The present research studied the effect of learning in asynchronous discussion groups on students' levels of knowledge construction. Multilevel analyses were applied to uncover the influence of student, group, and task variables on the one hand and the specific effect of the assignment of roles to group members on other hand. Results indicate that students'attitudes toward the learning environment and their engagement in the discussion group are significant predictors. As to the effect of role assignment, no significant overall difference in students' mean levels of knowledge construction between the role and no role condition was observed. However, additional analyses revealed that (a) the distribution patterns of the levels of knowledge construction differed as students in the role condition more often reached the highest level, and (b) assigning students the role of summarizer resulted in significantly higher levels of knowledge construction.
Abramson, G. W. (1989). Developing effective computer based instruction: Essential issues for alpha test consideration. Journal of Interactive Instruction Development, 1, 163-169.
2.
Amabile, T. (1988). A Model of creativity and innovation in organizations. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior(Vol. 10, 123-167). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
3.
Amabile, T. (1997). Entrepreneurial creativity through motivational synergy. Journal of Creative Behavior, 31, 18-26.
4.
Amabile, T. (1998). How to kill creativity. Harvard Business Review, September-October, 77-87.
5.
Aviv, R. (2000). Educational performance of ALN via content analysis. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 4(2), 53-72.
6.
Baker, M. (1996). Argumentation and cognitive change in collaborative problem solving dialogues(Rep. No. CR-13/96). Lyon, France: CNRS.
7.
Barab, S., & Duffy, T. (2000). From practice fields to communities of practice. In D. H. Jonassen& S. M. Land (Eds.), Theoretical foundations of learning environments(pp. 25-55). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
8.
Beatty, K., & Nunan, D. (2004). Computer-mediated collaborative learning. System, 32(2), 165-183.
9.
Bereiter, C. (1990). Aspects of an educational learning theory. Journal of Educational Research, 60, 603-624.
10.
Brandon, D. P.,& Hollingshead, A. B. (2004). Transactive memorysystems in organizations: Matching tasks, expertise, and people. Organization Science, 15, 633-644.
11.
Brown, J. S. (1985). Process versus product: Aprospective on tools for communicational and informal electronic learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 1, 179-201.
12.
Bryk, A.,& Raudenbush, S. W. (1992). Hierarchical linear models for social and behavioral research: Applications and data analysis methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
13.
Capozzoli, M., McSweeney, L., & Sinha, D. (1999). Beyond kappa: A review of interrater agreement measures. The Canadian Journal of Statistics, 27(1), 3-23.
14.
Choi, J.-I., & Hannifin, M. (1995). Situated cognition and learning environments: Roles, structures, and implications for design. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 43(2), 53-69.
15.
Cifuentes, L., Murphy, K., Segur, R., & Kodali, S. (1997). Design considerations for computer conferences. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 30(2), 177-201.
16.
Clark, D., Weinberger, A., Jucks, I., Spitulnik, M.,& Wallace, R. (2003). Designing effective science inquiry in text-based computer supported collaborative learning environments. International Journal of Educational Policy, Research & Practice, 4(1), 55-82.
17.
Cohen, E. G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64(1), 1-35.
18.
Coleman, E. B. (1995). Learning by explaining: Fostering collaborative progressive discourse in science. In R. J. Beun, M. Baker,& M. Reiner (Eds.), Dialogue and instruction: Modeling interaction in intelligent tutoring systems(pp. 123-135). Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
19.
Collins, M. A., & Amabile, T. M. (1999). Motivation and creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The handbookof creativity(pp. 297-312). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
20.
Cooper, J., Prescott, S., Cook, L., Smith, L., Mueck, R., & Cuseo, J. (1990). Cooperative learning and college instruction: Effective use of student learning teams. Long Beach: California State University Foundation.
21.
Czikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper Collins.
22.
Deci, E. L., Cascio, W. F., & Krusell, J. (1975). Cognitive evaluation theory and some comments on the Calder and Staw critique. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 31, 81-85.
23.
Dennis, A. R., Aronson, J. E., Heninger, W. G.,& Walker, E. D. (1999). Structuring time and task in electronic brainstorming. MIS Quarterly, 23, 95-108.
24.
