Submitted Successfully!
To reward your contribution, here is a gift for you: A free trial for our video production service.
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry or images related to this topic.
Version Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1
rui zhang
 -- 1854 2023-08-25 09:47:24 |
2 references update
Fanny Huang
Meta information modification 1854 2023-08-28 07:20:41 |

Video Upload Options

Do you have a full video?
Send video materials Upload full video

Confirm

Are you sure to Delete?
Yes No
Cite
If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
Zhang, R.; Shi, J.; Zhang, J. Collaboration Quality in Project-Based Learning under Group Awareness. Encyclopedia. Available online: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/48483 (accessed on 04 July 2024).
Zhang R, Shi J, Zhang J. Collaboration Quality in Project-Based Learning under Group Awareness. Encyclopedia. Available at: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/48483. Accessed July 04, 2024.
Zhang, Rui, Ji Shi, Jianwei Zhang. "Collaboration Quality in Project-Based Learning under Group Awareness" Encyclopedia, https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/48483 (accessed July 04, 2024).
Zhang, R., Shi, J., & Zhang, J. (2023, August 25). Collaboration Quality in Project-Based Learning under Group Awareness. In Encyclopedia. https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/48483
Zhang, Rui, et al. "Collaboration Quality in Project-Based Learning under Group Awareness." Encyclopedia. Web. 25 August, 2023.
Collaboration Quality in Project-Based Learning under Group Awareness
Edit
This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/su151511901

Project-based learning (PBL) is an important form of collaborative learning that has a significant positive impact on student capacity development. Collaboration quality greatly influences the success of the collaboration, and various methods have been employed to examine collaboration quality. Group awareness encompasses the process through which individuals form a perception of the collective team and its overall situation.

project-based learning quality of collaboration group awareness

1. Introduction

In the 21st century, the development of complex talents has become a major direction in the training of human resources. Collaborative learning enriches the overall quality of learners and plays an important role in developing higher-order learning skills. Project-based learning is a student-centered instructional approach that prioritizes the development of collaboration, inquiry, and problem-solving skills among students [1]. By engaging them in small-group work on real-life projects, this approach fosters the cultivation of interpersonal skills and, more specifically, generates collaborative skills, thereby enhancing their interpersonal skills, collaboration, and communication skills [2][3]. In higher education, project-based learning empowers students to acquire a diverse range of knowledge and innovative skills essential for tackling future challenges and achieving success [4]. According to the consensus among scholars, the development of enhanced basic collaboration skills, such as effective communication of ideas, respect for others, and teamwork through social learning, is regarded as a crucial component of project-based learning [5]. In recent years, project-based collaborative learning is receiving attention from educational research institutes and educational administrators. The latest Educause Horizon Report (2022, 2023) highlighted the emerging significance of hybrid and collaborative learning as a crucial area of research within the realm of artificial intelligence [6][7][8]. The Chinese Government has put forward the “China’s Education Modernization 2035” initiative, aiming to foster first-class talents, with collaborative learning emerging as a vital approach to cultivate students’ multi-dimensional abilities [9].
Project-based learning (PBL) is an inquiry-based, holistic instructional approach rooted in authentic contexts. It represents a distinctive form of collaborative learning that places greater emphasis on student-centered engagement with tangible, real-world artifacts [10][11]. In this context, PBL has been extensively adopted in higher education, particularly in the field of engineering education for its authentic problem-solving skills training [11][12][13]. Physics, being a fundamental course within the engineering disciplines, plays a critical role in nurturing highly skilled professionals. Consequently, the development of students’ core proficiency in physics through PBL holds significant importance [14][15]. The effectiveness of project-based learning is commonly evaluated through a comprehensive assessment encompassing various dimensions, including cognitive, affective, behavioral, and artifact performance [16]. Instruments frequently employed to assess the effectiveness of project-based learning encompass a range of methodologies, such as self-report questionnaires, tests, interviews, observations, self-reporting, and artifact performance evaluations [17]. It is notable that the majority of project-based learning evaluations heavily depend on teacher judgment, even in the context of long-term activities. Evaluation procedures typically involve the utilization of appropriate scales, along with self-reports, reflective journals, and other relevant components [18]. There are, of course, studies that report on the use of computer-mediated construction of collaborative environments for project-based learning, but mainly as a mediating tool, such as an online peer assessment environment for conducting project-based learning [19], as a knowledge forum or as a blackboard tool to facilitate communication [20]. Rather, it is not designed to conduct real-life scenario-based project activities for intelligent assessment through computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL). Therefore, computer-supported text mining of mutual assessment texts to assess the quality of collaboration provides a new perspective on the assessment of PBL.

