An analysis of communication mode in group support systems research

Fjermestad, Jerry

doi:10.1016/s0167-9236(03)00021-6

Cited by 144 publications

(92 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This view is supported by research. Fjermestad (2004) for example, compared face-to-face versus computer-mediated communication in a meta-analysis and found more equal participation when students communicated through the computer.…”

Section: Conclusion and Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effects of representational guidance during computer-supported collaborative learning

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This research investigates the role of representational guidance by comparing the effects of two different representational tools. We used a design with two different groups defined by the type of argumentative diagram students co-constructed while working in a computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) environment. The Graphical Debate-tool offered different representational guidance than the Textual Debatetool. The results show that groups that worked with the Graphical Debate-tool constructed representations of higher quality and wrote essays that were better in terms of grounds quality. Furthermore, working with the Graphical Debate-tool was found to have a positive effect on students' learning as measured by a knowledge post-test. In contrast to our expectations however, there was little difference between the two conditions regarding the online collaboration process. It can be concluded that representational guidance has an impact on group and individual performance and should therefore be taken into account during instructional design.Keywords Computer-supported collaborative learning Á Representational tools Á Argumentative tasks Á Visualizations Á Secondary education External representations (ERs) are graphical or diagrammatic representations that represent information about a topic (Van Bruggen et al. 2002;Zhang 1997). A growing number of researchers advocates not only the use, but also the construction of ERs by students. The active construction of ERs, is thought to stimulate deeper and more

show abstract

Section: Conclusion and Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…First, CSCL often requires students to communicate electronically. It is known that computer-mediated communication (CMC) can be difficult (Fjermestad 2004). During CMC, group members often experience communication and collaboration problems.…”

Section: Pitfalls Of Co-constructing Ers In Cscl Environmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of representational guidance during computer-supported collaborative learning

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, some studies reported more equal participation of all group members in a GA environment (Fjermestad, 2004;Janssen et al, 2007), whereas some reported dominance of some group members (Savicki, Kelley, & Ammon, 2002). Meanwhile, Sangin et al (2011) stated that GA can enhance the quality of knowledge transfer between all members, while Engelmann et al (2010) showed the opposite opinion.…”

Section: The Influence Of Group Awareness (Ga) In An Computer-supportmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of Group Awareness and Self-Regulation Level on Online Learning Behaviors

Lin¹,

Szu²,

Lai³

2016

IRRODL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Group awareness can affect student online learning while self-regulation also can substantially influence student online learning. Although some studies identify that these two variables may partially determine learning behavior, few empirical studies or thorough analyses elucidate the simultaneous impact of these two variables (group awareness and self-regulation) on online learning behavior. This paper compared one online collaboration environments with GA support with one without group awareness (NA) support and further investigated how these two variables, different system types (i.e., GA and NA) and different self-regulation levels (i.e., high and low), influence learning task (i.e., assessment) participation, and peer interaction (i.e., asking for help and willing to help) using two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). Analytical results first showed that both variables have significant interaction on assessment participation and requesting rate. GA can particularly stimulate students with high-level self-regulation to engage more learning task (assessment) participation and ask for help more, compared with students with low-level self-regulation. Second, both variables have no significant interaction on willingness to help. The GA class can enhance a student's willingness to help regardless of his/her self-regulation level.

show abstract

“…While often considered inferior, recent research has shown both cognitive and social benefits for groups in CSCL environments as compared to contiguous (i.e., face-to-face) groups such as more equal participation between team members (Fjermestad, 2004;Janssen et al, 2007), higher satisfaction (Fjermestad), better team development, less conflict, and a more positive attitude (Phielix et al, 2010).…”

Section: Social and Cognitive Benefits Of Groups In Cscl Environmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Group awareness of social and cognitive performance in a CSCL environment: Effects of a peer feedback and reflection tool

Phielix

Prins

Kirschner

et al. 2011

Computers in Human Behavior

127

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

An analysis of communication mode in group support systems research

Cited by 144 publications

References 15 publications

Effects of representational guidance during computer-supported collaborative learning

Effects of representational guidance during computer-supported collaborative learning

Effects of Group Awareness and Self-Regulation Level on Online Learning Behaviors

Group awareness of social and cognitive performance in a CSCL environment: Effects of a peer feedback and reflection tool

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About