Scripted students tended to answer either all or none of a discussion's input questions, and the structured interface strengthened this all-or-none pattern¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q2 · i3 large
Currency · newest study 2008 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i3 More students in scripted conditions filled in either all or none of the inputs belonging to one discussion (d=1.5), with a similar difference between the two scripted groups (d=0.9). → Judith Schoonenboom 2008

Evidence¶

Judith Schoonenboom 2008¶

Judith Schoonenboom. (2008). The effect of a script and a structured interface in grounding discussions. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-008-9042-8

q2 · i3 · causal · r1

ANOVA on student-level scores (N=42), coding 1 for answering all or none of a discussion's questions and 0 for answering some. The article reports "more students in the scripted conditions filled in either all or none of the inputs" with the printed statistics.

"An ANOV A showed that more students in the scripted conditions filled in either all or none of the inputs belonging to one of the discussions (p=0.000, Cohen 's d=1.5); a similar difference was found between the two scripted groups ( p=0.000, Cohen 's d=0.9)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Scripted conditions more often produced a discussion phase on differences between group members, but no quality differences in those discussions were detected
• A three-phased collaboration script leads distance students to provide more and longer input in grounding discussions, with the structured interface further increasing input length
• The script improved adherence to the prescribed order of grounding discussions before group activities, with an additional effect of the structured interface — related