Good for learning, bad for motivation? A meta-analysis on the effects of computer-supported collaboration scripts

Scripting computer-supported collaborative learning has been shown to greatly enhance learning, but is often criticized for hindering learners’ agency and thus undermining learners’ motivation. Beyond that, what makes some CSCL scripts particularly effective for learning is still a conundrum. This meta-analysis synthesizes the results of 53 primary studies that experimentally compared the effect of learning with a CSCL script to unguided collaborative learning on at least one of the variables motivation, domain learning, and collaboration skills. Overall, 5616 learners enrolled in K-12, higher education, or professional development participated in the included studies. The results of a random-effects meta-analysis show that learning with CSCL scripts leads to a non-significant positive effect on motivation (Hedges’ g = 0.13), a small positive effect (Hedges’ g = 0.24) on domain learning and a medium positive effect (Hedges’ g = 0.72) on collaboration skills. Additionally, the meta-analysis shows how scaffolding single particular collaborative activities and scaffolding a combination of collaborative activities affects the effectiveness of CSCL scripts and that synergistic or differentiated scaffolding is hard to achieve. This meta-analysis offers the first counterevidence against the widespread criticism that CSCL scripts have negative motivational effects. Furthermore, the findings can be taken as evidence for the robustness of the positive effects on domain learning and collaboration skills

Evidence-Based Practice in Higher Education: Teacher Educators' Attitudes, Challenges, and Uses

Teacher educators are encouraged to promote evidence-based practice in teaching and to use evidence for their own teaching. In the present study, teacher educators' attitudes, perceived challenges, and uses regarding evidence-based practice are described. Moreover, the extent to which personal factors are related to the use of evidence is investigated. In an exploratory study, 58 teacher educators from higher education participated in an online survey. The results reveal that teacher educators generally have a positive attitude toward evidence-based practice. They use evidence regularly, both for individual learning and for teaching purposes. Furthermore, the study reveals that teacher educators with more experience in research and teaching have a more positive attitude toward evidence-based practice and higher uses of evidence. In comparison, less experienced teacher educators perceived more challenges. It is discussed, how teacher educators can be supported in their professional learning, particularly in light of the increasing scientific knowledge base in education

Effects of collaboration scripts and heuristic worked examples on the acquisition of mathematical argumentation skills of teacher students with different levels of prior achievement

A challenging demand for mathematics teacher students is to produce acceptable scientific mathematical argumentations. We investigated to what extent mathematics teacher students with different levels of prior achievement who collaborated in dyads can be supported in their development of mathematical argumentation skills by two different instructional approaches that were systematically varied in a 2 × 2-factorial design: collaboration scripts (with vs. without) and heuristic worked examples vs. problem solving. An experimental study was run in the context of a two-weeks preparatory course for beginning mathematics teacher students (N = 101). Mathematical argumentation skills were conceptualized as consisting of an individual-mathematical and a social-discursive component. Results indicated positive effects of both scaffolds on the social-discursive component. Moreover, the effects of both scaffolds on both components were dependent on learners' prior achievement (high-school GPA). Heuristic worked examples and collaboration scripts were particularly effective in the facilitation of mathematical argumentation skills for teacher students with higher general learning prerequisites. Possible process-based explanations for this pattern of results as well as ways to more specifically address the needs of teacher students with lower prior achievement are discussed

Adaptable scaffolding of mathematical argumentation skills: The role of self-regulation when scaffolded with CSCL scripts and heuristic worked examples

Collaboration scripts and heuristic worked examples have been described as powerful scaffolds to support skill acquisition in CSCL. While CSCL scripts particularly facilitate argumentative discourse within groups, heuristic worked examples provide heuristics and worked out pathways to solve domain-specific tasks. Yet, both scripts and heuristic worked examples are often designed in a one-size-fits-all fashion. Granting learners the opportunity to adapt these scaffolds to their self-perceived needs might be a way to further enhance their effects. We tested this assumption in two experiments. In experiment 1, we compared the effects of learning with adaptable and non-adaptable CSCL scripts. In experiment 2, we compared the effects of learning with adaptable and non-adaptable heuristic worked examples. University students (N = 167) learned repeatedly in pairs with either adaptable or non-adaptable scaffolding in the context of mathematical conjecture problems. Results show that adaptable CSCL scripts were partly helpful for students with higher levels of self-regulation skills. Non-adaptable maximal scaffolding supported learning of distinctive skill components. Social-discursive components were best facilitated by maximal heuristic worked examples through content knowledge scaffolds. In contrast, CSCL scripts best facilitated domain-specific skill components by scaffolding learners’ engagement in social discourse about domain knowledge. The study provides recommendations for designing adaptable scaffolding by taking into account the relation between the targeted skill component and the activities scaffolded in the learning process. We suggest conducting future studies on adaptable scaffolding with a focus on supporting learning regulation and group awareness to improve learners’ success in CSCL environments

Fostering university freshmen’s mathematical argumentation skills with collaboration scripts

