Educational Psychologist

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hedp20

Individual preparation for collaborative learning:

Systematic review and synthesis

Stephan Mende , Antje Proske & Susanne Narciss

To cite this article: Stephan Mende , Antje Proske & Susanne Narciss (2021) Individual
preparation for collaborative learning: Systematic review and synthesis, Educational Psychologist,
56:1, 29-53, DOI: 10.1080/00461520.2020.1828086

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2020.1828086

© 2020 The Author(s). Published with

license by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.

Published online: 22 Oct 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1551

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hedp20
EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGIST
2021, VOL. 56, NO. 1, 29–53
https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2020.1828086

Individual preparation for collaborative learning: Systematic review

and synthesis
Stephan Mende, Antje Proske, and Susanne Narciss
Psychology of Learning and Instruction, Technische Universit€at Dresden, Germany

ABSTRACT
Collaboration provides learners with opportunities to develop an understanding beyond what
they could achieve alone. To this end, learners need to build on each other’s knowledge to draw
new conclusions. This requires successful retrieval, inferencing, and mutual referencing during col-
laboration. Although individual preparation is considered as effective means to foster these proc-
esses it has not been systematically investigated whether, why, and under what conditions it does
so. We revisit research on collaborative learning, collaborative memory, and group brainstorming
to develop hypotheses about the cognitive advantages and disadvantages of individual prepar-
ation for collaboration and how these might be influenced by the design of the individual prepar-
ation phase. Subsequently, we test these hypotheses by systematically reviewing experimental
studies. Results indicate that (a) individual preparation affects retrieval, inferencing, and referenc-
ing differently, and (b) generative preparation tasks and supporting learners’ cognitive group
awareness can enhance the advantages and mitigate the disadvantages of individual preparation
for collaboration.

Introduction contradictory findings attract attention to the issue of how

Being able to effectively collaborate is considered a core
21st-century skill because modern work environments
require performing complex teamwork (Graesser et al.,
2018). In order to promote collaboration skills and the
acquisition of in-depth knowledge, collaborative learning is
widely used across schools and university settings (Kirschner
& Erkens, 2013; Nokes-Malach et al., 2015). In collaborative
learning settings, the members of pairs or small groups
interact with each other to reach a common learning goal
(Dillenbourg, 1999; Roschelle & Teasley, 1995). This can
take various forms, such as asking pairs of learners to
explain an expository text to each other, asking four stu-
dents to create a joint learning product via a shared elec-
tronic workspace, or asking groups of five to reach a
consensus on a controversial content-related issue in an
online discussion. Even though research on collaborative
learning has received much attention in the last decades,
designing and implementing collaborative learning settings
systematically based on scientific evidence is challenging
because research findings are rather mixed. Regarding the
issue of how collaborative learning affects learners’ informa-
tion processing in terms of in-depth knowledge acquisition,
studies show that collaborative learning can be superior but
also inferior to individual learning (Andrews & Rapp, 2015;
Kirschner et al., 2009; Nokes-Malach et al., 2015). These
existing research findings can help to explain whether, why
and under which conditions collaborative learning supports
the acquisition of in-depth domain knowledge.
Engaging in productive social interactions is considered a
core condition for effective collaborative learning (Andrews &
Rapp, 2015; Arvaja et al., 2008; Deiglmayr et al., 2015;
Dillenbourg et al., 2009). Many researchers agree that pro-
ductive social interactions involve a specific kind of activity
sometimes referred to as knowledge co-construction
(Deiglmayr & Spada, 2010b; Hogan et al., 1999; Scardamalia
& Bereiter, 2006), or interactive activity (Chi, 2009). Learners
are said to perform an interactive activity when they (a) build
on the information contributed by a co-learner to (b) generate
new knowledge not already stated in the instructional mater-
ial. If collaborating learners perform interactive activities, they
can achieve a deeper understanding of the subject matter
compared to when learning individually (Chi et al., 2018;
Fischer, Kollar, Stegmann, Wecker, et al., 2013).
Hence, collaborative learning settings offer the potential
benefit of using co-learners as additional learning resources.
However, these co-learners also impose cognitive costs in
terms of complex coordination demands (Janssen &
Kirschner, 2020; Nokes-Malach et al., 2015). Accordingly,
learners are often not spontaneously engaged in interactive
activities when they collaborate without support (Bromme

