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.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/1701f/1701f18560a8902e88d58c3b39af549953b23994" alt=""
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.
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.
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.
Cohen, E. G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64, 1–35.
Coleman, E. (1998). Using explanatory knowledge during collaborative problem solving in science. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7, 387–427.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Hamm, M., & Adams, D. (1992). The collaborative dimensions of learning. Norwood: Abxex apublishing Corp.
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.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (1998). Active learning: Cooperation in the college classroom. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.
Jones, G., Carter, G., & Rua, M. (1999). Children’s concepts: Tools for transforming science teachers’ knowledge. Science Education, 83(5), 545–557.
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.
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.
Lewis, R. (1997). An Activity Theory framework to explore distributed communities. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 13, 210–218.
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.
Novak, J. D. (1990). Concept maps and vee diagrams: Two metacognitive tools to facilitate meaningful learning. Instructional Science, 19(1), 29–52.
Novak, J. D. (1998). Learning, creating and using knowledge: Concept maps as facilitative tools in schools and corporations. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
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.
Roschelle, J. (1992). Learning by collaborating: Convergent conceptual change. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2, 235–276.
Schrage, M. (1990). Shared minds. New York: Random House.
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.
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.
Veerman, A. L. (2000). Computer-supported collaborative e learning through argumentation. Enschede: Print Partners, Ipskamp.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Webb, N. M. (1991). Task-related verbal interaction and mathematics learning in small groups. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 22, 366–389.
Wilson, J. M. (1994). Network presentations of knowledge about chemical equilibrium: Variations with achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(10), 113–117.
Zahavy, A., & Somech, A. (2002). Team heterogeneity and its relationship with team support and team effectiveness. Journal of Educational Administration, 40(1), 44–66.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights 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
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-007-9051-7