[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/ Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

The trade-off between individuals and groups: role interactions under different technology affordance conditions

  • Published:
International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Virtual manipulatives running on tablets have been demonstrated to improve students’ conceptual understanding in previous studies. However, the differential effects on group interaction during face-to-face collaborative inquiry learning from the support of alternative technology affordances has received little attention. Technology affordances in collaborative learning refer to the types of support provided by instructional technologies to group members to facilitate the enactment of certain behaviors. Technology affordances in this study are provided by the mobile device–student ratio and external scripts. To explore the effect of technology affordances on group interaction in detail, this study compared four technology affordance conditions for collaborative inquiry learning (1) 1:1 with external scripts, (2) 1:m with external scripts, (3) 1:1 without external scripts, and (4) 1:m without external scripts. A total of 130 fifth-grade students volunteered to participate in three rounds of scientific collaborative inquiry experiments with assignment to technology affordance conditions. From the perspectives of role emergence, role coordination, and group structure, the role-based interactions of the participating groups were examined using thematic analysis, descriptive statistics, and social network analysis. The findings indicated that the different roles students played represented different social statuses in the group, which led to trade-offs in orientation to individual consciousness and collective rules. Moreover, we observed that a stable action orientation within groups during inquiry facilitates proper internal coordination, and that close interaction does not necessarily lead to efficient collaboration.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
£29.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (United Kingdom)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

Notes

  1. Note: In Fig. 9, the transparency of the dots is 80 %, and the color where the dots’ color does not match the figure legend indicates that there is more than one dot located in the same position. Therefore, the network density and the action orientation of several groups are the same.

References

  • Abrahamson, D., & Sánchez-García, R. (2016). Learning is moving in new ways: the ecological dynamics of mathematics education. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 25(2), 203–239

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Antle, A. N. (2014). Scratching the surface: Opportunities and challenges from designing interactive tabletops for learning. In V. R. Lee (Ed.), Learning technologies and the body: Integration and implementation in formal and informal learning environments (pp. 55–73). Routledge

    Google Scholar 

  • Belbin, R. (1997). Management teams. Wiley

    Google Scholar 

  • Bouck, E. C., & Flanagan, S. M. (2009). Virtual manipulatives. Intervention in School and Clinic, 45(3), 186–191

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101

    Google Scholar 

  • Cáceres, M., Nussbaum, M., Marroquín, M., Gleisner, S., & Marquínez, J. T. (2018). Building arguments: key to collaborative scaffolding. Interactive Learning Environments, 26(3), 355–371

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cesareni, D., Cacciamani, S., & Fujita, N. (2016). Role taking and knowledge building in a blended university course. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 11, 9–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, E. G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 60(1), 1–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crompton, H., Burke, D., Gregory, K. H., & Gräbe, C. (2016). The use of mobile learning in science: a systematic review. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(2), 149–160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Danish, J. A., Enyedy, N., Saleh, A., & Humburg, M. (2020). Learning in embodied activity framework: A sociocultural framework for embodied cognition. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 15(1), 49–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dillenbourg, P. (2002). Over-scripting CSCL: the risks of blending collaborative learning with instructional design. In P. A. Kirschner (Ed.), Three worlds of CSCL, can we support CSCL (pp. 61–91). Open Universiteit Nederland

    Google Scholar 

  • Dillenbourg, P., & Evans, M. (2011). Interactive tabletops in education. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6, 491–514

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dillenbourg, P., & Jermann, P. (2007). Designing integrative scripts. In F. Fisher, I. Kollar, H. Mandl, & J. M. Haake (Eds.), Scripting computer-supported collaborative learning: Cognitive, computational and educational perspectives (pp. 275–301). Springer

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Evans, M. A., Feenstra, E., Ryon, E., & Mcneill, D. (2011). A multimodal approach to coding discourse: collaboration, distributed cognition, and geometric reasoning. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6(2), 253–278

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, F., Kollar, I., Haake, J. M., & Mandl, H. (2007). Perspectives on collaboration scripts. In F. Fisher, I. Kollar, H. Mandl, & J. M. Haake (Eds.), Scripting computer-supported collaborative learning: Cognitive, computational and educational perspectives (pp. 1–10). Springer

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Fokides, E., & Mastrokoukou, A. (2018). Results from a study for teaching human body systems to primary school students using tablets. Contemporary Educational Technology, 9(2), 154–170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fu, Q., & Hwang, G. (2018). Trends in mobile technology-supported collaborative learning: A systematic review of journal publications from 2007 to 2016. Computers and Education, 119, 129–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, J. J. (1977). The theory of affordances. In R. E. Shaw & J. Bransford (Eds.), Perceiving, acting and knowing: Toward an ecological psychology (pp. 67–82). Erlbaum

