Making the Black Box of Collaborative Learning Transparent: Combining Process-Oriented and Cognitive Load Approaches
Open accessAbstract
Traditional research on collaborative learning employs a “black box” approach that makes it difficult to gain a deeper understanding of the differential effects of collaborative learning. To make the black box transparent, researchers have studied the process of collaboration, in order to establish which interaction features are likely to make learning more effective and efficient for group members. Although cognitive load theory has been developed in the context of individual learning situations, it may provide a promising new way of looking inside the black box, assuming that students working in groups have more processing capacity than students working individually. The aim of this article is to provide an overview of the process-oriented and cognitive-load approaches to conducting collaborative learning research, to highlight their respective advantages and disadvantages, and to suggest how they can be combined in order to address new research questions.
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This conceptual article argues that collaborative learning research should combine process-oriented analysis of peer interaction with cognitive load theory (CLT) to make the “black box” of collaboration more transparent. It proposes that groups can be viewed as information-processing systems with expanded capacity, but that communication and coordination impose transaction costs that may be germane or extraneous for learning.
Key findings
- Effect-oriented collaborative learning research has a strong tradition—Johnson and Johnson (2009) identified over 1,200 studies comparing collaborative learning with other conditions—but it is criticized for not explaining why collaboration sometimes fails or why interaction quality varies.
- Process-oriented research shows that giving elaborate explanations correlates positively with achievement, whereas giving explanations without elaboration does not; receiving elaborate explanations is effective only when the receiver can apply the explanation in a related task.
- Barron (2003) found that more successful groups responded more appropriately or with higher engagement to proposals and better maintained joint attention, and members of successful groups outperformed members of less successful groups on individual mastery and transfer tests.
- CLT suggests collaborating learners can divide information processing across multiple working memories, but interindividual communication and coordination create transaction costs; F. Kirschner et al. found collaborating learners on cognitively challenging tasks learned more effectively and efficiently than individual learners, while group work became disadvantageous for cognitively unchallenging tasks.
Methods
- Design: Conceptual/review article, not an empirical study; it provides an overview of process-oriented and cognitive-load approaches to collaborative learning and suggests how to combine them.
- Data or sample: Not stated in the paper; no empirical sample or dataset is reported.
- Main analysis: Narrative synthesis of prior research and illustrative examples, including Webb’s work on explanations, Barron’s group-process findings, and F. Kirschner et al.’s CLT-based studies, to propose future research directions.
Limitations
- The paper states that CLT-based collaborative learning research is based on hypotheses about transaction costs that were not monitored or analyzed, and that cognitive load measurement is often an overall score, so conclusions about intrinsic, germane, and extraneous load can only be based on instruction rather than specific processes.
- The paper states that process-oriented research tends to zoom in on interaction features without systematically considering how those patterns came about or how they affect group performance and individual learning gains.
- The paper states challenges for combining approaches: measuring cognitive load in collaborative situations, possibly measuring group cognitive load, handling the complex interplay of task/learner/group characteristics, and the difficulty, time, reliability, and validity demands of coding communication protocols. Evident from the text: the proposed combination is not empirically tested in this article.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
0 of 62 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged
- Premisecitation
Collaborative learning can be an effective strategy for promoting retention and problem solving.
“Several meta-analyses have thus been carried out showing that collaborative learning can be an effective strategy for promoting retention and problem solving (e.g., Lou et al. 2001;Roseth et al. 2008;Slavin 1980;Springer et al. 1999).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked - Premisecitation
Effect-oriented research has a strong research tradition in collaborative learning, with over 1,200 studies comparing the relative effects of collaborative learning to individual learning.
“In their review, Johnson and Johnson (2009) identified over 1,200 studies comparing the relative effects of collaborative learning to, for example, individual learning.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Johnson and Johnson 2009 source
Not checked in the free run.
- Premisecitation
Successful groups differ from less successful groups in how group members responded to proposals and maintained joint attention.
“She found marked differences between these groups with respect to how group members responded to proposals by group members and how well they were able to maintain joint attention.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Barron 2003 source
Not checked in the free run.
- Premisecitation
Group members of successful groups outperformed members of less successful groups on individual mastery and transfer tests.
“Barron also showed that the group members of successful groups outperformed members of less successful groups on individual mastery and transfer tests.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Barron 2003 source
Not checked in the free run.
- Interpretationreasoning
Collaborative learning environments are an ideal example of the borrowing and reorganizing principle at work.
“Collaborative learning environments are therefore an ideal example of the principle at work.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
- Premisecitation
Successful groups display higher levels of engaged responses compared with unsuccessful groups.
“Successful groups display higher levels of these engaged responses compared with unsuccessful groups.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Barron 2003 source
Not checked in the free run.
- Interpretationreasoning
As long as there is communication and coordination between group members, the information elements within the task and the associated intrinsic cognitive load can be divided across a larger reservoir of cognitive capacity.
“As long as there is communication and coordination between the group members, the information elements within the task and the associated cognitive load caused by the intrinsic nature of the task (i.e., intrinsic cognitive load) can be divided across a larger reservoir of cognitive capacity.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
If a learner has sufficient expertise to carry out a complex collaborative task alone, the communication and coordination processes will not be necessary for learning or may even interfere with learning because they impose ineffective (extraneous) cognitive load.
“For example, if a learner has sufficient expertise to carry out a complex collaborative task alone, the communication and coordination processes will not be necessary for learning or may even interfere with learning because it imposes ineffective (i.e., extraneous) cognitive load.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Premisecitation
Receiving an explanation not containing an elaboration or receiving no explanation at all is negatively correlated with learning.
“Although receiving an explanation not containing an elaboration or receiving no explanation at all is negatively correlated with learning (Webb 1989;Webb and Farivar 1999), additional conditions have to be met in order for elaborate explanations to be effective for the receiver.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked- cites Webb 1989 source
Not checked in the free run.
- cites Webb and Farivar 1999
Not checked in the free run.
- Interpretationreasoning
Taking both performance and cognitive load on a test into account gives a better indication of the quality of the cognitive schemas participants have acquired than do performance scores alone.
“Therefore, taking both performance and cognitive load on a test into account gives a better indication of the quality of the cognitive schemas participants have acquired than do performance scores alone, since showing less cognitive load with an equal or higher performance is an indicator of the availability of higher-quality cognitive schemas.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Premisecitation
The quality of explanations is higher in groups with above-average students than in groups without these students.
“Research has demonstrated that it is important that a certain level of expertise is available within the group, because the quality of explanations is higher in groups with above-average students than in groups without these students (Webb et al. 1998).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Webb et al. 1998 source
Not checked in the free run.
- Premisecitation
Giving explanations without an elaboration does not correlate positively with student achievement.
“This line of research demonstrated that giving elaborate explanations (i.e., an explanation that contains a reason why the problem should be solved in a certain way) correlates positively with student achievement, whereas giving explanations without an elaboration (i.e., telling someone the answer without giving a clarification) does not (Webb 1991).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Webb 1991 source
Not checked in the free run.
- Premisecitation
Elaborate explanations were only effective when the receiver was able to apply the explanation in a related task.