Students often have problems formulating und using arguments in mathematical contexts. Therefore, we investigated to what extent a collaboration script helps students overcome their problems and acquire mathematical argumentation skills. In two previous studies, we showed that collaboration scripts can have positive effects on learning cross-domain argumentation skills in the mathematical context. Yet, the effectiveness of the script depended on individual prerequisites such as final high school grade (GPA) and self-regulation skills. In this study, N = 96 participants learned in one of three script conditions. We found that a high-structured domain-general collaboration script for argumentation was more effective for acquiring domain-specific mathematical argumentation skills than a low-structured or an adaptable one. Furthermore, only in the condition with the low-structured script, learners’ self-regulated learning skills played an important role for the learning outcomes

Getting immersed in teacher and student perspectives?: facilitating analytical competence using video cases in teacher education

The ability to analyze and understand classroom situations through the eyes of not only teachers but also students can be seen as a crucial aspect of teachers’ professional competence. Even though video case-based learning is considered to have great potential for the promotion of analytical competence of teachers (i.e., becoming immersed in student and teacher perspectives as well as applying conceptual knowledge to better understand classroom situations), only a few studies have investigated the effects of corresponding instructional support. This empirical field study examines the effects on analytical competence of two types of instructional support—hyperlinks to multiple perspectives and hyperlinks to conceptual knowledge—by using a 2 × 2 factorial design in a computer-supported video case-based learning environment inspired by cognitive flexibility theory and participatory design. The study examines collaborative learning processes to discover what specific kind of instruction may help to counteract some of the known deficits of case-based learning and teacher thinking, such as limited perspective-taking. From a participatory design point of view, training novices to become immersed in teacher and student perspectives can be considered as an alternative for direct involvement of teachers and students in the design process. The study was realized as a four-day university course for pre-service teachers (N = 100). ANCOVAs of learning processes (small-group discussions) and outcomes (written case analyses) provide evidence that both types of instructional support (i.e., hyperlinks to multiple perspectives and conceptual knowledge) are beneficial. In particular, hyperlinks to multiple perspectives affected small-group case discussions and written post-tests as they led to increased immersion (i.e., perspective-taking). Hyperlinks to conceptual knowledge furthered the application of this knowledge, especially in the written post-tests. Implications for teacher education, participatory design, and further research are discussed

Scripted and unscripted aspects of creative work with knowledge

Advances in scripting theory and advances in support for student-driven knowledge construction call for a reconsideration of long-standing issues of guidance, control, and agency. This symposium undertakes a fresh analysis based on the relations between two widely adopted approaches that may be poles apart but arguably viewed as variations within a common applied epistemological framework. The two approaches are scripted collaboration and Knowledge Building. Rather than focusing on similarities and differences, the symposium will address deeper problems such as reconciling external supports of all kinds with the self-organizing character of knowledge construction and integrating such supports into classrooms viewed as knowledge-creating communities. The centerpiece of the symposium is a panel discussion that includes experts who provide different theoretical viewpoints. In its synthesis the symposium will capture and make sense of what is strongest in the two approaches and provide a broad conceptual basis for next-generation initiatives

Learning to argue in mathematics: effects of heuristic worked examples and CSCL scripts on transactive argumentation

A previous study has shown that both CSCL scripts and heuristic worked examples implemented in a CSCL environment were effective to fostering students' acquisition of argumentation skills in the context of mathematical proof tasks (Kollar, et al. 2012). This paper investigates the extent to which transactive argumentation during the collaborative learning process can be evoked by both means of instructional support and to what extent transactive argumentation mediates their effects on students' knowledge about argumentation. We present process measures from a 2x2-factorial experiment with the factors CSCL script and heuristic worked examples conducted with N=101 prospective math teacher students. Results show that both means of instructional support induced transactive argumentation in the collaborative learning process. The self-generated transactive argumentation, but not the partner-generated transactive argumentation mediated the effects of both types of instructional support on students' development of argumentation knowledge. Nevertheless, the learning partners mutually influenced their transactive argumentation

Fostering argumentation skills in mathematics with adaptable collaboration scripts: only viable for good self-segulators?

Argumentation scripts have been proposed as an effective means to structure students’ argumentation and to support their acquisition of argumentation skills. Yet, argumentation scripts run the danger of overscripting students’ argumentation. A possible solution might be to offer adaptable argumentation scripts that allow students to adjust the script to their own needs. This study compares the effects of three argumentation scripts (high structured vs. low structured vs. adaptable) on students’ argumentation skills. Furthermore, we investigate to what extent students’ self-regulation skills influence the acquisition of argumentation skills in the three conditions. N = 109 math students were randomized to the three treatment conditions and worked in dyads on mathematical proof tasks in a CSCL environment. Students’ argumentation skills increased between pre- and post-tests with comparable gains in all three conditions. Only for students learning with the adaptable argumentation script, self-regulation skills were a significant positive predictor for argumentation skills