    Google Scholar 

  • Goyal, S. (2011). Social Networks in Economics. In Scott, J., & Carrington, P. J. (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Social Network Analysis (pp. 67–79). SAGE Publications Ltd

  • Ha, O., & Fang, N. (2017). Interactive virtual and physical manipulatives for improving students’ spatial skills. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 55(8), 1088–1110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanneman, A. R., & Riddle, M. (2011). Concepts and measures for basic network analysis. In Scott, J., & Carrington, P. J. (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Social Network Analysis (pp. 340–369). SAGE Publications Ltd

  • Hillmayr, D., Ziernwald, L., Reinhold, F., Hofer, S. I., & Reiss, K. M. (2020). The potential of digital tools to enhance mathematics and science learning in secondary schools: A context-specific meta-analysis. Computers & Education, 153, 103897

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hines, E. A. (2020). Student-to-computer ratios: Difference in high and low ratios as related to student achievement and teachers’ perceptions [Doctoral dissertation]. Trevecca Nazarene University

  • Jeong, H., & Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2016). Seven affordances of computer-supported collaborative learning: how to support collaborative learning? How can technologies help? Educational Psychologist, 51(2), 247–265

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1987). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning (2nd ed.). Prentice–Hall

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1999). Making cooperative learning work. Theory into Practice, 38(2), 67–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, A. (2007). Scripting collaborative learning processes: A cognitive perspective. In F. Fisher, I. Kollar, H. Mandl, & J. M. Haake (Eds.), Scripting computer-supported collaborative learning: Cognitive, computational and educational perspectives (pp. 13–37). Springer

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., Kirschner, F., & Zambrano, R. (2018). From cognitive load theory to collaborative cognitive load theory. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 13(2), 213–233

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kollar, I., Fischer, F., & Hesse, F. W. (2006). Collaboration scripts–a conceptual analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 18(2), 159–185

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kollar, I., Fischer, F., & Slotta, J. (2007). Internal and external scripts in computer-supported collaborative inquiry learning. Learning and Instruction, 17(6), 708–721

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koning, B. B. D., & Tabbers, H. K. (2011). Facilitating understanding of movements in dynamic visualizations: an embodied perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 23(4), 501–521

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lazonder, A. W., & Harmsen, R. (2016). Meta-analysis of inquiry-based learning: effects of guidance. Review of Educational Research, 86(3), 681–718

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, C. P., Wong, L. H., & Shao, Y. J. (2012). Comparison of 1:1 and 1:m CSCL environment for collaborative concept mapping. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 28(2), 99–113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, N. (1999). Social networks and status attainment. Annual Review of Sociology, 25, 467–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Looi, C. K., Ogata, H., & Wong, L. H. (2010). Technology transformed learning: Going beyond the one-to-one model. In T. Hirashima, A. F. Mohd Ayub, L. Kwok, S. L. Wong, S. C. Kong, & F. Yu (Ed.), Workshop Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Computers in Education (pp. 175–176). Asia-Pacific Society for Computers in Education

  • Looi, C. K., Zhang, B., Chen, W., Seow, P., Chia, G., Norris, C., et al. (2011). 1:1 mobile inquiry learning experience for primary science students: a study of learning effectiveness. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27(3), 269–287

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marin, A., & Wellman, B. (2011). Social network analysis: An introduction. In Scott, J., & Carrington, P. J. (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Social Network Analysis (pp. 11–25). SAGE Publications Ltd

  • Mende, S., Proske, A., Körndle, H., et al. (2017). Who benefits from a low versus high guidance CSCL script and why? Instructional Science, 45, 439–468

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moyer, P. S. (2001). Are we having fun yet? How teachers use manipulatives to teach mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 47(2), 175–197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olympiou, G., & Zacharia, Z. C. (2012). Blending physical and virtual manipulatives: an effort to improve students’ conceptual understanding through science laboratory experimentation. Science Education, 96(1), 21–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olympiou, G., & Zacharia, Z. (2018). Examining students’ actions while experimenting with a blended combination of physical manipulatives and virtual manipulatives in physics. In T. A. Mikropoulos (Ed.), Research on e-Learning and ICT in Education (pp. 257–278). Springer International Publishing

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Pedaste, M., Mäeots, M., Siiman, L. A., et al. (2015). Phases of inquiry-based learning: definitions and the inquiry cycle. Educational Research Review, 14, 47–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pozzi, F. (2011). The impact of scripted roles on online collaborative learning processes. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6, 471–484

