OLLReN Paper on:

COLLABORATION IN
ONLINE LEARNING

Laureate-Cambridge
Online Language Learning Research Network (OLLReN)

2019 OLLReN Paper on: Teaching and learning with Augmented Reality

COLLABORATION
IN ONLINE LEARNING
ABSTRACT
In this article we explore how online information and
communication technologies can facilitate group learning
processes, knowledge sharing and the co-construction of new
skills and knowledge through meaningful social interactions.
Drawing on the results from a range of studies and meta-
analyses comparing computer-supported learning with and
without aspects of peer collaboration, we focus on how
computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) can impact
students’ learning outcomes. Finally, we turn to some specific
tools and strategies that can help foster effective online
collaborative learning.
MAIN TAKE-AWAY POINTS
• CSCL has a significant positive effect on learners’ knowledge
gain.
• CSCL has an even greater impact on learners’ skill
acquisition.
• Tasks that call for effective CSCL also foster learners’
motivation and attitudes towards course content.
• Specific tools and strategies can both encourage and
facilitate effective interactions in CSCL environments.
INTRODUCTION
In both off- and online settings, Collaborative Learning refers
to two or more learners working together and striving to solve
a common task or achieve a shared learning objective using
predominantly peer-directed interactions (Dillenbourg, 1999).
In instructed learning settings, we usually differentiate
between three types of interactions, as illustrated below.
These same three interactions are just as valid in the context
of computer-supported learning (Moore and Kearsley, 2012,
pp. 132–136). Up until recently, research in online learning
had focused on the first two interactions, learner-content
and learner-teacher/instructor. Computer-Supported
Collaborative Learning (CSCL), by contrast, also attempts to
2
tap into the potential of the third, namely learner-learner or
peer interaction.
In traditional presential classroom settings, collaborative
learning is known to have a significant positive effect on
individual learning achievement (e.g. Kyndt et al., 2013).
However, creating opportunities for meaningful learner-
learner interactions, is no doubt considerably harder in
online than in face-to-face learning settings. Indeed, creating
online learning communities where peer interactions and
collaboration can strive represents a genuine challenge.
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
In social constructivist pedagogical approaches, learning is
defined as an interactive, discursive and situated activity (cf.
Lapadat, 2006). This rests on the idea that knowledge is co-
constructed through social interaction. Students are seen as
active learners and teachers as facilitators.
Thus, CSCL activities also aim to activate the learners. The
instructors, if present, encourage peer-to-peer interaction. The
technological platforms used in CSCL activities therefore need
to be designed to facilitate such peer collaboration.
The following research review attempts to summarise, on the
one hand, studies conducted to test the effectiveness of CSCL
and, on the other, studies designed to find out exactly which
methods, tools and strategies can foster effective CSCL.
RESEARCH REVIEW
METHODS
Meta-analysis is a statistical research method that involves
combining the results of multiple related empirical studies
to obtain more reliable results. Considering the vast amount
of, very diverse and mostly small-scale, scientific studies
conducted on various aspects of CSCL, meta-analyses enable
researchers, practitioners, course and curriculum designers to
gain more general and robust insights into what has already
been attempted and which ideas show promise.
In a large, recent meta-analysis, Chen et al. (2018) synthesised
the effects of collaborative learning in computer-supported
learning environments. This meta-analysis only includes
empirical experimental studies with independent control
groups. It covers a broad range of subjects, ages and abilities.
In order to measure the effectiveness of CSCL, the authors
subdivided learning success into three key aspects:

