You are here:

Discourse Analyses in Chat-based CSCL with Learning Protocols: Effects of Different Scripting Strategies
PROCEEDINGS

, , , , Leuphana University of Lueneburg, Germany

EdMedia + Innovate Learning, in Toronto, Canada ISBN 978-1-880094-81-5 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC

Full Text

Abstract

The learning protocol approach implements collaboration scripts as automated discourse rules into a net-based learning environment to improve learning outcomes of chat-based learning groups. Previous work has shown that computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) with learning protocols can improve learning performance. In the present study, we investigated different cognitive scripting strategies as extention of the learning protocol approach with respect to their effect on knowledge acquisition and problem solving. Learning outcomes indicated that additional scripting structure is especially suitable for problem solving tasks. To explain these results and the effects of different scripting strategies with learning protocols more in depth we conducted discourse analyses of the learning discourses. CSCL with extended learning protocols seems to provide an effective compromise between the danger of overscripting and the need for enough scripting initiating purposeful discourses.

Citation

Oehl, M., Wahl, M., Berwe, T. & Pfister, H.R. (2010). Discourse Analyses in Chat-based CSCL with Learning Protocols: Effects of Different Scripting Strategies. In J. Herrington & C. Montgomerie (Eds.), Proceedings of ED-MEDIA 2010--World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications (pp. 1555-1560). Toronto, Canada: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved March 28, 2023 from .

© 2010 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Beers, P.J., Boshuizen, H.P.A., Kirschner, P.A., & Gijselaers, W.H. (2007). The analysis of negotiation of common ground in CSCL. Learning and Instruction, 17, 427-435.
  2. Brennan, S. (1998). The grounding problem in conversations with and through computers. In S.R. Fussel & R.J. Kreuz (Eds.), Social and cognitive psychological approaches to interpersonal communication (pp. 201-225). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  3. Dillenbourg, P., & Jerman, P. (2007). Designing integrative scripts. In F. Fischer, I. Kollar, H. Mandl& J.M. Haake (Eds.), Scripting computer-supported collaborative learning (pp. 275-301). New York: Springer.
  4. Herring, S. (1999). Interactional coherence in CMC. [ http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol4/issue4/herring.html ].
  5. Kiewra, K.A. (1985). Investigating note-taking and review: A depth of processing alternative. Educational Psychologist, 20, 2332.
  6. Kobbe, L., Weinberger, A., Dillenbourg, P., Harrer, A., Hämäläinen, R., Häkkinen, P., & Fischer, F. (2007). Specifying computer-supported collaboration scripts. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2, 211-224.
  7. Kollar, I., Fischer, F., & Hesse, F.W. (2006). Collaboration scripts– 159-185.
  8. Oehl, M., & Pfister, H.-R. (2008). Knowledge Acquisition and Problem Solving in CSCL with Learning Protocols: Effects of Different Scripting Strategies. In G. Richards (Ed.), Proceedings of World Conference on E-Learning inCorporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2008 (pp. 3040-3045). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
  9. Pimentel, M.G., Fuks, H., & De Lucena, C.J.P. (2003). Co-text loss in textual chat tools. In P. Blackburn, C. Ghidini, R.M. Turner& F. Giunchiglia (Eds.), Modeling and using context. Lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 2680, pp. 483-490). Berlin:
  10. Pfister, H.-R., & Oehl, M. (2009). The Impact of Goal Focus, Task Type, and Group Size on Synchronous Net-Based Collaborative Learning Discourses. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25, 161-176.
  11. Rosenshine, B. & Meister, C. (1994). Reciprocal teaching: A review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 64, 479530.
  12. Stahl, G. (Ed.) (2009). Studying virtual math teams. New York, NY: Springer.
  13. Stahl, G., Koschmann, T., & Suthers, D. (2006). Computer-supported collaborative learning. In R.K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 409-426). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  14. Strijbos, J.-W., & Stahl, G. (2007). Methodological issues in developing a multi-dimensional coding procedure for small-group chat communication. Learning and Instruction, 17, 394-404.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References

Also Read