This study was conducted to investigate the effect of task and group awareness (TaGA) support provided to group members by a pedagogical agent (PA) in computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) on the students’ attitudes towards collaborative learning and self-regulated learning skills (SRLS). A quasi-experimental research design with pretest and posttest control groups and mixed methods were used in this study. Participants were undergraduate students (n = 42) enrolled in the Computing II course in their first year. Of the 42 university student, 15 (35.7%) were male and 27 (64.3%) were female. The participants were randomly assigned to the experimental and control groups. The findings of the study demonstrated that TaGA support provided to the members of the experimental group through the PA in CSCL fostered students’ attitudes towards online collaborative learning but did not affect their SRLS. The findings obtained from the qualitative data were in good agreement with the quantitative data. This study contributes to the field by providing practical suggestions on how the learning process and outcomes in CSCL can be improved through PA-based support and scaffolding.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT for USA
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.
Azevedo, R., & Hadwin, A. F. (2005). Scaffolding self-regulated learning and metacognition: Implications for the design of computer-based scaffolds. Instructional Science,33(5–6), 367–379.
Baylor, A. L. (2002). Expanding preservice teachers’ metacognitive awareness of instructional planning through pedagogical agents. Educational Technology Research and Development,50(2), 5–22.
Baylor, A., & Kim, Y. (2003). The role of gender and ethnicity in pedagogical agent perception. In E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education (pp. 1503–1506). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
Bodemer, D., & Dehler, J. (2011). Group awareness in CSCL environments. Computers in Human Behavior,27(3), 1043–1045.
Buder, J., & Bodemer, D. (2008). Supporting controversial CSCL discussions with augmented group awareness tools. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning,3(2), 123–139.
Chen, J., Wang, M., Kirschner, P. A., & Tsai, C. C. (2018). The role of collaboration, computer use, learning environments, and supporting strategies in CSCL: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research,88(6), 799–843. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654318791584.
Chou, C. Y., Chan, T. W., & Lin, C. J. (2003). Redefining the learning companion: The past, present, and future of educational agents. Computers & Education,40(3), 255–269.
De Wever, B., Van Keer, H., Schellens, T., & Valcke, M. (2007). Applying multilevel modelling to content analysis data: Methodological issues in the study of role assignment in asynchronous discussion groups. Learning and Instruction,17(4), 436–447.
De Wever, B., Van Keer, H., Schellens, T., & Valcke, M. (2009). Structuring asynchronous discussion groups: The impact of role assignment and self-assessment on students’ levels of knowledge construction through social negotiation. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,25(2), 177–188.
Dehler, J., Bodemer, D., Buder, J., & Hesse, F. W. (2011). Guiding knowledge communication in CSCL via group knowledge awareness. Computers in Human Behavior,27(3), 1068–1078.
Dincer, S., & Doganay, A. (2017). The effects of multiple-pedagogical agents on learners’ academic success, motivation, and cognitive load. Computers & Education,111, 74–100.
Duffy, M. C., & Azevedo, R. (2015). Motivation matters: Interactions between achievement goals and agent scaffolding for self-regulated learning within an intelligent tutoring system. Computers in Human Behavior,52, 338–348.
Engelmann, T., Dehler, J., Bodemer, D., & Buder, J. (2009). Knowledge awareness in CSCL: A psychological perspective. Computers in Human Behavior,25(4), 949–960.
Fransen, J., Kirschner, P. A., & Erkens, G. (2011). Mediating team effectiveness in the context of collaborative learning: The importance of team and task awareness. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(3), 1103–1113.
Gagne, R., Briggs, L., & Wager, W. (1992). Principles of instructional design (4th ed.). Fort Worth, TX: HBJ College Publishers.
Gijlers, H., Weinberger, A., van Dijk, A. M., Bollen, L., & van Joolingen, W. (2013). Collaborative drawing on a shared digital canvas in elementary science education: The effects of script and task awareness support. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning,8(4), 427–453.
