Scripting collaboration via role-assigned interfaces produced little difference in learning outcomes compared with an unscripted self-organized condition in a semester-long course¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · review r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2010 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Despite a significant difference in scripting between conditions, little difference in learning outcomes was measured, suggesting scripting is secondary to how tasks are defined. → Gerry Stahl & Friedrich Hesse 2010

Evidence¶

Gerry Stahl & Friedrich Hesse 2010¶

Gerry Stahl & Friedrich Hesse. (2010). A prism of CSCL research. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-010-9087-3

q2 · i? · review · r2

The editorial reports, citing Haake and Pfister, a semester-long computer-science college course on the CURE platform comparing a scripted condition (technology-assigned phase leadership, role-specific interfaces) with an unscripted control group free to self-organize. No statistics are printed here.

"Despite this significant difference in scripting, little difference in learning outcomes is measured, suggesting to the authors that the use of scripting is secondary to the way that tasks are defined"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Video-modeling of collaboration, especially with prompted reflection, produced more lasting learning about collaboration than scripted practice once script supports were withdrawn — related
• Evidence-based rubric scripting produced more high-quality discussion than future-thinking scripting in long-term small-group collaboration. — related
• Scripted conditions more often produced a discussion phase on differences between group members, but no quality differences in those discussions were detected — related
• The script improved adherence to the prescribed order of grounding discussions before group activities, with an additional effect of the structured interface — related
• 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 — related
• No significant differences between conditions in the quantity or quality of discussion summaries — related
• Technology affordance conditions, manipulated via device-to-student ratio and scripts, shape role emergence, role coordination, and group structure in collaboration — related