2. Quality of Collaboration

Collaboration quality greatly influences the success of the collaboration, and various methods have been employed to examine collaboration quality. One such approach involves the utilization of a collaboration quality assessment tool that focuses on behavioral communication at both the individual and group levels [21]. The quality of team collaboration was assessed using the collaboration maturity model developed by Boughzala and De Vreede [22]. Furthermore, Jiang and Lou conducted a study on the quality of collaboration by incorporating participatory design into PBL activities [23]. Additionally, specific group moderation mechanisms have been identified as facilitators of student performance in PBL [24]. The assessment of collaboration quality often relies on the utilization of scales. Previous scholarly work has successfully employed such scales to measure collaboration quality in various domains, including medical teaching [25], mathematics [26], and cultural preservation participation [27]. However, it is important to note that this approach to measurement tends to be more subjective in nature.
Multimodal technology has emerged as a valuable approach for assessing the quality of collaboration. In particular, it enables the collection of various types of data, such as audio, logs, and eye movements, during face-to-face collaborative learning activities. These data, obtained through multimodal technology, facilitate effective evaluation of collaboration quality [28][29]. Som et al. employed a machine learning approach to evaluate the video and audio data of the collaboration process. They utilized the mixup data augmentation method as part of their analysis [30]. Chounta and Avouris conducted real-time assessments of short online collaboration activities by evaluating six dimensions of collaboration quality [31]. The primary focus of research has predominantly revolved around the utilization of technology for monitoring human collaboration. Nevertheless, it has been observed that this approach entails significant expenses, costs, and challenges in achieving widespread implementation.
Building upon this foundation, text mining techniques for collaborative learning have emerged as important tools for assessing the quality of collaboration, particularly due to the widespread adoption of CSCL and the availability of large-scale interaction data recording, which have provided the necessary conditions for their development [32]. Research on teaching and learning through text data mining conducted by Yang and An revealed that four methods, namely information extraction, text clustering, text classification, and topic modeling, are widely employed to address various educational problems [33]. Sentiment classification of texts by conditional random fields has also been used in the field of education [34]. According to Rosé et al., the integration of text classification in CSCL allows for more cost-effective analysis of the collaborative process. They further argue that monitoring tools can be utilized to some extent to assess the quality of manual coding [35].
Overall, the existing body of literature on PBL has primarily concentrated on higher-order thinking, self-regulated learning, and metacognition among students. However, comparatively less emphasis has been placed on examining the quality of collaboration within PBL contexts. To address this gap, leveraging online platforms to collect collaborative texts and employing text mining techniques for measuring collaboration quality emerges as a promising approach. This methodology offers several advantages, including enhanced objectivity, reduced operational costs, and suitability for large-scale implementation in evaluating collaborative quality within the context of PBL.