Haslaman, T., & Askar, P. (2015). The measures of students’ self-regulated learning and teachers’ supportive self-regulated learning behaviors. Hacettepe University Journal of Education,30(1), 106–121.
Hofer, B. K., Yu, S. L., & Pintrich, P. R. (1998). Teaching college students to be self-regulated learners. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning from teaching to self- reflective practice (pp. 57–85). London: Guilford Press.
Järvelä, S., Kirschner, P. A., Panadero, E., Malmberg, J., Phielix, C., Jaspers, J., et al. (2015). Enhancing socially shared regulation in collaborative learning groups: Designing for CSCL regulation tools. Educational Technology Research and Development,63(1), 125–142.
Järvelä, S., Kirschner, P. A., Hadwin, A., Järvenoja, H., Malmberg, J., Miller, M., et al. (2016). Socially shared regulation of learning in CSCL: Understanding and prompting individual-and group-level shared regulatory activities. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning,11(3), 263–280.
Karaoglan Yilmaz, F. G., & Yilmaz, R. (2019). Impact of pedagogic agent-mediated metacognitive support towards increasing task and group awareness in CSCL. Computers & Education, 134, 1–14.
Karaoglan Yilmaz, F. G., Olpak, Y. Z., & Yilmaz, R. (2018). The effect of the metacognitive support via pedagogical agent on self-regulation skills. Journal of Educational Computing Research,56(2), 159–180.
Kim, Y., Thayne, J., & Wei, Q. (2017). An embodied agent helps anxious students in mathematics learning. Educational Technology Research and Development,65(1), 219–235.
Kimmerle, J., & Cress, U. (2008). Group awareness and self-presentation in computer-supported information exchange. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning,3(1), 85–97.
Kirschner, P. A., Kreijns, K., Phielix, C., & Fransen, J. (2015). Awareness of cognitive and social behaviour in a CSCL environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,31(1), 59–77.
Korkmaz, O. (2012). A validity and reliability study of the online cooperative learning attitude scale (OCLAS). Computers & Education,59(4), 1162–1169.
Korkmaz, O. (2013). CEIT teacher candidates’ attitude toward online collaborative learning and their opinions. Elementary Education Online,12(1), 283–294.
Korkmaz, O., & Yesil, R. (2011). Evaluation of achievement, attitudes towards technology using and opinions about group work among students working in gender-based groups. Gazi University Journal of Gazi Education Faculty,31(1), 201–229.
Kreijns, K., & Kirschner, P. A. (2004). Designing sociable CSCL environments. In J. W. Strijbos, P. A. Kirschner, & R. L. Martens (Eds.), What we know about CSCL (pp. 221–243). Dordrecht: Springer.
Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P. A., & Jochems, W. (2003). Identifying the pitfalls for social interaction in computer-supported collaborative learning environments: A review of the research. Computers in Human Behavior,19(3), 335–353.
Liaw, S. S., Chen, G. D., & Huang, H. M. (2008). Users’ attitudes toward Web-based collaborative learning systems for knowledge management. Computers & Education,50(3), 950–961.
Liccardi, I., Davis, H. C., & White, S. (2007, April). CAWS: A wiki system to improve workspace awareness to advance effectiveness of co-authoring activities. In CHI’07 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 2555–2560). ACM: New York.
Lin, J. W., & Tsai, C. W. (2016). The impact of an online project-based learning environment with group awareness support on students with different self-regulation levels: An extended-period experiment. Computers & Education,99, 28–38.
Lin, Y. T., Chang, C. H., Hou, H. T., & Wu, K. C. (2016). Exploring the effects of employing Google Docs in collaborative concept mapping on achievement, concept representation, and attitudes. Interactive Learning Environments,24, 1552–1573.
Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Miller, M., & Hadwin, A. (2015). Scripting and awareness tools for regulating collaborative learning: Changing the landscape of support in CSCL. Computers in Human Behavior,52, 573–588.
