Virtual Reality

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-018-0358-z

S.I. : VR IN EDUCATION

Hybrid learning environment: Collaborative or competitive learning?

Calixto Gutiérrez‑Braojos1   · Jesus Montejo‑Gamez2 · Ana Marin‑Jimenez3 · Jesús Campaña4

Received: 7 October 2017 / Accepted: 6 July 2018

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2018

Abstract
The aim of this study is to analyze the effect of different conditions of face-to-face learning on the participation and learning
of students in the virtual community. In particular, we analyze the effect of collaboration vs intergroup competition learning
on interdependence, regulation of socio-cognitive conflict, participation, and the quality of the contributions in a virtual
learning platform. This study took place in an educational research course. The participants in the full investigation were 36
(94.44% females) undergraduates enrolled in the subject of educational research, which was part of a 4-year social education
degree program. A Latin Squares design was applied to carry out the full investigation. The results show that conditions of
collaboration without competition in face-to-face environments facilitate better quality of learning to a greater extent. In
addition, there are no benefits of intergroup competition over individual competition learning. Thus, in this study, collabo-
rative learning designs without any competition could be considered more consistent with the goal that underpins the main
right to education: Each student is able to achieve what he has to achieve, taking advantage of the abilities of each and every
agent in the learning community (teacher and students) to do so. These results are not consistent with previous studies. We
suggest that characteristics of the sample could explain these differences between studies.

Keywords  CSCL · SOLO taxonomy · Socio-cognitive conflict · Positive interdependence · Intergroup competition ·
Collaborative learning

1 Introduction

The fast growth and improvement in online technologies in

* Calixto Gutiérrez‑Braojos recent years has elicited the appearance and development of
calixtogb@ugr.es
virtual learning (VL), which is usually organized through
Jesus Montejo‑Gamez virtual communities. Virtual learning communities refer to
jmontejo@ugr.es
cyberspaces in which individuals and groups of individuals
Ana Marin‑Jimenez accomplish their learning goals (Yang et al. 2007). Dillen-
anamarin@ugr.es
bourg et al. (2002) describe the main features of VL envi-
Jesús Campaña ronments. These authors also point out that virtual learn-
jesuscg@decsai.ugr.es
ing communities are not restricted to systems that include
1
Department of Research Methods in Education, Faculty 3D or virtual reality technology; instead, they can include
of Educational Sciences, University of Granada, Campus exclusively text-based interfaces. Use of VL environments in
Universitario Cartuja, s/n, 18011 Granada, Spain university degrees shows some advantages. First of all, Vir-
2
Department of Mathematical Education, Faculty tual Learning Technologies make it possible to implement
of Educational Sciences, University of Granada, Campus hybrid modalities. Thus, they constitute a useful tool for
Universitario Cartuja, s/n, 18011 Granada, Spain
distributing students’ workload between the classroom and
3
Department of Quantitative Methods, Faculty of Business home, according to European directives for higher educa-
Management, University of Granada, Campus Universitario
Cartuja, s/n, 18011 Granada, Spain
tion (European Commission 2015). These hybrid modalities
4
can be understood as ‘the thoughtful integration of class-
Department of Computer Sciences and Artificial Intelligence,
High School of Informatics and Telecommunications,
room face-to-face learning experiences with online learn-
University of Granada, Calle Periodista Daniel Saucedo ing experiences’ (Garrison and Kanuka 2004, p. 96). In this
Aranda, s/n, 18071 Granada, Granada, Spain