3. Group Awareness

Group awareness encompasses the process through which individuals form a perception of the collective team and its overall situation. This concept entails an understanding or perception of the characteristics of a learning partner or collaborative group [36]. It has found extensive utilization in research, particularly in the domain of CSCL, with the aim of enhancing collaborative effectiveness [37][38]. Most scholars consider group awareness as a measure of individuals’ understanding of various aspects of the collaborative group and their perception of the information related to it in CSCL [39]. Group awareness encompasses a range of types and definitions. However, it can be broadly classified based on the generally accepted categorization into three main types: behavioral awareness, cognitive awareness, and social awareness [40][41]. Su et al. highlight the significance of emotional involvement as a dimension [42].
Behavioral awareness centers on the role, participation, and contribution of the group or peers in the ongoing project or activity. It involves perceiving and being aware of the tasks and work being carried out within the group. A significant body of research has been dedicated to analyzing learner data collected from online learning platforms. These data include metrics such as the number of comments, responses, likes, and other indicators that aim to capture learners’ collaborative engagement [43]. Additionally, visual graphs have been employed to explicitly label student contributions [44], fostering increased group collaboration efficiency.
Cognitive awareness pertains to the level of awareness among the group or peers regarding the knowledge acquired and constructed within the group, including knowledge relevant to the completed project. It is also regarded as a metacognitive process [45] that forms the foundation for self-regulated behavior [46]. Cognitive load theory has been employed to investigate cognitive awareness as well [47]. The measures used to assess cognitive awareness encompass various approaches. These measures include self-evaluation [48], gathering opinions and evaluations from group members [49][50], as well as examining the knowledge performance and information of collaborative members [51]. The dimensions of cognitive awareness involve perceptions of the current knowledge level within the collaborative group, understanding the relationships within the knowledge concept structure, and recognizing different viewpoints. Visualization tools utilized in cognitive awareness assessment include graphical representations, shared knowledge situations [52], textual visualizations such as word clouds and tags, as well as network concept maps that visualize associative relationships.
Social awareness encompasses the perception and understanding of how the group functions, including an understanding of the dynamics of interaction, the movements within the group, and the level of communication [53]. On the other hand, affective awareness involves sensing the emotional states of peers during interactions and is often derived from peer assessment data [54]. Successful collaboration relies on awareness of social and emotional awareness, as it significantly impacts the group climate and individuals’ willingness to participate [39]. The primary measures employed to assess social and emotional awareness include systematic interaction data, inter-rater data, and scale data [55]. Some scholars have delved into characterizing group perception data by comparing dimensions such as the frequency of interaction and the extent of engaged relationships [56].
Multiple scholars have confirmed the influence of group awareness information on collaborative learning, emphasizing its significance in the collaborative process [46][57]. Group awareness provides members with valuable insights into their cognitive, social, and other behaviors, enabling them to make positive behavioral adjustments [58]. Group awareness information has the potential to enhance learners’ self-regulation and promote increased individual contributions and peer interactions in collaborative learning [46]. Furthermore, group awareness can facilitate the establishment of connections among collaborative partners, improve knowledge sharing among group members [59], and promote more positive affective interactions [55].
Most scholars believe that the group awareness tool has a positive impact on students’ collaborative processes, group performance, and individual performance [60]. The utilization of group perception and peer assessment as a means to enhance self-perceived efficacy has been found to effectively facilitate collaborative activities [19]. On the contrary, the absence of perceived information about peers may impact the success of collaboration [61].
Recently, there has been a growing research interest in the integration of group awareness and peer assessment, with an increasing number of empirical studies focusing on collaborative learning through peer feedback and peer assessment [19][42][46]. However, there is less research on the relationship between group awareness data and collaborative quality, particularly in the context of PBL, and existing research is largely focused on online collaboration. In reality, PBL is a hands-on, face-to-face collaborative learning approach that places significant emphasis on offline practical skills development among students. Neglecting research on the group awareness quality of collaboration within PBL would be a disadvantage, and existing research has primarily concentrated on exploring group awareness through group awareness tools in the CSCL domain. At the same time, there is a scarcity of direct measurement of group awareness as it unfolds during collaboration [62]. Moreover, the conceptualization of group awareness as a theory has been studied with inconclusive evidence, lacking empirical study [63].