Dennis, A. R., & Williams, M. L. (2005). A meta analysis of groupsize effects in electronic brainstorming: More heads are better than one. International Journal of e-Collaboration, 1, 24-42.
25.
DeWever, B., Schellens, T., Valcke, M.,& VanKeer, H. (in press). Content analysis schemes to analyze transcripts of online asynchronous discussion groups: A review. Computers and Education.
26.
DeWever, B., Valcke, M., VanWinckel, M.,& Kerkhof, J. (2002). De invloed van “structuur” in CSCL-omgevingen: Een onderzoek met online-discussiegroepen bij medische studenten [The influence of structuring CSCL environments: A study of online discussion groups with medical students]. Pedagogisch Tijdschrift, 27(2/3), 105-128.
27.
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, the Netherlands: Open Universiteit Nederland.
28.
Dillenbourg, P., Baker, M., Blaye, A., & O’Malley, C. (1995). The evolution of research on collaborative learning. In P. Reimann & H. Spada (Eds.), Learning in humans and machines: Towards an interdisciplinary learning science(pp. 189-211). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
29.
Doise, W., & Mugny, G. (1984). The social development of the intellect. Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
30.
Entwistle, N., Tait, H.,& McCune, V. (2000). Patterns of response to an approaches to studying inventory across contrasting groups and contexts. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 15, 33-48.
31.
Erkens, G. (1997). Cooperatief probleemoplossen met computer in het onderwijs: Het modelleren van cooperatieve dialogen voor de ontwikkeling van intelligente onderwijssystemen[Cooperative problem solving through computers: Modeling cooperative dialogues to develop intelligent educational systems]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Universiteit Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
32.
Felder, R. M., Felder, G. N., Mauney, M., Hamrin, C. E., Jr.,& Dietz, E. J. (1995). Alongitudinal study of engineering student performance and retention. III. Gender Differences in student performance and attitudes. Journal of Engineering Education, 84(2), 151-151.
33.
Friend, C. L.,& Cole, C. L. (1990). Learner control in CBI. Journal of Educational Technology, 20, 47-49.
34.
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.
35.
Hackman, J.,& Oldham, G. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 6, 250-279.
36.
Hakkarainen, K., Lipponen, L.,& Järvelä, S. (2002). Epistemology of inquiry and computersupported collaborative learning. In T. Koschmann, R. Hall, & N. Miyake (Eds.), CSCL 2: Carrying forward the conversation(pp. 129-156). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
37.
Hakkarainen, K.,& Palonen, T. (2003). Patterns of female and male students'participation in peer interaction in computer-supported learning. Computers and Education, 40, 327-342.
38.
Harasim, L., Hiltz, S., Teles, L., & Turoff, M. (1998). Learning networks: A field guide to teaching and learning online. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
39.
Hare, A. P. (1994). Types of roles in small groups: A bit of history and a current perspective. Small Group Research, 25, 443-448.
40.
Harper, B., Squires, D., & McDougall, A. (2000). Constructivist simulations: A new design paradigm. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 9(2), 115-130.
41.
Holsti, O. (1969). Content analysis for the social sciences and humanities. Boston: Don Mills/Addison-Wesley.
42.
Hox, J. J. (1994). Hierarchical regression models for interviewer and respondent effects. Sociological Methods and Research, 22, 300-318.
43.
Hox, J. J., & Kreft, I. G. (1994). Multilevel analysis methods. Sociological Methods and Research, 22, 283-299.
44.
Illera, J. (2001). Collaborative environments and task design in the university. Computers in Human Behavior, 17, 481-493.
45.
James, V., Lederman Gerard, R.,& Vagt-Traore, B. (2004). Enhancing creativity in the classroom. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved July 14, 2004, from http://www.coe.uga.edu/epltt/creativity.htm
46.
Jeong, H., & Chi, M. T. H. (1997). Construction of shared knowledge during collaborative learning. In R. Hall, N. Miyake,& N. Enyede (Eds.), Proceedings of computer-supported collaborative learning ’97(pp. 124-128). Toronto, Canada.
47.
Johnson, D., Johnson, R., & Holubec, E. (1998). Cooperation in the classroom. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
48.
Johnson, D., Johnson, R., & Johnson-Holubec, E. (1992). Advanced cooperative learning. Edina, MN: Interaction.