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramirez, H. J. M., & Monterola, S. L. C. (2019). Co-creating scripts in computer-supported collaborative learning and its effects on students’ logical thinking in earth science. Interactive Learning Environments. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1702063

  • Reychav, I., & Wu, D. (2016). The interplay between cognitive task complexity and user interaction in mobile collaborative training. Computers in Human Behavior, 62, 333–345

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, A., Bannister, N., & Matthews, G. (2017). Cracking her codes: understanding shared technology resources as positioning artifacts for power and status in CSCL environments. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 12(3), 221–249

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stegmann, K., Kollar, I., Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2016). Appropriation from a script theory of guidance perspective: a response to Pierre Tchounikine. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 11(3), 371–379

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strijbos, J. W., & Weinberger, A. (2010). Emerging and scripted roles in computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 491–494

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suthers, D. D. (2006). Technology affordances for intersubjective meaning making: A research agenda for CSCL. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(3), 315–337

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tchounikine, P. (2019). Learners’ agency and CSCL technologies: towards an emancipatory perspective. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 14(2), 237–250

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsvetovat, M., & Kouznetsov, A. (2011). Social network analysis for startups: Finding connections on the social web. O’Reilly Media

    Google Scholar 

  • Vogel, F., Wecker, C., Kollar, I., & Fischer, F. (2017). Socio-cognitive scaffolding with computer-supported collaboration scripts: a meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 29(3), 477–511

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vyas, D., Chisalita, C. M., & Van Der Veer, G. C. (2006). Affordance in interaction. In E. Hollnagel (Ed.), The 13th European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics: Trust and Control in Complex Socio-technical Systems (pp. 92–99). ACM

  • Wang, C., Fang, T., & Miao, R. (2018). Learning performance and cognitive load in mobile learning: impact of interaction complexity. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 34(6), 917–927

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, C., Fang, T., & Gu, Y. (2020a). Learning performance and behavior patterns of online collaborative learning: impact of cognitive load and affordances of different multimedia. Computers & Education, 143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103683

  • Wang, C., Ma, Y., & Wu, F. (2020). Comparative performance and involvement in collaborative inquiry learning: three modalities of using virtual lever manipulative. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 29(5), 587–596

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, T., & Tseng, Y. (2018). The comparative effectiveness of physical, virtual, and virtual–physical manipulatives on third-grade students’ science achievement and conceptual understanding of evaporation and condensation. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 16(2), 203–219

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, X., Kollar, I., & Stegmann, K. (2017). Adaptable scripting to foster regulation processes and skills in computer-supported collaborative learning. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 12(2), 153–172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wong, L., & Looi, C. (2011). What seams do we remove in mobile-assisted seamless learning? A critical review of the literature. Computers & Education, 57(4), 2364–2381

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yuan, Y., Lee, C. Y., & Wang, C. H. (2010). A comparison study of polyominoes explorations in a physical and virtual manipulative environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(4), 307–316

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zacharia, Z. C., Olympiou, G., & Papaevripidou, M. (2008). Effects of experimenting with physical and virtual manipulatives on students’ conceptual understanding in heat and temperature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(9), 1021–1035

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zacharia, Z. C., & Michael, M. (2016). Using physical and virtual manipulatives to improve primary school students’ understanding of concepts of electric circuits. In M. Riopel & Z. Smyrnaiou (Eds.), New developments in science and technology education (pp. 125–140). Springer

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Zacharia, Z. C., & Olympiou, G. (2011). Physical versus virtual manipulative experimentation in physics learning. Learning and Instruction, 21(3), 317–331

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was funded by the International Joint Research Project of Huiyan International College, Faculty of Education, Beijing Normal University (ICER202101).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Educational Technology, Faculty of Education, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China

    Cixiao Wang

  2. Teachers’ College, Beijing Union University, No.5 Waiguanxiejie Road, Chaoyang District, 100011, Beijing, China

    Shuling Li

Authors
  1. Cixiao Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Shuling Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shuling Li.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix 1 Examples of "instructed script" and the "prompted script"

Fig. 10
figure 10

The example of "instructed script"

Full size image
Fig. 11
figure 11

The example of "prompted script"

Full size image

Appendix 2 Role transition probabilities

Table 6 Role transition probabilities from Lig. to Ele
Full size table
Table 7 Role transition probabilities from Ele. to Mag
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wang, C., Li, S. The trade-off between individuals and groups: role interactions under different technology affordance conditions. Intern. J. Comput.-Support. Collab. Learn 16, 525–557 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-021-09355-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-021-09355-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation