Main Article Content
Prior research on the significance of roles in collaborative learning has explored their impact when they are pre-assigned to group members. In this article, it is argued that focusing on assigned roles downplays the spontaneous, emergent, and interactional nature of roles in small task groups and that this focus has limited the development of generalizable frameworks aimed at understanding the impact of roles in and across collaborative learning settings. A case is built for the importance of focusing on the functional participatory roles enacted during collaborative learning and for conceptualising these roles as emergent, dynamic, and evolving in situ (first claim). Further, a flexible conceptual framework for the analysis and understanding of such roles across diverse collaborative science-learning activities is proposed, based on the assumption that during collaborative learning, both core and activity-specific roles are enacted (second claim). The core roles resemble each other across activities as they associate closely with the nature of the science discipline itself, whereas the activity-specific roles vary across activities as their emergence is dependent on the affordances, demands, and characteristics of the particular activity and environment. Data from three diverse science-learning environments, including four totally or partly student-led collaborative science activities, were scrutinized to establish the degree of empirical support for this assumption and, thereby, the conceptual usefulness of the proposed framework. The contributions of the framework for future research of collaborative science learning are discussed.
FLR adopts the Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs Creative Common License (BY-NC-ND). That is, Copyright for articles published in this journal is retained by the authors with, however, first publication rights granted to the journal. By virtue of their appearance in this open access journal, articles are free to use, with proper attribution, in educational and other non-commercial settings.
Alexander, P. A. (2018). Information management versus knowledge building: Implications for learning and assessment in higher education. In O. Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia, M. Toepper, H. A. Pant, C. Lautenbach, & C. Kuhn (Eds.), Assessment of learning outcomes in higher education: Cross-national comparisons and perspectives, 43–56. Cham: Springer Interna-tional Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74338-7_3
Anderson, C. H. (2007). Perspectives on science learning. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Asso-ciates.
Bales, R. F. (1950). Interaction process analysis: A method for the study of small groups. Cam-bridge: Allison-Wesley.
Bales, R. F., & Slater, P. E. (1955). Role differentiation in small decision-making groups. In T. Parsons & R. F. Bales (Eds.), Family, socialization and interaction process (pp. 259–306). Illinois: The Free Press.
Belbin, M. (1993). Team roles at work. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Benne, K. D., & Sheats, P. (2007, reprinted). Functional roles of group members. Group Facili-tation, 8, 30–35. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1948.tb01783.x
Benne. K. D., & Sheats, P. (1948). Functional roles of group members. Journal of Social Issues, 4, 41–49. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1948.tb01783.x
Cesareni, D., Cacciamani, S., & Fujita, N. (2016). Role taking and knowledge building in a blend-ed university course. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learn-ing, 11(1), 9–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-015-9224-0
Cheng, B., Wang, M., & Mercer, N. (2014). Effects of role assignment in concept mapping medi-ated small group learning. Internet and Higher Education, 23, 27–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2014.06.001
Chiu, M. M. (2000). Group problem-solving processes: Social interactions and individual ac-tions. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 30(1), 27–49. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5914.00118
Cohen, E. G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Re-view of Educational Research, 64(1), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543064001001
De Wever, B., Keer, H. Van, Schellens, T., & Valcke, M. (2010). Roles as a structuring tool in online discussion groups: The differential impact of different roles on social knowledge construction. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(4), 516–523. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2009.08.008
De Wever, B., Van Keer, H., Schellens, T., & Valcke, M. (2009). Structuring asynchronous dis-cussion 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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2008.00292.x.
Driskell, T., Driskell, J. E., Burke, C. S., & Salas, E. (2017). Team roles: A review and integra-tion. Small Group Research, 48(4), 482–511. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496417711529
Duschl, R., & Hamilton, R. (2011). Learning science. In R. E. Mayer & P. A. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of research on learning and instruction (pp. 78–107). New York & London: Routledge.
Forsyth, D. R. (2014). Group dynamics (6th ed.). Belmont: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Greeno, J. G. (1998). The situativity of knowing, learning, and research. American Psychologist, 53, 5–26. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.53.1.5
Greeno, J. G. (2006). Learning in activity. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 79–96). New York, NY, US: Cambridge University Press https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139519526.009
Gu, X., Shao, Y., Guo, X., & Lim, C. P. (2015). Designing a role structure to engage students in computer-supported collaborative learning. Internet and Higher Education, 24, 13–20. 10.1016/j.iheduc.2014.09.002
Hadwin, A. F., Järvelä, S., & Miller, M. (2018). Self-regulation, co-regulation and shared regula-tion in collaborative learning environments. In D. H. Schunk, & J. A. Greene (Eds.). Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance (2nd ed.) (pp. 83–106). New York, NY.
