and when they are combined with additional content-specific scaffolding (worked examples, concept maps, etc.). Future research on CSCL scripts should include measures of learners’ internal scripts (i.e., prior collaboration skills) and the transactivity of the actual learning process

The boomerang effect of radicalism in Discursive Psychology: A critical overview of the controversy with the Social Representations Theory.

This article provides a critical overview of the controversy between the Radical approach to Discursive Psychology (RDP) and the Social Representations Theory (SRT) and aims: a)?to show what is potentially complementary and contradictory in Discursive Psychology (DP) and the Social Representations Theory, when and why they are incompatible, and whether and how it is possible and/or desirable to integrate these two approaches. b)?to describe how the radicalism of the socio-constructionist thesis upheld by Discourse Analysis can give rise to several hard-to-solve problems, which may then be translated into a boomerang effect. In the final section, it highlights interest in dialog and “cross-fertilization” between researchers inspired by the less radical approach to discursive psychology and those inspired by the Social Representations Theory, pointing out the effect of methodological implications that would ensue

Social psychological analyses of educational dynamics.

International audienc