No abstract

Designing Environments for Collaborative E-learning 3 Designing Electronic Collaborative Learning EnvironmentsCurrent research on and design of collaborative learning environments -often referred to as Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) Environments -tends to focus on surface level characteristics. Educational researchers and designers are busy, for example, determining optimal group size for problem-based education as opposed to project-centered learning. To determine optimal group size, students' collaborative efforts and the results of these efforts are compared for groups of varying size in different educational settings. This approach resembles comparative research on the use of different media in education that was strongly -and we had hoped definitively -criticized by both Clark (1983) and Reeves (1993).Such research focuses on the media used and surface characteristics of the education provided. This surface level approach disavows the fundamental differences between the real determinants of learning and behavior in education and results in learning materials that are unreliable or even mathemathantic.A second problem is that educational institutions tend to apply traditional classroom ideas and pedagogy in non-contiguous collaborative learning environments, assuming that since these environments allow the interaction that we see in the classroom (e.g., chat, realtime meetings, and shared applications) traditional pedagogy can be used. Unfortunately these environments do not support such interactions in the same way that it occurs in face-to-face (i.e., time delay, lack of complete sensory contact, non-availability of off task activities, et cetera). The proximate result is often disgruntled or disappointed students and instructors, motivation that is quickly extinguished, poorly used environments, wasted time and money, and showcase environments that are often not much more than computer assisted page turning. The ultimate result is very similar to the first problem, no learning since the students tend to give up. Designing Environments for Collaborative E-learning 4The solution is as simple as it is elegant, namely attending not only to the technological prerequisites for collaboration (i.e., the technological environment), but also to the educational and social prerequisites for allowing collaboration to occur (i.e., the pedagogy and the social dynamics respectively). The educational part would take care of the first problem, namely choosing the right pedagogy to achieve one's aims and that take the characteristics of the media into account. The social part would enrich the chosen pedagogy by adding that element usually, almost automatically existent in contiguous learning, namely group formation and social dynamics within the group. This article provides a framework for designing such collaborative environments based upon the three prerequisites. It then goes into somewhat greater depth with respect to three non-surface level educational factors central to collaboration, namely task own...

. Peer feedback content and sender s competence level in academic writing revision tasks: Are they critical for feedback perceptions and efficiency?. Learning and Instruction, Elsevier, 2010, 20, pp.291-303.

This paper reviews current known issues in student self-assessment (SSA) and identifies five topics that need further research: (1) SSA typologies, (2) accuracy, (3) role of expertise, (4) SSA and teacher/curricular expectations, and (5) effects of SSA for different students. Five SSA typologies were identified showing that there are different conceptions on the SSA components but the field still uses SSA quite uniformly. A significant amount of research has been devoted to SSA accuracy, and there is a great deal we know about it. Factors that influence accuracy and implications for teaching are examined, with consideration that students' expertise on the task at hand might be an important prerequisite for accurate self-assessment. Additionally, the idea that SSA should also consider the students' expectations about their learning is reflected upon. Finally, we explored how SSA works for different types of students and the challenges of helping lower performers. This paper sheds light on SSA research needs to address the known unknowns in this field. Student self-assessment (SSA) most generally involves a wide variety of mechanisms and techniques through which students describe (i.e., assess) and possibly assign merit or worth to (i.e., evaluate) the qualities of their own learning processes and products. This involves retrospective monitoring of previous performance (Baars et al. 2014) and reporting, hopefully truthfully, the quality of work completed. The purpose of this manuscript is to review what it is known and unknown about student self-assessment (SSA) after decades of research and, based on such evidence, highlight plausible lines of research that could make better known what we currently know is unknown. SSA has been extensively and vigorously recommended as an appropriate approach to student involvement in formative assessment, wherever the Bassessment for learning^reform agenda has been advocated (Berry 2011; Black and Wiliam 1998). Hence, it is important for education that we have a clearer understanding of SSA.While the field of empirical studies into SSA is increasing, it seemed timely to review what has been established in SSA since so many studies seem to only be replicating, in new contexts, what we already know about SSA. Hence, the purpose of this paper is to expand upon these known and unknown issues and consider plausible directions for future research. We consider that the known unknowns, which will be established in this review, are so substantial that our recommendations are unlikely to be a roadmap with clear signposts and indicators of progress. Rather, we consider that this paper functions more as a series of lighthouses highlighting well-trodden rocky shores and pointing out more profitable directions in which SSA research should head.SSA is an important skill for at least four reasons. First, students who are trained in SSA have shown an increase in their learning and academic performance Panadero et al. 2012;Ramdass and Zimmerman 2008). Additionally, accuracy (i.e., reliable and val...

At present, the design of computer-supported group-based learning (CS)GBL) is often based on subjective decisions regarding tasks, pedagogy and technology, or concepts such as 'cooperative learning' and 'collaborative learning'. Critical review reveals these concepts as insufficiently substantial to serve as a basis for (CS)GBL design. Furthermore, the relationship between outcome and group interaction is rarely specified a priori. Thus, there is a need for a more systematic approach to designing (CS)GBL that focuses on the elicitation of expected interaction processes. A framework for such a process-oriented methodology is proposed. Critical elements that affect interaction are identified: learning objectives, tasktype, level of pre-structuring, group size and computer support. The proposed process-oriented method aims to stimulate designers to adopt a more systematic approach to (CS)GBL design according to the interaction expected, while paying attention to critical elements that affect interaction. This approach may bridge the gap between observed quality of interaction and learning outcomes and foster (CS)GBL design that focuses on the heart of the matter: interaction.

The role concept has attracted a lot of attention as a construct for facilitating and analysing interactions in the context of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL). So far much of this research has been carried out in isolation and the focus on roles lacks cohesion. In this article we present a conceptual framework to synthesise the contemporary conceptualisation of roles, by discerning three levels of the role concept: micro (role as task), meso (role as pattern) and macro (role as stance). As a first step to further conceptualise 'role as a stance', we present a framework of eight participative stances defined along three dimensions: group size, orientation and effort. The participative stances -Captain, Over-rider, Free-rider, Ghost, Pillar, Generator, Hanger-on and Lurker -were scrutinised on two data sets using qualitative analysis. The stances aim to facilitate meaningful description of student behaviour, stimulate both teacher and student awareness of roles at the macro-level in terms of participative stances, and evaluate or possibly change the participation to collaborative learning on all levels.

No abstract

Research on collaborative learning, both face-to-face and computer-supported, has thrived in the past 10 years. The studies range from outcome-oriented (individual and group learning) to process-oriented (impact of interaction on learning processes, motivation and organisation of collaboration) to mixed studies. Collaborative learning research is multi-disciplinary. This introduces a multitude of theoretical accounts for collaborative learning, accompanied by a broad spectrum of methods to study processes and outcomes of collaboration. This special issue will provide an overview of methods that are at the core of current research effort, but also identifies opportunities and problems to sensibly combine methods into mixed method approaches.