49.
Jones, M. G. (1998). Creating engagement in computer-based learning environments (ITForum Paper No. 30). Retrieved, July 14, 2004, from http://itech1.coe.uga.edu/itforum/paper30/disc30.html
50.
Kagan, S. (1994). Cooperative learning. San Juan Capistrano, CA: Kagan Cooperative Learning.
51.
Kollar, I., Fischer, F.,& Hesse, F. W. (2003). Cooperation scripts for computer-supported collaborative learning. In B. Wasson, R. Baggetun, U. Hoppe, & S. Ludvigsen (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning—CSCL 2003, Community events—Communication and interaction(pp. 59-61). Bergen, Norway: Inter Media.
52.
Kozma, R. B. (1991). Learning with media. Reviewof Educational Research, 61, 179-211.
53.
Kreijns, K., & Bitter-Rijkema, M. (2002). An exploration of the virtual business team concept: Constructivism and the support for social negotiation. Retrieved July 22, 2002, from http://www.ouh.nl/info-alg-vb/docs/defEuroCSCL%20KreijnsBitter.doc
54.
Krippendorff, K. (1980). Content analysis, an introduction to its methodology. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
55.
Kumar, V. S. (1996). Computer-supported collaborative learning: Issues for research. Retrieved August 16, 2004, from http://www.cs.usask.ca/grads/vsk719/academic/890/project2/project2.html
56.
Linn, M., & Burbules, N. C. (1993). Construction of knowledge and group learning. In K. Tobin (Ed.), The practice of constructivism in science education(pp. 91-119). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
57.
Lockhorst, D., Admiraal, W. F., Pilot, A., & Veen, W. (2002). Design elements for a CSCL environment in a teacher training programme. Education and Information Technologies, 7, 377-384.
58.
Lynch, R. (1991). Teaching in the 21st century. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1, 144-186.
59.
Mäkitalo, K., Weinberger, A., Häkkinen, P., & Fischer, F. (2004). Uncertainty-reducing cooperation scripts in online learning environments. Retrieved July 14, 2004, from http://www.iwm-kmrc.de/workshops/sim2004/pdf_files/Makitalo_etal.pdf
60.
Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
61.
Nurrenbern, S. (1995). Experiences in cooperative learning: A collection for chemistry teachers. Madison: Institute for Chemical Education, University of Wisconsin Board of Regents.
62.
O’Donnell, A. N., & Dansereau, D. F. (1992). Scripted cooperation in student dyads: A method for analyzing and enhancing academic learning and performance. In R. Hertz-Lazarowitz& N. Miller (Eds.), Interactions in cooperative groups. The theoretical anatomy of group learning(pp. 120-141). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
63.
Palloff, R.,& Pratt, K. (1999). Promoting collaborative learning. Building learning communities in cyberspace: Effective strategies for the online classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
64.
Petraglia, J. (1997). The rhetoric and technology of authenticity in education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
65.
Quinn, C. N. (1997). Engaging learning(ITForum Paper No. 18). Retrieved July 12, 2004, from http://itech1.coe.uga.edu/itforum/paper18/paper18.html
66.
Rasbash, J., Browne, W., Goldstein, H., Yang, M., Plewis, I., Healy, M., et al. (1999). A user's guide to MLwin. London: Institute of Education.
67.
Reio, T. G.,& Wiswell, A. (2000). Field investigation of the relationship among adult curiosity, workplace learning, and job performance. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 11, 5-30.
68.
Ren, Y. (2001). Simulating the role of transactive memory in group performance. In Proceedings of the 4th International Organizational Learning and Knowledge Management Conference. London: University of Western Ontario, Canada.
69.
Roschelle, J. (1992). Learning by collaborating: Convergent conceptual change. Journal of the Learning Science, 2, 235-276.
70.
Roschelle, J., & Pea, R. (1999). Trajectories from today's WWW to a powerful educational infrastructure. Educational Researcher, 28(5), 22-25.
71.
Rose, M. A. (2002). Cognitive dialogue, interaction patterns, and perceptions of graduate students in an online conference environment under collaborative and cooperative structures. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
72.
Rosser, S. V. (1997). Re-engineering female friendly science. New York: Teachers College Press.
