Examining the Dynamic of Participation Level on Group Contribution in a Global, STEM-Focused Digital Makerspace Community
Passive behavior in collaborative group settings is often associated with negative or no contributions to the group (social loafing). This paper examines low and high participation levels of students in a virtual collaborative group setting within a global, STEM-focused digital makerspace community. The results of using epistemic network analysis show that both high and low participation levels contributed to the overall balance of the group discourse, overcoming social loafing behavior. High participation level students provided social aspects that contributed to the development of a safe social space for sharing, while low level participation provided content focused dialogue for the group.
KeywordsSTEM education Global Collaboration CSCL Online Digital makerspace Informal learning Participation Social loafing
The authors gratefully acknowledge funding support from the US National Science Foundation for the work this paper reports. Views appearing in this paper do not reflect those of the funding agency.
- 3.Espino, D.P., Lee, S.B., Eagan, B., Hamilton, E.R.: An initial look at the developing culture of online global meet-ups in establishing a collaborative, STEM media-making community. In: Proceedings of the International Conference for Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL2019). Lyon, France, International Society for Learning Sciences (2019)Google Scholar
- 12.Marquart, C.L., Hinojosa, C., Swiecki, Z., Eagan, B., Shaffer, D.W.: Epistemic Network Analysis (Version 1.5.2) (2018). http://app.epistemicnetwork.org
- 13.Piezon, S.L., Donaldson, R.L.: Online groups and social loafing: understanding student-group interactions. Online J. Distance Learn. Adm. 8(4), 1–11 (2005)Google Scholar
- 14.Preece, J.: Online Communities: Designing Usability, Supporting Sociability. Wiley, New York (2000)Google Scholar
- 15.Rehm, M., Gijselaers, W., Segers, M.: The impact of hierarchical positions on communities of learning. Int. J. Comput.-Support. Collaborative Learn. 10(2), 117–138 (2015)Google Scholar