13
Vol.:(0123456789)

context, technology provides more opportunities for learn-
ing collaboratively, compared to purely face-to-face modali-
ties (Gútierrez-Braojos and Salmerón-Pérez 2015). This
approach increases the possibilities of creating an effective
learning environment and eliciting more positive responses
from students than purely virtual learning (Westbrook 2006).
In addition, it produces higher satisfaction levels for intro-
verted students than face-to-face modalities (Downing and
Chim 2004).
Although virtual communities are useful resources for
university formation, the use of these resources should be
supported by suitable pedagogies. In other words, technol-
ogies alone do not ensure pedagogical benefits. Teaching
strategies are also essential for turning potential benefits
of VL into actual outcomes (Dillenbourg et al. 2002). In
particular, Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning
(CSCL) is becoming one of the most impacting learning and
teaching perspectives in higher education. CSCL is a con-
structivist theory that defends the social nature of learning
(Koschmann 1996; Stahl 2006). Introducing CSCL means
jointly tackling the use of VL technologies and collaborative
learning. CSCL is not just employed in purely online learn-
ing. It is also designed to extend face-to-face collaborative
learning to virtual communities through software packages
(Stahl et al. 2006). Most virtual environments overlap with
face-to-face scenes, and so virtual learning communities
are useful to enrich classroom activities (Dillenbourg et al.
2002). Therefore, teachers face the challenge of creating
hybrid environments in order to improve collaborative rela-
tions and, thus, the quality of students’ learning (Álvarez and
Mayo 2009; Basheri et al. 2013; Carter et al. 2017; Echever-
ría et al. 2017; Mehlenbacher 2010).
1.1 Collaborative learning
Collaborative learning is generally understood as a pro-
cess that fosters different forms of interaction that lead to
significant advancement of shared ideas to solve learning
problems. Learning to work on a team is one of the most
important skills professionals must develop to address the
challenges of the twenty-first century (Fischer et al. 2007).
However, it is not the only reason collaborative learning is
reaching a central role in educational practices. Collabora-
tive learning facilitates learning to collaborate as well as
collaborating to learn. Several authors have pointed out
the benefits of collaborative conditions for the quality of
the learning (Deutsch 2006; Johnson and Johnson 1989).
In social interaction situations, learners can exhibit oppos-
ing centrations or different levels of development that
lead to socio-cognitive conflict. The social and cognitive
dimensions are involved because divergent arguments are
expressed on a relational level (Doise et al. 1975; Mugny and
Doise 1983). Through constructive dialogue, the learners
13
Virtual Reality
can share and discuss their controversy. The coordination of
viewpoints and their integration into a higher level represen-
tation than the previous one will produce learning improve-
ments (Lacasa 1993).
However, not all socio-cognitive conflict situations nec-
essarily produce learning improvements. In fact, there are
two mechanisms of socio-cognitive conflict regulation that
individuals can experience in social interaction situations:
epistemic and relational (Doise and Mugny 1984; Mugny
et al. 1978, 1978–1979; Mugny et al. 1999). Regulation
centered on epistemic conflict assumes that the learner’s
attention is focused on the task. In this case, collaboration
is directed toward building emerging and consensual knowl-
edge that has more explanatory potential than knowledge
built separately (Butera and Mugny 2001; Doise and Mugny
1984; Mugny et al. 1999). Regulation focused on relational
conflict deals with the evaluation and affirmation of self-
competence. Therefore, whereas the regulation of epistemic
conflict leads to improve understanding and knowledge, rela-
tional regulation leads to the defense of each actor’s own
capacity or competence through the affirmation of his/her
own point of view. In a subconscious effort to protect their
identity, learners try to be right, even when this means miss-
ing valuable learning opportunities. Arguments expressed
in the regulation of relational conflict are directed toward
assessing one’s own competence, even when this stands in
the way of learning. By contrast, in epistemic regulation, the
interchange of opinions is directed toward conflict resolu-
tion. Thus, the quality of reasoning is improved, and learners
who are engaged in the knowledge problem benefit from a
broadened viewpoint (Mugny and Doise 1978). Therefore,
progress in the learning process will be gained through the
coordination and integration of different viewpoints, lead-
ing to the creation of a shared conceptualization at a higher
level of abstraction.
1.2 Making collaborative learning effective
Research suggests that just asking students to collaborate
does not guarantee higher quality learning (Neugebauer et al.
2016). Students’ goal structures should be taken into account
(Deutsch 1949). Indeed, effective collaborative learning is
achieved by stressing positive interdependence (Deutsch
2006; Johnson and Johnson 2004), which increases whenever
individuals move their goals closer together. Teaching strate-
gies and tools have an impact on students’ goal structures and,
thus, on both attitudes and/or the quality of the learning, as
discovered by Baer et al. (2010), Cheng-Huan and Chiung-
Hui (2016), Johnson and Johnson (1989), Ke and Grabowski
(2007), or Yu (2001), for instance. The notion of positive inter-
dependence appeared for the first time within Social Interde-
pendence Theory (Deutsch 1949). Society makes people set up
relationships in such a way that one person’s actions may affect
Virtual Reality
another’s goal achievement (Table 1). Social interdependence
theory analyzes the general case: when the actions of all indi-
viduals affect everyone else’s outcomes.
As Deutsch’s theory states, goal structures determine inter-
actions between individuals, whereas the interaction patterns
determine the outcomes of a certain situation. Here, a goal
refers to a desired future of the state of affairs; thus, a goal
structure is a specification of the type of interdependence
among individuals’ goals. Deutsch (2006) proposed two types
of goal interdependence. The first one is positive interdepend-
ence, which arises when the probability of one person’s goal
attainment is correlated (positively) with the likelihood of
another obtaining his goal. The second one is negative inter-
dependence, which arises in the opposite case.
The set of different individuals’ sequential or simultaneous
actions that affect the outcomes of other actors engaged in the
situation is defined as an interaction (Johnson and Johnson
2005). Three types of interaction are defined in Social Inter-
dependence Theory: (1) Actions that increase the probability
of others’ success in achieving their goals are promotive inter-
actions; (2) actions that increase the probability of one’s own
success and reduce other individuals’ possibilities of success
are oppositional interactions; and (3) when individuals take
actions that promote their own success without affecting the
goal attainment of others, there are no interactions. Positive
interdependence gives rise to promotive interactions, whereas
negative interdependence results in oppositional interactions
(Johnson and Johnson 2005).
Different situations such as constructive/destructive pro-
cesses of conflict resolution or cooperative/competitive inter-
action when solving a problem or learning can be analyzed
using Social Interdependence Theory (Deutsch 2006). Within
a learning community (like a classroom), cooperative rela-
tions appear when the goals of the members are positively
interdependent (promotive interactions), whereas competi-
tive relations emerge when there is negative interdependence
among goals (oppositional interactions). When no interactions
appear in a group, members are working individually in the
community. There is one a priori goal structure of positive
interdependence in learning situations, due to the fact that
all the members share the same goal: to learn. However, in
practical situations, the classroom dynamics are full of com-
petitive relations. Personal concerns, disagreements between
classmates, or grades are some of the causes that may lead to
losing focus. Hence, teaching methods play an essential role
in emphasizing positive interdependence, that is, cooperative
Table 1  Interrelations among
individuals Source: Johnson and
Johnson (2005)
Others’ actions facilitate one’s goal achievements
learning relations. The question then is whether these sorts of
relations have positive effects on learning.
1.3 Beyond positive interdependence: intergroup
competition
When intergroup competition is introduced as a learning
condition, individuals are usually supposed to collaborate
with their group mates. Combinations of intragroup collabo-
ration and intergroup competition involve a double effect:
On the one hand, the groups must make a greater effort
to achieve a competitive goal. On the other hand, there is
simultaneous collaboration within each group, which makes
learning easier (thanks to socio-cognitive conflict) and may
lead individuals to counteract negative emotional effects
(because they are part of a group). Nevertheless, it is not
clear what effects intergroup competition has on learning.
This question has concerned researchers in recent years, but
their results seem to be inconclusive. A summary can be
found in Table 2.
Regarding the regulation of socio-cognitive conflict,
studies about competition and collaboration reveal that stu-
dents who participate in competitive learning environments
are more likely to focus on relational conflict. In this way,
motivation may decrease, as well as attitudes toward learn-
ing and academic outcomes (Butera et al. 2010). Likewise,
Mugny and his colleagues found that collaborative condi-
tions promote the regulation of epistemic conflict. Receiving
criticism, as long as it does not interfere with the epistemic
process, may lead the receiver to integrate and take advan-
tage of it and progress (Doise and Mugny 1984; Quiamzade
et al. 2013). As a consequence, epistemic conflict prevails
over relational conflict when the interaction is not perceived
as a threat. In this case, individuals not only consider their
own standpoint, but they are also capable of empathizing
and, thus, are more likely to learn. By contrast, in competi-
tive conditions, the climate may be perceived as a dispute. In
this case, individuals question the validity of every figure or
piece of information, regardless of the source, and so regula-
tion is more centered on relational conflict, specifically on
oneself and the interlocutor (Mugny et al. 1984, 1975–1976,
1978–1979).
Regarding the outcomes of learning and other attitudinal
dimensions, a wide range of research approaches exist. Tauer
and Harackiewicz (2004) found that both collaborative and
intergroup competitive conditions have positive aspects, so
Others’ actions facilitate one’s goal achievement
Yes No
Yes Interdependence Dependence
No Independence Helplessness
13

