No abstract

For effective computer supported collaborative learning (CSCL), socially shared regulation of learning (SSRL) is necessary. To this end, this article extends the idea first posited by Järvelä and Hadwin (Educ Psychol 48(1):25-39, 2013) that successful collaboration in CSCL contexts requires targeted support for promoting individual selfregulatory skills and strategies, peer support, facilitation of self-regulatory competence within the group, and SSRL. These (meta)cognitive, social, motivational, and emotional aspects related to being/becoming aware of how one learns alone and with others are for the most part neglected in traditional CSCL support. Based upon a review of theoretical and empirical studies on the potential of and challenges to collaboration, three design principles for supporting SSRL are introduced: (1) increasing learner awareness of their own and others' learning processes, (2) supporting externalization of one's own and others' learning process and helping to share and interact, and (3) prompting acquisition and activation of regulatory processes. Finally, an illustrative example is presented for how these principles are applied in a technological tool for supporting SSRL.

No abstract

a b s t r a c tA peer feedback tool (Radar) and a reflection tool (Reflector) were used to enhance group performance in a computer-supported collaborative learning environment. Radar allows group members to assess themselves and their fellow group members on six traits related to social and cognitive behavior. Reflector stimulates group members to reflect on their past, present and future group functioning, stimulating them to set goals and formulate plans to improve their social and cognitive performance. The underlying assumption was that group performance would be positively influenced by making group members aware of how they, their peers and the whole group perceive their social and cognitive behavior in the group. Participants were 108 fourth-year high school students working in dyads, triads and groups of four on a collaborative writing task, with or without the tools. Results demonstrate that awareness stimulated by the peer feedback and reflection tools enhances group-process satisfaction and social performance of CSCL-groups.

No abstract

This study investigated the effects of representational scripting on students' collaborative performance of a complex business economics problem. The scripting structured the learningtask into three part-tasks, namely (1) determining core concepts and relating them to the problem, (2) proposing multiple solutions to the problem, and (3) coming to a final solution to the problem. Each provided representation (i.e., conceptual, causal, or simulation) was suited for carrying out a specific part-task. It was hypothesized that providing part-task congruent support would guide student interaction towards better learning-task performance. Groups in four experimental conditions had to carry out the part-tasks in a predefined order, but differed in the representation they received. In three mismatch conditions, groups only received one of the representations and were, thus, only supported in carrying out one of the part-tasks. In the match condition, groups received all three representations in the specified order (i.e., representational scripting). The results indicate that groups in the match condition had more elaborated discussions about the content of the knowledge domain (i.e., concepts, solutions and relations) and were better able to share and to negotiate about their knowledge. As a consequence, these groups performed better on the learning-task. However, these differences were not obtained for groups receiving only a causal representation of the domain.

Today, teachers are expected to develop complex skills, such as research skills, in their students while implementing new views on learning and teaching and using authentic assessment strategies. About these new assessment strategies there is much debate and teachers are vulnerable in using them. We studied upper secondary education natural and social science teachers' practices using two surveys and two rounds of expert panel judgement on teacher‐submitted assessment‐related material and information. Our study shows that there are grounds for concern regarding the clarity of teachers' assessment criteria, the consistency between teachers' goals, assignments, and criteria, and the validity and acceptability of teachers' assessment practices. The extent to which it is justifiable to judge teachers' assessment practice by professional quality criteria is discussed, and suggestions are given as to the main quality criteria for formative and summative assessment and as to ways in which teachers could improve their assessment practices.

This study investigated whether and how scripting learners' use of representational tools in a computer supported collaborative learning (CSCL)-environment fostered their collaborative performance on a complex business-economics task. Scripting the problem-solving process sequenced and made its phase-related part-task demands explicit, namely defining the problem and proposing multiple solutions, followed by determining suitability of the solutions and coming to a definitive problem solution. Two tools facilitated construction of causal or mathematical domain representations. Each was suited for carrying out the part-task demands of one specific problem-solving phase; the causal was matched to problem-solution phase and the mathematical (in the form of a simulation) to the solution-evaluation phase. Teams of learners (N = 34, Mean age = 15.7) in four experimental conditions carried out the part-tasks in a predefined order, but differed in the representational tool/tools they received during the collaborative problem-solving process. The tools were matched, partly matched or mismatched to the part-task demands. Teams in the causal-only (n = 9) and simulation-only (n = 9) conditions received either a causal or a simulation tool and were, thus, supported in only one of the two part-tasks. Teams in the simulation-causal condition (n = 9) received both tools, but in an order that was mismatched to the part-task demands. Teams in the causal-simulation condition (n = 7) received both tools in an order that matched the part-task demands of the problem phases. Results revealed that teams receiving part-task congruent tools constructed more task-appropriate representations and had more elaborated discussions about the domain. As a consequence, those teams performed better on the complex learning-task.