“Studies by Webb and Farivar (1999), Webb et al. (1995), and Webb and Mastergeorge (2003), for example, showed that elaborate explanations were only effective when the receiver was able to apply the explanation in a related task.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked - Premisecitation
If a learning environment is too cognitively demanding, schema construction and schema automation in long-term memory are not going to occur.
“if a learning environment is too cognitively demanding, schema construction and schema automation in LTM are not going to occur (P.A. Kirschner et al. 2006).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites P.A. Kirschner et al. 2006 source
Not checked in the free run.
- Interpretationreasoning
Interindividual communication and coordination of information requires group members to invest additional cognitive effort, an effort that individuals learning alone do not have to exert.
“On the other hand, the interindividual communication and coordination of information requires group members to invest additional cognitive effort, an effort that individuals learning alone do not have to exert.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
Whether collaboration will be more effective than individual instruction for students' learning depends on whether the distribution advantage is large enough to compensate for the extraneous transaction costs.
“Whether collaboration will be more effective than individual instruction for students' learning will therefore depend on whether the distribution advantage is large enough to compensate for the extraneous transaction costs.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Premisecitation
Effect-oriented research employs a black box approach that makes it difficult to explain the variability in research findings.
“several authors have criticized effectoriented research, claiming that it employs a black box approach that makes it difficult to explain the variability in research findings (Cohen 1994;Dillenbourg 1999;Pelled et al. 1999).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked - Interpretationreasoning
Which kind of cognitive load the transaction costs impose on a group member, and consequently how effective it will be for this student's learning, depends on the interplay between task characteristics, learner characteristics, and group characteristics.
“Which kind of cognitive load the transaction costs impose on a group member, and consequently how effective it will be for this students' learning, depends on the interplay between task characteristics, learner characteristics, and group characteristics.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationnone given
The borrowing and reorganizing principle applies to any information obtained from another human.
“However, the borrowing and reorganizing principle applies to any information obtained from another human.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Interpretationnone given
The process-oriented approach does not consider how specific interaction patterns come about or how they affect group performance and individual learning gains.
“The process-oriented approach, for example, does not consider how specific interaction patterns come about or how they affect group performance and individual learning gains.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Premisecitation
Group learning is superior to individual learning for relatively complex problem-solving tasks.
“These findings are consistent with previous research on group versus individual learning which showed that group learning is superior to individual learning for relatively complex problem-solving tasks (Laughlin et al. 2002;Laughlin et al. 2006) and that individual learning is superior to group learning for relatively simple recall tasks (e.g., Andersson and Rönnberg 1995;Meudell et al. 1992;Weld”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked - Interpretationreasoning
Combining the two approaches makes it possible to determine which transaction costs of collaboration are germane to learning and which are not.
“In this way, it is possible to determine which transaction costs are germane to learning and which are not.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Collaborative learning imposes transaction costs (communication and coordination demands) that consume learners' cognitive resources.
- Interpretationreasoning
By investigating collaborative learning with combined process and cognitive load measures, it is possible to study how cognitive load due to transaction costs varies over time.
“Furthermore, by investigating collaborative learning in such a way, it is also possible to study how cognitive load due to transaction costs varies over time.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Collaborative learning imposes transaction costs (communication and coordination demands) that consume learners' cognitive resources.
- Premisecitation
When a medium-ability student explains his or her reasoning to a high-ability student, this may induce germane load for the medium-ability student because the elaboration and reorganization of cognitive schemas stimulated by the explanation benefit his or her learning.
“When a medium-ability student, for example, tries to explain his or her reasoning to a high-ability student, this may induce germane load on the part of the medium-ability student because the elaboration and reorganization of cognitive schemas stimulated by the explanation are beneficial to his/her learning process (Webb 1991).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Webb 1991 source
Not checked in the free run.
- Interpretationreasoning
Both process analysis and cognitive load measurement are needed to completely grasp how collaboration and interaction affect student learning.
“Both are needed to completely grasp how collaboration and interaction affect student learning.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Premisecitation
In high-load collaborative conditions, speech, linguistic, and grammatical features differ from low-load conditions.
“By studying the process of collaboration, they were able to demonstrate that in high-load collaborative conditions, speech, linguistic, and grammatical features were different from low-load conditions.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Khawaja et al. 2009;2007
Not checked in the free run.
- Interpretationnone given
Combining cognitive load measures with an analysis of the collaborative process can lead to additional ways of measuring cognitive load.
“Combining cognitive load measures with an analysis of the collaborative process can lead to additional ways of measuring cognitive load.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
When the two research traditions are combined, it is possible to study the whole process of collaborative learning instead of focusing on a single aspect of the process.
“When these two research traditions are thus combined, it is possible to study the whole process of collaborative learning instead of focusing on a single aspect of the process (e.g., the antecedents or the process itself).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Premisecitation
With cognitively unchallenging tasks for which the individual learner had sufficient cognitive capacity to successfully carry out the task alone, the advantage at the group level of the expanded cognitive capacity disappeared.
“In contrast, with cognitively unchallenging tasks for which the individual learner had sufficient cognitive capacity to successfully carry out the task alone, the advantage at the group level of the expanded cognitive capacity disappeared.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites F. Kirschner et al. 2009a, b, c
Not checked in the free run.
- Interpretationreasoning
The combination of the process-oriented and the cognitive load approaches to research on collaborative learning can provide important information on the interplay between the characteristics of the task, the learner, and the group that affect group performance and student learning.
“The combination of the process-oriented and the cognitive load approaches to research on collaborative learning can, therefore, provide important information on the interplay between the characteristics of the task, the learner, and the group that affect group performance and student learning.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Premisecitation
Individual learning is superior to group learning for relatively simple recall tasks.
“These findings are consistent with previous research on group versus individual learning which showed that group learning is superior to individual learning for relatively complex problem-solving tasks (Laughlin et al. 2002;Laughlin et al. 2006) and that individual learning is superior to group learning for relatively simple recall tasks (e.g., Andersson and Rönnberg 1995;Meudell et al. 1992;Weld”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked - Premisecitation
Medium-ability students perform better on an individual posttest when they collaborate with a low-ability student than when they collaborate with a high-ability student.
“In this way, Denessen et al. were, for example able to demonstrate that medium-ability students perform better on an individual posttest when they collaborate with a low-ability student, compared with when they collaborate with a high-ability student.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Denessen et al. 2008 source
Not checked in the free run.
- Interpretationreasoning
Within a dyad, the factors that contribute to germane or extraneous cognitive load may differ between group members.
“To make matters even more complex, within a dyad, the factors that contribute to germane or extraneous cognitive load may also differ between group members.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Premisereasoning
Working in a group became disadvantageous for learning effectiveness and efficiency because group members had to be engaged in cognitive activities related to interindividual communication and coordination.
“Working in a group even became disadvantageous for learning effectiveness and efficiency because group members had to be engaged in cognitive activities related to interindividual communication and coordination.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites F. Kirschner et al. 2009a, b, c
Not checked in the free run.