(1) cognitive
(2) motivational/affective
(3) social goals
The figure below summarises how each of these learning goals
can be quantitatively measured.
RESULTS
Overall, the results of the analysis show that, in computer-
supported learning settings, collaborative learners significantly
outperform individual learners in terms of knowledge gain.
Thus, collaborative learning seemingly fosters interpretation
and sense-making processes which, in turn, facilitate
knowledge acquisition (cf. Kolloffel et al., 2011).
Whilst the results for knowledge gain are certainly promising,
even more impressive are the effects of collaborative learning
on skill development. Indeed, numerous studies have
shown that collaborative learning can help learners develop
all-important skills such as critical thinking (e.g. Schellens
et al., 2009), logical reasoning (e.g. Osborne, 2010) and
argumentative skills (e.g. Andriessen et al., 2003).
Furthermore, collaborative learning is shown to have a
smaller, but nevertheless also significant, effect on learners’
perceptions. Thus, collaborative learning contributes to an
increase in motivation and more positive attitudes towards
the subject matter.
ADDITIONAL FINDINGS AND CONSIDERATIONS
Another major advantage of meta-analyses is the ability to
perform moderator analyses. This consists in attempting to
find and account for additional variables that could also affect
the results of the studies summarised in the meta-analysis.
Consequently, in their moderator analysis, Chen et al. (2018)
attempt to tease out potential factors that may also play a role
in determining how effective CSCL is in a particular setting.
This analysis yields a number of interesting results.
First, the educational level of the learners does not play a
significant role (Chen et al. 2018: 820). In other words, CSCL
studies have been carried out with primary and secondary
3
school pupils, in vocational training and higher education, and
the effects are always comparable.
Second, collaborative learners outperform individual learners
across all subject areas tested (Chen et al. 2018: 820).
For stakeholders in online language education, this is an
important finding because the majority of research studies on
computer-supported learning revolve around STEM subjects.
However, it has been suggested that the learning efficiency
of collaboration tends to be higher for high-complexity than
for low-complexity tasks (Kirschner et al., 2011). Thus, it is
important to consider the complexity of the tasks in a language
course in order to determine which ones may benefit most
from collaborative learning.
One of the potential moderator factors that does have a
significant effect on the learning outcomes is the duration
of the intervention. Perhaps counterintuitively, shorter
interventions with elements of collaborative learning of
between one month and a semester were more effective than
longer ones (Chen et al. 2018: 820). Thus, it would appear that
longer collaboration periods do not necessarily yield better
results.
SUPPORTING CSCL
A number of additional tools and learning environments
can be implemented to foster collaborative learning. Chen
et al. (2018) examined the results of 77 studies testing the
effectiveness of a range of tools and strategies designed,
for example, to facilitate online discussion, assist in group
learning, or increase group awareness.
Strikingly, all these different types of tools yielded positive
mean outcomes in terms of learner success. As with the
comparison between computer-supported learning with or
without collaborative elements, the use of additional tools to
support collaborative learning resulted in higher knowledge
gain and a slightly more positive attitude towards the course
content, but the highest gains were again in skill acquisition.
For example, collaborative digital game-based learning has
been shown to considerably boost learners’ higher order
thinking skills (e.g. Yang, 2015). In the following, some of these
promising tools and strategies will be discussed in more detail.
TOOLS FOR EFFECTIVE CSCL
One of the most effective types of tools, both in terms of
knowledge gain and skill acquisition, appears to be group
awareness tools. The idea is that learners within a group can,
for example, visualise other group members’ participation,
interactions and knowledge level and that this results in more
effectively co-ordinated group activities and improved task
performance (e.g. Janssen et al., 2007).
In some cases, the system managing the online learning
platform generates the information shared with the learners
whereas, in others, the users themselves are required to
provide the relevant information. Group awareness tools can
thus provide both quantitative (e.g. how often X contributes)
and qualitative (e.g. why X does not agree with Y on Z)

