Comparison and integration of different types of group awareness information is a research gap despite firmly established positive tool effects¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r? · q2
Currency · newest study 2019 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q1 i? Positive effects of cognitive group awareness tools are firmly established, but the awareness information used is inconsistent and rarely compared across types. → Schnaubert 2019

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

q2 · i? · causal · r?

The article's framing of its research gap as a narrative statement: positive tool effects are established, yet "there is no consistency with regard to the awareness information used" and attempts to compare types are rare. No empirical evidence for this synthesis is reported in this study itself.

"While positive effects of such tools are firmly established, there is no consistency with regard to the awareness information used and a wide range of target concepts exist."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Schnaubert and Bodemer propose a six-part framework of defining aspects of group awareness for regulating joint activity — related
• Regulation tools for collaboration are very rare in educational VRLs, identified in only 8 laboratories, mostly supporting regulation by teachers — related