Computers in Human Behavior xxx (2010) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers in Human Behavior

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/comphumbeh

Group awareness in CSCL environments

Daniel Bodemer a,*, Jessica Dehler b
a
University of Tübingen, Department of Applied Cognitive Psychology and Media Psychology, Konrad-Adenauer-Str. 40, 72072 Tübingen, Germany
b
University of Fribourg, Department of Educational Science, Switzerland

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Group awareness is an emerging topic in research on computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL).
Available online xxxx It covers the knowledge and perception of behavioral, cognitive, and social context information on a
group or its members. A central aim of CSCL-related research on group awareness is the development
Keywords: of tools that implicitly guide learners’ behavior, communication, and reflection by the presentation of
Group awareness information on a learning partner or a group. This special issue comprises six empirical contributions
Computer-supported collaborative learning and a concluding discussion that present a broad spectrum of current research on this topic including
Technology-enhanced learning
behavioral, cognitive and social group awareness. An introductory outline of how group awareness is
Guidance
formed, processed and translated in action along the contributions is intended to integrate the diverse
research activities on group awareness in CSCL environments.
! 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Group awareness is an increasingly discussed issue in the field
of computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL). It refers to
being informed about specific aspects of group members (Gross,
Stary, & Totter, 2005), such as where group members are, what
they are doing, what they are interested in, or how others feel
about them. Research on group awareness aims at developing tools
that support group members in accessing and using such kind of
group-related or person-related information.
While group awareness is an established concept in the field of
computer-supported cooperative work (CSCW; e.g., Dourish & Bel-
lotti, 1992; Gutwin & Greenberg, 2002), it has been applied to the
field of CSCL for a comparatively short time. Nevertheless, research
on group awareness in CSCL environments is emerging. It has re-
cently been presented at major conferences in this field (e.g., CSCL,
EARLI, ICLS) and published in high-ranking scientific journals (e.g.,
Engelmann, Dehler, Bodemer, & Buder, 2009; Janssen, Erkens, &
Kanselaar, 2007; Leinonen & Järvelä, 2006; Nückles, Wittwer, &
Renkl, 2005; Ogata & Yano, 2000; Phielix, Prins, & Kirschner,
2010; Soller, Martinez, Jermann, & Muehlenbrock, 2005).
Originally, research on group awareness was mainly driven by
deficits of computer-mediated settings and tried to provide com-
munication conditions that are similar to face-to-face settings. This
perspective was derived from research on computer-mediated
communication that emphasized the problem of reduced context
cues (cf. Kiesler, Siegel, & McGuire, 1984; Short, Williams, & Christie,
1976) compared to face-to-face communication. On this basis
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +49 7071 979 314; fax: +49 7071 979 300.
E-mail address: d.bodemer@iwm-kmrc.de (D. Bodemer).
computer-mediated settings were (and still can be) seen as prob-
lematic for establishing group awareness: without further support
it is difficult and more costly to provide and identify person-related
context information to the communication partners.
While adapting computer-mediated communication to face-
to-face conditions is still a relevant aspect of group awareness
research, it has shown that group awareness tools can provide
communication partners with conditions that actually surpass
the benefits of face-to-face settings. Particularly, CSCL-related
group awareness tools offer such kind of additional value, as they
often focus on variables that are not directly available in face-
to-face settings, such as assessing and providing information about
how a learning group evaluates the group members’ contributions
(Buder & Bodemer, 2008).
Basically, three types of group awareness can be distinguished
that are considered as crucial for effective collaborative learning:
behavioral awareness informs about learners‘ activities in the CSCL
environment (e.g., Janssen, Erkens, & Kirschner, this issue), cogni-
tive awareness informs about the knowledge of group members
(e.g., Bodemer, this issue; Dehler, Bodemer, Buder, & Hesse, this
issue; Sangin, Molinari, Nüssli, & Dillenbourg, this issue), and social
awareness informs about the functioning of the group as perceived
by the collaborators (e.g., Phielix, Prins, Kirschner, Erkens, &
Jaspers, this issue). Awareness information can be provided on
individual learners, on the group as a whole, or on both.