Hare, A. P. (1994). Types of roles in small groups. Small Group Research, 25(3), 433–448. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496494253005
Heinimäki, O-P., Salo, A-E., & Vauras, M. (2019). Luonnontieteiden yhteisöllisessä tietokonea-vusteisessa oppimisessa omaksuttujen funktionaalisten osallistumisen roolien luokittelun kehittely [Development of a classification for functional participatory roles enacted during computer-supported collaborative science learning]. Psykologia, 54(04), 236–254.
Hilpert, J. C., & Marchand, G. C. (2018). Complex systems research in educational psychology: Aligning Theory and method. Educational Psychologist, 53(3), 185–202. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2018.1469411
Hoadley, C. (2010). Roles, design, and the nature of CSCL. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(4), 551–555. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2009.08.012
Hogan, K. (1999). Sociocognitive roles in science group discourse. International Journal of Sci-ence Education, 21(8), 855–882. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006999290336
Iiskala, T., Volet, S., Lehtinen, E., & Vauras, M. (2015). Socially Shared Metacognitive Regula-tion in Asynchronous CSCL in Science: Functions, Evolution and Participation. Frontline Learning Research, 3(1), 78–111. https://doi.org/10.14786/flr.v3i1.159
Järvenoja, H., Järvelä, S., & Malmberg, J. (In press). Supporting groups’ emotion and motivation regulation during collaborative learning. Learning and Instruction. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.11.004
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and research. Edina: Interaction Book Company.
Khosa, D. K., & Volet, S. E. (2013). Promoting effective collaborative case-based learning at university: A metacognitive intervention. Studies in Higher Education, 38, 870–889. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2011.604409
Khosa, D. K., & Volet, S. E. (2014). Productive group engagement in cognitive activity and met-acognitive regulation during collaborative learning: Can it explain differences in students’ conceptual understanding? Metacognition and Learning, 9, 287–307. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-014-9117-z
Khosa, D. K., Volet, S. E., & Bolton, J. R. (2010). An instructional intervention to encourage effective deep collaborative learning in undergraduate veterinary students. Journal of Veter-inary Medical Education, 37, 368–375. https://doi.org/10.3138/jvme.37.4.369
Khosa, D., Volet, S. E., & Bolton, J. (2014). Clinical case-based learning in health sciences: Analysis of collaborative concept mapping processes and reflections. Journal of Veterinary Medical Education, 41, 406–417. https://doi.org/10.3138/jvme.0314-035R1
Kirschner, P., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41, 75–86. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159–174. DOI:10.2307/2529310
Lehmann-Willenbrock, N., Beck, S. J., & Kauffeld, S. (2016). Emergent team roles in organiza-tional meetings: Identifying communication patterns via cluster analysis. Communication Studies, 67(1), 37–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510974.2015.1074087
Ludvigsen, S., Lund, A., Rasmussen, I., & Säljö, R. (2011). Introduction. In S. Ludvigsen, A. Lund., I. Rasmussen, & R. Säljö (Eds.), Learning across sites: New tools, infrastructures and practices (pp. 1–13). New York: Routledge.
Maloney, J. (2007). Children’s roles and use of evidence in science: An analysis of decision-making in small groups. British Educational Research Journal, 33(3), 371–401. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920701243636
Marcos-García, J. A., Martínez-Monés, A., & Dimitriadis, Y. (2015). DESPRO: A method based on roles to provide collaboration analysis support adapted to the participants in CSCL situ-ations. Computers and Education, 82, 335–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.10.027
Morris, R., Hadwin, A. F., Gress, C. L. Z., Miller, M., Fior, M., Church, H., & Winne, P. H. (2010). Designing roles, scripts, and prompts to support CSCL in gStudy. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(5), 815–824. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2008.12.001
Moxnes, P. (1999). Understanding roles: A psychodynamic model for role differentiation in groups. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 3(2), 99–113. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-26188.8.131.52
Nolen, S. B., Horn, I. S., & Ward, C. J. (2015). Situating motivation. Educational Psychologist, 50(3), 234–247. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2015.1075399.
