Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

The relationship between task structure and collaborative group interactions in a synchronous peer interaction collaborative learning environment for a course of Physics

  • Published:
Education and Information Technologies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Although collaborative group work is used by many instructors as a useful educational tool, there is much room for research on how learning actually occurs within collaborative learning environments. This paper attempts to explore the relationship(if any) between task structure and collaborative group interactions in a synchronous peer interaction collaborative learning environment. For this reason, we used the Cmap during a Physics course for Grade 12 students. This paper compares two groups of students, one studying concept maps with single answer task, and the other studying concept maps with variable answer task. The aim of the study presented in this article is to also investigate the influence of task structure on students’ interactivity according to certain indicators and cognitive performance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

References

  • Adams, D. M., & Hamm, M. E. (1990). Cooperative learning: Critical thinking and collaboration across the curriculum. Springfield: Charles Thomas.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boxtel, C., der Linden, J., & Kanselaar, G. (1997). Collaborative construction of conceptual understanding: Interaction processes and learning outcomes emerging from a concept mapping and a poster task. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 8, 341–361.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cañas, A. J., Hill, G., Carff, R., Suri, N., Lott, J., & Eskridge, T. (2004). Cmap Tools: A knowledge modelling and sharing environment. In A. J. Cañas, J. D. Novak & F. M. González (Eds.), Proceedings of the Universidad Pública de Navarra first international conference on concept mapping (1, pp. 125–133.). Pamplona, Spain. Available at: http://cmc.ihmc.us/papers/cmc2004-283.pdf.

  • Chizhik, A. (2001). Equity and status in group collaboration: Learning through explanations depends on task characteristics. Social Psychology of Education, 5, 179–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, E. G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64, 1–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, E. (1998). Using explanatory knowledge during collaborative problem solving in science. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7, 387–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Jong, T., & Ferguson-Hessler, M. G. M. (1993). Het leren van exacte vakken. In W. Tomic & P. Span (Eds.), Onderwijspsychologie. Beïnvloeding, verloop en resultaten van leerprocessen (pp. 331–351). Utrecht.

  • Dillenbourg, P. (1999). What do you mean by ‘collaborative learning. In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Collaborative learning: Cognitive and computational approaches. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, J.-A. (2005). Exploratory talk in peer groups: Exploring the zone of proximal development. In Fourth Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (CERME 4). Sant Feliu de Guíxols, Spain, 17–21 Feb 2005.

  • Elshout-Mohr, M., & van Hout, W. B. (1995). Actief leren en studeren: Acht scenario’s. Pedagogische Studiën, 72, 273–300.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erkens, G. (2004). Dynamics of coordination in collaboration. In J. van der linden & P. Renshaw (Eds.), Dialogic learning: Shifting perspectives to learning, instruction, and teaching (pp. 191–216). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gutwin, C., & Greenberg, S. (2004). The importance of awareness for team cognition in distributed collaboration. In E. Salas & S. M. Fiore (Eds.), Team cognition: Understanding the factors that drive processes and performance (pp. 177–201). Washington: APA Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hamm, M., & Adams, D. (1992). The collaborative dimensions of learning. Norwood: Abxex apublishing Corp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart, I. (1998). Visualising structural knowledge. In the Fifth International Conference for Computers in Education. Beijing.

  • Horton, P. B., McConney, A. A., Gallo, M., Woods, A. L., Senn, G. J., & Hamelin, D. (1993). An investigation of the effectiveness of concept mapping as an instructional tool. Science Education, 77(1), 95–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (1998). Active learning: Cooperation in the college classroom. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, G., Carter, G., & Rua, M. (1999). Children’s concepts: Tools for transforming science teachers’ knowledge. Science Education, 83(5), 545–557.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P. A., & Jochems, W. (2002). The sociability of computer-supported collaborative learning environments. Journal of Education Technology & Society, 5(1), 8–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P. A., & Jochems, W. (2003). Identifying the pitfalls for social interaction in computer-supported collaborative learning environments: A review of the research. Computers in Human Behavior, 19(3), 335–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, R. (1997). An Activity Theory framework to explore distributed communities. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 13, 210–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Medina, R. D., Tarouco, L., & Amoretti, M (2004) Laboratório Virtual ASTERIX—resultados decorrentes da sua utilização como ferramenta cognitiva. In X Congreso Argentino de Ciencias de la Computación. Buenos Aires.

  • McClure, J., Sonak, B., & Suen, H. (1999). Concept map assessment of classroom learning: Reliability, validity and logistical practicality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(4), 475–492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Novak, J. D. (1990). Concept maps and vee diagrams: Two metacognitive tools to facilitate meaningful learning. Instructional Science, 19(1), 29–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Novak, J. D. (1998). Learning, creating and using knowledge: Concept maps as facilitative tools in schools and corporations. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prada, R., & Paiva, A. (2005). Intelligent virtual agents in collaborative scenarios. Lecture Notes in Computer Science Springer, 317–328.

  • Reiser, R. (2001). A history of instructional design and technology. Part 2: A history of instructional design. Educational Technology Research & Development, 49, 57–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roschelle, J. (1992). Learning by collaborating: Convergent conceptual change. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2, 235–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schrage, M. (1990). Shared minds. New York: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strijbos, J. W., Martens, R. L., & Jochems, W. M. G. (2004). Designing for interaction: Six steps to designing computer-supported group-based learning. Computers and Education, 42, 403–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tarouco, L., Geller, M., & Medina, R. (2006). Cmap as a communication tool to promote meaningful learning. In A. J. Cañas & J. D. Novak (Eds.), Proceedings of the Second Int. Conference on Concept Mapping. San José, Costa Rica.

  • Valadares, J., Fonseca, F., & Soares, M. T. (2004). Using Conceptual maps in Physics Classes. In A. J. Cañas, J. D. Novak & F. M. González (Eds.), Proceedings of the First Int. Conference on Concept Mapping. Pamplona, Spain.

  • Van Boxtel, C. A. M. (2000). Collaborative concept learning. Student interaction, collaborative learning tasks and physic concepts. Enschede: Print Partners Ipskamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Veerman, A. L. (2000). Computer-supported collaborative e learning through argumentation. Enschede: Print Partners, Ipskamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Webb, N. M. (1991). Task-related verbal interaction and mathematics learning in small groups. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 22, 366–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, J. M. (1994). Network presentations of knowledge about chemical equilibrium: Variations with achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(10), 113–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zahavy, A., & Somech, A. (2002). Team heterogeneity and its relationship with team support and team effectiveness. Journal of Educational Administration, 40(1), 44–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sarantos Psycharis.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Psycharis, S. The relationship between task structure and collaborative group interactions in a synchronous peer interaction collaborative learning environment for a course of Physics. Educ Inf Technol 13, 119–128 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-007-9051-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-007-9051-7

Keywords

Navigation