References

  1. Zhang, D.; Hwang, G.-J. Effects of Interaction between Peer Assessment and Problem-Solving Tendencies on Students’ Learning Achievements and Collaboration in Mobile Technology-Supported Project-Based Learning. J. Educ. Comput. Res. 2022, 61, 208–234.
  2. Konrad, T.; Wiek, A.; Barth, M. Learning to Collaborate from Diverse Interactions in Project-Based Sustainability Courses. Sustainability 2021, 13, 9884.
  3. Setyowidodo, I.; Jatmiko, B.; Susantini, E.; Handayani, A.D.; Pramesti, Y.S. The role of science project-based peer interaction on improving collaborative skills and physical problem solving: A mini review. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2020, 1521, 022032.
  4. Zen, Z.; Reflianto; Syamsuar; Ariani, F. Academic achievement: The effect of project-based online learning method and student engagement. Heliyon 2022, 8, e11509.
  5. Bell, S. Project-based learning for the 21st century: Skills for the future. Clear. House J. Educ. Strateg. Issues Ideas 2010, 83, 39–43.
  6. O’Dea, X.; O’Dea, M. Is Artificial Intelligence Really the Next Big Thing in Learning and Teaching in Higher Education? A Conceptual Paper. J. Univ. Teach. Learn. Pract. 2023, 20, 5.
  7. EDUCAUSE. EDUCAUSE Horizon Report (Teaching and Learning Edition). 2023. Available online: https://library.educause.edu/resources/2023/5/2023-educause-horizon-report-teaching-and-learning-edition (accessed on 1 July 2023).
  8. EDUCAUSE. EDUCAUSE Horizon Report (Teaching and Learning Edition). 2022. Available online: https://library.educause.edu/-/media/files/library/2022/4/2022hrteachinglearning.pdf (accessed on 1 July 2023).
  9. Kokotsaki, D.; Menzies, V.; Wiggins, A. Project-based learning: A review of the literature. Improv. Sch. 2016, 19, 267–277.
  10. Davidson, N.; Major, C.H. Boundary crossings: Cooperative learning, collaborative learning, and problem-based learning. J. Excell. Coll. Teach. 2014, 25, 7–55.
  11. Mora, H.; Signes-Pont, M.T.; Fuster-Guilló, A.; Pertegal-Felices, M.L. A collaborative working model for enhancing the learning process of science & engineering students. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2020, 103, 140–150.
  12. Dym, C.L.; Agogino, A.M.; Eris, O.; Frey, D.D.; Leifer, L.J. Engineering design thinking, teaching, and learning. J. Eng. Educ. 2005, 94, 103–120.
  13. Chen, J.; Kolmos, A.; Du, X. Forms of implementation and challenges of PBL in engineering education: A review of literature. Eur. J. Eng. Educ. 2021, 46, 90–115.
  14. Raine, D.; Symons, S. Problem-based learning: Undergraduate physics by research. Contemp. Phys. 2012, 53, 39–51.
  15. Hidaayatullaah, H.N.; Dwikoranto; Suprapto, N.; Mubarok, H.; Wulandari, D. Implementation of problem-based learning to train physics students’ problem-solving skills. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2020, 1491, 012053.
  16. Goyal, M.; Gupta, C.; Gupta, V. A meta-analysis approach to measure the impact of project-based learning outcome with program attainment on student learning using fuzzy inference systems. Heliyon 2022, 8, e10248.
  17. Guo, P.; Saab, N.; Post, L.S.; Admiraal, W. A review of project-based learning in higher education: Student outcomes and measures. Int. J. Educ. Res. 2020, 102, 101586.
  18. Vogler, J.S.; Thompson, P.; Davis, D.W.; Mayfield, B.E.; Finley, P.M.; Yasseri, D. The hard work of soft skills: Augmenting the project-based learning experience with interdisciplinary teamwork. Instr. Sci. 2018, 46, 457–488.
  19. Lin, J.W. Effects of an online team project-based learning environment with group awareness and peer evaluation on socially shared regulation of learning and self-regulated learning. Behav. Inf. Technol. 2018, 37, 445–461.
  20. Splichal, J.M.; Oshima, J.; Oshima, R. Regulation of collaboration in project-based learning mediated by CSCL scripting reflection. Comput. Educ. 2018, 125, 132–145.
  21. Alozie, N.M.; Dhamija, S. Automated collaboration assessment using behavioral analytics. Int. Soc. Learn. Sci. 2020, 2, 1071–1078.
  22. Boughzala, I.; De Vreede, G.-J. Evaluating team collaboration quality: The development and field application of a collaboration maturity model. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 2015, 32, 129–157.
  23. Jiang, C.; Lou, Y. Integrated Strategies of Participatory Design and PBL Towards Collaboration Quality. In Cross-Cultural Design. Applications in Cultural Heritage, Creativity and Social Development, Proceedings of the 10th International Conference, CCD 2018, Held as Part of HCI International 2018, Las Vegas, NV, USA, 15–20 July 2018; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2018; pp. 46–59.
