Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Exploring whether students’ use of labelling depends upon the type of activity

  • Published:
International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper explores a labelling feature designed to support higher-level online dialogue. It investigates whether students use labels less often during a structured online dialogue than during an unstructured one, and looks at students’ reactions to labelling and to both types of tasks. Participants are from three successive course offerings of a Master’s-level course (n = 37). All students are allowed but not required to use a labelling feature which enables them to insert phrases such as “Building on your point” directly into their online messages. All students participate in two types of online activities in small groups—first an unstructured online dialogue, then a structured online dialogue. Students tended to use labels significantly less often during the structured dialogue: F(1, 36) = 5.950, p < 0.05. Sixty-two percent of students used the feature more than once during the unstructured dialogue compared to 46% during the structured dialogue. The maximum number of labels that a student used in the unstructured dialogue was 28 versus 16 in the structured dialogue. Students generally found the structured dialogue to be more interesting and relevant, and to have clearer expectations. Student reactions to the labelling feature were mixed: The mean of satisfaction was 18.35, SD = 3.88 (six items on a 5-point Likert scale). Students did not find labelling as useful during the structured dialogue: Perhaps labelling and the activity provided redundant scaffolding. These results imply that features built into the software should be implemented flexibly with thought to the other pedagogical scaffolds in the environment, particularly to the type of activity.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

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

References

  • Abrami, P. C., & Bures, E. M. (1996). Computer-supported collaborative learning and distance education. The American Journal of Distance Education, 10(2), 37–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker, M., & Lund, K. (1997). Promoting reflective interactions in a CSCL environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 13, 175–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barab, S. A., & Squire, K. D. (2004). Design-based research: Putting our stake in the ground. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, A. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bures, E. M. (2004). Exploring how to scaffold online dialogue in higher education: Who chooses to use an in-line labelling feature and does it help? Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of Education, Concordia University, Quebec, Canada.

  • Bures, E. M., Schmid, R., & Abrami, P. C. (2009). “Developing a perspective”, “inter-connecting”, and “bringing it together”: Who chooses to use a labelling feature in online conversations in a graduate course? Educational Media International, 46(4), 317–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bures, E. M., Abrami, P. C., & Schmid, R. (2010). Supporting quality online dialogue: Does labelling help? The Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 21(1). (in press).

  • Cameron, C. (1995). HipBone Games. Seattle: Rheingold Associates. Available: http://home.earthlink.net/∼hipbone.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, R. (2001). Learning from media: Arguments, analysis, and evidence. Greenwich: Information Age Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in educational research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collins, A. (1992). Toward a design science of education. In E. Scanlon & T. O’Shea (Eds.), New directions in educational technology (pp. 15–22). New York: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, M. P., & Berge, Z. L. (1997). Moderating online electronic discussion groups. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, Il.

  • Davie, L. (1988). Facilitating adult learning though computer-mediated distance education. Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 55–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dennen, V. P., & Wieland, K. (2007). From interaction to intersubjectivity: Facilitating online group discourse processes. Distance Education, 28(3), 281–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dillenbourg, P. (2002). Over-scripting CSCL: The risks of blending collaborative learning with instructional design. In P. A. Kirschner (Ed.), Three worlds of CSCL. Can we support CSCL? (pp. 61–91). Heerlen: Open Universiteit Nederland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dillenbourg, P. (2006). Split the group where interactions should happen: A model for designing CSCL scripts. Paper presented as part of a symposium at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.

  • diSessa, A. A. (1991). Local sciences: Viewing the design of human-computer systems as cognitive science. In J. M. Carroll (Ed.), Designing interaction: Psychology at the human-computer interface (pp. 162–202). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duffy, T. M., Dueber, B., & Hawley, C. L. (1998). CT in a distributed environment: A pedagogical base for the design of conferencing systems. In C. J. Bonk & K. S. King (Eds.), Electronic collaborators: Learner-centered technologies for literacy, apprenticeship, and discourse (pp. 51–78). Mahwah: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feenberg, A. (1991). Social factors in computer mediated communication. In L. Harasim (Ed.), On-line education: Perspectives on a new medium (pp. 67–97). New York: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feenberg, A. (2002). The textweaver project. Available at: http://www.textweaver.org.

  • Flores, F., Graves, M., Hartfield, B., & Winograd, T. (1988). Computer systems and the design of organizational interaction. ACM Transactions on Office Information Systems, 6(2), 153–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grabe, M., & Sigler, E. (2002). Studying online: Evaluation of an online study environment. Computers & Education, 38, 375–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gunawardena, C., Lowe, C., & Anderson, T. (1997). Analysis of a global online debate and the development of an interaction analysis model for examining social construction of knowledge in computer conferencing. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 17(4), 397–431.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guzdial, M., & Carroll, K. (2002). Exploring the lack of dialogue in computer-supported collaborative learning. In G. Stahl (Ed.), Computer support for collaborative learning: Foundations for a CSCL community (pp. 418–424). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harasim, L., Hiltz, S. R., Teles, L., & Turoff, M. (1995). Learning networks: A field guide to teaching and learning online. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hesse, H. (2002). The Glass Bead Game: (Magister Ludi). R. Winston & C. Winston (Trans.) Swansea: Picador Press. Originally published 1943 as Das Glasperlenspiel (Magister Ludi).

