The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
An Experimental Study of the Effects of Representational Guidance on Collaborative Learning Processes
Abstract
The importance of both social processes and of representational aids for learning is well-established, yet few experimental studies have addressed the combination of these factors. The research reported in this article evaluates the influence of tools for constructing representations of evidential models on collaborative learning processes and outcomes. Pairs of participants worked with 1 of 3 representations (Graph, Matrix, Text) while investigating complex science and public health problems. Dependent measures included (a) the content of participants' utterances and representational actions and the timing of these utterances and actions with respect to the availability of information; (b) a multiple choice test of the ability to recall the data, hypotheses, and evidential relations explored; and (c) the contents of a written essay. The results show that representational notations can have significant effects on learners' interactions, and may differ in their influence on subsequent collaborative use of the knowledge being manipulated. For example, Graph and Matrix users elaborated on previously represented information more than Text users. Representation and discussion of evidential relations was quantitatively greatest for Matrix users as predicted, yet this came at the cost of excessive consideration and revision of unimportant relations. Graph users may have been more focused in their consideration of evidence, and the work done in the Graph representation had the greatest impact on the contents of the essays. Although limited to initial use of representations in a laboratory setting, the work demonstrates that representational guidance of collaborative learning is worthy of study and suggests several lines of further investigation.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511815355 · Cited by 35,324
Levels of processing: A framework for memory research
Craik, F. I. M., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972) · Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior · doi:10.1016/s0022-5371(72)80001-x · Cited by 9,566
Concept mapping: A useful tool for science education
Novak, J. D. (1990) · Journal of Research in Science Teaching · doi:10.1002/tea.3660271003 · Cited by 1,032
Cited by
The ICAP framework: Linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes
Chi, M. T. H., & Wylie, R. (2014) · Educational Psychologist · doi:10.1080/00461520.2014.965823 · Cited by 2,911
Kapur, M. (2008) · Cognition and Instruction · doi:10.1080/07370000802212669 · Cited by 867
Toward a script theory of guidance in computer-supported collaborative learning
Fischer, F., Kollar, I., Stegmann, K., & Wecker, C. (2013) · Educational Psychologist · doi:10.1080/00461520.2012.748005 · Cited by 525
Noroozi, O., Weinberger, A., Biemans, H. J. A., Mulder, M., & Chizari, M. (2012) · Educational Research Review · doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2011.11.006 · Cited by 310
Developing Dialogic Argumentation Skills: A 3-year Intervention Study
Crowell, A., & Kuhn, D. (2014) · Journal of Cognition and Development · doi:10.1080/15248372.2012.725187 · Cited by 179
Metadata
- Authors
- Suthers, D. D., & Hundhausen, C. D.
- Venue
- Journal of the Learning Sciences
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2003-04
- Volume
- 12
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 183-218
- ISSN
- 1050-8406 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-7809
- OpenAlex
- W2090074022
- Cited by
- 356
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 27.91
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: An Experimental Study of the Effects of Representational Guidance on Collaborative Learning Processes. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1207/s15327809jls1202_2
- The paper
- Suthers, D. D., & Hundhausen, C. D. (2003). An Experimental Study of the Effects of Representational Guidance on Collaborative Learning Processes. Journal of the Learning Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1202_2
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.