Table 2  Summary of research about collaborative (C) and intergroup competitive (IC) learning
C improves cognitive competencies or
creativity
C improves attitudes or climate Butera et al. (2010), Johnson and John-
son (1989), Tauer and Harackiewicz
(2004)
Attitudes or climate are not measured Quiamzade et al. (2013)
IC improves attitudes or climate
that proper instruction that includes both can lead to high
motivation and quality learning. In turn, Baer et al. (2010)
found better levels of creativity for low and high competi-
tion and worse levels for intermediate competition. From
the CSCL approach, there are studies that show better stu-
dent engagement, learning achievement, and creativity when
groups compete with each other (Cheng-Huan and Chiung-
Hui 2016 in higher education and Chen and Hwang 2016
in elementary school). Likewise, some papers reveal better
attitudes toward the subject and more positive interpersonal
relationships in the intergroup competitive case (Yu 2001).
Other investigations indicate that competitive situations pro-
mote learning, whereas purely cooperative relations improve
positive attitudes (Ke and Grabowski 2007). When hybrid
modalities are implemented, Regueras et al. (2009) show
that collaborative learning with intergroup competition is
more effective than pure collaborative learning. Arnab et al.
(2015) also reach similar conclusions, although their results
are less significant. Other studies in hybrid environments
explore the comparison of different levels of competition.
Yu et al. (2008) found that students in anonymous team
competition conditions exhibited significantly better levels
of motivation and satisfaction than those in the face-to-
face condition. In turn, Wang et al. (2017) observed greater
engagement in collaborating in an unrewarded competitive
regime than in a zero-sum competitive situation. Finally,
no previous studies were found that analyze the relation-
ship between learning conditions in a face-to-face environ-
ment and the quality of the contributions in virtual learning
communities.
Our research question arises at this point. We wonder
whether learning conditions in the face-to-face environment
influence the quality of learning students show in the virtual
community. This paper intends to provide clues that help to
understand the effects of different types of interdependence
on hybrid learning environments.
1.4 Problem, objective, and hypothesis
We propose the following question: In a hybrid environment,
what learning condition in the face-to-face environment is
13
Virtual Reality
Cognitive competen- IC improves cognitive competencies or
cies are not measured creativity
Wang et al. (2017) Ke and Grabowski (2007)
Baer et al. (2010), Regueras et al.
(2009), Arnab et al. (2015)
Yu (2001) Cheng-Huan and Chiung-Hui (2016),
Tauer and Harackiewicz (2004)
the most effective for producing greater participation and
learning in the virtual community? Thus, the objective of
this study is to analyze the effect of different face-to-face
learning conditions (cooperative, intergroup competition,
and inter-individual competition; see condition parameter
in methodological issues section) on the participation and
learning of students in the virtual community.
The hypothesis in this study is that students working in
competitive intergroup conditions in the small-group sphere
show higher levels of positive interdependence than in other
learning conditions. In addition, competitive intergroup
conditions in the small-group sphere turn into cognitively
deeper contributions in the virtual community sphere. In
turn, students in the collaborative condition tend to tackle
epistemic conflict more, show greater positive interdepend-
ence, and make cognitively deeper contributions than stu-
dents in the inter-individual competition condition.
2 Methodological issues
2.1 Participants
This study took place at the University of Granada (Spain).
The participants in the full investigation were 36 (94.44%
females) undergraduates enrolled in the subject of educa-
tional research, which was part of a 4-year social education
degree program. The students’ participation in the virtual
environment was obligatory, making up 40% of the final
grade.
2.2 Learning environment
Analogous to professional research activity, Gutiérrez-
Braojos and Salmerón (2012) suggested that work in the
classroom should be structured around three spheres of con-
structive activity in order to optimize the effectiveness of
a learning environment: individual, collaborative in small
groups, and communitary. This proposal has been followed
in this study, and so students worked in every sphere. In the
individual sphere, activity is carried out by a single student
Virtual Reality
in one portfolio per content unit. The portfolio includes per-
sonal reflections about the topics and some ideas of other
schoolmates that the student perceived as the most impact-
ing. The choice of each of the selected ideas must be justi-
fied. Results for this sphere are not included in the follow-
ing section because they are not related to the researchers’
objective. In the face-to-face sphere, activity is based on
small-group collaboration. There were four small groups per
content unit in the classroom. Each group had three mem-
bers in order to facilitate comprehension of the subject. In
the virtual community sphere, collaborative activities were
designed to reflect on and solve several tasks or knowledge
problems per content unit. In each unit of content, there were
activities with three levels of complexity: comprehension,
application, and reflection. For example, in the second unit
about mixed-methods research, students had to identify
conceptual mistakes from propositions about main ideas
from the unit and identify types of mixed methods from
an authentic case (comprehension task). Later, they had to
provide an adequate mixed method for a given authentic
research problem. Finally, they had to discuss and elabo-
rate a shared reflection about the mixed-method unit. The
unit was developed in the Knowledge Forum (KF) virtual
platform to facilitate asynchronous communication (Scarda-
malia 2004). The Knowledge Forum environment includes:
(1) a main menu with tools designed to edit collaborative
knowledge building. For this purpose, the KF offers an inter-
face that provides interaction scaffolds to facilitate collective
knowledge building (e.g., ‘I need to understand,’ ‘a better
theory,’ ‘putting our knowledge together’); (2) a configura-
tion menu to set up the basic functions of the virtual envi-
ronment (type of scaffold to use, display of contributions’
authorship, etc.); (3) tools to browse and create discussion
windows (Fig. 1); and (4) a menu to analyze and assess
activity within the platform.
3 Method
A Latin Squares design was applied to carry out the full
investigation. It took two parameters into account (Table 3).
The ‘phase’ parameter refers to the time spent working
on each unit of content. This study analyzes three content
units in the subject of research methods in education. These
content units correspond to three phases. All the groups have
the same tasks in the same phase. In each of these phases,
students work through individual, small-group, and virtual
community spheres. The ‘Condition’ parameter refers to
conditions of collaboration and assessment of the learners
in the small-group (face-to-face) sphere, where students
were distributed in four small groups of three members
each. There were three goal structures or conditions, and
all the small groups worked under the same condition in
each phase. Condition A (collaboration): The groups col-
laborated with each other to resolve the activities proposed.
Each student who participated in this condition got a bonus
point when every group correctly resolved the unit activi-
ties. Condition B (intergroup competition): Groups com-
peted with each other to resolve activities. The first group to
correctly resolve the activities got a bonus point. Condition
C (inter-individual competition): This was a ‘paradoxical’
condition. Students could only collaborate with students in
their group. However, only those students who were the first
to correctly solve the activities in the face-to-face sphere got
bonus points, regardless of the group membership base. In
other words, we proposed that these degrees of collaboration
can be understood under a continuum from high interde-
pendence to zero interdependence in a learning environment:
high interdependence (collaboration among the whole class
group, i.e., without competition); close to medium interde-
pendence (collaborative learning intragroup, and competi-
tion intergroup); and close to lack of interdependence (col-
laborative learning intragroup with competition among all
the students).
3.1 Information‑gathering instruments
and application procedure
To achieve the objectives of this study, it is not necessary
to analyze and present results on the sphere of individual
activity. Thus, useful information was collected from two
sources: the small-group (face-to-face) sphere and the virtual
community sphere.
3.1.1 Small‑group sphere
The students’ perception of positive interdependence was
obtained by applying the positive interdependence subscale
(Ghaith et al. 2007). This subscale is part of a longer scale,
the Classroom Life Measure (Johnson and Johnson 1996).
The subscale applied is composed of six Likert-type items
rated on a 5-point scale, where a rating of ‘1’ indicates that
the item is very untrue and ‘5’ that it is very true, for their
group. In the present study, the Cronbach’s alpha values were
good in two of the learning conditions (collaborative learn-
ing condition: .96; competition intergroup condition: .94),
and Cronbach’s alpha value was acceptable in the individual
competition condition (.694). The instrument was adminis-
tered in the presence of the teacher during tutorial classes.
3.1.2 Virtual community sphere
The students’ perceptions of socio-cognitive regulation were
gathered by applying the socio-cognitive regulation scale
(Darnon et al. 2006). This scale is composed of two sub-
scales (epistemic and relational subscale) with three items
13
 Virtual Reality