  24. Lai, C.L. Effects of the group-regulation promotion approach on students’ individual and collaborative learning performance, perceptions of regulation and regulation behaviours in project-based tasks. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2021, 52, 2278–2298.
  25. Parsell, G.; Bligh, J. The development of a questionnaire to assess the readiness of health care students for interprofessional learning (RIPLS). Med. Educ. 1999, 33, 95–100.
  26. Sa’diyah, K.; Muchyidin, A.; Izzati, N. Application of Collaborative Teamwork Learning Model and Guided Note Taking Model and Their Influence on Students’ Ability to Understand Mathematical Concepts. J. Math. Instr. Soc. Res. Opin. 2022, 1, 14–26.
  27. Xia, H.; Li, Y.; Chen, F.; Xu, B. The Influence of Participant Subject Factors on Collaboration Effects in the Protection of China’s ICH: The Mediating Role of Relationship Quality. Sustainability 2022, 14, 1223.
  28. Chejara, P.; Prieto, L.P.; Rodriguez-Triana, M.J.; Kasepalu, R.; Ruiz-Calleja, A.; Shankar, S.K. How to build more generalizable models for collaboration quality? lessons learned from exploring multi-context audio-log datasets using multimodal learning analytics. In Proceedings of the LAK23: 13th International Learning Analytics and Knowledge Conference, Arlington, TX, USA, 13–17 March 2023; pp. 111–121.
  29. Schneider, B.; Pea, R. Real-time mutual gaze perception enhances collaborative learning and collaboration quality. Int. J. Comput. Support. Collab. Learn. 2013, 8, 375–397.
  30. Som, A.; Kim, S.; Lopez-Prado, B.; Dhamija, S.; Alozie, N.; Tamrakar, A. A machine learning approach to assess student group collaboration using individual level behavioral cues. In Proceedings of the Computer Vision–ECCV 2020 Workshops, Glasgow, UK, 23–28 August 2020; pp. 79–94.
  31. Chounta, I.A.; Avouris, N. Towards the real-time evaluation of collaborative activities: Integration of an automatic rater of collaboration quality in the classroom from the teacher’s perspective. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2016, 21, 815–835.
  32. Dascalu, M.; Rebedea, T.; Trausan-Matu, S. A deep insight in chat analysis: Collaboration, evolution and evaluation, summarization and search. In Artificial Intelligence: Methodology, Systems, and Applications, Proceedings of the 14th International Conference, AIMSA 2010, Varna, Bulgaria, 8–10 September 2010; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2010; pp. 191–200.
  33. Yang, J.; Kinshuk; An, Y. A survey of the literature: How scholars use text mining in Educational Studies? Educ. Inf. Technol. 2023, 28, 2071–2090.
  34. Song, D.; Lin, H.; Yang, Z. Opinion mining in e-learning system. In Proceedings of the 2007 IFIP International Conference on Network and Parallel Computing Workshops (NPC 2007), Dalian, China, 18–21 September 2007; pp. 788–792.
  35. Rosé, C.; Wang, Y.-C.; Cui, Y.; Arguello, J.; Stegmann, K.; Weinberger, A.; Fischer, F. Analyzing collaborative learning processes automatically: Exploiting the advances of computational linguistics in computer-supported collaborative learning. Int. J. Comput. Support. Collab. Learn. 2008, 3, 237–271.
  36. Schnaubert, L.; Bodemer, D. Group awareness and regulation in computer-supported collaborative learning. Int. J. Comput. Support. Collab. Learn. 2022, 17, 11–38.
  37. Buder, J.; Bodemer, D.; Ogata, H. Group awareness. In International Handbook of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning; Cress, U., Rose, C., Wise, A.F., Oshima, J., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2021; pp. 295–313.
  38. Rojas, M.; Nussbaum, M.; Guerrero, O.; Chiuminatto, P.; Greiff, S.; Del Rio, R.; Alvares, D. Integrating a collaboration script and group awareness to support group regulation and emotions towards collaborative problem solving. Int. J. Comput. Support. Collab. Learn. 2022, 17, 135–168.
  39. Janssen, J.; Bodemer, D. Coordinated computer-supported collaborative learning: Awareness and awareness tools. Educ. Psychol. 2013, 48, 40–55.
  40. Bodemer, D.; Dehler, J. Group awareness in CSCL environments. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2011, 27, 1043–1045.
  41. Li, Y.; Li, X.; Zhang, Y.; Li, X. The effects of a group awareness tool on knowledge construction in computer-supported collaborative learning. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2021, 52, 1178–1196.
  42. Su, Y.; Ren, J.; Song, X. The effects of group awareness tools on student engagement with peer feedback in online collaborative writing environments. Interact. Learn. Environ. 2022, 1–17.