Morgan, C. T. (1961). Introduction to psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Mühlpfordt, M., & Wessner, M. (2009). The integration of dual-interaction spaces. In: Stahl, G. (Ed.), Studying virtual math teams. Springer: Boston.
Nam, C. W., & Zellner, R. D. (2011). The relative effects of positive interdependence and group processing on student achievement and attitude in online cooperative learning. Computers & Education,56(3), 680–688.
Noroozi, O., Weinberger, A., Biemans, H. J., Mulder, M., & Chizari, M. (2013). Facilitating argumentative knowledge construction through a transactive discussion script in CSCL. Computers & Education,61, 59–76.
Park, S. (2015). The effects of social cue principles on cognitive load, situational ınterest, motivation, and achievement in pedagogical agent multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Technology & Society,18(4), 211–229.
Phielix, C., Prins, F. J., & Kirschner, P. A. (2010). Awareness of group performance in a CSCL-environment: Effects of peer feedback and reflection. Computers in Human Behavior,26(2), 151–161.
Phielix, C., Prins, F. J., Kirschner, P. A., Erkens, G., & Jaspers, J. (2011). Group awareness of social and cognitive performance in a CSCL environment: Effects of a peer feedback and reflection tool. Computers in Human Behavior,27, 1087–1102.
Pifarré, M., Cobos, R., & Argelagós, E. (2014). Incidence of group awareness information on students’ collaborative learning processes. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,30(4), 300–317.
Pintrich, P. R. (1999). The role of motivation in promoting and sustaining self-regulated learning. International Journal of Educational Research,31, 459–470.
Pintrich, P. R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 451–502). San Diego: Academic Press.
Resta, P., & Laferrière, T. (2007). Technology in support of collaborative learning. Educational Psychology Review,19(1), 65–83.
Sangin, M., Molinari, G., Nüssli, M. A., & Dillenbourg, P. (2011). Facilitating peer knowledge modeling: Effects of a knowledge awareness tool on collaborative learning outcomes and processes. Computers in Human Behavior,27(3), 1059–1067.
Schraw, G., & Moshman, D. (1995). Metacognitive theories. Educational Psychology Review,7(4), 351–371.
Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2007). Influencing children’s self-efficacy and self-regulation of reading and writing through modeling. Reading & Writing Quarterly,23, 7–25.
Stahl, G. (2006). Group cognition: Computer support for building collaborative knowledge. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Stahl, G., & Hesse, F. (2006). Social practices of computer-supported collaborative learning. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning,1(4), 409–412.
Stahl, G., Koschmann, T., & Suthers, D. (2006). Computer-supported collaborative learning: An historical perspective. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 409–426). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Strijbos, J. W., Kirschner, P. A., & Martens, R. L. (2006). What we know about CSCL: And implementing it in higher education (Vol. 3). New York: Springer.
Thurstone, L. L. (1946). Comment. American Journal of Sociology,52, 39–50.
Tsovaltzi, D., Puhl, T., Judele, R., & Weinberger, A. (2014). Group awareness support and argumentation scripts for individual preparation of arguments in Facebook. Computers & Education,76, 108–118.
van der Meij, H., van der Meij, J., & Harmsen, R. (2015). Animated pedagogical agents effects on enhancing student motivation and learning in a science inquiry learning environment. Educational Technology Research and Development,63(3), 381–403.
Vogel, F., Wecker, C., Kollar, I., & Fischer, F. (2017). Socio-cognitive scaffolding with computer-supported collaboration scripts: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review,29(3), 477–511.
Yilmaz, R., & Karaoglan Yilmaz, F. G. (2019). Assigned roles as a structuring tool in online discussion groups: Comparison of transactional distance and knowledge sharing behaviors. Journal of Educational Computing Research,57(5), 1303–1325. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633118786855.
