Designing for interaction: Six steps to designing computer-supported group-based learning

Abstract

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 effect of functional roles on perceived group efficiency during computer-supported collaborative learning: a matter of triangulation

“…Furthermore, it is gradually more acknowledged that 'learning' and 'collaboration' both reside on interaction (Baker, 2002;Stahl, 2004;Strijbos, Martens, & Jochems, 2004b) and thus that interaction is the primary process to be studied to assess performance and learning benefits in CSCL environments. Strijbos, Martens and Jochems (2004b) propose a process-oriented design method for (computer-supported) group-based learning that focuses on fostering the envisioned group interaction that is thought to enhance learning instead of focussing on the final product of such interaction (which tends to be the dominant view in most institutes providing higher education).…”

“…Strijbos, Martens and Jochems (2004b) propose a process-oriented design method for (computer-supported) group-based learning that focuses on fostering the envisioned group interaction that is thought to enhance learning instead of focussing on the final product of such interaction (which tends to be the dominant view in most institutes providing higher education). This method centers on five elements that directly shape group interaction: learning objectives, task-type, level of pre-structuring, group size and the technological tool used.…”

Visual modelling and designing for cooperative learning and development of team competences

“…The use of visual models can help instructors and learning designers in visual thinking-i.e., planning and reflecting the design of cooperative learning and the promotion of teamwork competences through drawing visual representations of learning activities and environments. It is long known that design of collaborative learning often involves lots of subjective decisions and the relationship between designed collaboration and intended outcome is rarely specified at design time (Dillenbourg, 1999;Strijbos et al, 2004). There is also agreement that designing for collaborative learning is inherently more complex than designing for classic linear instruction and training.…”

“…Computer supported cooperative learning (CSCL) (Beatty & Nunan, 2004;Strijbos, Martens, & Jochems, 2004) is a combination of group-based learning and its supporting technology. Cooperative learning goes beyond putting students in groups and giving them assignments (Fellers, 1996, p. 45); it should be regarded as an overall goal in education, since this kind of learning meets the demands of the modern knowledge society better than teachercentred lectures (Reinmann-Rothmeier & Mandl, 2001, p. 631).…”

Flexible learning itinerary vs. linear learning itinerary

“…As a computer-supported group-based learning system, we also designed the game taking into account the approach proposed by Strijbos et al [55]. The design guidelines for collaborative classroom games proposed by Villalta et al [56] were also taken into account.…”