  • Hewitt, J. (2002, April). Designing for knowledge building communities. Paper presented at the 2002 Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

  • Hewitt, J. (2004). An exploration of community in a knowledge forum classroom: An activity system analysis. In S. Barab, R. Kling, & J. Gray (Eds.), Designing virtual communities in the service of learning (pp. 210–238). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoadley, C. M., & Linn, M. C. (2000). Teaching science through online, peer discussions: SpeakEasy in the Knowledge Integration Environment. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 839–857.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jeong, A. (2005). A guide to analyzing message-response sequences and group interaction patterns in computer-mediated communication. Distance Education, 26(3), 367–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jermann, P. (1996). Conception et analyse d’une interface semi-structureé dédiée à la co-résolution de problème. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Geneva, Switzerland.

  • Kobbe, L., Weinberger, A., Dillenbourg, P., Harrer, A., Hamalainen, R., Hakkinen, P., et al. (2006). Specifying computer-supported collaboration scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(2–3), 211–224.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lebaron, J., & Miller, D. (2005). The potential of jigsaw role playing to promote the social construction of knowledge in an online graduate course. Teachers College Record, 107(8), 1652–1674.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McAlister, S., Ravenscroft, A., & Scalone, E. (2004). Combining interaction and context design to support collaborative argumentation using synchronous CMC. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning Special Issue: Context, collaboration, computers and learning, 20(3), 194–204.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, M. J., & Denny, E. C. (1960). The Nelson–Denny Reading Test. (Rev. J. Brown). Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company. Original 1929.

  • Reeves, T. C., Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (2005). Design research: A socially responsible approach to instructional technology research in higher education. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 16(2), 97–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reiser, B. (2002). Why scaffolding should sometimes make tasks more difficult for learners. In G. Stahl (Ed.), Computer support for collaborative learning: Foundations for a CSCL community (pp. 255–264). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reiser, B. (2004). Scaffolding complex learning: The mechanisms of structuring and problematizing student work. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 273–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rick, J., & Guzdial, M. (2006). Situating CoWeb: A scholarship of application. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(1), 89–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rick, J., Guzdial, M., Carroll, K., Hollaway-Attaway, L., & Walker, B. (2002). Collaborative learning at low cost: CoWeb use in English composition. In G. Stahl (Ed.), Computer support for collaborative learning: Foundations for a CSCL community (pp. 434–442). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rohfeld, R. W., & Hiemstra, R. (1995). Moderating discussions in the electronic classroom. In Z. L. Berge & M. P. Collins (Eds.), Computer-mediated communication and the on-line classroom in distance education. Volume III, Chapter 5. Cresskill: Hampton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge building communities. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(3), 265–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schellens, T., Van Keer, H., & Valcke, M. (2005). The impact of role assignment on knowledge construction in asynchronous discussion groups: A multilevel analysis. Small Group Research, 36, 704–745.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schellens, T. V., Keer, H., De Wever, B., & Valke, M. (2006). Scripting by assigning roles: Does it improve knowledge construction in asynchronous discussion groups? International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(2–3), 225–246.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schrire, S. (2004). Interaction and cognition in asynchronous computer conferencing. Instructional Science, 32, 475–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sloffer, S., Dueber, B., & Duffy, T. (1999). Using asynchronous conferencing to promote critical thinking: Two implementations in higher education. Proceedings of the 32nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (1999, Maui, Hawaii). New York: IEEE.

  • Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1991). Connections: New ways of working in the net-worked organization. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stahl, G. (2006). Group cognition: Computer support for collaborative knowledge building. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suthers, D. D. (2007). Roles of computational scripts. In F. Fischer, I. Kollar, H. Mandl, & J. M. Haake (Eds.), Scripting computer-supported collaborative learning: Cognitive, computational and educational perspectives (pp. 177–190). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

  • Xin, C., & Feenberg, A. (2006). Pedagogy in cyberspace: The dynamics of online discourse. The Journal of Distance Education, 21(2), 1–25.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Funding was provided by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council and the Centre for the Study of Learning and Performance.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Education, Bishop’s University, Lennoxville, Quebec, Canada, J1M1Z7

    Eva Mary Bures

  2. Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada

    Philip C. Abrami & Richard F. Schmid

Authors
  1. Eva Mary Bures
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Philip C. Abrami
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  3. Richard F. Schmid
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eva Mary Bures.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bures, E.M., Abrami, P.C. & Schmid, R.F. Exploring whether students’ use of labelling depends upon the type of activity. Computer Supported Learning 5, 103–116 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-009-9079-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-009-9079-3

Keywords