Measurement and assessment in computer-supported collaborative learning

The overall goal of CSCL research is to design software tools and collaborative environments that facilitate social knowledge construction via a valuable assortment of methodologies, theoretical and operational definitions, and multiple structures [Hadwin, A. F., Gress, C. L. Z., & Page, J. (2006). Toward standards for reporting research: a review of the literature on computer-supported collaborative learning. In Paper presented at the 6th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, Kerkrade, Netherlands; Lehtinen, E. (2003). Computer-supported collaborative learning: an approach to powerful learning environments. In E. De Corte, L. Verschaffel, N. Entwistle & J. Van Merriëboer (Eds.), Unravelling basic components and dimensions of powerful learning environments (pp. 35–53). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier]. Various CSCL tools attempt to support constructs associated with effective collaboration, such as awareness tools to support positive social interaction [Carroll, J. M., Neale, D. C., Isenhour, P. L., Rosson, M. B., & McCrickard, D. S. (2003). Notification and awareness: Synchronizing task-oriented collaborative activity. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies 58, 605] and negotiation tools to support group social skills and discussions [Beers, P. J., Boshuizen, H. P. A. E., Kirschner, P. A., & Gijselaers, W. H. (2005). Computer support for knowledge construction in collaborative learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior 21, 623–643], yet few studies developed or used pre-existing measures to evaluate these tools in relation to the above constructs. This paper describes a review of the measures used in CSCL to answer three fundamental questions: (a) What measures are utilized in CSCL research? (b) Do measures examine the effectiveness of attempts to facilitate, support, and sustain CSCL? And (c) When are the measures administered? Our review has six key findings: there is a plethora of self-report yet a paucity of baseline information above collaboration and collaborative activities, findings in the field are dominated by ‘after collaboration’ measurement, there is little replication and an over reliance on text-based measures, and an insufficient collection of tools and measures for examining processes involved in CSCL.