- Interpretationreasoning
The ability or inability to engage in processes that foster germane load may explain the performance of medium-ability students.
“This ability or inability to engage in processes that foster germane load may then explain the performance of medium ability students.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
Studying only the process of collaboration would not give insight into whether the interaction processes are beneficial (germane load) or deleterious (extraneous load) for learning.
“Only studying the process of collaboration would not give insight into whether the interaction processes are beneficial (i.e., germane load) or deleterious (i.e., extraneous load) for learning.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
Measuring only the level of cognitive load would not give information about the processes that contributed to this load.
“Alternatively, only measuring the level of cognitive load would not give information about the processes that contributed to this load.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationcitation
Aspects of the collaborative process can be used as nonintrusive measures of cognitive load.
“Their research provides insight into which features of collaborative speech are related to cognitive load and show that aspects of the collaborative process can be used as nonintrusive measures cognitive load.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
On the basis of these results, the challenges that a learning task poses to the cognitive capacity of the learner was identified as an important factor determining whether collaborative learning was more effective and efficient than individual learning.
“On the basis of these results, the challenges that a learning task poses to the cognitive capacity of the learner was identified as an important factor determining whether collaborative learning was more effective and efficient than individual learning.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Premisecitation
The same explanation may induce extraneous cognitive load for the high-ability student because the information is already known to that student and is therefore redundant.
“Simultaneously, this explanation may induce extraneous cognitive load for the high-ability student, because this student is already aware of this information (i.e., it is redundant; see Mayer et al. 2001).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Mayer et al. 2001 source
Not checked in the free run.
- Interpretationcitation
Conclusions on the different kinds of imposed cognitive load and the associated effectiveness and efficiency of collaborative learning can only be based on a specific instruction instead of on the specific processes that occurred during the instruction.
“Because the measurement of cognitive load during learning is often an overall score and only gives an indication of its effectiveness or ineffectiveness for learning after combining it with the performance score on an individual posttest (Van Gog and Paas 2008), conclusions on the different kinds of imposed cognitive load (i.e., intrinsic, germane, and extraneous) and the associated effectiveness”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationnone given
The CLT approach to collaborative learning is based on specific hypotheses regarding the possible beneficial and/or deleterious effects of interindividual communication and coordination of information (i.e., transaction costs), which were not monitored or analyzed.
“Although this work clearly shows the strengths of a CLT approach of collaborative learning research, it is based on specific hypotheses regarding the possible beneficial and/or deleterious effects of interindividual communication and coordination of information (i.e., transaction costs), which were not monitored or analyzed.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Premisecitation
In medium-low dyads, medium-ability students have more opportunities to give elaborate explanations.
“Furthermore, in medium-low dyads, Denessen et al. found medium-ability students to have more opportunities to give elaborate explanations.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Denessen et al. 2008 source
Not checked in the free run.
- Premisecitation
The measurement of cognitive load during learning is often an overall score and only gives an indication of its effectiveness or ineffectiveness for learning after combining it with the performance score on an individual posttest.
“Because the measurement of cognitive load during learning is often an overall score and only gives an indication of its effectiveness or ineffectiveness for learning after combining it with the performance score on an individual posttest (Van Gog and Paas 2008), conclusions on the different kinds of imposed cognitive load (i.e., intrinsic, germane, and extraneous) and the associated effectiveness”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Van Gog and Paas 2008 source
Not checked in the free run.
- Interpretationreasoning
Group-level factors such as group member familiarity may affect the occurrence of extraneous cognitive load differently for different groups.
“This example shows how group-level factors such as group member familiarity may affect the occurrence of extraneous cognitive load differently for different groups.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
- May combine two claims. 12
- Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 16
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
May combine two claims.
InterpretationreasoningA process-oriented approach can give rich and detailed descriptions about the mechanisms of collaboration or generate testable hypotheses, but it does not explain how these mechanisms developed within the group nor give insight into how they affected group performance and student learning.
“Such an approach can give rich and detailed descriptions about the mechanisms of collaboration or can be used to generate testable hypotheses.It does not explain, however, how these mechanisms developed within the group, nor does it give insight into how they affected group performance and student learning.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
PremisecitationA performance score can only be meaningfully interpreted in the context of the level of cognitive load that it induces and vice versa.
“Paas and Van Merriënboer (1993; see also Paas et al. 2003b) have shown that a performance score can only be meaningfully interpreted in the context of the level of cognitive load that it induces and vice versa.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked- cites Paas and Van Merriënboer 1993 source
Not checked in the free run.
- cites Paas et al. 2003b
Not checked in the free run.
Classified as probably not a substantial claim.
InterpretationreasoningThe distribution advantage causes collaborating individuals to invest less cognitive effort when carrying out the learning task as compared with individuals learning alone, meaning collaborating learners experience less intrinsic cognitive load.
“On the one hand, this distribution advantage causes collaborating individuals to invest less cognitive effort when carrying out the learning task as compared with individuals learning alone (i.e., collaborating learners experience less intrinsic cognitive load).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
PremisecitationBecause the cognitive distribution benefit proved to be higher than the additional costs of interindividual integration and coordination of information, collaborating learners learned more effectively and efficiently than did individual learners.
“Because this cognitive distribution benefit proved to be higher than the additional costs of interindividual integration and coordination of information, collaborating learners learned more effectively and efficiently than did individual learners.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites F. Kirschner et al. 2009a, b, c
Not checked in the free run.
May combine two claims.
PremisecitationThe limited processing capacity of a learner's working memory is considered a bottleneck; for new information, its processing capacity is limited to only 4±1 elements.
“In this context, the limited processing capacity of a learner's working memory (WM) is considered a bottleneck (Baddeley 1986;Miller 1956); for new, yet to be learned information, its processing capacity is limited to only 4±1 elements (Cowan 2010)”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checkedProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationNot all studies have found positive effects for collaboration.
“It must be noted, however, that not all studies have found positive effects for collaboration (e.g., Andersson and Rönnberg 1995;Kirschner et al. 2009c;Meudell et al. 1992).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checkedClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
PremisecitationGiving elaborate explanations correlates positively with student achievement.
“This line of research demonstrated that giving elaborate explanations (i.e., an explanation that contains a reason why the problem should be solved in a certain way) correlates positively with student achievement, whereas giving explanations without an elaboration (i.e., telling someone the answer without giving a clarification) does not (Webb 1991).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Webb 1991 source
Not checked in the free run.
Classified as probably not a substantial claim.
PremisecitationThe borrowing and reorganizing principle states that long-term memory is built primarily by imitating other people, through the borrowing of information from other people's long-term memory.
“This led to the borrowing and reorganizing principle (Sweller 2004;Sweller and Sweller 2006), which states that LTM is built primarily by imitating other people, through the borrowing of information from other people's LTM.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked- cites Sweller 2004 source
Not checked in the free run.
- cites Sweller and Sweller 2006
Not checked in the free run.
May combine two claims.
InterpretationcitationTransaction costs can be effective (imposing germane cognitive load) or ineffective (imposing extraneous cognitive load) for learning.
