Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The impact of scripted roles on online collaborative learning processes

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

Abstract

This paper illustrates the experience gained within an online course, where a collaborative technique, namely Role Play, was used within an asynchronous text-based environment to trigger collaboration and interactions among students. In a pilot study, the technique was analyzed using an evaluation model and two different means: on the one hand, the content analysis carried out by the researchers of the messages exchanged by the students during the Role Play; on the other, a questionnaire aimed at investigating students’ impressions concerning the technique itself. The aim of the study is twofold: to understand the impact of the proposed roles on the online learning process, and to investigate whether roles facilitated members’ awareness of the overall process itself.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. SSIS is the acronym for “Scuole di Specializzazione all’Insegnamento Secondario”, that is the Specialization Schools for Secondary Teaching, the institutions that are responsible for teacher training in Italy.

  2. The activity was based on a proposal by Bernie Dodge, Ed Tech Department, San Diego State University, called “A WebQuest About WebQuests—Middle School Version” http://webquest.sdsu.edu/webquestwebquest-ms.html. The original roles have been modified according to the objectives of the study.

  3. http://www.moodle.org

  4. ICALTS (Interaction and Collaboration AnaLysis supporting Teachers and Students Self-regulation) is a Jointly Executed Integrated Research Project of the Kaleidoscope Network of Excellence, website at http://www.rhodes.aegean.gr/ltee/kaleidoscope-icalts/

  5. “One of the issues under discussion is the choice of the unit of analysis to perform content analysis. Researchers can consider each individual sentence as a single unit of analysis (Fahy 2001). A second option is to identify a consistent “theme” or “idea” (unit of meaning) in a message and to approach this as the unit of analysis (Henri 1992). A third option is to take the complete message a student posts at a certain moment in the discussion as the unit of analysis (Gunawardena et al. 1997; Rourke et al. 2001)” [De Wever et al. 2006, pg. 9].

References

  • Brush, T. A. (1998). Embedding cooperative learning into the design of integrated learning systems: Rationale and guidelines. Educational Technology Research & Development, 46, 5–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, E. G. (1994). Designing groupwork. Strategies for the heterogeneous classroom (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daradoumis, T., Martinez-Monés, A., & Xhafa, F. (2004). An integrated approach for analysing and assessing the performance of virtual learning groups. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 3198, 289–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Wever, B., Schellens, T., Valcke, M., & Van Keer, H. (2006). Content analysis schemes to analyze transcripts of online asynchronous discussion groups: A review. Computers & Education, 46, 6–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Wever, B., Schellens, T., Van Keer, H., & Valcke, M. (2008). Structuring asynchronous discussion groups by introducing roles: Do students act in line with assigned roles? Small Group Research, 39(770). Available at: http://sgr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/39/6/770.

  • De Wever, B., Van Keer, H., Schellens, T., & Valcke, M. (2010). Roles as a structuring tool in online discussion groups: The differential impact of different roles on social knowledge construction. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 516–523.

    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 

  • Fahy, P. (2001). Addressing some common problems in transcript analysis. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 1(2). Available at: http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/321.

  • Fischer, F., Kollar, I., Mandl, H., & Haake, J. M. (2009). Scripting computer-supported collaborative learning. New York: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garrison, R., & Anderson, T. (2003). E-learning in the 21st century. A framework for research and practice. London: RoutledgeFalmer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gunawardena, C. N., Lowe, C. A., & 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, 397–431.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hara, N., Bonk, C. J., & Angeli, C. (2000). Content analysis of online discussion in an applied educational psychology course. Instructional Science, 28, 115–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henri, F. (1992). Computer conferencing and content analysis. In A. R. Kaye (Ed.), Collaborative Learning Through Computer Conferencing (pp. 115–136). The Najaden Papers, New York, Springer.