Yilmaz, R., & Kilic-Cakmak, E. (2012). Educational interface agents as social models to influence learner achievement, attitude and retention of learning. Computers & Education,59(2), 828–838.
Yilmaz, R., Karaoglan Yilmaz, F. G., & Kilic Cakmak, E. (2017). The impact of transactive memory system and interaction platform in collaborative knowledge construction on social presence and self-regulation. Interactive Learning Environments,25(8), 949–969.
The authors declare that they have no funding of this study.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix 1: Online cooperative learning attitude scale
|Online cooperative learning attitude scale||Experimental group||Control group|
|1. I enjoy solving problems regarding the group project using Online Cooperative Learning Application (OCLA) with my group members||4.27||0.83||3.65||0.745|
|2. Being interactive with the other group members using OCLA increases my motivation for learning||4.27||0.88||3.90||0.64|
|3. I enjoy experiencing cooperative learning using OCLA with my group members||4.27||0.83||3.75||0.79|
|4. Online group activity increases our creativity||4.32||0.89||3.60||0.88|
|5. I believe that the group can work on a document effectively with the online cooperative learning application||4.00||0.76||3.55||0.76|
|6. OCLA improves my social skills||4.36||0.58||3.80||0.83|
|7. I enjoy helping others in OCLA||4.64||0.66||4.00||0.92|
|8. OCLA is very entertaining for me||3.91||1.06||3.40||1.14|
|9. OCLA helps me feel better psychologically||3.73||1.16||3.30||0.98|
|10. More ideas come up as a result of OCLA||4.41||0.67||3.85||0.99|
|11. I think that I have had/will have more successful results since I work with a group in OCLA||4.23||1.11||3.65||0.93|
|12. Trying to teach something to my group members in OCLA makes me tired||3.55||1.44||3.65||0.99|
|13. OCLA does not make any sense to me||3.96||1.17||3.40||1.27|
|14. I cannot develop my own ideas in OCLA||4.18||1.47||3.70||1.17|
|15. I don’t like that people are depending on me in OCLA||4.05||1.17||3.35||1.23|
|16. I don’t think that my interaction with my group members in OCLA will make any contribution to me||3.32||1.84||3.55||1.28|
|17. OCLA is not suitable for me||4.41||1.10||3.65||1.31|
Appendix 2: Self-regulated learning scale
|Self-regulated learning scale||Experimental group||Control group|
|1. I try to figure out the instructions in a given task or project||7.55||2.02||8.77||1.41||6.60||2.14||7.50||2.06|
|2. I define which strategies I will adopt to achieve my goals in advance||7.05||2.30||8.45||1.71||6.10||2.25||7.35||1.98|
|3. I try to figure out the required working time, resources which I can apply, and the properties of working environment before starting the task/project||6.95||2.17||8.36||1.81||6.00||2.18||7.30||1.98|
|4. I set my own learning goals before I start a learning activity||6.91||2.20||8.32||1.70||6.30||2.49||7.55||1.90|
|5. I question why I should learn this subject before starting each learning activity||6.59||2.36||7.77||1.60||5.65||2.21||7.35||2.06|
|6. I associate my previous learnings with future ones while starting the course||6.55||2.24||8.05||1.70370||5.85||2.37||7.60||2.09|
|7. I try to remember what I know about the subject while starting a new subject||6.68||2.21||8.68||1.25||6.50||2.01||7.95||1.82|
|8. I find clues how I will study while starting a new subject||7.05||1.73||8.05||2.08||6.15||1.95||7.70||1.66|
|9. I adopt suitable strategies while studying a new subject or doing my assignments||7.09||2.18||8.41||1.59||5.90||2.07||7.70||1.69|