Fig. 1  A discussion window (top) and a course menu (bottom) in the Knowledge Forum platform

13
Virtual Reality

Table 3  Diagram of the Latin Squares design

Phase

Condition PHASE 1 PHASE 2 PHASE 3

Condition A Group 1 Group 3 Group 2
Condition B Group 2 Group 1 Group 3
Condition C Group 3 Group 2 Group 1
Groups composition Random Consistent Consistent
combina- combina-
tion 1 tion 2

Configuration of phases 2 and 3 was selected depending on phase 1,

which was chosen by chance

each. Likert-type items on these subscales are also based on

a 5-point scale, where a rating of ‘1’ indicates that the item
is very untrue and ‘5’ that it is very true. The alpha values
were good for each epistemic regulation subscale in the three
conditions (collaboration learning condition: .93; competi- Fig. 2  SOLO taxonomy
tion intergroup condition: .87; and individual competition
condition: .91). However, in the case of the relational regu-
lation scale, Cronbach’s alpha value was good in the condi- (extended abstract level). Finally, other contributions, such
tion of collaborative learning without competition (.93); and as ‘good contribution, I agree with your idea’ or ‘thanks for
acceptable in the individual competition condition (.69); but your explanation, now I understand it better’ were classified
it was not acceptable in the intergroup competition condi- as socio-affective contributions.
tions (.51). The instrument was administered in the presence
of the teacher during tutorial classes.
3.2 Variables and analytical procedure
Information about participation and learning was col-
lected through automatized records on the Knowledge
To fulfill the objectives, the analyses were divided into three
Forum platform. In all, 379 contributions were recorded.
main stages. In the first stage, we applied an exploratory
A contribution refers to a student’s written message in the
descriptive analysis of the level of positive interdependence,
KF with the purpose of participating in the discourse on a
socio-cognitive conflict regulation, and activity in the VL
specific topic, and it was considered a unit of analysis in
environment. In the second stage, we carry out a Multivari-
this study. Every contribution was rated using the Structure
ate General Linear Model analysis in order to analyze differ-
of Observed Learning Outcome taxonomy (SOLO, Biggs
ences in the dependent variables regarding both factors, i.e.,
and Collis 1982), which has been widely used to evaluate
phases and conditions of learning. In addition, we applied
the learning on virtual platforms, specifically to analyze
a Bonferroni post hoc test of the number of contributions
the correction, structural complexity, and originality of the
in order to compare the pairs of learning conditions. Sub-
knowledge reflected in the contributions (e.g., Brown et al.
sequently, in the third stage, another descriptive analysis is
2006; Hatzipanagos 2006; Holmes 2005; Gútierrez-Braojos
included for the factor that explains the statistically signifi-
and Salmerón-Pérez 2015; Schrire 2006). The SOLO tax-
cant differences, including the variation coefficient. Data
onomy has five levels of complexity, meta-categorized into
were analyzed using SPSS (Version 18).
two levels (Fig. 2). On the one hand, the superficial level
comprises three type of contributions:(1) Pre-structural con-
tributions refer to incorrect or disconnected contributions to
relevant knowledge for the community that are overly sim- 4 Results
ple; (2) unistructural contributions are overly simple; and
(3) multi-structural contributions provide a large number 4.1 Exploratory descriptive analysis
of content elements, but in a disorganized way, lacking a
coherent conceptual structure (multi-structural level). On To fulfill the objectives, the analyses were divided into two
the other hand, the deep level includes relevant contribu- main stages. In the first stage, an analysis was performed of
tions that coherently integrate important aspects of the task the students’ perceptions of positive interdependence and
requirements (relational level) and/or contributions that socio-cognitive conflict regulation. The second stage cor-
involve generalizations, knowledge transference, and novelty responded to the analysis of the number of contributions