73.
Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D. R.,& Archer, W. (2001). Methodological issues in the content analysis of computer conference transcripts. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 12, 8-22.
74.
Salomon, G., & Globerson, T. (1989). When teams do not function the way they ought to. International Journal of Educational Research, 13(1), 89-99.
75.
Sandler, B. R., Silverberg, L. A.,& Hall, R. M. (1996). The chilly classroom climate: A guide to improve the education of women. Washington, DC: National Association for Women in Education.
76.
Savery, J., & Duffy, T. M. (1996). Problem based learning: An instructional model and its constructivist framework. In B. Wilson (Ed.), Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional design(pp. 135-148). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology.
77.
Schellens, T., & Valcke, M. (2000). Re-engineering conventional university education: Implications for students' learning styles. Distance Education, 21, 361-384.
78.
Schellens, T., & Valcke, M. (2002). Asynchrone discussiegroepen: Een onderzoek naar de invloed op cognitieve kennisverwerving [Asynchronous discussion groups: Investigating the influence on cognitive knowledge construction]. Pedagogische Studiën, 79, 451-468.
79.
Schellens, T., & Valcke, M. (2005). Collaborative learning in asynchronous discussion groups: What about the impact on cognitive processing?Computers in Human Behavior, 21, 957-975.
80.
Schellens, T., & Valcke, M. (in press). Fostering knowledge construction in university students through asynchronous discussion groups. Computers and Education.
81.
Schellens, T., Van Keer, H., & Valcke, M. (in press). Learning in asynchronous discussion groups: A multilevel approach to study the influence of student, group, and task characteristics. Behaviour & Information Technology.
82.
Slavin, R. E. (1995). Cooperative learning: Theory, research and practice. Boston: Allyn& Bacon.
83.
Snijders, T. A. B., & Bosker, R. J. (1999). Multilevel analysis. London: Sage.
84.
Spiro, R., Feltovich, P., Jacobson, M., & Coulson, R. (1988). Cognitive flexibility, constructivism, and hypertext: Random access instruction for advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains. Retrieved September 20, 2002, from http://www.ilt.columbia.edu/ilt/papers/Spiro.html
85.
Sternberg, R. J. (1980). Sketch of a componential sub-theory of human intelligence. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3, 568-585.
86.
Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Thinking styles. New York: Cambridge University Press.
87.
Strijbos, J. W., Martens, R. L., Jochems, W. M. G.,& 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.
88.
Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 2, 257-285.
89.
Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty and instructional design. Learning and Instruction, 4, 295-312.
90.
Veerman, A., & Veldhuis-Diermanse, E. (2001). Collaborative learning through computermediated communication in academic education. In P. Dillenbourg, A. Eurelings, & K. Hakkarainen (Eds.), European perspectives on computer-supported collaborative learning. Proceedings of the First European Conference on CSCL(pp. 625-632). Maastricht, the Netherlands: University of Maastricht Press.
91.
Wegner, D. M. (1987). Transactive memory: A contemporary analysis of the group mind. In B. Mullen& G. R. Goethals (Eds.), Theories of group behavior(pp. 185-208). New York: Springer-Verlag.
92.
Weinberger, A. (2003). Scripts for computer-supported collaborative learning. Effects of social and epistemic cooperation scripts on collaborative knowledge construction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, Munich, Germany.
93.
Weinberger, A., Reiserer, M., Ertl, B., Fischer, F.,& Mandl, H. (2003). Facilitating collaborative knowledge construction in computer-mediated learning with structuring tools. In R. Bromme, F. Hesse,& H. Spada (Eds.), Barriers and biases in net based communication. Norwell, MA: Kluwer.
94.
Westrom, M. (2001). Constructivist strategies for e-learning.Retrieved July 12, 2004, from http://www.cust.educ.ubc.ca/westrom/CSeL.htm
95.
Workman, M. (2004). Performance and perceived effectiveness in computer-based and computeraided education: Do cognitive styles make a difference?Computers in Human Behavior, 20, 517-534.
96.
Wynder, M. (2005, February). Motivating creativity in the classroom. Paper presented at the International Conference on Innovation in Accounting Teaching& Learning, Tasmania, Australia.