|10. I prepare a study plan for each course or subject (the components of study environment, planning the time, defining the resources and people whom I will ask for help, etc.)||6.41||2.17||7.82||1.94||5.95||2.16||6.90||1.97|
|11. I tell myself what I think about this subject while starting a new subject||6.82||1.97||7.23||2.18||5.85||2.30||7.05||2.01|
|12. I discuss with my friends how I can use what I have learned on a subject in another matter||6.05||2.42||7.00||2.54||5.35||2.28||6.75||2.42|
|13. I believe that I can solve the problems I faced while studying||6.86||2.05||8.32||1.49||6.25||2.24||7.70||1.81|
|14. I believe myself to do my best while starting an activity||6.91||2.37||8.36||1.56||5.90||2.31||7.65||1.79|
|15. I prefer to work in projects in which I feel happy along with expecting to get good marks||7.64||2.22||8.64||1.47||6.50||2.21||7.90||1.86|
|16. I make connections between my learnings and my daily life||6.59||1.92||7.95||1.91||6.05||2.26||7.50||2.21|
|17. I consider that the high marks I obtained in the exams will increase my general average scores, thereby contributing to my future educational life||7.64||2.04||8.95||1.29||6.75||2.40||8.45||1.67|
|18. I frequently check my level of achievement of my goals while studying||6.59||2.54||7.86||1.86||6.00||2.27||7.35||2.03|
|19. I change my current strategies with new ones if necessary while studying or doing my assignments||6.82||1.87||7.68||1.25||5.75||2.12||7.50||1.96|
|20. I try to not to lose my belief regarding my capability while studying or doing my assignments||7.36||2.06||8.50||1.57||6.30||2.15||7.85||1.84|
|21. I visualize my learnings in my mind to focus on the subject well||7.18||1.99||8.32||1.29||6.40||2.11||7.65||2.01|
|22. I seek for solutions by myself first when facing difficulties in learning process||7.00||1.95||7.95||2.36||6.15||2.37||7.75||1.59|
|23. I reinforce my learnings by acting as an instructor to my friends in the classroom||5.59||2.20||6.95||2.42||5.55||2.67||7.50||2.01|
|24. I ask myself questions which can help me to focus on the subject better while studying||6.59||1.89||7.73||1.98||5.85||2.13||7.35||2.18|
|25. I find the best place, time and environment before doing any learning activity or my assignments||6.95||2.28||7.77||2.25||6.05||2.11||7.25||2.15|
|26. I make an outline of the subject while studying by reading||6.95||2.26||7.55||2.28||6.10||2.31||7.25||2.17|
|27. I divide the subjects I intend to learn into subunits before starting a learning activity||7.09||2.20||7.32||2.32||5.40||1.82||7.10||2.07|
|28. I revise my previous notes and define my missing points if available when facing a difficult part while studying||7.14||2.19||7.95||1.81||6.10||2.17||7.65||1.90|
|29. I use the time that I allocate for studying efficiently||7.05||2.36||8.59||1.65||6.00||2.22||7.80||1.79|
|30. I draw simple schemes, tables, mind maps or diagrams to understand better while studying||6.09||2.39||7.00||2.62||4.80||2.26||6.75||2.57|
|31. I get together the information I have learned from different resources (book, class notes, discussions, internet, etc.)||7.14||2.25||8.00||1.66||6.00||2.25||7.70||1.92|
|32. I often make practice to reinforce my learnings||6.23||2.62||7.18||2.52||5.50||1.67||6.75||2.05|
|33. I seek for help when facing a difficulty while doing a learning activity or my assignments||7.23||1.95||8.45||1.68||5.75||2.02||6.95||2.06|
|34. I underline the important ideas or words while reading a text||7.05||1.81||7.91||2.39||6.40||1.98||7.65||1.98|
|35. I use my own words while telling a subject in the classroom or summarizing it||7.09||2.16||7.68||1.86||6.50||2.26||7.70||1.66|
|36. I employ different resources in learning activities||7.23||2.27||8.00||2.00||6.05||2.33||7.50||2.01|