13
 Virtual Reality

registered in the virtual sphere; i.e., number of deep cog-
nitive, surface cognitive, and socio-affective contributions.
On the one hand, the descriptive analysis of the students’
perceptions shows that the mean for the variable positive
interdependence is 3.65 (SD .86), for socio-cognitive rela-
tional regulation, 3.67 (SD .64), and for socio-cognitive
epistemic regulation, 3.52 (SD .83). Based on the variation
coefficients, .24 for the variables positive interdependence
and socio-cognitive epistemic regulation, and .17 for the
variable socio-cognitive relational regulation, it can be said
that the latter variable is more homogeneous than the others.
Similarities in the students’ perceptions of these variables
can be observed in Fig. 3 (left).
On the other hand, a basic descriptive analysis of activity
in the Knowledge Forum platform shows that students gen-
erated 338 contributions. The content analysis of the con-
tributions using the SOLO taxonomy reveals that 57.69%
are deep cognitive complexity contributions (relational or
abstract-extended contribution), whereas 26.04% are surface
cognitive complexity contributions. The rest of the contribu-
tions are socio-affective (Fig. 3, right).
In addition, a cluster analysis using the K-mean proce-
dure was performed, revealing three learning patterns (see
Table 4). Moreover, a discriminant analysis was performed
to measure the degree of success of the classification made
by the cluster analysis. The results revealed that 98.1% of
the original cases were correctly classified. The first clus-
ter, made up of 27 students, presents medium–high scores
on positive interdependence, epistemic regulation, and
relational regulation. These students showed a moderate
number of contributions: deep, surface, and socio-affective,
compared to the rest of the clusters. We call these individu-
als ‘students moderately engaged with epistemic improve-
ment.’ The second cluster, made up 15 students, presents
high scores on positive interdependence and epistemic regu-
lation, but low scores on relational contributions. Moreover,
students who belong to this pattern show a high number of
contributions: a high number of deep and socio-affective
contributions, but a low level of surface contributions. We
call these people ‘students highly engaged with epistemic
improvement.’ Finally, the third cluster, made up 66 stu-
dents, shows low scores on positive interdependence and
epistemic regulation, but high scores on relational regula-
tion. This pattern presents students who show the lowest
number of deep contributions, but a high number of socio-
affective contributions, compared to the rest of the patterns;

Fig. 3  Summary of the exploratory descriptive analysis: attitudes (left) and contributions in the KF platform (right)

Table 4  K-mean cluster Variables Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3 Associated values

analysis: pattern of engagement
with collective learning Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD F p η2

Positive interdependence 3.87 .86 4.2 .81 3.42 .8 6.794 *** .115
Number of contributions 5.48 1.15 9 2.10 1.45 1.15 239.667 *** .820
Nº deep contributions 2.33 1.3 5.93 1.16 .65 .86 164.651 *** .758
Nº surface contributions 2.33 1.3 1.6 1.72 .59 .76 26.109 *** .332
Nº socio-affective contributions .81 .92 1.46 1.18 .22 .45 20.252 *** .278
Relational regulation 3.75 .53 3.06 .64 3.78 .61 9.140 *** .148
Epistemic regulation 3.62 .56 4.37 .68 3.28 .83 13.095 *** .2

13
Virtual Reality

however, they also show the highest level of surface contri- test was applied to find out which means showed statistically
butions. We call these individuals ‘students poorly engaged significant differences.
with epistemic improvement.’ Results do not show significant differences depending on
These results led us to test the hypothesis that the learn- the phase parameter, and so we excluded this factor from
ing group may be responsible for the differences between further analyses. By contrast, learning conditions seem to
the patterns found. be factors that have an influence on the dependent variables.
In particular, positive interdependence and the number of
4.2 Multivariate general linear model surface and deep contributions show significant differences
depending on the learning conditions, as do relational and
By applying multivariate generalized linear models, we epistemic regulations. However, we did not find these sig-
compared the means of our variables, depending on the nificant differences in the variables number of contributions
learning condition and phase factors. A post hoc Bonferroni and number of socio-affective contributions (Table 5).
A pairwise analysis of the learning conditions for each
dependent variable (Table 6) shows that perception of pos-
itive interdependence is significantly greater in the collab-
Table 5  Analysis of differences depending on learning conditions orative learning condition and significantly smaller in the
Variables Mean square F p η2p learning condition with individual competence. Regarding
the variables number of contributions and contributions of
Positive interdependence 21.36 58.501 *** .542
socio-affective type, no significant differences were found
Nº contributions 8.398 .871 .422 .017
between the groups. Nevertheless, we found significant
Nº deep contributions 33.33 8.802 *** .151
differences between the collaborative condition and both
Nº surface contributions 12.03 7.749 *** .135
of the competitive conditions on the other variables. In
Nº socio-affective contributions .481 .636 .531 .013
particular, when students work in collaborative learning
Relational regulation 7.621 29.503 *** .373
conditions, they generate a significantly higher number of
Epistemic regulation 11.54 22.748 *** .315
contributions with high cognitive complexity, and fewer

Table 6  Multiple comparisons between pairs of learning conditions

95% confidence interval
Dependent variables (I) First condition (J) Second condition Difference of p Lower limit Upper limit
means (I–J)

Positive Interdependence Condition A Condition B .681 *** .334 1.027

Condition C 1.537 *** 1.194 1.883
Condition B Condition C .856 *** .51 1.203
Nº contributions Condition A Condition B .916 .64 − 0.865 2.698
Condition C 0.722 .98 − 1.059 2.504
Condition B Condition C − 0.194 1 − 1.976 1.587
Nº deep contributions Condition A Condition B 1.677 .001 .549 2.783
Condition C 1.677 .001 .549 2.783
Condition B Condition C 0 1 − 1.117 1.117
Nº surface contributions Condition A Condition B − .972 .004 − 1.687 − .257
Condition C − 1.028 .002 − 1.742 − .312
Condition B Condition C − .055 1 − .771 .659
Nº socio-affective contributions Condition A Condition B .222 .843 − .277 .722
Condition C .056 1 − .443 .554
Condition B Condition C − .167 1 − .666 .332
Relational regulation Condition A Condition B − .778 *** − 1.069 − .486
Condition C − .814 *** − 1.107 − .523
Condition B Condition C − .037 1 − .329 .255
Epistemic regulation Condition A Condition B .926 *** .517 1.335
Condition C 1.028 *** .618 1.437
Condition B Condition C .102 1 − .307 .511