  43. Lin, J.-W.; Tsai, C.-W. The impact of an online project-based learning environment with group awareness support on students with different self-regulation levels: An extended-period experiment. Comput. Educ. 2016, 99, 28–38.
  44. Strauß, S.; Rummel, N. Promoting regulation of equal participation in online collaboration by combining a group awareness tool and adaptive prompts. But does it even matter? Int. J. Comput. Support. Collab. Learn. 2021, 16, 67–104.
  45. Xing, W.; Zhu, G.; Arslan, O.; Shim, J.; Popov, V. Using learning analytics to explore the multifaceted engagement in collaborative learning. J. Comput. High. Educ. 2022, 1–30.
  46. Schnaubert, L.; Bodemer, D. Providing different types of group awareness information to guide collaborative learning. Int. J. Comput. Support. Collab. Learn. 2019, 14, 7–51.
  47. Bodemer, D. Tacit guidance for collaborative multimedia learning. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2011, 27, 1079–1086.
  48. Dehler, J.; Bodemer, D.; Buder, J.; Hesse, F.W. Guiding knowledge communication in CSCL via group knowledge awareness. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2011, 27, 1068–1078.
  49. Gijlers, H.; de Jong, T. Sharing and confronting propositions in collaborative inquiry learning. Cogn. Instr. 2009, 27, 239–268.
  50. Buder, J.; Bodemer, D. Supporting controversial CSCL discussions with augmented group awareness tools. Int. J. Comput. Support. Collab. Learn. 2008, 3, 123–139.
  51. Sangin, M.; Molinari, G.; Nüssli, M.-A.; Dillenbourg, P. Facilitating peer knowledge modeling: Effects of a knowledge awareness tool on collaborative learning outcomes and processes. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2011, 27, 1059–1067.
  52. Yilmaz, F.G.K.; Yilmaz, R. Impact of pedagogic agent-mediated metacognitive support towards increasing task and group awareness in CSCL. Comput. Educ. 2019, 134, 1–14.
  53. Bødker, S.; Christiansen, E. Computer support for social awareness in flexible work. Comput. Support. Coop. Work CSCW 2006, 15, 1–28.
  54. Foo, S.Y. Analysing peer feedback in asynchronous online discussions: A case study. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2021, 26, 4553–4572.
  55. Peng, Y.; Li, Y.; Su, Y.; Chen, K.; Jiang, S. Effects of group awareness tools on students’ engagement, performance, and perceptions in online collaborative writing: Intergroup information matters. Internet High. Educ. 2022, 53, 100845.
  56. Kimmerle, J.; Cress, U. Visualization of group members’ participation: How information-presentation formats support information exchange. Soc. Sci. Comput. Rev. 2009, 27, 243–261.
  57. Kimmerle, J.; Cress, U. Group awareness and self-presentation in computer-supported information exchange. Int. J. Comput. Support. Collab. Learn. 2008, 3, 85–97.
  58. Phielix, C.; Prins, F.J.; Kirschner, P.A.; Erkens, G.; Jaspers, J. Group awareness of social and cognitive performance in a CSCL environment: Effects of a peer feedback and reflection tool. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2011, 27, 1087–1102.
  59. Ma, X.; Liu, J.; Liang, J.; Fan, C. An empirical study on the effect of group awareness in CSCL environments. Interact. Learn. Environ. 2020, 31, 38–53.
  60. Chen, D.; Zhang, Y.; Lin, Y. Group Awareness and Group Awareness Tools in Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning: A Literature Review. In Proceedings of the 2022 International Symposium on Educational Technology (ISET), Hong Kong, 19–22 July 2022; pp. 18–22.
  61. Pifarré, M.; Cobos, R.; Argelagós, E. Incidence of group awareness information on students’ collaborative learning processes. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 2014, 30, 300–317.
  62. Bodemer, D.; Janssen, J.; Schnaubert, L. Group awareness tools for computer-supported collaborative learning. In International Handbook of the Learning Sciences; Routledge: London, UK, 2018; pp. 351–358.
  63. Schnaubert, L.; Vogel, F. Integrating collaboration scripts, group awareness, and self-regulation in computer-supported collaborative learning. Int. J. Comput. Support. Collab. Learn. 2022, 17, 1–10.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
Upload a video for this entry
Information
Subjects: Education & Educational Research
Contributors MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register :
Rui Zhang
,
Ji Shi
,
Jianwei Zhang
View Times: 259
Revisions: 2 times (View History)
Update Date: 28 Aug 2023
Table of Contents
    1000/1000
    Hot Most Recent
    Video Production Service
    Feedback