information. The textbox below summarises some of the types
of group awareness tools that have been tested and examples
of the kind of information they provide (Janssen and Bodemer,
2013).
• Informal awareness Who is online for communication?
What do my partners look like?
• Workspace awareness What are my group members
doing?
• Cognitive group awareness Do my partners agree
with me? How much information do they have?
• Social group awareness How much are my partners
contributing? How friendly/cooperative/productive are
they? How do they perceive my contributions?
Studies have shown that cognitive group awareness tools,
in particular, tend to have a positive impact on collaborative
processes, as well as on both group and individual
achievement. Thanks to more efficient group coordination,
students adapt their explanations and questions to make them
more targeted to the needs and levels of expertise of their
peers.
Social group awareness tools have yet to be systematically
investigated in terms of group or individual learning outcomes,
but there is evidence to suggest that when given the means to
compare themselves to their peers, students are motivated to
aim for higher personal standards (e.g. Kimmerle and Cress,
2009).
Similarly, research has shown that scripting or pre-structuring
peer-to-peer interactions using prompts also appears to
facilitate knowledge sharing. In fact, an entire meta-analysis
(Vogel et al., 2017) has been devoted to finding out whether
discussion or epistemic scripts can support collaborative
learning. It concludes that, on average, learning with CSCL
scripts as opposed to having unstructured collaborative
learning leads to a small positive gain on domain-specific
knowledge and a large positive effect on collaboration skills.
In a study in which university students of different disciplines
had to collaborate to solve a distance-learning problem task,
Noroozi et al. (2012) tested the effect of different types
of scripts on CSCL. A control group solved the task online
also using synchronous messaging to collaborate, but these
participants were not exposed to any prompts or pre-
structured messages.
The first experimental group saw transactive memory script
prompts displayed as the subject lines of their peer-to-peer
messages at various stages of the task.
Example transactive memory script prompts:
• Briefly sketch the knowledge areas you have mastered in
your studies so far...
• The following aspects of the task should be analysed by...
• Indicate what other knowledge might be relevant to this
case...
• I will take responsibility for the following aspects of the
learning task…
4
• The two aspects of the task interact in the following
way...
In the second experimental group, students’ reply messages
were pre-structured according to a transactive discussion
script which included four phases (see textbox overleaf).
Example prompts for transactive discussion scripts:
1. Backing arguments:
• You claim…
• The noted limitation of your claim is...
2. Giving feedback:
• I (do not) understand or agree with the following aspects
of your position...
• Could you please elaborate on...
• ... is not yet clear to me.
3. Developing arguments:
• Here’s a further thought…
• Here’s an elaboration offered in the spirit of your
position...
4. Building counter-arguments:
• Here’s a different claim and the reasoning behind it from
my area of expertise...
• To adjust and combine our solutions, I would suggest
that...
In this study, students from both the first and second scripted
experimental groups significantly outperformed the control
group. Both types of scripts seemingly facilitated knowledge
transfer as evidenced in the higher-quality solutions
elaborated by these participants. However, Noroozi et al.’s
study also highlights the danger of over-scripting. Indeed,
a third experimental group was exposed to a combination
of both the transactive memory and the discussion scripts
and this, perhaps counter-intuitively, resulted in fewer
meaningful interactions and lower quality work. Thus, when
pre-structuring peer-to-peer interactions, care must be taken
that the scripts are structured enough to genuinely elicit and
support interaction, yet not make them so rigid that natural
interaction is inhibited (cf. Dillenbourg and Tchounikine, 2007).
It has been suggested that the positive effects of both group
awareness tools and scripts may be traced back to the Social
Comparison theory (Festinger, 1954) which postulates that
greater social group awareness eases the coordination of
collaborative activities. In addition, the Cognitive Load theory
(cf. Kirschner and Erkens, 2013) suggests that increased group
awareness reduces the cognitive load dedicated to regulating
shared tasks and thus allows for a more in-depth cognitive
processing of the course content (Chen et al. 2018).