13
 Virtual Reality

contributions with a low level of complexity, than the

other conditions. In addition, students perceive that dis-
cussions focus more on improving knowledge (epistemic
regulation of conflict) and less on the defense of personal
views (relational regulation of conflict). On all of these
variables, there are no differences between the learning
conditions with competition (collaborative learning condi-
tion with intergroup competition, and collaborative learn-
ing condition with individual competition).
On the other hand, the mean of contributions with cog-
nitive complexity in the collaborative learning condition is
3.28, exceeding the conditions with competition by almost
one point (Table 7). By contrast, the mean for the surface
contributions in the collaborative condition is .5, a point
below the conditions with competition. Likewise, in the
condition of collaboration without competition, the stu- Fig. 4  Distributions of the different kinds of contributions depending
on learning conditions
dents manifest a preference for the epistemic resolution
of socio-cognitive conflict, whereas in the competitive
conditions, there is a preference for the relational resolu- 5 Discussion and conclusions
tion. The perception of positive interdependence is greater
in the collaborative condition, with the lowest perception This empirical study was designed to understand the influ-
appearing in the condition of inter-individual competition. ence of goal structures on university students’ learning in a
In addition, it can be observed from the variation coeffi- hybrid collaborative learning environment. To achieve this
cients that when the work condition is collaborative, the aim, an exploratory analysis was performed that focused on
students’ perception of positive interdependence is more measuring positive interdependence, participation, resolu-
homogeneous, as occurs with the perception of the epis- tion of socio-cognitive conflict, and complexity of students’
temic regulation and the number of complex contribu- contributions, within a virtual environment. The existence of
tions. However, in the case of superficial contributions, significant differences between contributions across distinct
the least homogeneous condition occurs when the work learning conditions was also analyzed.
is collaborative. The results showed that students presented higher levels
As Fig. 4 shows, the number of complex contributions of positive interdependence when they worked under col-
is greater in all of the conditions, as it is 72.4% when the laborative learning conditions in the face-to-face sphere.
condition is collaborative, 46.39% for intergroup com- Regarding participation on the virtual learning platform,
petition, and 46.87% in the inter-individual competition although there were no significant differences in the num-
modality. Superficial contributions only represent 11.7% ber of contributions and socio-affective contributions, it was
when the work is collaborative, rising to 40.20% when observed that students who worked in collaborative learning
there is intergroup competition, and 33.3% when there is conditions in the face-to-face sphere provided more cogni-
individual competition. tively complex contributions and less surface contributions
than the other conditions. These results are not consistent

Table 7  Descriptive analysis: Condition A Condition B Condition C

activity on the KF platform
using SOLO taxonomy X SD M Cv% X SD M Cv% X SD M Cv%

Positive interdependence 4.38 .56 5 12.7 3.70 .73 3a 19.7 2.85 .46 3 16.1
Number of contributions 4.06 2.81 3 69 3.14 2.79 0 88.8 3.33 3.60 1 108
Nº deep contributions 3.28 1.97 2 60 2.25 1.62 1 72 2.81 2.19 1 77.9
Nº surface contributions .50 .65 0 130 1.47 1.34 0 91.2 1.53 1.54 1 101
Nº socio-affective contributions .64 .87 0 136 .42 .73 0 174 .58 .94 0 162
Relational regulations 3.15 .68 3 21.6 3.92 .34 4 8.67 3.96 .50 4 12.6
Epistemic regulation 4.18 .77 4 18.4 3.25 .64 3 19.7 3.15 .68 3 21.6

‘M’ stands for mode

13
Virtual Reality
with some of the studies mentioned above (Arnab et al.
2015; Baer et al. 2010; Cheng-Huan and Chiung-Hui 2016;
Ke and Grabowski 2007; or Regueras et al. 2009). The dis-
tribution of the cognitive load in the virtual community is
a dimension of special interest in this study. The results
showed that the coefficient of variation in cognitively deep
contributions within the virtual community is smaller than
in the other conditions. This indicates that there is lower
relative dispersion of knowledge throughout the community
when its members collaborate to learn; i.e., collaborative
conditions seem to promote a more homogeneous distri-
bution of knowledge, a situation that suggests the notion
of collective cognitive responsibility (Scardamalia 2002).
The results also reveal that when students participate in col-
laborative learning environments without competition in a
face-to-face environment, a greater number of participants
generate more contributions with cognitive quality and fewer
contributions with low cognitive quality in the virtual learn-
ing environment. Although our findings do not support pre-
vious empirical studies, they do agree with the conclusions
of Butera et al. (2010) and Quiamzade et al. (2013), who
found that collaborative conditions help to improve learning
better than competitive orientations. Likewise, this research
allows us to conclude that collaboration without competition
was more effective than other conditions where competition
and collaboration were balanced.
In addition, and contrary to what we expected, we did
not observe significant differences between the types of
competition. Thus, intergroup competitive conditions led to
more positive interdependence than inter-individual com-
petitive conditions. We did not find significant differences
in the rest of the dependent variables. On the contrary, in the
comparison of intergroup competition and inter-individual
competition, no significant differences were found in the
quality of learning. These results contrast with those of Yu
et al. (2008), who noticed higher motivation in anonymous
rivals, and Wang et  al. (2017), whose results suggested
greater engagement in the unrewarded competition than in
the rewarded one. We could infer that these findings partially
support Johnson and Johnson’s (1989) and Deutsch’s (2006)
studies. These differences between our discoveries and the
previous literature are meaningful. We suggest that these dif-
ferences could be explained by the conditions of our learning
environment. We created three learning conditions that could
be explained from the parameter called ‘degree of learning
collaboration parameter,’ which differs from Deutch’s expla-
nation of interdependence. Deutch proposes two poles of
interdependence: positive and negative. We proposed that
these degrees of collaboration can be understood on a con-
tinuum from high interdependence to zero interdependence
in a learning environment: high interdependence (collabora-
tion among the whole class group, i.e., without competition);
close to medium interdependence (collaborative learning
intragroup and competition intergroup); and close to lack
of interdependence (i.e., a ‘paradoxical’ condition in which
students were allowed to collaborate with their learning
intragroup and also competed with all the students. Students
could only collaborate with their group mates. However,
only those students who finished first and correctly solved
the activities in the face-to-face sphere got bonus points,
regardless of their group membership).
To sum up, designing learning environments in condi-
tions of collaboration without competition in face-to-face
environments seems to facilitate better quality of learning to
a greater extent. We did not find any benefits of intergroup
competition or individual competition over collaborative
learning without competition. Thus, teaching methods based
on goal structures that stress cooperative relations foster
higher quality learning than competitive conditions. There-
fore, collaborative learning designs without any competi-
tion could be considered more consistent with the goal that
underpins the main right to education: Each student is able to
achieve what he/she has to achieve, taking advantage of the
abilities of each and every agent in the learning community
(teacher and students) to do so. This could provide relevant
insights about how to increase participation and improve
achievement of students in the CSCL approach. However,
the size of the sample employed does not allow us to gen-
eralize. In this regard, we suggest that this study should be
replicated in different contexts, including a broader profile
of students (various ages and degrees). The characteristics
and size of the sample could explain these differences. In
other words, applying competitive learning conditions in
the entrepreneurial and economic degree could be a more
effective teaching strategy than other conditions without
competition. However, creating learning environments with
competitive learning conditions could be a bad strategy for
students who are enrolled in social and educational careers.
Thus, some students may feel stressed or uncomfortable with
learning assignments that require competition. It is relevant
to point out that our sample is mostly composed of women.
Our results coincide with previous studies indicating that
women show a collaborative learning profile, whereas men
tend to exhibit a more individualist learning style (e.g., Yaz-
ici 2005; Inkpen et al. 1995). In addition, our sample was
small, and so we wonder if the small number of participants,
rather than the characteristics of the sample, could explain
these differences. Therefore, other studies would be neces-
sary in order to analyze bias due to gender and the size of
the sample. In addition, some future lines of research can be
explored to add to the understanding of positive interdepend-
ence and collaborative learning. One of them is related to
Deutsch’s theory, where goal structures define a ‘one dimen-
sional’ continuum of possibilities whose ends are positive
and negative interdependence. When intergroup competition
comes into play, this framework seems to break down. It is
13

