RIDE communication instruction and RIDE plus CHT both increase team regulation relative to no support¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r2 · q3 · i3 large
Currency · newest study 2012 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i3 A MANCOVA with overall messages as covariate showed a significant main effect of condition on regulation, driven by team regulation (η² = .15 omnibus, .13 univariate). → Saab 2012 q3 i? Post hoc tests showed both RIDE (p=.034) and CHT (p=.000) conditions produced more team regulation messages than Control, with no significant difference between the two experimental conditions. → Saab 2012 (2)

Evidence¶

Saab 2012¶

Saab, N., van Joolingen, W., & van Hout-Wolters, B. (2012). Support of the collaborative inquiry learning process: influence of support on task and team regulation. Metacognition and Learning, 7, 7-23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-011-9068-6

q3 · i3 · causal · r2

One-way between-groups MANCOVA on 48 dyads (Control n=12, RIDE n=21, CHT n=15) with overall number of messages as covariate; the omnibus effect was η² = .15 and only the team regulation univariate effect was significant (η² = .13).

"The MANCOV A revealed a significant main effect, F(2,44)=3.95, p<.05: Roy ’s Largest Root=.18 η2 =.15. The univariate result that was significant is Team regulation, F(2,45)= 3.41, p<.05, η2 =.13."

Saab 2012 (2)¶

Saab, N., van Joolingen, W., & van Hout-Wolters, B. (2012). Support of the collaborative inquiry learning process: influence of support on task and team regulation. Metacognition and Learning, 7, 7-23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-011-9068-6

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Bonferroni post hoc analysis following the MANCOVA compared team regulation frequencies across the three conditions; both experimental conditions exceeded Control and did not differ from each other.

"students in the experimental conditions, the RIDE condition (M =97.19, SD=66.48) and the CHT condition ( M=134.13, SD=51.59) produced significantly more chat messages in the team regulation category than students in the Control condition ( M=44.42, SD=31.81), (RIDE condition: p=.034; CHT condition: p=.000)"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Provided support does not influence task regulation between conditions — reports the opposite
• In collaborative inquiry learning, dyads use more team regulation than task regulation in all support conditions — related
• Team regulation correlates positively with learning results only in the CHT condition — related
• RIDE instruction shows no direct effect on discovery learning results (SWLE or domain knowledge posttest) — related
• Support conditions did not differ from control in learning scores within the environment — related
• Dyads given the full Process Coordinator used the regulative tool about three times as long and twice as often as dyads with the empty version — related
• Instruction combining communication rules (RIDE) and a hypothesis tool (CHT) increases team regulation in computer-supported collaborative inquiry, and team regulation relates to learning outcomes only in that combined condition — related
• RIDE-instructed dyads more often use elicitative, responsive, confirmation/acceptance, and asking-for-action communicative activities — related
• Secondary students in CSCL devote much of their communication to regulating task performance, especially planning the task and monitoring task progress — related
• RIDE instruction increases some transformative discovery activities and overall regulative discovery activity, with effects limited to specific activities — related