Examination of the effectiveness of the task and group awareness support system used for computer-supported collaborative learning

Abstract

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.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

References

  1. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Baylor, A. L. (2002). Expanding preservice teachers’ metacognitive awareness of instructional planning through pedagogical agents. Educational Technology Research and Development,50(2), 5–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 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).

  4. Bodemer, D., & Dehler, J. (2011). Group awareness in CSCL environments. Computers in Human Behavior,27(3), 1043–1045.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Dincer, S., & Doganay, A. (2017). The effects of multiple-pedagogical agents on learners’ academic success, motivation, and cognitive load. Computers & Education,111, 74–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Engelmann, T., Dehler, J., Bodemer, D., & Buder, J. (2009). Knowledge awareness in CSCL: A psychological perspective. Computers in Human Behavior,25(4), 949–960.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Gagne, R., Briggs, L., & Wager, W. (1992). Principles of instructional design (4th ed.). Fort Worth, TX: HBJ College Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  16. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  18. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  19. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Korkmaz, O. (2012). A validity and reliability study of the online cooperative learning attitude scale (OCLAS). Computers & Education,59(4), 1162–1169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Korkmaz, O. (2013). CEIT teacher candidates’ attitude toward online collaborative learning and their opinions. Elementary Education Online,12(1), 283–294.

    Google Scholar 

  28. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  29. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  30. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 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 CHI07 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 2555–2560). ACM: New York.

  33. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  37. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Morgan, C. T. (1961). Introduction to psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Mühlpfordt, M., & Wessner, M. (2009). The integration of dual-interaction spaces. In: Stahl, G. (Ed.), Studying virtual math teams. Springer: Boston.

    Google Scholar 

  40. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  43. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Pintrich, P. R. (1999). The role of motivation in promoting and sustaining self-regulated learning. International Journal of Educational Research,31, 459–470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Resta, P., & Laferrière, T. (2007). Technology in support of collaborative learning. Educational Psychology Review,19(1), 65–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Schraw, G., & Moshman, D. (1995). Metacognitive theories. Educational Psychology Review,7(4), 351–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Stahl, G. (2006). Group cognition: Computer support for building collaborative knowledge. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Stahl, G., & Hesse, F. (2006). Social practices of computer-supported collaborative learning. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning,1(4), 409–412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  55. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Thurstone, L. L. (1946). Comment. American Journal of Sociology,52, 39–50.

    Google Scholar 

  57. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The authors declare that they have no funding of this study.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ramazan Yilmaz.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

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.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

Appendix 1: Online cooperative learning attitude scale

Online cooperative learning attitude scale Experimental group Control group
\(\stackrel{-}{x}\) SD \(\stackrel{-}{x}\) SD
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
Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest
\(\stackrel{-}{x}\) SD \(\stackrel{-}{x}\) SD \(\stackrel{-}{x}\) SD \(\stackrel{-}{x}\) SD
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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Download citation

Keywords

  • Pedagogical agents
  • Interactive learning environments
  • Task and group awareness
  • Attitudes towards collaborative learning
  • Self-regulated learning skills
  • CSCL
  • Smart learning environments