This special issue presents papers for each of these types of
awareness. On this basis it intends to represent broad areas of cur-
rent CSCL-related research on group awareness. In order to facili-
tate an integrated view on the different approaches, the design,
functionality and potential impact of group awareness tools in
CSCL environments is introduced in the following.

0747-5632/$ - see front matter ! 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.07.014

Please cite this article in press as: Bodemer, D., & Dehler, J. Group awareness in CSCL environments. Computers in Human Behavior (2010), doi:10.1016/
j.chb.2010.07.014
2 D. Bodemer, J. Dehler / Computers in Human Behavior xxx (2010) xxx–xxx
Fig. 1. Functionality of group awareness tools in CSCL.
2. How group awareness tools operate in CSCL environments
Along the contributions to this special issue this chapter de-
scribes how awareness is formed, processed and translated in ac-
tion, and thereby influencing CSCL processes and outcomes (cf.
Fig. 1). The elements of the description might serve as well to de-
scribe the main components, the functioning and the intended ef-
fects of other current and future group awareness tools.
2.1. Formation of group awareness
There are two ways of generating group awareness: naturally as
a by-product of the interaction or by means of specific awareness
tools. Without computer support, awareness can evolve in the
course of individual and collaborative activities (which Schmidt,
2002, captures by the notion of displaying): when a collaborator
develops an argument in a group discussion, the other group mem-
bers are aware of what she is doing in that moment. The content of
her argument gives further cues about her knowledge, her opinion,
or her objectives. Her voice gives indications about her emotional
state and satisfaction with the group work. This example illustrates
that awareness information might need to be interpreted and is
not necessarily directly accessible (Kraut, Fussell, Brennan, & Sie-
gel, 2002). Of course, collaborators can also explicitly provide con-
text information by commenting on their knowledge or their
impressions of the social functioning of the group.
Learning environments vary with regard to the amount of
awareness information unfolded by the collaborators‘ mere
activities. For instance, behavioral awareness information is more
difficult to provide in asynchronous compared to synchronous
communication scenarios. The contributions of this special issue
argue that establishing group awareness naturally as a by-product
of interaction is particularly limited in CSCL environments.
Group awareness tools can support learners in dealing with this
problem by explicitly providing them with additional awareness
information.
2.2. Processing group awareness information
Learners process awareness information before translating
them into action. The visualization of information in group aware-
ness tools has to support learners in processing the information.
Group awareness information has to be salient enough to capture
the learners‘ attention. However, in order not to distract learners
from the task, awareness information needs to be easy to under-
stand and interpret. For instance, Bodemer (this issue) and Dehler
et al. (this issue) argue for comparability of information about dif-
ferent learners and provide awareness information of one learner
next to the same information of her collaborator in their respective
tools. Group awareness information that is easy to interpret can
function as tacit guidance (Bodemer, this issue): learners are not
explicitly instructed on how to adapt their behavior. Rather, learn-
ers and groups engage in self-regulation and adapt their activities
to the group awareness information at hand as Fransen, Kirschner,
and Erkens (this issue) suggest in their conceptual framework.
Please cite this article in press as: Bodemer, D., & Dehler, J. Group awareness in CSCL environments. Computers in Human Behavior (2010), doi:10.1016/
j.chb.2010.07.014
Adapted activities influence collaboration processes and collabora-
tive learning outcomes.
2.3. Impact on collaborative learning process and outcomes
The papers in this special issue hypothesize and empirically
investigate the potential impact of group awareness tools on a
multitude of individual and collaborative processes and outcomes
that are crucial for CSCL. Processes can be further distinguished in
processes that are directly reflected in the group awareness infor-
mation and processes that require further translation of the group
awareness information. This special issue comprises examples for
both types of processes as well as for outcomes on both the indi-
vidual and the collaborative level.
Regarding individual processes of the first type, behavioral
awareness on participation can be used to regulate one’s own
participation (Janssen et al., this issue). Likewise, using the tool
presented by Phielix et al. (this issue), a learner might adapt
his behavior by being friendlier when social awareness indicates
a problem. Sangin et al. (this issue) show that learners give addi-
tional cues (i.e., uncertainty markers) to complement the group
awareness information. On the group level, knowledge aware-
ness can be used to reduce divergent knowledge, thereby
increasing the convergence of knowledge in a group (Dehler
et al., this issue).
