Skip to main content
Log in

Assessing learners’ perceived readiness for computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL): a study on initial development and validation

  • Published:
Journal of Computing in Higher Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The main purpose of this study was to develop an instrument that assesses university students’ perceived readiness for computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL). Assessment in CSCL research had predominantly focused on measuring “after-collaboration” outcomes and “during-collaboration” behaviors while “before-collaboration” assessment was rarely studied. Given the nature of high learner agency and self-directness necessary in CSCL contexts, it was assumed that a sufficient level of student readiness for CSCL could promote positive attitudes and behaviors during the collaborative learning process and subsequent learning outcomes. Considering the importance of a before-collaboration status, this study proposes the new notion of students’ readiness for CSCL (SR-CSCL) and presents a set of criteria to theoretically define and empirically measure the perceived level of SR-CSCL. Drawing on prior research on CSCL and readiness issues, we developed the SR-CSCL instrument with a three-dimensional framework consisting of: (a) motivation for collaborative learning, (b) prospective behaviors for collaborative learning and (c) online learning aptitude. The SR-CSCL instrument was validated with the university students in China in the pilot study (N = 120) and the main study (N = 295). Overall, the results showed some evidence of reliability and validity for the proposed instrument. This study presents an empirical assessment tool that can help instructors and researchers better understand and investigate how to assess and increase students’ readiness levels in order to enhance their learning experiences in CSCL environments.

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

Access this article

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

References

  • AERA, APA, & NCME. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: AERA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barron, B. (2003). When smart groups fail. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(3), 307–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beebe, T. J., Harrison, P. A., Sharma, A., & Hedger, S. (2001). The community readiness survey development and initial validation. Evaluation Review, 25(1), 55–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blair, C. (2002). School readiness: Integrating cognition and emotion in a neurobiological conceptualization of children’s functioning at school entry. American Psychologist, 57(2), 111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Capdeferro, N., & Romero, M. (2012). Are online learners frustrated with collaborative learning experiences? International Review of Research in Open & Distance Learning, 13(2), 26–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carey, K. B., Purnine, D. M., Maisto, S. A., & Carey, M. P. (1999). Assessing readiness to change substance abuse: A critical review of instruments. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 6(3), 245–266.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chow, A., & Law, N. (2005). Measuring motivation in collaborative inquiry-based learning contexts. Paper presented at the proceedings of th 2005 conference on Computer support for collaborative learning: Learning 2005: The next 10 years!

  • Cook, D. A., & Beckman, T. J. (2006). Current concepts in validity and reliability for psychometric instruments: Theory and application. The American Journal of Medicine, 119(2), 166.e7–166.e16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52(4), 281–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deutsch, M. (2011). Interdependence and psychological orientation: Cooperation and competition (pp. 23–40). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeVellis, R. (2011). Scale development: Theory and applications (2nd ed.). California: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dillenbourg, P., Järvelä, S., & Fischer, F. (2009). The evolution of research on computer-supported collaborative learning. In N. Balacheff, S. Ludvigsen, & T. d. Jong (Eds.), Technology-enhanced learning (pp. 3–19). Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Downing, S. M., & Haladyna, T. M. (2006). Handbook of test development. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gomez, E. A., Wu, D., & Passerini, K. (2010). Computer-supported team-based learning: The impact of motivation, enjoyment and team contributions on learning outcomes. Computers & Education, 55(1), 378–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gress, C. L., Fior, M., Hadwin, A. F., & Winne, P. H. (2010). Measurement and assessment in computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(5), 806–814.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hung, M.-L., Chou, C., Chen, C.-H., & Own, Z.-Y. (2010). Learner readiness for online learning: Scale development and student perceptions. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1080–1090.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1999). Making cooperative learning work. Theory into Practice, 38(2), 67–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kemery, E. R. (2000). Developing on-line collaboration. In A. Aggarwal (Ed.), Web-based learning and teaching technologies: Opportunities and challenges (pp. 227–245). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Inc.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kerr, M. S., Rynearson, K., & Kerr, M. C. (2006). Student characteristics for online learning success. The Internet and Higher Education, 9(2), 91–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, H. K., & Bateman, B. (2007). Student characteristics and participation patterns in online discussion. Paper presented at the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference.

  • Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolodner, J. L., Camp, P. J., Crismond, D., Fasse, B., Gray, J., Holbrook, J., & Ryan, M. (2003). Problem-based learning meets case-based reasoning in the middle-school science classroom: Putting learning by design into practice. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(4), 495–547.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koschmann, T. (2002). Dewey’s contribution to the foundations of CSCL research. Paper presented at the proceedings of the conference on computer support for collaborative learning: Foundations for a CSCL Community.

  • Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P. A., & Vermeulen, M. (2013). Social aspects of CSCL environments: A research framework. Educational Psychologist, 48(4), 229–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leach, D. J., Wall, T. D., Rogelberg, S. G., & Jackson, P. R. (2005). Team autonomy, performance, and member job strain: Uncovering the teamwork KSA link. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 54(1), 1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lei, P.-W., & Wu, Q. (2007). CTTITEM: SAS macro and SPSS syntax for classical item analysis. Behavior Research Methods, 39(3), 527–530.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marcus, B. H., Rakowski, W., & Rossi, J. S. (1992). Assessing motivational readiness and decision making for exercise. Health Psychology, 11(4), 257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McClough, A. C., & Rogelberg, S. G. (2003). Selection in teams: An exploration of the teamwork knowledge, skills, and ability test. International Journal of Selection & Assessment, 11(1), 56–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McVay, M. (2000). How to be a successful distance learning student: Learning on the Internet. New York: Pearson Custom Pub.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miyake, N. (2007). Computer supported collaborative learning. In R. Andrews & C. Haythornthwaite (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of e-learning research (pp. 248–265). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nardi, B. A. (2005). Beyond bandwidth: Dimensions of connection in interpersonal communication. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 14(2), 91–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olson, G. M., Teasley, S., Bietz, M. J., & Cogburn, D. L. (2002). Collaboratories to support distributed science: The example of international HIV/AIDS research. Paper presented at the proceedings of the 2002 annual research conference of the South African institute of computer scientists and information technologists on enablement through technology.

  • Padilla-Meléndez, A., Garrido-Moreno, A., & Del Aguila-Obra, A. R. (2008). Factors affecting e-collaboration technology use among management students. Computers & Education, 51(2), 609–623.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paraskeva, F., Mysirlaki, S., & Papagianni, A. (2010). Multiplayer online games as educational tools: Facing new challenges in learning. Computers & Education, 54(2), 498–505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phielix, C., Prins, F. J., & Kirschner, P. A. (2010). Awareness of group performance in a CSCL-environment: Effects of peer feedback and reflection. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(2), 151–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pillay, H., Irving, K., & Tones, M. (2007). Validation of the diagnostic tool for assessing tertiary students’ readiness for online learning. Higher Education Research & Development, 26(2), 217–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prinsen, F., Volman, M. L., & Terwel, J. (2007). The influence of learner characteristics on degree and type of participation in a CSCL environment. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(6), 1037–1055.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rummel, N., Spada, H., & Hauser, S. (2009). Learning to collaborate while being scripted or by observing a model. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4(1), 69–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schoor, C., & Bannert, M. (2011). Motivation in a computer-supported collaborative learning scenario and its impact on learning activities and knowledge acquisition. Learning and Instruction, 21(4), 560–573.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shi, Y., Frederiksen, C. H., & Muis, K. R. (2013). A cross-cultural study of self-regulated learning in a computer-supported collaborative learning environment. Learning and Instruction, 23, 52–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shumar, W., & Renninger, K. (2002). Introduction: On conceptualizing community. In K. A. Renninger & W. Shumar (Eds.), Building virtual communities (pp. 1–19). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, P. J. (2005). Learning preferences and readiness for online learning. Educational Psychology, 25(1), 3–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, P. J., Murphy, K. L., & Mahoney, S. E. (2003). Towards identifying factors underlying readiness for online learning: An exploratory study. Distance Education, 24(1), 57–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snedecor, G., & Cochran, W. (1989). Statistical methods (8th ed.). Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stahl, G. (2011). A view of computer-supported collaborative learning research today. Paper presented at the 2011 international conference on collaboration technologies and systems (CTS).

  • Stahl, G., Koschmann, T., & Suthers, D. (2006). Computer-supported collaborative learning: An historical perspective. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (Vol. 2006). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevens, M., & Campion, M. A. (1994). The knowledge, skill, and ability requirements for teamwork: Implications for human resource management. Journal of Management, 20(2), 503–530.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stevens, M., & Campion, M. A. (1999). Staffing work teams: Development and validation of a selection test for teamwork settings. Journal of Management, 25(2), 207–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Valtonen, T., Kukkonen, J., Dillon, P., & Väisänen, P. (2009). Finnish high school students’ readiness to adopt online learning: Questioning the assumptions. Computers & Education, 53(3), 742–748.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vonderwell, S. (2004). Online learning: Student role and readiness. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 3(3), 38–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watkins, R., Leigh, D., & Triner, D. (2004). Assessing readiness for e-learning. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 17(4), 66–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xie, K., Debacker, T. K., & Ferguson, C. (2006). Extending the traditional classroom through online discussion: The role of student motivation. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 34(1), 67–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was conducted as the master’s thesis of the first author at the National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hyo-Jeong So.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

We declare that there are no potential conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

We complied with the ethical standards of research involving human subjects.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Appendix: SR-CSCL instrument (39 items)

Appendix: SR-CSCL instrument (39 items)

Motivation for collaborative learning (15 items)

Statement: The possible reason I would like to participate in collaborative learning is,

  1. 1.