STRATEGIES FOR EFFECTIVE CSCL
Since they are equally applicable to traditional face-to-face
learning settings, many of the tools and strategies that studies
have shown to significantly improve CSCL will already be
very familiar to experienced teaching practitioners. Thus, in
the following, we will focus on how three of these familiar
strategies, sketched in the diagram below, can be successfully
adapted to online learning environments.
PEER FEEDBACK
Whilst feedback undoubtably has the potential to improve
students’ writing skills, critical thinking and argumentative
skills regardless of whether it is in an off- or online setting,
web-based approaches can make use of new and existing
technologies to streamline the process. Existing technologies
include social media platforms, content management systems,
and file synchronisation services.
For instance, Shih’s (2011) EFL CSCL project relied on
Facebook. Writing assignments were posted on a dedicated
Facebook page and the students were required to post their
own writing and comment on each other’s work on the
platform. The instructor acted as a facilitator, encouraging and
monitoring the students’ discussions and interactions. The
researcher believes that the fact that the platform was very
popular with her students at the time played a crucial role in
successfully motivating the students to meaningfully interact
in these CSCL activities.
In another EFL writing course, Çiftçi & Koçoğlu (2012)
demonstrated that online peer assessment can also be
successfully implemented involving existing blogging
technology. The authors compared in-class writing activities
with face-to-face oral peer feedback with a group taught in a
computer laboratory that wrote their writing assignments as
blog posts. While both groups improved their revised drafts,
the blogging group significantly outperformed the offline
group. Key features of blogging technology, i.e. drafting,
commenting, editing, and publishing, appear to facilitate peer-
to-peer interaction and collaboration.
Lin et al. (2016) explored the potential of Google Docs and
Google Chat to jointly create concept maps in a physics
course. If this approach is successful in a STEM subject, there
is no reason why online file synchronisation technology could
not be successfully used in online and blended language
courses too. Indeed, a number of studies have also confirmed
5
that web-based peer review is a particularly effective way to
help ESL/EFL learners improve their academic English writing
(e.g. Trautmann, 2009; Xiao and Lucking, 2008).
As we have seen, CSCL has the potential to improve learners’
cognitive, affective and social learning outcomes. However,
studies have also shown that, in practice, meaningful learner-
learner interactions in CSCL settings do not necessarily
materialise simply because the technology theoretically
enables it (cf. Kreijns et al., 2003). Crucially, both off- and
online, ineffective group interactions are known not to have
any pedagogical added-value (cf. Mercer and Howe, 2012).
To mitigate this risk, additional instructor- or system-led
support strategies to promote CSCL can be helpful.
For instance, Xiao & Lucking (2008) found that the provision
of an online collaborative learning environment with an
interactive Wiki helped students give more relevant feedback
to their peers. It also led to higher student satisfaction.
Similarly, Yeh & Lo (2011) evaluated a computer-supported
environment (the Process-Writing Wizard) for collaborative
technical writing which provided “process-oriented scaffolds”
and “a synchronous online chat room” (2011, p. 397), both
of which seemingly greatly improved the quality of peer
interactions. In addition to being able to work synchronously
on collaborative tasks, students also developed collaborative
writing strategies, such as brainstorming and managing
team work. The study concluded that the writing products
elaborated with the system were better structured and of
higher quality than those completed without.
Even minimal instructor guidance as to how to structure
feedback can considerably improve the quality of peer
feedback (Gielen and De Wever, 2015). Cognitive feedback
messages (i.e. those that include concrete corrections
or suggestions) were found to contribute to a greater
improvement in students’ learning gains than affective
feedback (i.e. praise) and metacognitive feedback (e.g.
comment encouraging deeper thought) (Cheng et al., 2015).
Consequently, instructors ought to encourage more such direct
comments.
A further strategy that can be implemented to support
effective CSCL is role assignment. It has been suggested that
assigning specific roles to each member of a learning group
can facilitate CSCL activities. It can help tackle some of the
problems often associated with student group work. Thus,
it can contribute to more constructive criticism, to ensuring
that all students make equal contributions to discussion, that
no one is left out, and to temper both overly competitive and
passive behaviours. For instance, Cheng et al. (2014) report
that assigning roles in CSCL concept mapping activities is not
only feasible, but also significantly improves socio-emotional
experiences in online small group learning.

CHALLENGES AND FURTHER
CONSIDERATIONS
It has been claimed that CSCL can provide weaker learners
with opportunities to interact with their peers in their
own time and at their own pace (Chen and Chen, 2014).
Researchers have also suggested that computer-based
written interactions can help weaker students to overcome
low self-confidence and thus increase their participation in
learner-learner interactions (e.g. Genlott and Grönlund, 2016).
However, we may speculate that, for some, in particular for
dyslexic learners, written communication (e.g. as practiced
in synchronous online discussions) is more likely to be
demoralising than a source of motivation. In fact, it may
represent a genuine barrier to effective and enjoyable CSCL for
learners who favour spoken interactions.
Moreover, when developing CSCL tasks, practitioners need to
carefully consider students’ educational background and past
learning experiences. Indeed, prior social learning experiences
are a crucial factor in the success of CSCL activities (cf. Fransen
et al., 2013). Such experiences are likely to be culture-
dependent and this is therefore an aspect that requires careful
consideration when designing online courses potentially
destined for learners across the globe.
As mentioned above, providing opportunities for CSCL does
not necessarily lead to successful CSCL and hence improved
learning outcomes. There has, however, been a tendency in
online educational design to assume that, if a platform allows
for interaction, learners will automatically make meaningful
use of it (Kreijns et al., 2003; Sun, 2011). This paper has shown
that, just as in presential classroom settings, learners need
to be given proper support and guidance to unlock the full
potential of CSCL. A number of tools and strategies to this
effect have been presented.
FURTHER RESEARCH
AND OUTLOOK
Over the past few decades, studies have repeatedly
demonstrated that CSCL is effective. Hence future research
should shift from asking whether CSCL can improve learning
outcomes and instead turn to how CSCL design decisions
affect students’ learning outcomes and ask which factors
contribute to more or less success. Though there is now a
large body of CSCL research, foreign/second language learning
studies are underrepresented. Of those, most focus on
academic English in tertiary learning contexts. It would thus
be desirable to expand this research field to other languages
and learning contexts. Moreover, studies on a broader range
of neuro-diverse learners would also be very welcome.
6
CONCLUSION
This article has outlined the affordances of CSCL. It has been
argued that CSCL allows learners to co-construct knowledge
through meaningful learner-learner interactions, giving them
greater control over their own learning processes.
Across a wide range of studies, CSCL has, on average, been
showed to have medium-sized positive effects on students’
knowledge gain, motivation, self-efficacy and attitudes
towards the course content. The largest positive learning
outcomes have been observed in terms of skills acquisition.
This includes argumentative, collaborative and critical thinking
skills.
This paper also surveyed a number of technology-mediated
environments and tools, e.g. group awareness tools and
scripts, as well as supporting strategies, e.g. peer feedback
and instructor facilitation. Studies have demonstrated the
effectiveness of these tools which already have, or could
readily be, implemented in language learning courses.
To conclude, it is hoped that this research review can convince
language educators, curriculum and materials designers that
they can and should consider implementing CSCL activities as
well as collaborative tools and strategies to foster meaningful
learner-learner interaction in their blended and online
language courses and modules.
SUGGESTED FURTHER READING
• International Journal of Computer-Supported
Collaborative Learning (Springer).
• Moore, M.G., Kearsley, G., 2012. Distance education:
a systems view of online learning, 3rd ed. ed. Wadsworth
Cengage Learning, Belmont, CA.
• Stephenson, John. 2018. Teaching & Learning Online:
Pedagogies for New Technologies.
• Sun, Susan Yue Hua. 2011. Online language teaching:
The pedagogical challenges. Knowledge Management &
E-Learning: An International Journal 3(3). 428–447.
 7