Regarding individual processes of the second type, for in-
stance, knowing what a collaborator does or does not know al-
lows a learner to provide an explanation on what another
group member not yet knows (Dehler et al., this issue) or to ad-
dress an issue of conflicting knowledge and elaborate respective
arguments (Bodemer, this issue). On the group level, group
awareness tools might influence how a group coordinates the
activities of its members (Dehler et al., this issue; Janssen
et al., this issue). Sangin et al. (this issue) show that awareness
triggers verification and negotiation as crucial collaborative pro-
cesses that are beneficial for learning.
The impact of group awareness tools on individual outcomes is
mainly considered in terms of learning outcomes measured by
means of knowledge tests (Bodemer, this issue; Dehler et al., this
issue; Sangin et al., this issue). On the group level, the impact of
group awareness tools is measured by the quality of group prod-
ucts (Janssen et al., this issue; Phielix et al., this issue) or the per-
ception of team effectiveness (Fransen et al., this issue).
3. Contributions on group awareness in CSCL environments
The contributions of this special issue demonstrate the spec-
trum that group awareness tools can cover with regard to CSCL.
They differ in the type of context information group members
are explicitly provided with, in the way and frequency this infor-
mation is gathered, in the format the gathered information is pre-
sented to the group members, and in the tools’ intended impact on
collaborative learning processes.
In the first contribution, Janssen et al. (this issue) investigate
a group awareness tool that focuses on behavioral context
information. It continuously gathers the group members’ rate
 D. Bodemer, J. Dehler / Computers in Human Behavior xxx (2010) xxx–xxx
of participation and visualizes it in a way that allows group
members to easily compare their own participation to the partic-
ipation of other group members. Group awareness supported by
this tool is intended to foster social regulation activities and to
increase group performance by stimulating the rate and the
equality of participation.
The second contribution, by Sangin et al. (this issue), addresses
cognitive group awareness. The investigated tool provides collabo-
rating learners with their learning partner’s level of prior knowl-
edge. The presented information is assessed once by means of a
knowledge test before learners collaborated with each other. It is
intended to improve the learners’ model of their learning partner’s
knowledge, thereby enhancing meaningful communication and
individual learning performances.
The contribution of Dehler et al. (this issue) focuses also on the
cognitive type of group awareness. A tool is investigated that en-
ables learners to self-assess their knowledge on sections of a learn-
ing material before collaborating with each other. During
collaboration it provides learners with visualizations of this infor-
mation that allow to easily compare the knowledge of both learn-
ers. The tool aims to influence the learners’ communication
activities in a way that leads to higher individual learning
performances.
The tool presented by Bodemer (this issue) is the third one in
this special issue that addresses cognitive group awareness. It com-
bines the assessment and presentation of context information by
continuously assessing learners’ hypotheses regarding multimedia
learning material and providing learners with a shared representa-
tion of this information. The easily comparable context informa-
tion is intended to foster individual learning by implicitly
structuring meaningful communication activities.
Phielix et al. (this issue) mainly address social context informa-
tion. They investigate the combination of two complementary
tools that comprise self and peer assessment of several social and
task-related dimensions. Learners are enabled to access and to
compare this information from the perspective of the group and
their individual members. Group awareness is intended to improve
the social and task-related behavior of the group members, thereby
leading to better social performance and task performance.
Fransen et al. (this issue) present a conceptual framework that
integrates behavioral, cognitive, and social aspects of group aware-
ness. They pursue the question whether learners need to be aware
of team and task aspects in order to collaborate successfully.
Therefore, the mediating influences of mutual trust, shared mental
models and mutual performance monitoring on team effectiveness
are empirically investigated.
Concluding the special issue, Buder (this issue) discusses the
contributions. He compares design and functions of the reported
group awareness tools particularly with regard to the support of
displaying and monitoring activities. On this basis current trends
and future directions of research on group awareness in CSCL envi-
ronments are identified and suggested.