    (MI1) because I like to work with my classmates in group activities.

  2. 2.

    (MI2) because I enjoy the experience of working together with classmates.

  3. 3.

    (MI3) because it is fun.

  4. 4.

    (MI4) because it is important for me to do group work.

  5. 5.

    (MV1) because comparing with doing individual assignments, it is more effective to learn by doing group work.

  6. 6.

    (MV2) because it can help my academic learning.

  7. 7.

    (MV3) because working in groups allows me to tackle more complex topics than working individually.

  8. 8.

    (MV4) because there are many opportunities for discussion and sharing ideas by working in groups.

  9. 9.

    (MS1) because I believe I can do well in the group work.

  10. 10.

    (MS2) because I believe I can help my groupmates in some way.

  11. 11.

    (MS3) because I believe I can work well with my groupmates.

  12. 12.

    (MS4) because I believe I can play an important role in the accomplishment of the group task.

  13. 13.

    (MR1) because I hope to achieve a good grade for this course (assuming that the participation level is one of the evaluation criteria).

  14. 14.

    (MR2) because I hope to receive praise from teachers and classmates about my good performance.

  15. 15.

    (MR3) because I hope to have a good relationship with my groupmates.

(Note: MI = interest; MV = perceived value; MS = self-efficacy; and MR = reinforcement)

Prospective behaviors for collaborative learning (15 items)

Statement: If I am doing group work,

  1. 16.

    (PC1) I would listen to other members’ ideas.

  2. 17.

    (PC2) I would like to share my ideas with others.

  3. 18.

    (PC3) I would be open to new ideas.

  4. 19.

    (PC4) I would be tolerant of different ideas when doing group work.

  5. 20.

    (PC5) I would engage in ritual greetings and small talks with my group members even if it has nothing to do with the group task.

  6. 21.

    (PC6) I would be able to express what I think in an appropriate way, not harming other group members.

  7. 22.

    (PP1) I would participate in the negotiation to achieve a consensus with my group members.

  8. 23.

    (PP2) I would encourage my group members to negotiate to solve the problem.

  9. 24.

    (PP3) When my group encounters difficulties, I would discuss together with my groupmates about how to solve the problem.

  10. 25.

    (PP4) I would exercise appropriate participation accordingly.

  11. 26.

    (PM1) I would be able to provide feedback on overall team’s performance.

  12. 27.

    (PM2) I would be able to provide feedback on individual team member’s performance.

  13. 28.

    (PM3) I would be able to monitor my group’s progress.

  14. 29.

    (PCR1) I would be able to implement an appropriate conflict resolution strategy.

  15. 30.

    (PCR2) I would be able to recognize the source of conflict confronting my group.

(Note: PC = communication; PP = problem-solving; PM = self-management; and PCR = conflict-resolution.)

Online learning aptitude (9 items)

  1. 1.

    (OS1) I am able to learn new technologies quickly.

  2. 2.

    (OS2) I am confident in my skills of managing software to do group work.

  3. 3.

    (OS3) I am good at using the online communication tools to do the group work with my group members.

  4. 4.

    (OS4) I am good at using the Internet to find and gather relevant information for group work.

  5. 5.

    (OS5) I am good at using the Internet to effectively communicate with others.

  6. 6.

    (OC1) I think online collaboration is of at least equal convenience to face-to-face collaboration

  7. 7.

    (OC2) I am comfortable about communicating with group members electronically (e.g., using email, Facebook, MSN, Skype, etc.).

  8. 8.

    (OC3) I am willing to actively communicate with my classmates and instructors electronically.

  9. 9.

    (OC4) I am willing to use online communication tools to do group work with my groupmates.

(Note: OS = skill; and OC = comfort)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Xiong, Y., So, HJ. & Toh, Y. Assessing learners’ perceived readiness for computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL): a study on initial development and validation. J Comput High Educ 27, 215–239 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-015-9102-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-015-9102-9

Keywords

Navigation