“These so-called transaction costs (Ciborra and Olson 1988;Yamane 1996) can be effective (i.e., imposing a germane cognitive load) or ineffective (i.e., imposing an extraneous cognitive load) for learning.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked- cites Ciborra and Olson 1988
Not checked in the free run.
- cites Yamane 1996 source
Not checked in the free run.
May combine two claims.
InterpretationcitationWhen a learner needs other learners for the collaborative task to be carried out successfully, the communication and coordination processes are necessary for learning and can facilitate learning, imposing effective (germane) cognitive load.
“In contrast, when a learner in that same group needs other learners for the collaborative task to be carried out successfully, the communication and coordination processes are necessary for learning and can facilitate learning (i.e., giving elaborate explanations; Webb 1991), imposing effective (i.e., germane) cognitive load.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Webb 1991 source
Not checked in the free run.
Classified as probably not a substantial claim.
PremisecitationMetacognitive activities that regulate task performance are considered important to successful performance during collaboration.
“Metacognitive activities that regulate task performance (e.g., making plans, monitoring task progress, and evaluating plans or ideas) are, for example, considered important to successful performance during collaboration (Artzt and Armour-Thomas 1997;De Jong et al. 2005;Janssen et al. 2007;Slof et al. in press).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checkedMay combine two claims.
PremisecitationFor a group to carry out a learning task, not all group members need to possess all necessary knowledge, or process all available information alone and at the same time.
“For a group to carry out a learning task, not all group members need to possess all necessary knowledge, or process all available information alone and at the same time (Johnson et al. 1989;Langfred 2000;Ortiz et al. 1996;Wegner 1987Wegner , 1995)).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checkedProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).
Interpretationnone givenWhen the two research traditions are combined, it is possible to gain a better understanding of the coordinative and communicative processes that contribute to the transaction costs of collaborative learning.
“For example, when these research traditions are combined, it is possible to gain a better understanding of the coordinative and communicative processes that contribute to the transaction costs of collaborative learning.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Collaborative learning imposes transaction costs (communication and coordination demands) that consume learners' cognitive resources.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).
InterpretationreasoningCombining the traditions provides additional insight into the specific processes that contribute to student learning during collaborative learning (those generating germane cognitive load) and the processes that are detrimental for learning (those generating extraneous cognitive load).
“It will provide additional insight to the specific processes that contribute to student learning during collaborative learning (i.e., processes that generate germane cognitive load) and processes that are detrimental for learning (i.e., processes that generate extraneous cognitive load).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The germane/extraneous cognitive load distinction is applicable to the processes of collaborative learning.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based). May combine two claims.
InterpretationreasoningCombining process-oriented research and cognitive load approaches cancels out the disadvantages of both approaches, yielding a deeper and more detailed insight into learning through collaboration and making it possible to determine which specific aspects of the collaborative process impose germane or extraneous cognitive load.
“In our opinion, the combination of approaches cancels out the disadvantages of both approaches leading to a deeper and more detailed insight into the learning through collaboration, making it possible to determine which specific aspects of the collaborative process impose either germane or extraneous cognitive load.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Collaborative learning imposes transaction costs (communication and coordination demands) that consume learners' cognitive resources.
- Rests on an assumption: The germane/extraneous cognitive load distinction is applicable to the processes of collaborative learning.
May combine two claims.
InterpretationreasoningCLT research provides valuable insight into the load imposed upon group members during collaboration and, by combining this with performance measures, insight into its effect on learning and schema construction.
“CLT research, on the other hand, provides valuable insight into the load imposed upon group members during collaboration and by combining this with performance measures, insight into its effect on learning, and schema construction.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationRecent developments to automate the coding of the collaborative process may extensively decrease the time needed to code a large number of protocols.
“although recent developments to automate the coding of the collaborative process may extensively decrease the time needed to code a large number of protocols (Erkens and Janssen 2008;Rosé et al. 2008).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checkedProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).
InterpretationreasoningResearch combining process-oriented research and cognitive load theory constitutes a promising new approach to research on collaborative learning.
“We argue that research combining process-oriented research and CLT constitutes a promising, new approach to research on collaborative learning.”
- Also stated in: § Studying the Relationships Between Antecedents, Collaboration, and Consequences · plain
“Combining the analysis of group processes with existing measures of cognitive load to better understand and identify conditions under which collaborative learning is most effective and efficient is a new promising research direction for collaborative learning.”
- Also stated in: § Conclusion and Discussion · plain
“In spite of these challenges, we feel that the possibility to combine process-oriented research with CLT constitutes a promising, new way of researching collaborative learning.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Also stated in: § Studying the Relationships Between Antecedents, Collaboration, and Consequences · plain
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).
InterpretationreasoningThe complex interplay between task characteristics, learner characteristics, and group characteristics constitutes a challenge for this new line of research.
“The complex interplay between task characteristics, learner characteristics, and group characteristics constitutes another challenge for this new line of research.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.
InterpretationreasoningIf studies such as Denessen et al.'s also incorporated cognitive load measures, it would become possible to determine how the antecedents of collaborative learning affect cognitive load and how cognitive load in turn affects the outcome of the collaborative process.
“When studies like the one conducted by Denessen et al. (2008) would also incorporate cognitive load measures (e.g., the unidimensional nine-point symmetrical mental effort rating scale [Paas 1992], heart-rate variability [Paas and Van Merriënboer 1994], taskevoked pupillary responses [Van Gerven et al. 2002], or responses to secondary tasks [Marcus et al. 1996]), it would become possible to”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checkedProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).
Interpretationnone givenProcess-oriented research on collaborative learning provides valuable insight into the mechanisms involved in collaboration.
“Process-oriented research on collaborative learning provides valuable insight into the mechanisms involved in collaboration.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based). The quote only partly states this claim.
InterpretationreasoningCombining process-oriented and cognitive load research makes it possible to gain a deeper understanding of the relationships between the antecedents of collaboration, the collaborative process itself, and the consequences of collaborative learning.
“By combining process-oriented and cognitive load research, it is also possible to gain a deeper understanding of the relationships between the antecedents of collaboration (e.g., task complexity, group member composition, and prior knowledge), the collaborative process itself (e.g., carrying out the task, solving the problem, maintaining common ground, sharing information, and giving explanations)”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
PremisecitationIn high-load conditions, speech pauses are significantly longer and the use of singular pronouns is significantly less than in low-load conditions.
“In high-load conditions, Khawaja et al. noted significantly longer speech pauses and significantly less use of singular pronouns (e.g.,”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Khawaja et al. 2009
Not checked in the free run.
Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.
PremisecitationEffect-oriented research focuses on the direct relationship between group composition and students' individual posttest performance, whereas process-oriented research also takes the collaborative process into account.
“Effect-oriented research that investigates these relationships focuses on the direct relationship between, for example, group composition and students' individual performance on a posttest (see, for example, Andersson and Rönnberg 1995;Buchs and Butera 2009), whereas process-oriented research also takes the collaborative process into account (for example, Denessen et al. 2008;Webb et al. 1998).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checkedProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationAnalyzing a great number of communication protocols can be time consuming.