CONTACT Stephan Mende stephan.mende@tu-dresden.de Faculty of Psychology, Technische Universit€at Dresden, Zellescher Weg 17, Dresden 01062, Germany.
This article was accepted under the editorship of Kathryn Wentzel.
ß 2020 The Author(s). Published with license by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.
0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in
any way.
30 S. MENDE ET AL.
et al., 2005; Jeong & Hmelo-Silver, 2016; Kirschner &
Erkens, 2013; Menekse & Chi, 2019). This raises the ques-
tion of helpful strategies that teachers can apply in the class-
room and/or teach their students.
Prior research has mainly addressed different support
strategies and tools guiding or structuring the collaboration
process itself (e.g., Jeong & Hmelo-Silver, 2016). Another
support strategy which takes the approach of initially avoid-
ing the costs to subsequently raise the benefits of collabor-
ation is individual preparation for collaboration: providing
learners with time to perform activities directed at process-
ing the instructional material on their own before the collab-
oration (e.g., Lam & Kapur, 2017; Tsovaltzi et al., 2015).
Since it is a widely recommended strategy (e.g., Andrews &
Rapp, 2015; cf. Tsovaltzi et al., 2015), individual preparation
has been included in the study protocols of several lines of
collaborative learning research such as research on collabor-
ation scripts (e.g., Fischer, Kollar, Stegmann, Wecker, et al.,
2013) or group awareness support (e.g., Janssen & Bodemer,
2013). However, within these fields, individual preparation
has often been applied implicitly (e.g., Engelmann, Tergan
et al., 2009) or manipulated together with other strategies
(e.g., Noroozi et al., 2013) not allowing disentangling the
pure effect of individual preparation. Hence, it has not often
been the subject of systematic investigation.
By contrast, the recently emerging preparation for future
collaboration paradigm (Lam & Kapur, 2017; Lam & Muldner,
2017) has focused on the questions of whether and how learn-
ers should cognitively prepare on their own prior to collabor-
ation. Thus, first attempts have been made to explore the
cognitive mechanisms by which individual preparation can
foster the execution of interactive activities during subsequent
collaboration (see for example J€arvel€a et al., 2015 or Miller &
Hadwin, 2015 for another perspective targeting the metacog-
nitive regulation processes necessary for the execution of
interactive activities). However, theoretical and empirical
work in this regard has only just begun.
Hence, to date, it is not very clear whether, when, and why
individual preparation may foster the execution of interactive
activities during subsequent collaboration. Consequently, by
adopting an information processing perspective, the present
work aims to address this research gap by (a) specifying more
precisely the cognitive subtasks involved in interactive activ-
ities; (b) developing hypotheses about why and how individual
preparation may affect the execution of these subtasks; and (c)
exploring the role of individual preparation design variables
(i.e., preparation task type and awareness induction support)
for the impact of individual preparation. Subsequently, a sys-
tematic review of experimental studies concerned with these
issues is conducted.
Interactive activities viewed from an information
processing perspective: Identifying subtasks
According to an information processing perspective, collab-
oration can be seen as the interaction between several cogni-
tive systems (i.e., learners; Cress & Kimmerle, 2008; Jorczak,
2011). Each cognitive system involves a long-term memory
with unrestricted capacity where information is stored, and
a working memory of limited capacity where information
from external sources can be processed to encode and store
it in long term memory (e.g., Atkinson & Shiffrin, 1968;
Cowan, 2014). In collaborative learning, the external infor-
mation sources comprise the instructional material and—as
far as they externalize it (e.g., in the form of spoken or writ-
ten language)—the knowledge of co-learners.
To be classified as interactive, a learning activity has to
simultaneously fulfill two criteria: the learner must produce
an externalization which (a) contains topic-relevant informa-
tion beyond what is given in the instructional material and
(b) incorporates a co-learner’s externalized knowledge (Chi
et al., 2018).
Unfortunately, studies measuring interactive activities
according to this definition are scarce in collaborative learn-
ing research (cf. Deiglmayr et al., 2015; Mende et al., 2017)
and—to our knowledge—not existent in research on individ-
ual preparation for collaborative learning. However, prior
research has captured measures that can be considered to
reflect the execution of cognitive subtasks which are them-
selves necessary but not sufficient for an interactive activity
to occur. These subtasks include (Chi et al., 2018; Cress &
Kimmerle, 2008; Deiglmayr & Spada, 2010a, 2010b): (a) acti-
vating content-relevant knowledge stored in long-term
memory (retrieval), (b) generating new pieces of knowledge
not already contained in the instructional material (inferenc-
ing), and (c) paying attention to and taking up content-rele-
vant information externalized by co-learners, that is, using
co-learners’ externalizations as a reference (referencing; cf.
Teasley, 1997; Weinberger et al., 2007).
Please note that these subtasks are not unrelated to each
other: Retrieving associated knowledge to process external
information in working memory is a prerequisite for inferenc-
ing (Chi et al., 2018; Cress & Kimmerle, 2008; Jorczak, 2011).
Further, referencing can facilitate retrieval and inferencing
(Janssen & Kirschner, 2020; Wegner, 1987). In contrast to the
subtasks of retrieval and inferencing, the subtask of referenc-
ing can only be performed in collaborative learning.
Benefits and costs of processing information
collaboratively versus individually
Individual preparation for collaboration means devoting a
part of the learning time for learning individually prior to
learning collaboratively. To develop hypotheses on the
effects and conditions of individual preparation with respect
to the subtasks of interactive activity, we will now examine
research addressing the cognitive benefits and costs of col-
laboration as compared to individual learning regarding
retrieval and inferencing. Furthermore, we will investigate
the role that referencing plays for these benefits and costs.
The benefits and costs of collaboration are investigated
within different research fields including not only collabora-
tive learning research but also more basic research in collab-
orative memory and group brainstorming. The latter two
examine the impact of collaboration with a high level of
experimental control. Thus, the basic findings of these lines
of research can provide valuable insights into the cognitive