REFERENCES

Andriessen, J., Baker, M., Suthers, D., 2003. Arguing to Learn: Confronting Cognitions in Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning
Environments. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht.
Chen, C.-M., Chen, F.-Y., 2014. Enhancing digital reading performance with a collaborative reading annotation system. Comput. Educ.
77, 67–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.04.010
Chen, J., Wang, M., Kirschner, P.A., Tsai, C.-C., 2018. The Role of Collaboration, Computer Use, Learning Environments, and Support-
ing Strategies in CSCL: A Meta-Analysis. Rev. Educ. Res. 88, 799–843. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654318791584
Cheng, B., Wang, M., Mercer, N., 2014. Effects of role assignment in concept mapping mediated small group learning. Internet High.
Educ. 23, 27–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2014.06.001
Cheng, K.-H., Liang, J.-C., Tsai, C.-C., 2015. Examining the role of feedback messages in undergraduate students’ writing performance
during an online peer assessment activity. Internet High. Educ. 25, 78–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.02.001
Çiftçi, H., Koçoğlu, Z., 2012. Effects of Peer E-Feedback on Turkish EFL Students’ Writing Performance. J. Educ. Comput. Res. 46,
61–84. https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.46.1.c
Dillenbourg, P., 1999. What do you mean by collaborative learning? Collaborative-learning: Cognitive and computational approach-
es. Elsevier Oxf. 1–19.
Dillenbourg, P., Tchounikine, P., 2007. Flexibility in macro‐scripts for computer‐supported collaborative learning. J. Comput. Assist.
Learn. 23, 1–13.
Festinger, L., 1954. A theory of social comparison processes. Hum. Relat. 7, 117–140.
Fransen, J., Weinberger, A., Kirschner, P.A., 2013. Team effectiveness and team development in CSCL. Educ. Psychol. 48, 9–24.
Genlott, A.A., Grönlund, Å., 2016. Closing the gaps – Improving literacy and mathematics by ict-enhanced collaboration. Comput.
Educ. 99, 68–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.04.004
Gielen, M., De Wever, B., 2015. Structuring peer assessment: Comparing the impact of the degree of structure on peer feedback
content. Comput. Hum. Behav. 52, 315–325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.06.019
Janssen, J., Bodemer, D., 2013. Coordinated Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning: Awareness and Awareness Tools. Educ.
Psychol. 48, 40–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2012.749153
Kimmerle, J., Cress, U., 2009. Visualization of Group Members’ Participation: How Information-Presentation Formats Support Infor-
mation Exchange. Soc. Sci. Comput. Rev. 27, 243–261. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439309332312
Kirschner, F., Paas, F., Kirschner, P.A., 2011. Task complexity as a driver for collaborative learning efficiency: The collective work-
ing-memory effect. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 25, 615–624. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1730
Kirschner, P.A., Erkens, G., 2013. Toward a framework for CSCL research. Educ. Psychol. 48, 1–8.
Kolloffel, B., Eysink, T.H., de Jong, T., 2011. Comparing the effects of representational tools in collaborative and individual inquiry
learning. Int. J. Comput.-Support. Collab. Learn. 6, 223–251.
Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P.A., Jochems, W., 2003. Identifying the pitfalls for social interaction in computer-supported collaborative
learning environments: a review of the research. Comput. Hum. Behav. 19, 335–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0747-
5632(02)00057-2
Kyndt, E., Raes, E., Lismont, B., Timmers, F., Cascallar, E., Dochy, F., 2013. A meta-analysis of the effects of face-to-face cooperative
learning. Do recent studies falsify or verify earlier findings? Educ. Res. Rev. 10, 133–149.
Lapadat, J.C., 2006. Written Interaction: A Key Component in Online Learning. J. Comput.-Mediat. Commun. 7, 0–0. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2002.tb00158.x
Lin, Y.-T., Chang, C.-H., Hou, H.-T., Wu, K.-C., 2016. Exploring the effects of employing Google Docs in collaborative concept mapping
on achievement, concept representation, and attitudes. Interact. Learn. Environ. 24, 1552–1573. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10494820.2015.1041398
Mercer, N., Howe, C., 2012. Explaining the dialogic processes of teaching and learning: The value and potential of sociocultural the-
ory. Learn. Cult. Soc. Interact. 1, 12–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2012.03.001
Moore, M.G., Kearsley, G., 2012. Distance education: a systems view of online learning, 3rd ed. ed. Wadsworth Cengage Learning,
Belmont, CA.
Noroozi, O., Teasley, S.D., Biemans, H.J.A., Weinberger, A., Mulder, M., 2012. Facilitating learning in multidisciplinary groups with
transactive CSCL scripts. Int. J. Comput.-Support. Collab. Learn. 8, 189–223. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-012-9162-z
Osborne, J., 2010. Arguing to Learn in Science: The Role of Collaborative, Critical Discourse. Science 328, 463–466. https://doi.
org/10.1126/science.1183944
Schellens, T., Van Keer, H., De Wever, B., Valcke, M., 2009. Tagging thinking types in asynchronous discussion groups: effects on criti-
cal thinking. Interact. Learn. Environ. 17, 77–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820701651757
Shih, R.-C., 2011. Can Web 2.0 technology assist college students in learning English writing? Integrating Facebook and peer assess-
ment with blended learning. Australas. J. Educ. Technol. 27. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.934
 8