“Furthermore, the process of analyzing a great number of protocols can be time consuming (Rosé et al. 2008).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Rosé et al. 2008 source
Not checked in the free run.
The authors state this as an assumption.
Students working in groups have more processing capacity than students working individually.
“assuming that students working in groups have more processing capacity than students working individually”
The paper relies on this without support.
Collaborative learning imposes transaction costs (communication and coordination demands) that consume learners' cognitive resources.
“In this way, it is possible to determine which transaction costs are germane to learning and which are not.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The germane/extraneous cognitive load distinction is applicable to the processes of collaborative learning.
“It will provide additional insight to the specific processes that contribute to student learning during collaborative learning (i.e., processes that generate germane cognitive load) and processes that are detrimental for learning (i.e., processes that generate extraneous cognitive load).”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The collective working memory effect reflects the finding that collaborating learners can gain from each other's working memory capacity during learning.
“The collective working memory effect reflects the finding that collaborating learners can gain from each other's working memory capacity during learning.”
From An Evolutionary Upgrade of Cognitive Load Theory: Using the Human Motor System and Collaboration to Support the Learning of Complex Cognitive Tasks (2012) · cites this paper as Janssen et al. 2010
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Blanket claim about process-oriented research conflicts with the paper's examples
MinorThe paper says the process-oriented approach does not consider the conditions producing interaction patterns or their effects on performance. Earlier, it explicitly describes process-oriented research examining both of those relationships.
“The process-oriented approach, for example, does not consider how specific interaction patterns come about or how they affect group performance and individual learning gains.”
“The research on giving and receiving explanations during collaborative learning focuses not only on the relationship between these processes, group performance, and student achievement but also on the conditions under which these processes are more likely to occur.”
Cites
(1978) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 53,488 · see citing works
The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information.
Miller, G. A. (1956) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/h0043158 · Cited by 17,812 · see citing works
The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information.
Miller, G. A. (1994) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.101.2.343 · Cited by 17,469 · see citing works
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006) · Educational Psychologist · doi:10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1 · Cited by 6,887 · cited 2× · see citing works
“In this context, the limited processing capacity of a learner’s working memory (WM) is considered a bottleneck (Baddeley 1986; Miller 1956); for new, yet to be learned information, its processing capacity is limited to only 4±1 elements (Cowan 2010), and if a learning environment is too cognitively demanding, schema c…”
BackgroundSelf-citationCognitive Architecture and Instructional Design
Sweller, J., van Merrienboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. G. W. C. (1998) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1023/a:1022193728205 · Cited by 6,023 · see citing works
Self-citationHandbook of educational psychology
(1997) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.34-3084 · Cited by 4,850 · see citing works
Handbook of Educational Psychology
Berliner, D. C., & Calfee, R. C. (2013) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9780203053874 · Cited by 3,212 · see citing works
Cognitive Load Theory and Instructional Design: Recent Developments
Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2003) · Educational Psychologist · doi:10.1207/s15326985ep3801_1 · Cited by 3,041 · see citing works
Self-citationExploring the Black Box: An Analysis of Work Group Diversity, Conflict and Performance
Pelled, L. H., Eisenhardt, K. M., & Xin, K. R. (1999) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2667029 · Cited by 2,971 · see citing works
(1995) · Cited by 2,867 · see citing works
An Educational Psychology Success Story: Social Interdependence Theory and Cooperative Learning
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2009) · Educational Researcher · doi:10.3102/0013189x09339057 · Cited by 2,721 · cited 3× · see citing works
“In their review, Johnson and Johnson (2009) identified over 1,200 studies comparing the relative effects of collaborative learning to, for example, individual learning.”
BackgroundInfluentialTransactive Memory: A Contemporary Analysis of the Group Mind
Wegner, D. M. (1987) · Theories of Group Behavior · doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-4634-3_9 · Cited by 2,700 · see citing works
Cognitive Load Measurement as a Means to Advance Cognitive Load Theory
Paas, F., Tuovinen, J. E., Tabbers, H., & Van Gerven, P. W. M. (2003) · Educational Psychologist · doi:10.1207/s15326985ep3801_8 · Cited by 2,527 · see citing works
Self-citationThe Construction of Shared Knowledge in Collaborative Problem Solving.
Roschelle, J., & Teasley, S. D. (1995) · Computer Supported Collaborative Learning · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-85098-1_5 · Cited by 2,274 · cited 2× · see citing works
“…among group members and collaborative learning with a continuous mutual effort of group members to learn by solving problems together (Paulus 2005; Roschelle and Teasley 1995), there are several important similarities between collaborative and cooperative learning (for example, in both cases,…”
BackgroundCognitive Load Theory and Complex Learning: Recent Developments and Future Directions
van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Sweller, J. (2005) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10648-005-3951-0 · Cited by 2,206 · see citing works
Paas, F. G. W. C. (1992) · Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-0663.84.4.429 · Cited by 2,150 · see citing works
Self-citationRestructuring the Classroom: Conditions for Productive Small Groups
Cohen, E. G. (1994) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/00346543064001001 · Cited by 2,120 · see citing works
Element Interactivity and Intrinsic, Extraneous, and Germane Cognitive Load
Sweller, J. (2010) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10648-010-9128-5 · Cited by 2,020 · see citing works
Springer, L., Stanne, M. E., & Donovan, S. S. (1999) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/00346543069001021 · Cited by 1,943 · see citing works
Is there a “Big Five” in Teamwork?
Salas, E., Sims, D. E., & Burke, C. S. (2005) · Small Group Research · doi:10.1177/1046496405277134 · Cited by 1,930 · see citing works
Research on Cooperative Learning and Achievement: What We Know, What We Need to Know
Slavin, R. E. (1996) · Contemporary Educational Psychology · doi:10.1006/ceps.1996.0004 · Cited by 1,687 · see citing works
Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P. A., & Jochems, W. M. G. (2003) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/s0747-5632(02)00057-2 · Cited by 1,633 · see citing works
Self-citationCollaborative Learning: Cognitive and Computational Approaches
Jones, A. C. (2000) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/s0360-1315(00)00011-7 · Cited by 1,506 · see citing works
Barron, B. (2003) · Journal of the Learning Sciences · doi:10.1207/s15327809jls1203_1 · Cited by 1,446 · see citing works
The emerging conceptualization of groups as information processors.
Hinsz, V. B., Tindale, R. S., & Vollrath, D. A. (1997) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.121.1.43 · Cited by 1,428 · cited 4× · see citing works
“information) of valuable task-relevant information and knowledge held by each group member (Hinsz et al. 1997; Tindale and Kameda 2000; Tindale and Sheffey 2002).”
BackgroundInfluentialThe evolution of research on collaborative learning
Dillenbourg, P., Baker, M. J., Blaye, A., & O’Malley, C. L. (1995) · HAL · Cited by 1,417 · see citing works
Collaborative learning : cognitive and computational approaches
Dillenbourg, P. (1999) · Cited by 1,321 · see citing works
House, J. E. (1995) · Journal of Research on Computing in Education · doi:10.1080/08886504.1995.10782139 · Cited by 1,271 · see citing works
The Magical Mystery Four: How Is Working Memory Capacity Limited, and Why?