not clear what level of positive interdependence should be
expected a priori in an intergroup competitive (with internal
collaboration) goal structure. Our findings do not help to
understand whether there is a significant intermediate level
between pure collaboration and inter-individual competi-
tion. Moreover, as mentioned above, some studies present
a different picture where intergroup competitive conditions
achieve the highest levels of cognitive competencies (right
row in Table 2). Thus, the question is how to fit intergroup
competition within Social Interdependence Theory (is it
some kind of ‘neutral’ condition? Should the theory open
up more dimensions?), or equivalently, how to interpret the
notion of positive interdependence in these types of goal
structures. These questions must be elucidated in future
studies.
Acknowledgements  This study has been made possible by the pro-
gram Jose Castillejo of the Ministry of Education, Culture and Sports;
and the collaboration of the IKIT; and the department of Curriculum,
Teaching and Learning at OISE, University of Toronto.
References
Álvarez RB, Mayo IC (2009) Las tecnologías de la información y la
comunicación en la educación superior. Estudio descriptivo y de
revisión. Revista Iberoamericana de Educación 50(7):1–12
Arnab S, Nalla M, Harteveld C, Lameras P (2015) An inquiry into
gamification services: practices, experience and insights. In: Pro-
ceedings of the international gamification for business conference,
21–22 Sept 2015, Aston, Birmingham, UK.
Baer M, Leenders RTAJ, Oldham GR, Vadera AK (2010) Win or lose
the battle for creativity: the power and perils of intergroup com-
petition. Acad Manag J 53(4):827–845. https​://doi.org/10.5465/
amj.2010.52814​611
Basheri M, Munro M, Burd L, Baghaei N (2013) Collaborative learn-
ing skills in multi-touch tables for UML software design. Int J Adv
Comput Sci Appl 4(3):60–66
Biggs JB, Collis K (1982) Evaluating the quality of learning: the SOLO
taxonomy. Academic Press, New York
Brown N, Smyth K, Mainka C (2006) Looking for evidence of deep
learning in constructively aligned online discussions. In: Banks
S, Hodgson V, Jones C, Kemp B, McConnell D, Smith C (eds)
Proceedings of the fifth international conference on networked
learning. Lancaster University, Lancaster, pp 315–322
Butera F, Mugny G (2001) Conflict and social influences in hypothesis
testing. In: De Dreu CKW, De Vries NK (eds) Group consensus
and minority influence implications for innovation. Blackwell,
Oxford, pp 160–182
Butera F, Darnon C, Mugny G (2010) Learning from conflict. In: Jetten
J, Hornsey M (eds) Rebels in groups: dissent, deviance, difference
and defiance. Wiley, Oxford, pp 36–53
Carter SP, Greenberg K, Walker MS (2017) The impact of computer
usage on academic performance: evidence from a randomized
trial at the United States Military Academy. Econ Educ Rev
56:118–132
Cheng-Huan C, Chiung-Hui C (2016) Employing intergroup com-
petition in multitouch desing-based learning to foster student
engagement, learning achievemet, and creativity. Comput Educ
103:99–113
13
Virtual Reality
Commission E (2015) ECTS users’ guide. Publications Office of the
European Union, Luxembourg
Darnon C, Muller D, Schrager SM, Pannuzzo N, Butera F (2006)
Mastery and performance goals predict epistemic and relational
conflict regulation. J Educ Psychol 98:766–776
Deutsch M (1949) A theory of cooperation and competition. Hum
Relat 2:129–152
Deutsch M (2006) Cooperation and competition. In: Deutsch M,
Coleman PT, Marcus EC (eds) The handbook of conflict resolu-
tion: theory and practice. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, pp 23–42
Dillenbourg P, Schneider D, Synteta P (2002) Virtual learning envi-
ronments. In: Dimitracopoulou A (ed) 3rd Hellenic conference
‘information & communication technologies in education’,
Kastaniotis editions, Rhodes, Greece, pp 3–18
Doise W, Mugny G (1984) The social development of the intellect.
Pergamon Press, Oxford
Doise W, Mugny G, Perret-Clermont A (1975) Social interacction
and the development of cognitive operations. Eur J Soc Psychol
5:367–383
Downing K, Chim TM (2004) Reflectors as online extraverts? Educ
Stud 30(3):265–276
Echeverría L, Cobos R, Machuca L, Claros I (2017) Using collabora-
tive learning scenarios to teach programming to non-CS majors.
Comput Appl Eng Educ 25:719–731
Fischer G, Rohde M, Wulf V (2007) Community-based learning: the
core competency of residential, research-based universities. Int
J Comput Support Collab Learn 2(1):9–40
Garrison DR, Kanuka H (2004) Blended learning: uncovering its
transformative potential in higher education. Internet High Educ
7:95–105
Ghaith GM, Shaaban KA, Harkous SA (2007) An investigation of
the relationship between forms of positive interdependence,
social support, and selected aspects of classroom climate. Sys-
tem 35:229–240
Gutiérrez-Braojos C, Salmerón P (2012) Building knowledge: theo-
retical model to analyze knowledge builders. C. 16th annual
Knowledge Building Summer Institute, Toronto
Gútierrez-Braojos C, Salmerón-Pérez H (2015) Exploring collective
cognitive responsibility and its effects on students’ impact in a
knowledge building community. J Study Educ Dev 38:327–367
Hatzipanagos S (2006) HOT and flaming spirals: learning and
empathic interfaces in discussion forum text-based dialogues.
European Journal of Open Distance and ELearning, Retrieved
06 July 2013 from http://www.eurod ​ l .org/mater ​ i als/contr​