Sun, S.Y.H., 2011. Online language teaching: The pedagogical challenges. Knowl. Manag. E-Learn. Int. J. 3, 428–447.
Trautmann, N.M., 2009. Interactive learning through web-mediated peer review of student science reports. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev.
57, 685–704. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-007-9077-y
Vogel, F., Wecker, C., Kollar, I., Fischer, F., 2017. Socio-Cognitive Scaffolding with Computer-Supported Collaboration Scripts: a Me-
ta-Analysis. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 29, 477–511. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-016-9361-7
Xiao, Y., Lucking, R., 2008. The impact of two types of peer assessment on students’ performance and satisfaction within a Wiki envi-
ronment. Internet High. Educ. 11, 186–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2008.06.005
Yang, Y.-T.C., 2015. Virtual CEOs: A blended approach to digital gaming for enhancing higher order thinking and academic achievement
among vocational high school students. Comput. Educ. 81, 281–295.
Yeh, S.-W., Lo, J.-J., Huang, J.-J., 2011. Scaffolding collaborative technical writing with procedural facilitation and synchronous discus-
sion. Int. J. Comput.-Support. Collab. Learn. 6, 397–419. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-011-9117-9
 9

Elen Le Foll
Elen Le Foll is a Research Associate and English
Education Lecturer at Osnabrück University.
With over ten years’ experience as a French
and English teacher in adult education, she
has now been teaching on the university’s
teacher training programme since 2016. She is
currently completing her PhD on the language
of school EFL textbooks. Her primary research
interests are applications of corpus linguistics in
language education, materials development and
evaluation, and learners’ use of online resources.
She also works as a freelance Conference
Interpreter with English, French and German as
her working languages.

COVER PAGE IMAGE

1. Starline / Freepik. (2017). Abstract white background with blue dots
https://www.freepik.com/free-vector/abstract-white-background-with-blue-dots_1055322.htm