mechanisms contributing to the benefits and costs of collab-
oration in authentic learning processes.
Benefits and costs of collaboration for retrieval
Collaborative memory research investigates the impact of
collaboration on subjects’ retrieval performance (e.g.,
Rajaram & Pereira-Pasarin, 2010) based on theoretical
approaches such as the multi-store model (Atkinson &
Shiffrin, 1968), the spread of activation theory of memory
(e.g., Anderson & Pirolli, 1984), or levels-of-processing the-
ory (Craik & Lockhart, 1972). It provides insights into why
the subtask of retrieval might sometimes be less successfully
executed when learners have to collaborate instead of work-
ing on their own.
In a typical collaborative memory experiment, subjects
encode given learning material and then retrieve the learned
information either collaboratively in groups or individually
in so-called nominal groups. Comparisons are then con-
ducted between the retrieval performance of collaborative
groups with that of nominal groups (Marion & Thorley,
2016; Rajaram & Pereira-Pasarin, 2010). Retrieval perform-
ance is usually defined as the number of items that are cor-
rectly retrieved by at least one group member in response to
an open or closed memory test (i.e., free recall or cued
recall/recognition). The retrieved items are summed up to a
group retrieval score with items mentioned more than once
being counted only once. For the nominal groups, the data
of several individuals are analyzed as if they would have
worked in a group even though they had worked separately
(Marion & Thorley, 2016).
Retrieval benefits are claimed to arise from the possibility
to profit from each other’s outputs. For example, outputs
produced by co-learners during collaborative retrieval may
serve as a reminder for otherwise forgotten items (re-expos-
ure; e.g., Rajaram, 2011), as a cue to retrieve additional
items otherwise not retrieved (cross-cueing; e.g., Blumen
et al., 2014), or as feedback to correct retrieval errors (error
pruning; e.g., Barber et al., 2012).
However, collaborative memory research offers over-
whelming evidence for the so-called collaborative inhibition
effect (Weldon & Bellinger, 1997): collaborative groups are
reliably revealed to perform worse than nominal groups
(Marion & Thorley, 2016). These findings are explained by
retrieval costs arising from being exposed to each other’s
outputs. The best empirically supported explanation for the
collaborative inhibition effect is the mechanism of retrieval
strategy disruption (Marion & Thorley, 2016; Rajaram &
Pereira-Pasarin, 2010): subjects develop individual retrieval
strategies while encoding to-be-learned information. Due to
these individually different retrieval strategies, the individual
group members will retrieve the to-be-learned information
in different orders. When retrieving information together,
they thus disrupt each other’s retrieval strategies (Basden
et al., 1997; Marion & Thorley, 2016). This explanation
receives support, among others, from the finding that the
type of retrieval test affects the degree to which collaborative
inhibition appears: In open recall tests the group members
try to retrieve the previously learned items according to
EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGIST 31
their individual retrieval strategies. Thus, in a collaborative
retrieval situation, they may disrupt each other. This risk is
attenuated during closed recall since the test itself deter-
mines the retrieval order (Marion & Thorley, 2016; Rajaram
& Pereira-Pasarin, 2010). As a further mechanism, an item
retrieved by a co-learner may induce another co-learner to
retrieve the same item which inhibits competing responses
elicited in the process of retrieval (retrieval inhibition; e.g.,
Cuc et al., 2007; Marion & Thorley, 2016). Moreover,
retrieval errors made by one group member may be trans-
mitted to other group members (social contagion; e.g.,
Basden et al., 2002).
Benefits and costs of collaboration for inferencing
Based on human memory and information processing theo-
ries (e.g., Anderson & Pirolli, 1984; Atkinson & Shiffrin,
1968; Kintsch, 1998; Sweller & Sweller, 2006), the benefits
and costs of collaboration for subjects’ capabilities to draw
inferences are investigated by cognitively oriented research
lines within the fields of group brainstorming and collabora-
