Providing cognitive and metacognitive group awareness information did not have the expected impact on learning outcomes despite knowledge and confidence gains¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (3 entries) · causal r? · q2–q3 · i0–i1
Currency · newest study 2019 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Providing group awareness information did not have the expected impact on learning outcomes even though learners gained knowledge and confidence during collaboration. → Schnaubert 2019 q2 i1 The appendix ANOVA shows no significant main effect of metacognitive group awareness information on the outcome (ηp² = .03, p = .211). → Schnaubert 2019 (2) q2 i0 The appendix ANOVA shows a negligible main effect of cognitive group awareness information on the outcome (ηp² < .01, p = .974). → Schnaubert 2019 (3)

Evidence¶

Schnaubert 2019¶

Schnaubert, L., & Bodemer, D. (2019). Providing different types of group awareness information to guide collaborative learning. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 14, 7–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-018-9293-y

q3 · i? · causal · r?

Reported learning-outcome result of the experimental dyad study on blood-sugar regulation and diabetes mellitus. Despite gains, group awareness information "did not have the expected impact on learning outcomes"; no effect size is printed, so no magnitude is reported here.

"However, while the learners gained knowledge and confidence during collaboration, providing group awareness information did not have the expected impact on learning outcomes."

Schnaubert 2019 (2)¶

Schnaubert, L., & Bodemer, D. (2019). Providing different types of group awareness information to guide collaborative learning. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 14, 7–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-018-9293-y

q2 · i1 · causal · r?

Appendix ANOVA table row for the between-subjects factor: F = 1.57, p = .211, ηp² = .03. The metacognitive group awareness information main effect was not significant; the printed effect size is small ("1.57 .211 .03").

"metacognitive GA information (between) 1.57 .211 .03"

Schnaubert 2019 (3)¶

Schnaubert, L., & Bodemer, D. (2019). Providing different types of group awareness information to guide collaborative learning. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 14, 7–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-018-9293-y

q2 · i0 · causal · r?

Appendix ANOVA table row for the cognitive group awareness information between-subjects factor: F = 0.03, p = .974, ηp² < .01 — a negligible printed effect for the cognitive information manipulation.

"cognitive GA information (between) 0.03 .974 < .01"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Homogeneous problem perceptions predict better regulation outcomes in collaborative groups — related
• During collaborative learning, low and high cognition have remarkably long lasting (6 lags) positive effects on themselves, planning induces low cognition which sparks high cognition, and scaffolding does not alter these sequences — related
• The field lacks micro-level S-SRL theory and methodological guidelines, and studies have not connected temporal/sequential characteristics to learning gains — related