ib/2006/ Stylianos_Hatzipanagos.htm
Holmes K (2005) Analysis of asynchronous online discussion using
the SOLO taxonomy. Aust J Educ Dev Psychol 5:117–127
Inkpen K, Booth KS, Klawe M, Upitis R (1995) Playing together
beats playing apart, especially for girls. In: Proceedings of
CSCL ‘95, pp 177–181.
Johnson DW, Johnson RT (1989) Cooperation and competition:
theory and research. Interaction, Edina
Johnson DW, Johnson R (1996) Meaningful and manageable assess-
ment through cooperative learning. Interaction, Edina
Johnson DW, Johnson RT (2004) Cooperation and the use of technol-
ogy. In: Jonassen DH (ed) Handbook of research on educational
communications and technology, 2nd edn. Lawrence Erlbaum,
Mahwah, NJ, pp 785–811
Johnson DW, Johnson RT (2005) New developments in social
interdependence theory. Genet Soc Gen Psychol Monogr
131(4):285–358
Ke F, Grabowski B (2007) Gameplaying for math’s learning: Coopera-
tive or not? Br J Educ Technol 38(2):249–259
Koschmann T (1996) Paradigm shifts and instructional technology.
In: Koschmann T (ed) CSCL: theory and practice of an emerging
paradigm. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, pp 1–23
Virtual Reality
Lacasa P (1993) La construcción social del conocimiento: Desarrollo y
conflicto sociocognitivo. Una entrevista a Willem Doise. Infancia
y aprendizaje 61:5–28
Mehlenbacher B (2010) Instruction and technology, designs for every-
day learning. The MIT Press, Cambridge, p 495
Mugny G, Doise W (1983) La construcción social de la inteligencia.
Trillas, México
Mugny G, Doise W, Perret-Clermont AN (1975–1976) Conflit de cen-
trations et progrès cognitif[Conflict of centrations and cognitive
progress]. Bulletin de Psychologie 29:199–204
Mugny G, Levy M, Doise W (1978) Conflit socio-cognitif et dével-
oppement cognitif [Socio-cognitive conflict and cognitive devel-
opment]. Revue Suisse de Psychologie 37:22–43
Mugny G, Giroud JC, Doise W (1978–1979) Conflit de centrations et
progrès cognitif II: nouvelles illustrations expérimentales [Con-
flict of centrations and cognitive progress II: new experimental
illustrations]. Bulletin de Psychologie 32:979–985
Mugny G, De Paolis P, Carugati F (1984) Social regulations in cogni-
tive development. In: Doise W, Palmonari A (eds) Social inter-
action in individual development. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, pp 127–146
Mugny G, Tafani E, Butera F, Pigière D (1999) Contrainte et
de´pendance informationnelles: influence sociale sur la
repre´sentation du groupe d’amis ide´al [Informational constraint
and dependence: soial influence on the representation of the ideal
group of friends]. Connexions 72:55–72
Neugebauer J, Ray DG, Sassenberg K (2016) When being worse helps:
the influence of upward social comparisons and knowledge aware-
ness on learner engagement and learning in peer-to-peer knowl-
edge exchange. Learn Instr 44:41–52
Quiamzade A, Mugny G, Butera F (2013) Psychologie sociale de la
connaissance. Fondements théoriques. [Social psychology of
knowledge Theoretical foundations]. Presses Universitaires de
Grenoble, Grenoble
Regueras LM, Verdú E, Muñoz MF, Pérez MA, de Castro JP, Verdú MJ
(2009) Effects of competitive e-learning tools on higher education
students: a case study. IEEE Trans Educ 52(2):279–285
Scardamalia M (2002) Collective cognitive responsibility for the
advancement of knowledge. In: Smith B (ed) Liberal educación
in a knolwedge society. Open Court, Chicago, pp 67–98
Scardamalia M (2004) CSILE/knowledge forum. In: Kovalchick A,
Dawson K (eds) Education and technology: an encyclopedia.
ABC-CLIO, Santa Barbara, pp 183–192
Schrire S (2006) Knowledge building in asynchronous discussion
groups: going beyond quantitative analysis. Comput Educ 46:49–
70. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.compe​du.2005.04.006
Stahl G (2006) Group cognition: computer support for building col-
laborative learning. The MIT Press, Cambridge
Stahl G, Koschmann T, Suthers D (2006) Computer-supported col-
laborative learning: An historical perspective. In: Sawyer RK
(ed) Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, pp 409–426
Tauer JM, Harackiewicz JM (2004) The effects of cooperation and com-
petition on intrinsic motivation and performance. J Pers Soc Psy-
chol 86(6):849–861. https​://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.86.6.849
Wang X, Wallace PW, Wang Q (2017) Rewarded and unrewarded com-
petition in a CSCL environment: a coopetition designado with a
social cognitive perspectiva using PLS-SEM analyses. Comput
Hum Behav 72:140–151
Westbrook V (2006) The virtual learning future. Teach High Educ
11(49):471–482
Yang SJH, Chen IYL, Kinshuk NS, Chen NS (2007) Enhancing the
quality of e-learning in virtual learning communities by finding
quality learning content and trustworthy collaborators. Educ Tech-
nol Soc 10(2):84–95
Yazici HJ (2005) A study of collaborative learning style and team
learning performance. Educ Train J 47(3):216–229
Yu F-Y (2001) Competition within computer-assisted coopera-
tive learning environments: cognitive, affective, and social
outcomes. J Educ Comput Res 24(2):99–117. https ​ : //doi.
org/10.2190/3u7r-dcd5-f6t1-qkrj
Yu F-Y, Han C, Chan T-W (2008) Experimental comparisons of face-
to-face and anonymous real-time team competition in a networked
gaming learning environment. CyberPsychol Behav 11(4):511–
514. https​://doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2007.0171
13