tive learning. Hence, both research lines provide insights
into why the subtask of inferencing may sometimes be less
successfully executed when learners have to collaborate
instead of working on their own.
Group brainstorming research is focused on examining
the impact of collaboration on idea generation. Idea gener-
ation can be seen as a form of inferencing since subjects
have to combine several pieces of their knowledge in order
to create an idea fitting with the constraints of a given
brainstorming task. Thus, subjects have to go beyond what
is already stated in the instructional material (cf. Nijstad &
Stroebe, 2006; Wang & Rose, 2007). Group brainstorming
experiments typically compare the idea generation perform-
ance of nominal to collaborative groups, similar to the col-
laborative memory paradigm (Nijstad & Stroebe, 2006;
Stroebe et al., 2010). Idea generation performance is usually
captured by measuring groups’ ideation productivity, that is,
the sum of non-redundant ideas generated by the group
members in response to the brainstorming task, such as
finding as many ways as possible to increase ones’ home-
town’s attractiveness for tourists (Nijstad & Stroebe, 2006;
Stroebe et al., 2010).
Group brainstorming researchers assume that cognitive
benefits of group work arise from stimulation effects, that is,
the ideas expressed by one group member can cue new ideas
or categories of ideas another group member would not
have generated or surveyed on their own (Brown et al.,
1998; Nijstad et al., 2002; Nijstad & Stroebe, 2006; Stroebe
et al., 2010).
However, group brainstorming research offers corrobo-
rating evidence that collaborative groups perform worse
than nominal groups in terms of idea generation productiv-
ity (Diehl & Stroebe, 1987; Mullen et al., 1991), an effect
called productivity loss (e.g., Nijstad & Stroebe, 2006). These
findings are explained by cognitive costs which can arise
from mechanisms such as production blocking (e.g., Nijstad
& Stroebe, 2006): group members have to take turns during
the ideation process and, thus, cannot express their ideas
32 S. MENDE ET AL.
immediately when they arise (Diehl & Stroebe, 1987).
Consequently, subjects tend to forget their own ideas and/or
are deterred from generating new ideas (Nijstad et al.,
2003). Further, the dual task of generating ideas and attend-
ing to the ideas of others can overload subjects’ working
memory capacities (Dennis & Williams, 2005; Paulus et al.,
2013; Santanen et al., 2004). In addition, although the ideas
available from others can benefit one’s own idea generation,
they can also lead to fixation effects: an idea presented by a
group member cues associated parts of another member’s
knowledge, favoring the generation and expression of similar
ideas, etc. In this way each single group member’s range of
explored ideas is restricted (Kohn & Smith, 2011; Nijstad &
Stroebe, 2006; Wang & Rose, 2007).
The focus in collaborative learning research is on the
effects and conditions of collaboration for learning from
educationally relevant materials and tasks (cf. Pociask &
Rajaram, 2014). This is examined, among others, according
to (quasi-) experimental designs. Here, several measures
reflect learners’ inferencing performance. First, inferencing
can be indicated by learners’ discourse contributions con-
taining content-related information not already present in
the instructional material (such as knowledge construction
statements; e.g., King, 1999; or elaboration statements; e.g.,
Roscoe, 2014). Second, it can be reflected in performance
measures on group tasks requiring the learners to generate
and externalize content-relevant outputs that go beyond the
instructional material, for example, to solve a transfer prob-
lem (e.g., Huang et al., 2012) or to transform information
into another representational format (e.g., a text into a con-
cept map or a picture, see for example Engelmann, Tergan
et al., 2009; Gijlers et al., 2013). Third, achievement in post-
collaborative transfer tests (e.g., Lam & Muldner, 2017) is
also considered to indicate learners’ collaborative inferencing
performance since subjects have to draw inferences while
dealing with the to-be-learned information in order to be
able to apply it to problems or situations not already
addressed in the previously accessed instructional material
