Internal and external scripts in computer-supported collaborative inquiry learning

Abstract

We investigated how differently structured external scripts interact with learners' internal scripts concerning individual knowledge acquisition in a Web-based collaborative inquiry learning environment. 90 students from two secondary schools participated. Two versions of an external collaboration script (high vs. low structured) supporting collaborative argumentation were embedded within a Web-based collaborative inquiry learning environment. Students' internal scripts were classified as either high or low structured, establishing a 2x2-factorial design. Results suggest that the high structured external collaboration script supported the acquisition of domain-general knowledge of all learners regardless of their internal scripts. Learners' internal scripts influenced the acquisition of domain-specific knowledge. Results are discussed concerning their theoretical relevance and practical implications for Web-based inquiry learning with collaboration scripts.Keywords: Collaboration scripts, internal scripts, computer-supported collaborative learning, inquiry learning, science education, learning environments. Internal and External Scripts 4 4 Internal and External Scripts in Computer-Supported Collaborative Inquiry LearningOver the last years, several studies have shed light on the way learners benefit from collaboration when learning science (Kaartinen & Kumpulainen, 2002;Kneser & Ploetzner, 2001;Howe, Tolmie, Duchak-Tanner, & Rattray, 2000). There is considerable evidence, however, that students often have difficulty engaging in fruitful collaborative argumentation.For example, they rarely relate scientific evidence to theoretical explanations (e.g., Bell, 2004;Sandoval, 2003). Also, arguments raised by one student often remain unaddressed by the student's learning partner(s), and obvious disagreements are often left unresolved. If not explicitly scaffolded, learners may fail to show substantive argumentation, leading to little acquisition of domain-general knowledge about argumentation. Even more, low-level argumentation might be reflected in poor elaboration of learning content and result in a limited acquisition of domain-specific knowledge.Several instructional approaches have been used by researchers to address these challenges in learning through argumentation (e.g., Bell, 1997;van Bruggen, Kirschner, & Jochems, 2002;Baker, 2003;Munneke, van Amelsvoort, & Andriessen, 2003;Suthers, Toth, & Weiner, 1997). Suthers et al. (1997), for example, developed Belvedere, a graphical argumentation tool by aid of which learners enter hypotheses and evidence into text boxes and specify the relationships between boxes using graphical arrows. This results in a network of nodes and links representing the various pieces of evidence that support or contradict a particular hypothesis. A similar approach has been taken by Bell (1997) in developing the "SenseMaker"-tool to help scaffold students' use of evidence within arguments in Web-based inquiry projects.Another promising approach to structure collaborative argumenta...

Socio-Cognitive Scaffolding with Computer-Supported Collaboration Scripts: a Meta-Analysis

“…Future research should focus on experimental manipulations of the moderator variables. In particular, because the optimal script level is likely to be highly dependent on the learners' prior internal scripts (Fischer et al 2013), future research should track the effectiveness of CSCL scripts at different script levels in relation to the learners' prior internal scripts (Kollar et al 2007;Rienties et al 2012). Furthermore, the studies included in this meta-analysis only rarely report data on the actual degree of transactivity of the learners' collaborative activities (Jeong and Joung 2007;Noroozi et al 2013).…”

“…One-of several possibleexplanations for this finding might be that many learners in the studies included in the present meta-analysis may have had very low prior collaboration skills, which would make them good candidates for scriplet level CSCL scripts. Rather poor collaboration skills have indeed been reported in a number of studies on CSCL scripts as a justification for the introduction of CSCL scripts in the first place (e.g., Kollar et al 2007;Stegmann, Weinberger, and Fischer 2007;Rummel, Spada, and Hauser 2009).…”

“…In short, a variety of CSCL scripts have been developed and analyzed in empirical studies (e.g., Demetriadis, Egerter, Hanisch, and Fischer 2011;Ertl, Fischer, and Mandl 2006;Gelmini-Hornsby, Ainsworth, and O'Malley 2011;Gijlers and de Jong 2009;Haake and Pfister 2010;Kollar, Fischer, and Slotta 2007;Noroozi, Teasley, Biemans, Weinberger, and Mulder 2013;Rummel, Mullins, and Spada 2012;Schellens, Van Keer, De Wever, and Valcke 2007;Stegmann et al 2007;Van Aalst and Chan 2007;Weinberger, Ertl, Fischer, and Mandl 2005). Yet, despite broad agreement concerning the high potential of CSCL scripts for enhancing collaborative learning, research about its effectiveness yielded mixed results (see Molinari, Sangin, Dillenbourg, and Nüssli 2009;Weinberger et al 2010).…”

Peer assessment as collaborative learning: A cognitive perspective

“…In this special issue, a number of scaffolding techniques have been described and/or studied (e.g., observation-based learning, see Van Steendam et al, THIS ISSUE; a-posteriori reflection forms, see Gielen et al, THIS ISSUE). Here as well, a cross-link to research on collaborative learning might be fruitful, as systematic approaches to scaffolding and scripting as well as empirical studies evaluating these forms of support can be found (Kollar, Fischer, & Slotta, 2007;Quintana et al, 2004).…”

Challenge of supporting vocational learning: Empowering collaboration in a scripted 3D game – How does teachers’ real-time orchestration make a difference?

“…Moreover, recent studies have pointed to certain reasons for these failures, such as unevenly divided work tasks (Strijbos & De Laat 2010), the poor working methods of individual group members (e.g. problems in argumentation) (Hämäläinen & Häkkinen 2010;Kollar, Fischer & Slotta 2007), problems in skills to regulate learning (Järvelä & Järvenoja 2011), fragile group dynamics (Kreijins, Kirschner, Jochems & Buuren 2007), weak teamwork strategies (Hadwin & Järvelä, 2011), the inappropriate use of learning resources (Arvaja 2007;Jeong & Hmelo-Silver 2010) or the lack teachers to inspire and orchestrate learning processes (Arvaja, Hämäläinen & Rasku-Puttonen 2009). Thus, although technology has rapidly advanced, the challenges of collaborative learning remain.…”