Abstract
This study explored what social interactions students exhibited during collaborative learning, and analyzed how the social interactions evolved in a computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) environment. Six groups (n = 28) from an undergraduate online course were observed during a semester. Students' interactions were analyzed in two perspectives: group regulation and socioemotional. Cluster analysis was conducted to identify collaboration patterns of the groups. The analysis identified three collaborator clusters: one good and two poor. The good collaborators (named Early Active Collaborator) demonstrated: (1) intensive interactions among group members in the early collaboration phase, (2) positive socio-emotional interactions continuously, and (3) adaptive selections of group regulatory behaviors. The others showed dormant interactions throughout the projects and least socio-emotional interactions (named Passive Task-oriented Collaborator) and did not coordinate group process in a timely manner (named Late Collaborator). Comparisons of the interaction pattern and instructor intervention were discussed.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 185-200 |
| Number of pages | 16 |
| Journal | Computers and Education |
| Volume | 78 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - 2014 |
Fingerprint
All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes
- Computer Science(all)
- Education
Cite this
Group regulation and social-emotional interactions observed in computer supported collaborative learning : Comparison between good vs. poor collaborators. / Kwon, Kyungbin; Liu, Ying Hsiu; Johnson, LaShaune P.
In: Computers and Education, Vol. 78, 2014, p. 185-200.Research output: Contribution to journal › Article
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Group regulation and social-emotional interactions observed in computer supported collaborative learning
T2 - Comparison between good vs. poor collaborators
AU - Kwon, Kyungbin
AU - Liu, Ying Hsiu
AU - Johnson, LaShaune P.
PY - 2014
Y1 - 2014
N2 - This study explored what social interactions students exhibited during collaborative learning, and analyzed how the social interactions evolved in a computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) environment. Six groups (n = 28) from an undergraduate online course were observed during a semester. Students' interactions were analyzed in two perspectives: group regulation and socioemotional. Cluster analysis was conducted to identify collaboration patterns of the groups. The analysis identified three collaborator clusters: one good and two poor. The good collaborators (named Early Active Collaborator) demonstrated: (1) intensive interactions among group members in the early collaboration phase, (2) positive socio-emotional interactions continuously, and (3) adaptive selections of group regulatory behaviors. The others showed dormant interactions throughout the projects and least socio-emotional interactions (named Passive Task-oriented Collaborator) and did not coordinate group process in a timely manner (named Late Collaborator). Comparisons of the interaction pattern and instructor intervention were discussed.
AB - This study explored what social interactions students exhibited during collaborative learning, and analyzed how the social interactions evolved in a computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) environment. Six groups (n = 28) from an undergraduate online course were observed during a semester. Students' interactions were analyzed in two perspectives: group regulation and socioemotional. Cluster analysis was conducted to identify collaboration patterns of the groups. The analysis identified three collaborator clusters: one good and two poor. The good collaborators (named Early Active Collaborator) demonstrated: (1) intensive interactions among group members in the early collaboration phase, (2) positive socio-emotional interactions continuously, and (3) adaptive selections of group regulatory behaviors. The others showed dormant interactions throughout the projects and least socio-emotional interactions (named Passive Task-oriented Collaborator) and did not coordinate group process in a timely manner (named Late Collaborator). Comparisons of the interaction pattern and instructor intervention were discussed.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84903209384&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84903209384&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.compedu.2014.06.004
DO - 10.1016/j.compedu.2014.06.004
M3 - Article
VL - 78
SP - 185
EP - 200
JO - Computers and Education
JF - Computers and Education
SN - 0360-1315
ER -