(i.e., transfer achievement; Chi et al., 1994; Kintsch, 2004;
McNamara & Magliano, 2009).
According to the cognitive elaboration perspective, one
benefit of collaborative learning arises from the circumstance
that collaborating learners have to verbalize what has been
understood from to-be-learned material in order to talk
about it with their co-learners (O’Donnell & O’Kelly, 1994;
Webb, 1989). This act of externalization is assumed to
invoke processes of inferencing, for instance, in the form of
taking note of and filling in own knowledge gaps, re-organ-
izing one’s knowledge, or drawing new connections between
learned information (Cohen, 1994; Damnik et al., 2013; van
Boxtel et al., 2000; Webb, 2013). Moreover, based on the
work of Piaget (1926) and Vygotsky (1978), some research-
ers claim that the contributions of other learners can assist
the drawing of inferences or can invoke cognitive conflicts
stimulating inferences the learners would otherwise not have
generated by themselves (e.g., Cress & Kimmerle, 2008;
Jorczak, 2011; King, 1999; Slavin, 2011; Webb, 2013). For
instance, a learner may provide information that enables
another learner to generate an explanation of a to-be-
learned principle. Or a counterargument of a learner may
induce another learner to draw new connections between
their own and the co-learner’s knowledge to solve the
disagreement.
However, research findings reveal considerable variability
concerning the superiority or inferiority of collaborative as
compared to individual learning in view of inferencing indi-
cators (Andrews & Rapp, 2015; Menekse & Chi, 2019;
Nokes-Malach et al., 2015). Moreover, in studies which
explicitly investigate learners’ collaboration activities, it is
frequently observed that collaborating learners often tend to
restate what has already been given instead of drawing infer-
ences (Chase et al., 2019; Chi & Menekse, 2015; Roscoe &
Chi, 2007; Webb, 2013). To explain these findings, cognitive
costs are proposed in terms of collaborative learning putting
higher demands on the learners’ cognitive resources than
individual learning. Not only information of the instruc-
tional material, but also information externalized by the co-
learners has to be processed, yielding a risk of information
overload and distractions. Hence, learners’ limited working
memory capacities can be exceeded which may hamper deep
learning processes such as inferencing (Dillenbourg &
Betrancourt, 2006; Kolfschoten et al., 2014).
The role of referencing for the benefits and costs of
collaboration
The role of referencing for the benefits and costs of collabor-
ation is addressed in collaborative learning research based on
transactive memory theory (Wegner, 1987), the concept of cog-
nitive group awareness (e.g., Janssen & Bodemer, 2013), as
well as the collaborative cognitive load theory (Kirschner et al.,
2018). Further, facilitators and barriers of referencing are
investigated, typically in experimental and quasi-experimental
research designs (e.g., Engelmann, Tergan et al., 2009; Gijlers
et al., 2013).
Referencing is operationalized by measures directly cap-
tured from the collaboration process. For example, the num-
ber of transactive utterances (Berkowitz et al., 2008; Teasley,
1997) reflects the extent to which learners take up co-learn-
ers’ externalized content-relevant information. Referencing
can also be assessed by post-collaborative measures of know-
ledge convergence, that is, the amount of content-relevant
knowledge shared after collaboration (Weinberger et al.,
2007). Further, it can be assessed through post-collaborative
knowledge or information awareness tests, capturing a learn-
er’s degree of knowledge about their co-learners’ knowledge
(“who knows what;” e.g., Engelmann, Tergan et al., 2009).
Referencing cannot occur in individual learning settings.
It is considered a core process of successful collaborative
learning (Chi & Wylie, 2014; Fischer, Kollar, Stegmann, &
Wecker, 2013). On one hand, referencing is the central pre-
requisite for using co-learners externalizations as learning
resources in addition to the instructional material and, thus,
to exploit the potential benefits of collaboration for one’s
own retrieval and inferencing (Janssen & Kirschner, 2020;
Kirschner et al., 2018; Wegner, 1987). On the other hand,
referencing is associated with transaction costs, that is, the