Please cite this article in press as: Bodemer, D., & Dehler, J. Group awareness in CSCL environments. Computers in Human Behavior (2010), doi:10.1016/
j.chb.2010.07.014
3
References
Bodemer, D. (this issue). Tacit guidance for collaborative multimedia learning.
Computers in Human Behavior. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.05.016.
Buder, J., & Bodemer, D. (2008). Supporting controversial CSCL discussions with
augmented group awareness tools. International Journal of Computer Supported
Collaborative Learning, 3, 123–139.
Buder, J. (this issue). Group awareness tools for learning: Current and future
directions. Computers in Human Behavior. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.07.012.
Dehler, J., Bodemer, D., Buder, J., & Hesse, F. W. (this issue). Guiding knowledge
communication in CSCL via group knowledge awareness. Computers in Human
Behavior. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.07.014.
Dourish, P., & Bellotti, V. (1992). Awareness and coordination in shared workspaces.
In J. Turner & R. Kraut (Eds.), Proceedings of the conference on computer-supported
cooperative work CSCW ’92 (pp. 107–114). Toronto: ACM/SIGOIS.
Engelmann, T., Dehler, J., Bodemer, D., & Buder, J. (2009). Knowledge awareness in
CSCL: A psychological perspective. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(4),
949–960.
Fransen, J., Kirschner, P. A., & Erkens, G. (this issue). Mediating team effectiveness in
the context of collaborative learning: The importance of team and task
awareness. Computers in Human Behavior. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.05.017.
Gross, T., Stary, C., & Totter, A. (2005). User-centered awareness in computer-
supported cooperative work-systems: Structured embedding of findings from
social sciences. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 18,
323–360.
Gutwin, C., & Greenberg, S. (2002). A descriptive framework for workspace
awareness for real-time groupware. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 11,
411–446.
Janssen, J., Erkens, G., & Kanselaar, G. (2007). Visualization of agreement and
discussion processes during computer-supported collaborative learning.
Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 1105–1125.
Janssen, J., Erkens, G., & Kirschner, P. A. (this issue). Group awareness tools: It’s what
you do with it that matters. Computers in Human Behavior. doi:10.1016/
j.chb.2010.06.002.
Kiesler, S., Siegel, J., & McGuire, T. W. (1984). Social psychological aspects of
computer-mediated communication. American Psychologist, 39(10), 1123–1134.
Kraut, R. E., Fussell, S. R., Brennan, S. E., & Siegel, J. (2002). Understanding effects of
proximity on collaboration: Implications for technologies to support remote
collaborative work. In P. Hinds & S. Kiesler (Eds.), Distributed work
(pp. 137–162). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Leinonen, P., & Järvelä, S. (2006). Facilitating interpersonal evaluation of knowledge
in a context of distributed team collaboration. British Journal of Educational
Technology, 37(6), 897–916.
Nückles, M., Wittwer, J., & Renkl, A. (2005). Information about a layperson’s
knowledge supports experts in giving effective and efficient online advice to
laypersons. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 11, 219–236.
Ogata, H., & Yano, Y. (2000). Combining knowledge awareness and information
filtering in an open-ended collaborative learning environment. International
Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 11, 33–46.
Phielix, C., Prins, F. J., Kirschner, P. A., Erkens, G., & Jaspers, J. (this issue). Group
awareness of social and cognitive performance in a CSCL environment: Effects
of a peer feedback and reflection tool. Computers in Human Behavior.
doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.06.024.
Phielix, C., Prins, F. J., & Kirschner, P. A. (2010). Awareness of group performance in a
CSCL-environment: Effects of peer feedback and reflection. Computers in Human
Behavior, 26, 151–161.
Sangin, M., Molinari, G., Nüssli, M.-A., & Dillenbourg, P. (this issue). Facilitating peer
knowledge modeling: Effects of a knowledge awareness tool on collaborative
learning outcomes and processes. Computers in Human Behavior. doi:10.1016/
j.chb.2010.05.032.
Schmidt, K. (2002). The problem with ‘‘awareness”. Computer Supported Cooperative
Work, 11, 285–298.
Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of
telecommunications. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Soller, A., Martinez, A., Jermann, P., & Muehlenbrock, M. (2005). From mirroring to
guiding: A review of state of the art technology for supporting collaborative
learning. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 15, 261–290.