Exploring differences in learners' learning processes across collaborative knowledge construction tasks of diverse complexity: A multiple analysis

IF 3.7 2区 教育学 Q1 Social Sciences
Si Zhang , Zihan Yin , Shuang Lu , Zhihui Cai , Qingqing Li
{"title":"Exploring differences in learners' learning processes across collaborative knowledge construction tasks of diverse complexity: A multiple analysis","authors":"Si Zhang ,&nbsp;Zihan Yin ,&nbsp;Shuang Lu ,&nbsp;Zhihui Cai ,&nbsp;Qingqing Li","doi":"10.1016/j.tsc.2025.101774","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>A growing amount of attention has been paid to collaborative learning in the field of education. Group members' collaborative knowledge construction plays an important role in successful collaborative learning. Evidence has proven the implicit character of learners' collaboration and the fact that tasks of diverse complexity can promote the development of learners' cognitive abilities in different aspects. So we investigated how learners' collaborative knowledge construction processes varied across tasks of diverse complexity levels, combining explicit behavior with implicit physiological indicators. This study used content analysis, hyperscanning technology based on electroencephalograms (EEG), and epistemic network analysis (ENA) to analyze the data of 28 triads who participated in two 30-minute online collaborative tasks. According to the frequency results, learners' asking questions and planning (TaskPlan) behaviors in collaborative design tasks are significantly higher than those in collaborative concept explanation tasks. The ENA results further demonstrate that, in comparison to collaborative concept explanation tasks, the connectivity coefficients between asking questions and mutual understanding, planning (SociPlan) and mutual understanding, alongside monitoring (SociMoni) and mutual understanding are all higher in collaborative design tasks. Additionally, EEG data show that learners had higher inter-brain synchronization in the collaborative design task compared to the collaborative concept explanation task. The comprehensive analysis of multiple data points to the fact that in collaborative concept explanation tasks, learners place greater emphasis on the comprehension and construction of concepts, while in collaborative design tasks, learners attach more importance to social interactions among team members which calls for more asking questions and planning behaviors. The research findings can help teachers understand the collaborative learning processes of diverse complexity tasks. They can also give learners more specialized guidance and support accordingly.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":47729,"journal":{"name":"Thinking Skills and Creativity","volume":"56 ","pages":"Article 101774"},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Thinking Skills and Creativity","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1871187125000239","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

A growing amount of attention has been paid to collaborative learning in the field of education. Group members' collaborative knowledge construction plays an important role in successful collaborative learning. Evidence has proven the implicit character of learners' collaboration and the fact that tasks of diverse complexity can promote the development of learners' cognitive abilities in different aspects. So we investigated how learners' collaborative knowledge construction processes varied across tasks of diverse complexity levels, combining explicit behavior with implicit physiological indicators. This study used content analysis, hyperscanning technology based on electroencephalograms (EEG), and epistemic network analysis (ENA) to analyze the data of 28 triads who participated in two 30-minute online collaborative tasks. According to the frequency results, learners' asking questions and planning (TaskPlan) behaviors in collaborative design tasks are significantly higher than those in collaborative concept explanation tasks. The ENA results further demonstrate that, in comparison to collaborative concept explanation tasks, the connectivity coefficients between asking questions and mutual understanding, planning (SociPlan) and mutual understanding, alongside monitoring (SociMoni) and mutual understanding are all higher in collaborative design tasks. Additionally, EEG data show that learners had higher inter-brain synchronization in the collaborative design task compared to the collaborative concept explanation task. The comprehensive analysis of multiple data points to the fact that in collaborative concept explanation tasks, learners place greater emphasis on the comprehension and construction of concepts, while in collaborative design tasks, learners attach more importance to social interactions among team members which calls for more asking questions and planning behaviors. The research findings can help teachers understand the collaborative learning processes of diverse complexity tasks. They can also give learners more specialized guidance and support accordingly.
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Thinking Skills and Creativity
Thinking Skills and Creativity EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
16.20%
发文量
172
审稿时长
76 days
期刊介绍: Thinking Skills and Creativity is a new journal providing a peer-reviewed forum for communication and debate for the community of researchers interested in teaching for thinking and creativity. Papers may represent a variety of theoretical perspectives and methodological approaches and may relate to any age level in a diversity of settings: formal and informal, education and work-based.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信