Cited by 285Innovative Teaching and Learning MethodsVisual and Cognitive Learning ProcessesIntelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 73 of the 74 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Socio-Cognitive Scaffolding with Computer-Supported Collaboration Scripts: a Meta-Analysis

Open access
Vogel, Freydis, Wecker, Christof, Kollar, Ingo, Fischer, Frank·2017·Educational Psychology Review

Abstract

Scripts for computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) offer socio-cognitive scaffolding for learners to engage in collaborative activities that are considered beneficial for learning. Yet, CSCL scripts are often criticized for hampering naturally emerging collaboration. Research on the effectiveness of CSCL scripts has shown divergent results. This article reports a meta-analysis about the effects of CSCL scripts on domain-specific knowledge and collaboration skills. Results indicate that CSCL scripts as a kind of socio-cognitive scaffolding can enhance learning outcomes substantially. Learning with CSCL scripts leads to a small positive effect on domain-specific knowledge ( d = 0.20) and a large positive effect on collaboration skills ( d = 0.95) compared to unstructured CSCL. Further analyses reveal that CSCL scripts are particularly effective for domain-specific learning when they prompt transactive activities (i.e., activities in which a learner’s reasoning builds on the contribution of a learning partner) and when they are combined with additional content-specific scaffolding (worked examples, concept maps, etc.). Future research on CSCL scripts should include measures of learners’ internal scripts (i.e., prior collaboration skills) and the transactivity of the actual learning process.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10648-016-9361-7

Cites

73 of 73 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 74 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–200 of 285

Metadata

Authors
Vogel, F., Wecker, C., Kollar, I., & Fischer, F.
Affiliations
  • Technical University of Munich (DE)
  • Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München (DE)
  • University of Augsburg (DE)
Corresponding author
Vogel, Freydis
Venue
Educational Psychology Review
Published
2016-03-23
Volume
29
Issue
3
Pages
477-511
ISSN
  • 1040-726X (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-336X
OpenAlex
W2305855202
Cited by
278
References
74
Citations by year
2026: 30 · 2025: 33 · 2024: 30 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 37 · 2021: 43 · 2020: 26 · 2019: 30 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 5
FWCI
3.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Educational Psychology Review (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Repository@Nottingham (University of Nottingham) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Repository@Nottingham (University of Nottingham) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Nottingham ePrints (University of Nottingham) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • mediaTUM – the media and publications repository of the Technical University Munich (Technical University Munich) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • OPUS (Augsburg University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DE) (FI 792/7-1)
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
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Intelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning
Keywords
computer-supported collaborative learning, cooperative script, domain knowledge, collaboration skills, worked examples, concept maps, learning outcomes

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.

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