|37. I try to motivate myself while studying. (E.g. I tell myself that I will solve 20 questions or read 20 pages today)||6.86||2.42||6.41||2.65||6.40||2.09||7.35||2.43|
|38. I prefer to study in an environment where I feel happy or I reward myself when I don’t want to study||6.86||2.27||8.18||1.79||6.05||1.90||7.55||1.99|
|39. I write down the solutions and difficulties I faced while approaching the solution in a learning activity step by step||6.14||2.42||7.09||2.69||5.50||2.06||6.30||2.36|
|40. I take note the place where I study for the subject or exam||4.86||2.62||4.95||2.95||4.15||2.32||4.70||2.96|
|41. I take note how much time I study for the subject or exam||5.41||2.91||4.91||2.86||4.70||2.25||5.10||2.55|
|42. I list my errors while solving problems||5.77||2.33||5.55||2.58||4.55||2.04||5.40||2.70|
|43. I compare my own solutions with the ones which my friends employ||5.86||2.32||7.18||2.34||4.85||2.21||6.55||2.35|
|44. I take notes on my exam scores, the strategies I employ, my studying time and environment, and compare these with my exam results||5.55||2.40||6.14||2.53||4.50||2.37||5.80||2.50|
|45. I take notes on the information I learn every day||5.27||2.57||6.14||2.73||5.10||2.43||5.30||2.74|
|46. I follow if I need the help of my teacher or friends’ help/collaboration while studying or doing my assignments||6.45||2.30||7.32||2.12||5.10||2.17||6.60||2.41|
|47. I test myself by preparing questions on my own||5.27||2.59||5.50||2.61||4.65||2.68||4.95||2.87|
|48. I compare when I become more successful, studying alone or with my friends||6.73||2.39||7.64||2.06||5.50||2.46||6.80||2.24|
|49. I take notes the distractions and my precautions while doing learning activity||5.77||2.09||6.05||2.24||4.55||2.33||5.90||2.63|
|50. At the end of the learning activity, I check if I have achieved my goals”||6.59||2.40||7.09||2.20||5.85||2.87||7.10||2.15|
|51. I re-evaluate my learning strategies if I haven’t obtained my expected scores in the exams||6.68||2.36||7.27||1.91||5.90||2.29||7.15||1.98|
|52. I evaluate which stage I have difficulty and the changes I have made to achieve my goals||6.23||2.07||7.41||1.71||5.50||2.65||7.00||2.10|
|53. I evaluate the components of learning process (components of study environments, time, resource management, assistance, helpers, etc.) at the end of the learning activity||6.09||2.33||7.36||1.99||5.40||2.52||6.55||2.01|
|54. I evaluate feedback which I receive from my teachers and friends||6.55||2.15||7.73||1.52||5.65||2.23||7.05||2.39|
|55. I question the reasons of the scores I obtain in the exams||6.68||2.30||7.64||1.99||6.00||2.27||7.45||2.26|
|56. I compare my goals and my achievements at the end of learning process||6.50||2.28||7.73||1.52||5.55||2.46||7.25||2.29|
|57. I question if I am satisfied from my engagement level to learning activities||6.50||1.97||7.36||1.50||5.65||2.46||7.05||2.19|
|58. I revise my strategies and decide whether I should use them again or not at the end of the learning process||6.27||2.23||7.86||1.49||5.60||2.85||7.15||2.30|
|59. I question my motivation related to doing my best in this activity at the end of learning activity||6.77||2.27||8.55||1.30||5.95||2.65||7.15||2.37|
About this article
Cite this article
Yilmaz, R., Karaoglan Yilmaz, F.G. Examination of the effectiveness of the task and group awareness support system used for computer-supported collaborative learning. Education Tech Research Dev 68, 1355–1380 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09741-0
- Pedagogical agents
- Interactive learning environments
- Task and group awareness
- Attitudes towards collaborative learning
- Self-regulated learning skills
- Smart learning environments