Experimental Conditions

teacher informed each dyad with the group that was responsible to evaluate their suggested website. In the last day of this phase, each dyad had a chance to receive feedback about their website from one other group in their Wiki page through the inter-group discussion.

6.3.6. Redesigning, rebuilding, or/and republishing the websites

The goal of the redesigning, rebuilding, or/and republishing the websites phase was to enable the participants to improve their products (plans and websites) according to the feedback that they had received from one other group and from visiting and reading the comments in other wiki pages. This phase was conducted online through four days. At the beginning, the teacher asked the participants to visit the links of the instructions and tutorial video that were prepared and embedded in the sub-section of this phase to inform the students with all needed details about what they had to do in this phase. Through the first two days, each student modified the plan and/or website as well as republished the website individually and then sent the URL of his/her published website to his/her learning partner. In the third day, each dyad conducted an unstructured chat discussion about the two modified websites and selected the superior one for republishing as the official website for the group. The discussions in these final unstructured chat sessions were used as the basis for the post-test measures of collaborative learning outcomes that are described in section 6.5.1. Next, the teacher informed each dyad in all conditions with the other group being supposed to evaluate their modified website. After that, each dyad sent the URL of their published website to the group that was responsible for evaluating their website by email. Finally, the inter-group discussion was conducted in Wiki pages for evaluating published websites after modification.

6.3.7. Post-tests and debriefing

After redesigning, rebuilding, and republishing the websites, the participants were asked to individually perform two post-tests in two days (one day for each test), which measured individuals’ domain-specific knowledge and domain-specific skills concerning web design by aid of FrontPage software. The post-tests were equivalent to the pre-tests and were conducted in the labs of the faculty of specific education – Tanta University (see section 6.5.2). Finally, a debriefing FTF interview was conducted between the teacher and all the participants, the students were asked to write a short report about their experiences, impression about the experiment, problems and difficulties that they faced during the course, and suggestions for next courses. The data were collected just for improving future courses and studies related to the online DBL that are expected to conduct in the same settings, but such data have not been used during this study.

the computer-supported collaboration script and incomplete concept maps that were integrated into the dyads’ chats will be illustrated.

6.4.1. Control condition

The students of the control condition did not receive scaffolds during their small group discussions. They were allowed to access regular chat rooms without a collaboration script and/or incomplete concept maps and thus, led unstructured discussions using regular chat facilities. In this condition, each dyad was asked to conduct an open discussion without any restrictions about the topic of each phase during the chat session. In the “Introduction and pre-tests” phase, the teacher introduced the possibility of the chat rooms to the students and asked them to watch the tutorial video of how to use the chat room before the first chat session. The chat rooms were set to close automatically after 90 minutes from the starting time of the chat sessions. It was allowed to the students to finish their discussion earlier, but the teacher asked the students to try to increase their discussions and to use all the available discussion time by sending an announcement in the news forum before each chat session.

6.4.2. Collaboration script only

Groups in the condition with collaboration script received only a collection of interaction-related prompts, which were inspired by the ASK to THINK – TEL WHY approach (King, 1997) to structure their collaborative discussions. The collaboration script was presented during all chat sessions except the final one (12 times altogether) and involved different activities and roles for each student (see figure 6.4.2a): (a) first, student 1 was instructed to ask a design-related question “What is your perspective about what we should do to improve our website?”, (b) to which student 2 then was supposed to answer “From my perspective we should use tables to organize the contents of our website”. Then (c) student 1 was asked to either accept the answer with or without comment(s) “I agree and we have to apply tables on all web pages” or to refuse the answer with or without justification(s). After that (d) student 2 could either accept his/her partner's answer with or without comment(s) “I agree because tables may solve the problem of organizing the website’s contents better than layers that we currently use” or refuse his/her partner's answer with or without justification(s). Finally (e) the discussion between dyads about the questions repeated until both students agreed on the same answer “I agree with your perspective”. After that the students' roles were switched to start a new cycle of the collaboration script (student 2 asks a new question and student 1 gives answer, etc.).

As mentioned, each chat room except for the final one was equipped with the script (see figure 6.4.2b). The right side of the chat room (discussion area) was where students could send and receive messages from their partner, while the collaboration script was allocated in the left side of the screen. The collaboration script section was divided into two parts: the upper part presented a visual representation of the script, while the bottom part involved specific prompts (based on the work by King, 1989) to assure a high level of

discussion. There were prompts concerning questions (e.g., “Explain how…?” “What is the best…?” “Why…?”), answers (e.g., “I think the answer is…”, “From my perspective…”), and reactions to answers (e.g., “I support this answer”, “I agree but…”, “I disagree because…”). Clicking on a prompt pasted the prompt into the chat window. Furthermore, the prompts were changed automatically according to the student's role after sending his/her message to his partner. In addition, the student was not allowed to write his/her message in the discussion area before selecting a prompt that was associated with his/her role.

Figure 6.4.2b: Chat room supported with the computer-supported collaboration script Figure 6.4.2a: Visual representation showing

sequence of the computer-supported collaboration script

6.4.3. Incomplete concept maps only

In the condition with incomplete concept maps only, each chat but the final one was enhanced by an incomplete concept map, making up a total of twelve incomplete concept maps that students encountered in the learning environment. Each concept map involved the key concepts, principles, and propositions related to the contents of the particular learning phase, which were listed and ranked in a hierarchical order. Each level of the concept maps had the same color, shape (e.g., circles, oval, or rectangle), and size. Lines and arrows were used to indicate relationships between the concepts. Verbs were also put on each arrow to clarify the kind of relationship between the two concepts. Each concept map therefore represented a group of related concepts. In each group, some boxes and arrows were not named to evoke students’ discussions about this missing information (see figure 6.4.3a) and to force them to discuss all sections of the map (Suthers, 2003). Students explicitly had the task to fill in blank spots in the concept map. The missing concepts were varied between specific concepts related more to the topic (e.g., bookmarks, hotspot area, DHTML effects) as well as intermediate (e.g., hyperlinks, Marque, jump menus), and general concepts (e.g., toolbars, multimedia, and interface) that focused on specific content. The missing verbs were limited to relationships between specific concepts (e.g., verb “create” to express the relationship from “image maps” concept to “hotspot area” concept) or between specific concepts with intermediate and/or general concepts (e.g., verb “write” to express the relationship from “Marque” as intermediate concept to “Marque text” as specific concept).

The incomplete concept maps were not embedded in the chat window, but they had been shown separately in another window and it was available to the students to complete them by writing directly in the blank spaces of missing concepts and relationships inside the concept maps (see figure 6.4.3b).

Figure 6.4.3b: Chat room supported with incomplete concept map

Figure 6.4.3a: Screenshot of incomplete concept map (representations in bubbles and square boxes serve as caption and were not presented in the

concept map)

6.4.4. Collaboration script and incomplete concept maps

In the combined condition, the students were supported with both the computer-supported collaboration script and incomplete concept maps during their small group discussions (see figure 6.4.4). Each dyad had to complete the concept maps and discuss their content by following the activities and roles of the collaboration script.

Figure 6.4.4: Chat room supported with computer-supported collaboration script and incomplete concept map