Cowan, N. (2010) · Current Directions in Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0963721409359277 · Cited by 1,255 · see citing works
Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2004) · Instructional Science · doi:10.1023/b:truc.0000021806.17516.d0 · Cited by 1,054 · see citing works
Self-citationPeer interaction and learning in small groups
Webb, N. M. (1989) · International Journal of Educational Research · doi:10.1016/0883-0355(89)90014-1 · Cited by 1,050 · see citing works
Mayer, R. E., Heiser, J., & Lonn, S. (2001) · Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-0663.93.1.187 · Cited by 1,029 · see citing works
Mullen, B. R., & Goethals, G. R. (1987) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-4634-3 · Cited by 978 · see citing works
Instructional control of cognitive load in the training of complex cognitive tasks
Paas, F. G. W. C., & Van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (1994) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/bf02213420 · Cited by 968 · see citing works
Self-citationPaas, F. G. W. C., & Van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (1993) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1177/001872089303500412 · Cited by 921 · see citing works
Self-citationCognitive Perspectives on Peer Learning
O’Donnell, A. M., & King, A. (2014) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781410603715 · Cited by 871 · see citing works
Group Processes in the Classroom
Berliner, D. C., & Calfee, R. C. (2013) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9780203053874-35 · Cited by 842 · see citing works
Roseth, C. J., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2008) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.134.2.223 · Cited by 837 · see citing works
Slavin, R. E. (1980) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/00346543050002315 · Cited by 771 · see citing works
Small Group and Individual Learning with Technology: A Meta-Analysis
Lou, Y., Abrami, P. C., & d’Apollonia, S. (2001) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/00346543071003449 · Cited by 721 · see citing works
A Computer Network Model of Human Transactive Memory
Wegner, D. M. (1995) · Social Cognition · doi:10.1521/soco.1995.13.3.319 · Cited by 678 · see citing works
Task-Related Verbal Interaction and Mathematics Learning in Small Groups
Webb, N. M. (1991) · Journal for Research in Mathematics Education · doi:10.2307/749186 · Cited by 655 · see citing works
The Development of Argument Skills
Kuhn, D., & Udell, W. (2003) · Child Development · doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00605 · Cited by 595 · see citing works
The quality of talk in children's collaborative activity in the classroom
Mercer, N. (1996) · Learning and Instruction · doi:10.1016/s0959-4752(96)00021-7 · Cited by 566 · see citing works
When teams do not function the way they ought to
Salomon, G., & Globerson, T. (1989) · International Journal of Educational Research · doi:10.1016/0883-0355(89)90018-9 · Cited by 551 · see citing works
A Cognitive Load Approach to Collaborative Learning: United Brains for Complex Tasks
Kirschner, F., Paas, F., & Kirschner, P. A. (2009) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10648-008-9095-2 · Cited by 547 · see citing works
Self-citationContent analysis: What are they talking about?
Strijbos, J.-W., Martens, R. L., Prins, F. J., & Jochems, W. M. G. (2005) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2005.04.002 · Cited by 545 · see citing works
Collective memory: Collaborative and individual processes in remembering.
Weldon, M. S., & Bellinger, K. D. (1997) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition · doi:10.1037/0278-7393.23.5.1160 · Cited by 498 · cited 2× · see citing works
“These findings are consistent with previous research on group versus individual learning which showed that group learning is superior to individual learning for relatively complex problem-solving tasks (Laughlin et al. 2002; Laughlin et al. 2006) and that individual learning is superior to group learning for relativel…”
BackgroundResultConstructive activity and learning in collaborative small groups.
Webb, N. M., Troper, J. D., & Fall, R. (1995) · Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-0663.87.3.406 · Cited by 474 · see citing works
Instructional Efficiency: Revisiting the Original Construct in Educational Research
van Gog, T., & Paas, F. (2008) · Educational Psychologist · doi:10.1080/00461520701756248 · Cited by 473 · see citing works
Self-citationSweller, J. (2004) · Instructional Science · doi:10.1023/b:truc.0000021808.72598.4d · Cited by 470 · see citing works
Collaborative learning tasks and the elaboration of conceptual knowledge
van Boxtel, C., van der Linden, J. L., & Kanselaar, G. (2000) · Learning and Instruction · doi:10.1016/s0959-4752(00)00002-5 · Cited by 468 · see citing works
Discourse Patterns and Collaborative Scientific Reasoning in Peer and Teacher-Guided Discussions
Hogan, K., Nastasi, B. K., & Pressley, M. (1999) · Cognition and Instruction · doi:10.1207/s1532690xci1704_2 · Cited by 460 · see citing works
The Potential of Argument in Knowledge Building
Leitão, S. (2000) · Human Development · doi:10.1159/000022695 · Cited by 409 · see citing works
Learning in Humans and Machines : Towards an Interdisciplinary Learning Science
Spada, H., Reimann, P., & Reimann (1995) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 400 · see citing works
Laughlin, P. R., Hatch, E. C., Silver, J. S., & Boh, L. (2006) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.90.4.644 · Cited by 390 · see citing works
Learner control, cognitive load and instructional animation
Hasler, B. S., Kersten, B., & Sweller, J. (2007) · Applied Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1002/acp.1345 · Cited by 380 · see citing works
Janssen, J., Erkens, G., Kanselaar, G., & Jaspers, J. (2007) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2006.01.004 · Cited by 352 · see citing works
Self-citationRosé, C., Wang, Y.-C., Cui, Y., Arguello, J., Stegmann, K., Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2008) · International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning · doi:10.1007/s11412-007-9034-0 · Cited by 351 · see citing works
The effect of peer collaboration on children's problem‐solving ability
Fawcett, L. M., & Garton, A. F. (2005) · British Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1348/000709904x23411 · Cited by 317 · see citing works
Learning technologies: Affective and social issues in computer-supported collaborative learning
Jones, A. C., & Issroff, K. (2004) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2004.04.004 · Cited by 309 · see citing works
Constructing a Joint Problem Space: The Computer as a Tool for Sharing Knowledge
Teasley, S. D. (1993) · Cited by 307 · see citing works
Kirschner, F., PAAS, F. G. W. C., & Kirschner, P. A. (2009) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2008.12.008 · Cited by 284 · see citing works
Self-citationvan Gog, T., Paas, F., Marcus, N., Ayres, P., & Sweller, J. (2009) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10648-008-9094-3 · Cited by 284 · see citing works
Self-citationEquity Issues in Collaborative Group Assessment: Group Composition and Performance
Webb, N. M., Nemer, K. M., Chizhik, A. W., & Sugrue, B. (1998) · American Educational Research Journal · doi:10.3102/00028312035004607 · Cited by 284 · see citing works
Natural Information Processing Systems
Sweller, J., & Sweller, S. (2006) · Evolutionary Psychology · doi:10.1177/147470490600400135 · Cited by 279 · see citing works
Small-Group Interactions as a Source of Learning Opportunities in Second-Grade Mathematics
Yackel, E., Cobb, P., & Wood, T. L. (1991) · Journal for Research in Mathematics Education · doi:10.2307/749187 · Cited by 266 · see citing works
Promoting effective helping behavior in peer-directed groups
Webb, N. M., & Mastergeorge, A. (2003) · International Journal of Educational Research · doi:10.1016/s0883-0355(03)00074-0 · Cited by 250 · see citing works
Marcus, N., Cooper, M., & Sweller, J. (1996) · Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-0663.88.1.49 · Cited by 244 · see citing works
Small-Group Interactions as a Source of Learning Opportunities in Second-Grade Mathematics
Yackel, E., Cobb, P., & Wood, T. L. (1991) · Journal for Research in Mathematics Education · doi:10.5951/jresematheduc.22.5.0390 · Cited by 235 · see citing works
‘Social Sharedness’ as a Unifying Theme for Information Processing in Groups
Tindale, R. S., & Kameda, T. (2000) · Group Processes & Intergroup Relations · doi:10.1177/1368430200003002002 · Cited by 225 · cited 2× · see citing works
“information) of valuable task-relevant information and knowledge held by each group member (Hinsz et al. 1997; Tindale and Kameda 2000; Tindale and Sheffey 2002).”
