Group awareness tools: It’s what you do with it that matters

Abstract

This study examined the effect of using a group awareness tool on online collaboration. Furthermore, we examined whether the effect of using a group awareness tool on online collaboration is mediated by group awareness (i.e., students' awareness of their group members' levels of participation). To answer these questions, we determined how often and how long 107 secondary education students used the Participation-tool (PT), a group awareness tool designed to visualize group members' relative contribution to the online collaborative process. Our analyses show that duration of PT use (how long students displayed the tool on their screens) significantly predicted group members' participation in the online dialogue, their participation when writing collaborative texts, equality of participation within the group, and coordination and regulation of activities in the relational space (i.e., discussing the collaboration process with group members). No effect of using the PT on group performance was found. Mediation analyses showed that the effect of using the PT is only partially mediated by group awareness: an indirect effect of using the PT, via enhanced group awareness, on student participation during chat discussions and the collaborative writing process was found.

Effects of Group Awareness and Self-Regulation Level on Online Learning Behaviors

“…Perceiving and knowing that others have responded is likely to activate some degree of normative pressure (Bodemer, 2011) and this in turn will regulate the flow of collaboration (Janssen et al, 2011). Additionally, the motivation not to be rejected or disapproved by others can encourage individuals to be more responsible for peers' requests because individuals are protective of being perceived negatively by others (Janssen et al, 2007;Kimmerle & Cress, 2008).…”

“…A GA tool unveils the information of learning interaction or knowledge context of peers (or group members) to implicitly guide learners' behavior, communication, and reflection (Dehler, Bodemer, Buder, & Hesse, 2011;Engelmann, Tergan, & Hesse, 2010;Janssen et al, 2007;Janssen, Erkens, & Kirschner, 2011;Kimmerle & Cress, 2008;Sangin, Molinari, Nüssli, & Dillenbourg, 2011). For example, Janssen et al (2007) investigated the effects of visualization of participation during online collaboration for a historical inquiry task.…”

“…As considered by Janssen et al (2007Janssen et al ( , 2011, the context of learning interaction unveiled the number of help requests that a member had sent, the number of help requests that a member had received, the number of help requests that a member has responded to, and the response rate of each group member, as shown in Figure 3(a). The upper part of Figure 3(a) illustrates the statistics of member interaction context within one group.…”

From Cognitive Load Theory to Collaborative Cognitive Load Theory

“…CSCL environments can, for instance, be designed to support group members establish group awareness; group members' knowledge of how the group is functioning and how expertise is divided in the group (cf., Bodemer and Dehler 2011;Hesse 2010, 2011;Janssen et al 2011;Schreiber and Engelmann 2010). CSCL environments can also be arranged to stimulate students to explicate their claims and arguments by offering representational guidance (Schwarz et al 2003;Janssen et al 2009).…”

Can Peers Rate Reliably as Experts in Small CSCL Groups?

“…Small rating deviations among peers may suggest that group is led to common understanding and awareness. Enhanced group awareness can lead to more effective and efficient collaboration ( [8], [9], [10]). The data from [11] and [12] revealed how computer mediation can improve the reliability and validity of peer review activities, while simultaneously improving their functionality.…”