Oliveira, A. W., Boz, U., Broadwell, G. A., & Sadler, T. D. (2014). Student leadership in small group science inquiry. Research in Science and Technological Education, 32(3), 281–297. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2014.942621
Pietarinen, T., Vauras, M., Laakkonen, E., Kinnunen, R., & Volet, S. (2019). High school stu-dents’ perceptions of affect and collaboration during virtual science inquiry learning. Jour-nal of Computer Assisted Learning, 35, 334–348. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12334
Pino-Pasternak, D., & Volet, S. (2018). Evolution of pre-service teachers’ attitudes towards learning science during an introductory science unit. International Journal of Science Edu-cation, 40(12), 1520–1541. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1486521
Pozzi, F. (2011). The impact of scripted roles on online collaborative learning processes. Inter-national Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6(3), 471–484. DOI: 10.1007/s11412-011-9108-x
Salazar, A. J. (1996). An analysis of the development and evolution of roles in the small group. Small Group Research, 27(4), 475–503. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496496274001
Sarmiento, J. W., & Shumar, W. (2010). Boundaries and roles: Positioning and social location in the Virtual Math Teams (VMT) online community. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(4), 524–532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2009.08.009
Schellens, T., Van Keer, H., De Wever, B., & Valcke, M. (2007). Scripting by assigning roles: Does it improve knowledge construction in asynchronous discussion groups? Internation-al Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2, 225–246. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-007-9016-2
Slavin, R. (1996). Research on cooperative learning and achievement: What we know, what we need to know. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 69(1), 43–69. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1996.0004
Stewart, G. L., Fulmer, I. S., & Barrick, M. R. (2005). An exploration of member roles as a mul-tilevel linking mechanism for individual traits and team outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 58, 343–365. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.00480.x
Strijbos, J. W., & De Laat, M. F. (2010). Developing the role concept for computer-supported collaborative learning: An explorative synthesis. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(4), 495–505. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2009.08.014
Strijbos, J. W., & Weinberger, A. (2010). Emerging and scripted roles in computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(4), 491–494. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2009.08.006
Strijbos, J.-W., Martens, R. L., Jochems, W. M. G., & Broers, N. J. (2004). The effect of func-tional roles on group efficiency: Using multilevel modeling and content analysis to investi-gate computer-supported collaboration in small groups. Small Group Research, 35(2), 195–229. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496403260843
Turner, J. C., & Nolen, S. B. (2015). Introduction: The relevance of the situative perspective in educational psychology. Educational Psychologist, 50(3), 167–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2015.1075404
Ucan, S., & Webb, M. (2015). Social regulation of learning during collaborative inquiry learning in science: How does it emerge and what are its functions? International Journal of Science Education, 37(15), 2503–2532. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1083634
Vauras, M., Telenius, M., Yli‐Panula, E., Iiskala, T., Pietarinen, T., & Kinnunen, R. (2017). Vir-tuaalinen tutkimusmatka luonnontieteelliseen osaamiseen [Virtual exploration into learning science]. In H. Savolainen, R. Vilkko, & L. Vähäkylä (Eds.), Oppimisen tulevaisuus [Future of learning], 24–35. Porvoo: Gaudeamus.
Vauras, M., Volet, S., & Nolen, S. (2019). Supporting motivation in collaborative learning: Chal-lenges in the face of an uncertain future. In E. Gonida & M. Lemos (Eds.), Motivation in education at a time of global change: Theory, research, and implications for practice (pp. 187–203). New York: Emerald.
Volet, S., & Summers, M. (2013). Interpersonal regulation in collaborative learning activities: Reflections on emerging research methodologies. In S. Volet & M. Vauras (Eds.), Interper-sonal regulation of learning and motivation: Methodological advances (pp. 204–220). London & New York: Routledge.
Volet, S., Jones, C., & Vauras, M. (2019). Preservice primary teachers’ science learning: Effects of within-group diversity of attitudes on productive engagement. Learning and Individual Differences, 73, 79–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2019.05.002
Volet, S., Summers, M., & Thurman, J. (2009). High-level co-regulation in collaborative learn-ing: How does it emerge and how is it sustained? Learning and Instruction, 19(2), 128–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.03.001
Volet, S., Vauras, M., Salo, A. E., & Khosa, D. (2017). Individual contributions in student-led collaborative learning: Insights from two analytical approaches to explain the quality of group outcome. Learning and Individual Differences, 53, 79–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2016.11.006
Webb, M. (2008). Learning in small groups. In T. L. Good (Ed.), 21st century education: A ref-erence handbook (pp. 203–211). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.