BackgroundAttention guidance during example study via the model’s eye movements
van Gog, T., Jarodzka, H., Scheiter, K., Gerjets, P., & Paas, F. (2009) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2009.02.007 · Cited by 224 · see citing works
Self-citationGroups perform better than the best individuals on Letters-to-Numbers problems
Laughlin, P. R., Bonner, B. L., & Miner, A. G. (2002) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/s0749-5978(02)00003-1 · Cited by 218 · see citing works
Cognitive load theory and aging: effects of worked examples on training efficiency
Van Gerven, P. W. M., Paas, F. G. W. C., Van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Schmidt, H. G. (2002) · Learning and Instruction · doi:10.1016/s0959-4752(01)00017-2 · Cited by 205 · cited 2× · see citing works
“When studies like the one conducted by Denessen et al .( 2008) would also incorporate cognitive load measures (e.g., the unidimensional nine-point symmetrical mental effort rating scale [Paas 1992], heart-rate variability [Paas and Van Merrienboer 1994], taskevoked pupillary responses [ Van Gerven et al. 2002 ], or re…”
BackgroundMethodSelf-citationCooperative Activities in the Classroom
Bossert, S. T. (1988) · Review of Research in Education · doi:10.2307/1167365 · Cited by 205 · see citing works
Learning from peers: Beyond the rhetoric of positive results
O’Donnell, A. M., & O'Kelly, J. B. (1994) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/bf02213419 · Cited by 200 · see citing works
van Gog, T., Liesbeth Kester, A., Nievelstein, F., Giesbers, B., & PAAS, F. G. W. C. (2009) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2008.12.021 · Cited by 195 · see citing works
Self-citationRecall suffers from collaboration: Joint recall effects of friendship and task complexity
Andersson, J., & Rönnberg, J. (1995) · Applied Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1002/acp.2350090303 · Cited by 187 · see citing works
Awareness of group performance in a CSCL-environment: Effects of peer feedback and reflection
Phielix, C., Prins, F. J., & Kirschner, P. A. (2009) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2009.10.011 · Cited by 167 · see citing works
Self-citationThe Social Context of Instruction: Group Organization and Group Processes.
Pallas, A. M., Peterson, P. L., WILKINSON, L. C., & Hallinan, M. T. (1987) · Contemporary Sociology A Journal of Reviews · doi:10.2307/2070746 · Cited by 165 · see citing works
Coordination processes in computer supported collaborative writing
Erkens, G., Jaspers, J., Prangsma, M. E., & Kanselaar, G. (2004) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2004.10.038 · Cited by 163 · see citing works
Self-citationInfluence of group member familiarity on online collaborative learning
Janssen, J. J. H. M., Erkens, G., Kirschner, P. A., & Kanselaar, G. (2008) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2008.08.010 · Cited by 159 · see citing works
Self-citationCoercing shared knowledge in collaborative learning environments
Kirschner, P. A., Beers, P. J., Boshuizen, H. P. A., & Gijselaers, W. (2007) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2007.01.028 · Cited by 157 · see citing works
Self-citationThe effects of metacognitive training versus worked‐out examples on students' mathematical reasoning
Mevarech, Z. R., & Kramarski, B. (2003) · British Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1348/000709903322591181 · Cited by 156 · see citing works
Exploring Multidimensional Approaches to the Efficiency of Instructional Conditions
Tuovinen, J. E., & Paas, F. (2004) · Instructional Science · doi:10.1023/b:truc.0000021813.24669.62 · Cited by 134 · see citing works
Self-citationWebb, N. M., Nemer, K. M., & Zuniga, S. (2002) · American Educational Research Journal · doi:10.3102/00028312039004943 · Cited by 127 · see citing works
Shared Information, Cognitive Load, and Group Memory
Tindale, R. S., & Sheffey, S. (2002) · Group Processes & Intergroup Relations · doi:10.1177/1368430202005001535 · Cited by 126 · see citing works
Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning in Higher Education
Roberts, T. S. (2005) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/978-1-59140-408-8.ch001 · Cited by 123 · see citing works
Nichols, J. D. (1996) · Contemporary Educational Psychology · doi:10.1006/ceps.1996.0031 · Cited by 122 · see citing works
Impact of Goal and Resource Interdependence on Problem-Solving Success
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Stanne, M. B. (1989) · The Journal of Social Psychology · doi:10.1080/00224545.1989.9713780 · Cited by 115 · see citing works
Munneke, L., Andriessen, J. E. B., Kanselaar, G., & Kirschner, P. A. (2006) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2006.10.003 · Cited by 109 · see citing works
Self-citationAre two heads better than one? Experimental investigations of the social facilitation of memory
Meudell, P. R., Hitch, G. J., & Kirby, P. (1992) · Applied Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1002/acp.2350060606 · Cited by 106 · see citing works
Automatic coding of dialogue acts in collaboration protocols
Erkens, G., & Janssen, J. (2008) · International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning · doi:10.1007/s11412-008-9052-6 · Cited by 103 · see citing works
Self-citationWhen collaboration leads to regression: Some negative consequences of socio‐cognitive conflict
Tudge, J. R. H. (1989) · European Journal of Social Psychology · doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420190204 · Cited by 90 · see citing works
The analysis of negotiation of common ground in CSCL
Beers, P. J., Boshuizen, H. P. A., Kirschner, P. A., & Gijselaers, W. (2007) · Learning and Instruction · doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.04.002 · Cited by 88 · see citing works
Self-citationLangfred, C. W. (2000) · Small Group Research · doi:10.1177/104649640003100103 · Cited by 82 · see citing works
Face-to-face versus computer-mediated communication in a primary school setting
van der Meijden, H., & Veenman, S. (2003) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2003.10.005 · Cited by 79 · see citing works
Communication Medium and Member Familiarity
Adams, S., Roch, S. G., & Ayman, R. (2005) · Small Group Research · doi:10.1177/1046496405275232 · Cited by 78 · see citing works
The Cognitive Consequences of Collaborative Problem Solving With and Without Feedback
Tudge, J. R. H., Winterhoff, P. A., & Hogan, D. (1996) · Child Development · doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1996.tb01894.x · Cited by 75 · see citing works
The Effect of Positive Goal and Resource Interdependence on Individual Performance
Ortiz, A. E., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1996) · The Journal of Social Psychology · doi:10.1080/00224545.1996.9713998 · Cited by 71 · see citing works