  • Hernández-Leo, D., Asensio-Pérez, J. I., Dimitriadis, Y., Bote-Lorenzo, M. L., Jorrín-Abellán, I. M., & Villasclaras-Fernández, E. D. (2005). Reusing IMS-LD formalized best practices in collaborative learning structuring. Advanced Technology for Learning, 2(3), 223–232.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaques, D., & Salmon, G. (2007). Learning in groups: A handbook for face-to-face and online environments. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kanuka, H., & Anderson, T. (1999). Using constructivism in technology-mediated learning: Constructing order out of the chaos in the literature. Radical Pedagogy, 1(2). Available at: http://radicalpedagogy.icaap.org/content/issue1_2/02kanuka1_2.html

  • Lally, V. (Ed.) (2002). Elaborating collaborative interactions in networked learning: A multi-method approach. Proceedings of the Networked Learning Conference 2002. University of Sheffield. March 26th–28th.

  • Lipponen, L., Rahikainen, M., Lallimo, J., & Hakkarainen, K. (2003). Patterns of participation and discourse in elementary students’ computer-supported collaborative learning. Learning and Instruction, 13, 487–509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lombard, R., & Biglan, B. (2009). Implications of role play and team teaching as strategies for information technology pedagogy. Information Systems Education Journal, 7(20). Available at: http://isedj.org/7/20/.

  • Martinez, A., Dimitriadis, Y., Rubia, B., Gomez, E., & De La Fuente, P. (2003). Combining qualitative evaluation and social network analysis for the study of classroom social interactions. Computers and Education, 41(4), 353–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mudrack, P. E., & Farrell, G. M. (1995). An examination of functional role behavior and its consequences for individuals in group settings. Small Group Research, 26, 542–571.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Persico, D., & Pozzi, F. (2006). Evaluation in CSCL: Tracking and analysing the learning community. In A. Szücs, & I. Bø (Eds.), E-competences for Life, Employment and Innovation, Proceedings of the EDEN 2006 Annual Conference (pp. 502–507). Vienna 14–17 June 2006.

  • Persico, D., & Pozzi, F. (2010). The three T’s of the structure of online collaborative activities. Procedia Social and Behavioural Sciences Journal, 2, 2610–2615.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Persico, D., Pozzi, F., & Sarti, L. (2008). Fostering collaboration in CSCL. In A. Cartelli, & M. Palma (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Information Communication Technology (pp. 335–340). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference, IGI Global.

  • Persico, D., Pozzi, F., & Sarti, L. (2009). A model for monitoring and evaluating CSCL. In A. A. Juan, T. Daradoumis, F. Xhafa, S. Caballe, & J. Faulin (Eds.), Monitoring and Assessment in Online Collaborative Environments: Emergent Computational Technologies for E-learning Support (pp. 149–170). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference, IGI Global.

  • Pozzi, F., Manca, S., Persico, D., & Sarti, L. (2007). A general framework for tracking and analysing learning processes in CSCL environments. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 44(2), 169–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, R., & Archer, W. (2001). Methodological issues in the content analysis of computer conference transcripts. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 12, 8–22.

    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 

  • Schrire, S. (2006). Knowledge building in asynchronous discussion groups: Going beyond quantitative analysis. Computers & Education, 46, 49–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strijbos, J. W., & De Laat, M. F. (2010). Developing the role concept for computer-supported collaborative learning: An explorative synthesis. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 495–505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strijbos, J. W., & Weinberger, A. (2010). Emerging and scripted roles in computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 491–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strijbos, J. W., Martens, R. L., Jochems, W., & Broers, N. J. (2004). The effect of functional roles on group efficiency: Using multilevel modelling and content analysis to investigate computer-supported collaboration in small groups. Small Group Research, 35, 195–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strijbos, J. W., Martens, R. L., Prins, F. J., & Jochems, W. M. G. (2006). Content analysis: What are they talking about? Computers & Education, 46, 29–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2006). A framework to analyse argumentative knowledge construction in computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers & Education, 46, 71–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zigurs, I., & Kozar, K. A. (1994). An exploratory study of roles in computer-supported groups. MIS Quarterly, 18, 277–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Istituto Tecnologie Didattiche—CNR, Genoa, Italy

    Francesca Pozzi

Authors
  1. Francesca Pozzi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Francesca Pozzi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pozzi, F. The impact of scripted roles on online collaborative learning processes. Computer Supported Learning 6, 471–484 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-011-9108-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-011-9108-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation