Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning
- The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Preface
- Acknowledgments
- Part I Background
- Part II Theoretical Foundations
- Part III Basic Principles of Multimedia Learning
- Part IV Principles for Reducing Extraneous Processing in Multimedia Learning
- Part V Principles for Managing Essential Processing in Multimedia Learning
- Part VI Principles Based on Social and Affective Features of Multimedia Learning
- 22 Principles Based on Social Cues in Multimedia Learning
- 23 The Embodiment Principle in Multimedia Learning
- 24 The Immersion Principle in Multimedia Learning
- 25 The Collaboration Principle in Multimedia Learning
- 26 The Animation Composition Principle in Multimedia Learning
- 27 The Emotional Design Principle in Multimedia Learning
- Part VII Principles Based on Generative Activity in Multimedia Learning
- Part VIII Multimedia Learning with Media
- Author Index
- Subject Index
- References
25 - The Collaboration Principle in Multimedia Learning
from Part VI - Principles Based on Social and Affective Features of Multimedia Learning
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 19 November 2021
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning
- The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Preface
- Acknowledgments
- Part I Background
- Part II Theoretical Foundations
- Part III Basic Principles of Multimedia Learning
- Part IV Principles for Reducing Extraneous Processing in Multimedia Learning
- Part V Principles for Managing Essential Processing in Multimedia Learning
- Part VI Principles Based on Social and Affective Features of Multimedia Learning
- 22 Principles Based on Social Cues in Multimedia Learning
- 23 The Embodiment Principle in Multimedia Learning
- 24 The Immersion Principle in Multimedia Learning
- 25 The Collaboration Principle in Multimedia Learning
- 26 The Animation Composition Principle in Multimedia Learning
- 27 The Emotional Design Principle in Multimedia Learning
- Part VII Principles Based on Generative Activity in Multimedia Learning
- Part VIII Multimedia Learning with Media
- Author Index
- Subject Index
- References
Summary
The collaboration principle in multimedia learning states that collaborative learning is most effective when the distribution advantage learners experience during collaborative learning (i.e., the cognitive benefit learners experience from being able to share the burden of information processing with team members) is larger than the transaction costs learners also experience (i.e., the cognitive demands placed on individual learners due to the need to communicate, coordinate, and regulate their actions). The design of multimedia environments may affect the outcomes of collaborative learning in a positive way, for example, by increasing the distribution advantage of learners by offering tools that facilitate sharing of information, or by lowering the transaction costs of collaboration by offering tools for effective communication.
Keywords
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning , pp. 304 - 312Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2021
References
Aronson, E., Blaney, N., Stephan, C., Sikes, J., & Snapp, M. (1978). The Jigsaw Classroom. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Asterhan, C. S. C., & Schwarz, B. B. (2016). Argumentation for learning: Well-trodden paths and unexplored territories. Educational Psychologist, 51(2), 164–187.Google Scholar
Atkinson, R. K., Derry, S. J., Renkl, A., & Wortham, D. (2000). Learning from examples: Instructional principles from the worked examples research. Review of Educational Research, 70(2), 181–214.Google Scholar
Barron, B. (2003). When smart groups fail. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(3), 307–359.Google Scholar
Buchs, C., & Butera, F. (2009). Is a partner’s competence threatening during dyadic cooperative work? It depends on resource interdependence. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 24, 145–154.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Ciborra, C., & Olson, M. H. (1988). Encountering electronic work groups: A transaction costs perspective. In Proceedings of the 1988 ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (pp. 94–101). Portland, OR: ACM.Google Scholar
Ellis, C. A., Gibbs, S. J., & Rein, G. (1992). Groupware: Some issues and experiences. In Marca, D., & Bock, G. (eds.), Groupware: Software for Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (pp. 23–43). Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society Press.Google Scholar
Erkens, M., & Bodemer, D. (2019). Improving collaborative learning: Guiding knowledge exchange through the provision of information about learning partners and learning contents. Computers & Education, 128, 452–472.Google Scholar
Fiorella, L., & Mayer, R. E. (2014). Role of expectations and explanations in learning by teaching. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 39(2), 75–85.Google Scholar
Fitzsimons, G. M., Finkel, E. J., & vanDellen, M. R. (2015). Transactive goal dynamics. Psychological Review, 122(4), 648–673.Google Scholar
Hinsz, V. B., Tindale, R. S., & Vollrath, D. A. (1997). The emerging conceptualization of groups as information processors. Psychological Bulletin, 121(1), 43–64.Google Scholar
Hollingshead, A. B. (2001). Cognitive interdependence and convergent expectations in transactive memory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(6), 1080–1089.Google Scholar
Janssen, J., Erkens, G., Kanselaar, G., & Jaspers, J. (2007). Visualization of participation: Does it contribute to successful computer-supported collaborative learning? Computers & Education, 49(4), 1037–1065.Google Scholar
Janssen, J., Erkens, G., Kirschner, P. A., & Kanselaar, G. (2012). Task-related and social regulation during online collaborative learning. Metacognition and Learning, 7, 25–43.Google Scholar
Janssen, J., Kirschner, F., Erkens, G., Kirschner, P. A., & Paas, F. (2010). Making the black box of collaborative learning transparent: Combining process-oriented and cognitive load approaches. Educational Psychology Review, 22, 139–154.Google Scholar
Janssen, J., & Kirschner, P. A. (2020). Applying collaborative cognitive load theory to computer-supported collaborative learning: Towards a research agenda. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68, 783–805.Google Scholar
Järvelä, S., Kirschner, P. A., Panadero, E., Malmberg, J., Phielix, C., Jaspers, J., Koivuniemi, M., & Järvenoja, H. (2015). Enhancing socially shared regulation in collaborative learning groups: Designing for CSCL regulation tools. Educational Technology Research and Development, 63, 125–142.Google Scholar
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2009). An educational psychology success story: Social interdependence theory and cooperative learning. Educational Researcher, 38, 365–379.Google Scholar
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2014). Using technology to revolutionize cooperative learning: An opinion. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1156.Google Scholar
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Stanne, M. B. (1989). Impact of goal and resource interdependence on problem-solving success. The Journal of Social Psychology, 129(5), 621–629.Google Scholar
Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1998). Levels of expertise and instructional design. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 40(1), 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirschner, F., Paas, F., & Kirschner, P. A. (2009a). A cognitive-load approach to collaborative learning: United brains for complex tasks. Educational Psychology Review, 21, 31–42.Google Scholar
Kirschner, F., Paas, F., & Kirschner, P. A. (2009b). Individual and group-based learning from complex cognitive tasks: Effects on retention and transfer efficiency. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(2), 306–314.Google Scholar
Kirschner, F., Paas, F., & Kirschner, P. A. (2011). Task complexity as a driver for collaborative learning efficiency: The collective working-memory effect. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25, 615–624.Google Scholar
Kirschner, F., Paas, F., Kirschner, P. A., & Janssen, J. (2011). Differential effects of problem-solving demands on individual and collaborative learning outcomes. Learning and Instruction, 21(4), 587–599.Google Scholar
Kirschner, P. A., & Erkens, G. (2013). Toward a framework for CSCL research. Educational Psychologist, 48(1), 1–8.Google Scholar
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (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(2), 75–86.Google Scholar
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., Kirschner, F., & Zambrano, R. J. (2018). From cognitive load theory to collaborative cognitive load theory. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 13, 213–233.Google Scholar
Le, H., Janssen, J., & Wubbels, T. (2018). Collaborative learning practices: Teacher and student perceived obstacles to effective student collaboration. Cambridge Journal of Education, 48, 103–122.Google Scholar
Lou, Y., Abrami, P., Spence, J., Poulsen, C., Chambers, B., & d’Apollonia, S. (1996). Within-class grouping: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 66, 423–458.Google Scholar
Malone, T. W., & Crowston, K. (1992). What is coordination theory and how can it help design cooperative work systems? In Marca, D., & Bock, G. (eds.), Groupware: Software for Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (pp. 100–113). Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society Press.Google Scholar
Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? American Psychologist, 59(1), 14–19.Google Scholar
Mayer, R. E. (2008). Applying the science of learning: Evidence-based principles for the design of multimedia instruction. American Psychologist, 63(8), 760–769.Google Scholar
Mayer, R. E. (2017). Using multimedia for e-learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 33(5), 403–423.Google Scholar
Nokes-Malach, T. J., Zepeda, C. D., Richey, E., & Gadgil, S. (2019). Collaborative learning: The benefits and costs. In Dunlosky, J., & Rawson, K. A. (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Cognition and Learning (pp. 500–527). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Noroozi, O., Teasley, S. D., Biemans, H. J. A., Weinberger, A., & Mulder, M. (2013). Facilitating learning in multidisciplinary groups with transactive CSCL scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 8, 189–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peterson, A. T., & Roseth, C. J. (2016). Effects of four CSCL strategies for enhancing online discussion forums: Social interdependence, summarizing, scripts, and synchronicity. International Journal of Educational Research, 76, 147–161.Google Scholar
Popov, V., van Leeuwen, A., & Buijs, S. C. A. (2017). Are you with me or not? Temporal synchronicity and transactivity during CSCL. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 33(5), 424–442.Google Scholar
Retnowati, E., Ayres, P., & Sweller, J. (2017). Can collaborative learning improve the effectiveness of worked examples in learning mathematics? Journal of Educational Psychology, 109(5), 666–679.Google Scholar
Roseth, C. J., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2008). Promoting early adolescents’ achievement and peer relationships: The effects of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic goal structures. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 223–246.Google Scholar
Roseth, C. J., Lee, Y. K., & Saltarelli, W. A. (2019). Reconsidering Jigsaw social psychology: Longitudinal effects on social interdependence, sociocognitive conflict regulation, motivation, and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 111(1), 149–169.Google Scholar
Slof, B., van Leeuwen, A., Janssen, J., & Kirschner, P. A. (2021). Mine, ours, and yours: Whose engagement and prior knowledge affects individual achievement from online collaborative learning? Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 37, 39–50.Google Scholar
Stodolsky, S. S. (1984). Frameworks for studying instructional processes in peer work-groups. In Peterson, P. L., Wilkinson, L. C., & Hallinan, M. (eds.), The Social Context of Instruction: Group Organization and Group Processes (pp. 107–124). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12, 257–285.Google Scholar
Sweller, J. (2010). Element interactivity and intrinsic, extraneous and germane cognitive load. Educational Psychology Review, 22, 123–138.Google Scholar
Teasley, S. D., & Roschelle, J. (1993). Constructing a joint problem space: The computer as a tool for sharing knowledge. In Lajoie, S. P. (ed.), Computers as Cognitive Tools: Technology in Education (pp. 229–258). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.Google Scholar
Tindale, R. S., & Kameda, T. (2000). Social sharedness as a unifying theme for information processing in groups. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 3, 123–140.Google Scholar
van den Bossche, P., Gijselaers, W., Segers, M., Woltjer, G., & Kirschner, P. (2011). Team learning: Building shared mental models. Instructional Science, 39, 283–301.Google Scholar
Webb, N. M. (2013). Information processing approaches to collaborative learning. In Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Chinn, C. A., Chan, C. K. K., & O’Donnell, A. M. (eds.), The International Handbook of Collaborative Learning (pp. 19–40). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Webb, N. M., & Farivar, S. (1994). Promoting helping-behavior in cooperative small-groups in middle school mathematics. American Educational Research Journal, 31(2), 369–395.Google Scholar
Webb, N. M., & Farivar, S. (1999). Developing productive group interaction in middle school mathematics. In O’Donnell, A., & King, A. (eds.), Cognitive Perspectives on Peer Learning (pp. 117–149). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Webb, N. M., & Mastergeorge, A. (2003). Promoting effective helping behavior in peer-directed groups. International Journal of Educational Research, 39, 73–97.Google Scholar
Webb, N. M., Troper, J., & Fall, R. (1995). Constructive activity and learning in collaborative small-groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(3), 406–423.Google Scholar
Wegner, D. M. (1987). Transactive memory: A contemporary analysis of the group mind. In Mullen, B., & Goethals, G. R. (eds.), Theories of Group Behavior (pp. 185–208). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Wegner, D. M. (1995). A computer network model of human transactive memory. Social Cognition, 13(3), 319–339.Google Scholar
Wittrock, M. C. (1989). Generative processes of comprehension. Educational Psychologist, 24(4), 345–376.Google Scholar
Yamane, D. (1996). Collaboration and its discontents: Steps toward overcoming barriers to successful group projects. Teaching Sociology, 24(4), 378–383.Google Scholar
Zambrano, J. R., Kirschner, F., Sweller, J., & Kirschner, P. A. (2019a). Effects of group experience and information distribution on collaborative learning. Instructional Science, 47(5), 531–550.Google Scholar
Zambrano, J. R., Kirschner, F., Sweller, J., & Kirschner, P. A. (2019b). Effects of prior knowledge on collaborative and individual learning. Learning and Instruction, 63, 101214.Google Scholar
Zhang, L., Kalyuga, S., Lee, C., Lei, C., & Jiao, J. (2015). Effectiveness of collaborative learning with complex tasks under different learning group formations: A cognitive load perspective. In Cheung, S., Kwok, L., Yang, H., Fong, J., & Kwan, R. (eds.), Hybrid Learning: Innovation in Educational Practices (pp. 149–159). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
- 3
- Cited by