Effects of representational guidance during computer-supported collaborative learning
Janssen, J. J. H. M., Erkens, G., Kirschner, P. A., & Kanselaar, G. (2008) · Instructional Science · doi:10.1007/s11251-008-9078-1 · Cited by 70 · see citing works
Self-citationKlein, J. D., & Pridemore, D. R. (1992) · Educational Technology Research and Development · doi:10.1007/bf02296898 · Cited by 65 · see citing works
Regulative processes in individual, 3D and computer supported cooperative learning contexts
de Jong, F., Kollöffel, B., van der Meijden, H., Staarman, J. K., & Janssen, J. (2005) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2004.10.023 · Cited by 60 · see citing works
Self-citationThe Cognitive Consequences of Collaborative Problem Solving with and without Feedback
Tudge, J. R. H., Winterhoff, P. A., & Hogan, D. (1996) · Child Development · doi:10.2307/1131758 · Cited by 60 · see citing works
Collaboration and Its Discontents: Steps toward Overcoming Barriers to Successful Group Projects
Yamane, D. (1996) · Teaching Sociology · doi:10.2307/1318875 · Cited by 58 · see citing works
Computer Conferencing: An Environment for Collaborative Project-Based Learning in Distance Education
Bernard, R. M., & Lundgren-Cayrol, K. (2001) · Educational Research and Evaluation · doi:10.1076/edre.7.2.241.3866 · Cited by 58 · see citing works
Buchs, C., & Butera, F. (2009) · European Journal of Psychology of Education · doi:10.1007/bf03173007 · Cited by 52 · cited 2× · see citing works
“…between, for example, group composition and students’ individual performance on a posttest (see, for example, Andersson and Rönnberg 1995; Buchs and Butera 2009), whereas process-oriented research also takes the collaborative process into account (for example, Denessen et al. 2008; Webb…”
BackgroundCollaborative learning and the construction of common knowledge
Elbers, E., & Streefland, L. (2000) · European Journal of Psychology of Education · doi:10.1007/bf03172989 · Cited by 48 · see citing works
Collaborative learning in wikis
Chang, Y., Morales-Arroyo, M. A., Than, H., et al. (2011) · Education for Information · doi:10.3233/efi-2010-0910 · Cited by 42 · see citing works
Artzt, A. F., & Armour-Thomas, E. (1997) · The Journal of Mathematical Behavior · doi:10.1016/s0732-3123(97)90008-0 · Cited by 39 · see citing works
Dyad Composition Effects on Cognitive Elaboration and Student Achievement
Denessen, E., Veenman, S., Dobbelsteen, J., & Van Schilt, J. (2008) · The Journal of Experimental Education · doi:10.3200/jexe.76.4.363-386 · Cited by 37 · see citing works
Encountering electronic work groups: a transaction costs perspective
Ciborra, C., & Olson, M. H. (1988) · ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) · doi:10.1145/62266.62274 · Cited by 34 · see citing works
Potential speech features for cognitive load measurement
Khawaja, M. A., Ruiz, N., & Chen, F. (2007) · Proceedings of the 19th Australasian conference on Computer-Human Interaction: Entertaining User Interfaces · doi:10.1145/1324892.1324902 · Cited by 26 · see citing works
Collaboration or Cooperation? Analyzing Small Group Interactions in Educational Environments
Paulus, T. M. (2005) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/978-1-59140-408-8.ch005 · Cited by 26 · see citing works
Kirschner, F., PAAS, F. G. W. C., & Kirschner, P. A. (2008) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-8827-8_4 · Cited by 25 · see citing works
Self-citationKumpulainen, K., Salovaara, H., & Mutanen, M. (2001) · Instructional Science · doi:10.1023/a:1012272119868 · Cited by 17 · see citing works
Automatic coding of online collaboration protocols
Erkens, G., & Janssen, J. (2006) · Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) · Cited by 16 · see citing works
Self-citationDesign and effects of representational scripting on group performance
Slof, B., Erkens, G., Kirschner, P. A., & Jaspers, J. (2010) · Educational Technology Research and Development · doi:10.1007/s11423-010-9148-3 · Cited by 13 · see citing works
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- Baddeley, A. D. (1986). Working memory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
- Khawaja, M. A., Chen, F., & Marcus, N. (2009). Analysis of collaborative speech for grammatical cues of cognitive load. Paper presented at the Third International Cognitive Load Theory Conference, Heerlen, The Netherlands.
- Van der Linden, J. L., Erkens, G., Schmidt, H., & Renshaw, P. (2000). Collaborative learning. In P. R. J. Simons, J. L. Van der Linden, & T. Duffy (Eds.), New learning (pp. 1–19). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Paas, F., & Sweller, J. (2012) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10648-011-9179-2 · Cited by 502 · see citing works
Self-citationAl-Rahmi, W. M., Alias, N., Othman, M. S., Marin, V. I., & Tur, G. (2018) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2018.02.010 · Cited by 225 · see citing works
Kirschner, F., Paas, F., & Kirschner, P. A. (2011) · Applied Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1002/acp.1730 · Cited by 219 · see citing works
Self-citationAlalwan, N., Al-Rahmi, W. M., Alfarraj, O., Alzahrani, A., Yahaya, N., & Al-Rahmi, A. M. (2019) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2019.2928142 · Cited by 141 · see citing works
- Authors
- Janssen, J., Kirschner, F., Erkens, G., Kirschner, P. A., & Paas, F.
- Affiliations
- Utrecht University (NL)
- Erasmus University Rotterdam (NL)
- Open University of the Netherlands (NL)
- Corresponding author
- Janssen, Jeroen
- Kirschner, Femke
- Erkens, Gijsbert
- Paas, Fred
- Venue
- Educational Psychology Review
- Published
- 2010-05-04
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 139-154
- ISSN
- 1040-726X (ISSN-L)
- 1573-336X
- OpenAlex
- W2004617232
- Semantic Scholar
- c2c8e4017f1dbb629747fbafd995deae5769991b
- Cited by
- 180
- References
- 118
- Citations by year
- 2026: 11 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 8
- FWCI
- 18.42
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by-nc
- Locations
- Educational Psychology Review (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion)
- Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- DSpace (Open University in the Netherlands) (submittedVersion)
- DSpace (Open University in the Netherlands) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- DSpace (Open University in the Netherlands) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Visual and Cognitive Learning Processes
- Social Sciences › Education › Online and Blended Learning
- Keywords
- cooperative learning, black box approach, cognitive load theory, process-oriented research, group interaction, group work, individual vs group learning, research methodology integration
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-10.
Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-10.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