efforts necessary to establish and maintain coordination and
communication with other co-learners (Janssen et al., 2010).
Thus, the transaction costs which need to be invested in the
service of referencing also consume working memory
resources, leaving less capacity for processing the instruc-
tional material (Janssen & Kirschner, 2020; Kirschner
et al., 2018).
Research shows that learners often fail to take up each
other’s contributions or tend to build quick consensus
(Barron, 2003; Jeong & Hmelo-Silver, 2016; Kirschner &
Erkens, 2013; Weinberger, 2011). Hence, learners often
struggle with the interactive activity subtask of referencing.
To account for these findings, facilitators and barriers of
referencing are claimed and investigated (e.g., Janssen &
Kirschner, 2020).
Referencing is stimulated by positive interdependence
(e.g., Johnson et al., 1989), that is, the experience that the
learning task can be better solved by working collaboratively
rather than individually. Positive interdependence may
increase with increasing task complexity (which depends on
the task demands themselves and the learners’ available
prior domain knowledge) and with increasing divergence of
task-relevant domain knowledge among the group members
(Janssen & Kirschner, 2020; Kirschner et al., 2018).
Referencing is negatively affected by the degree of the
associated transaction costs. The transaction costs are likely
to increase with a higher divergence of knowledge among
the group members as well as with group size
(Hollingshead, 2001; Kirschner et al., 2018). By contrast,
transaction costs decrease with the degree to which group
members have developed a shared knowledge about who
knows what, that is, a transactive memory system (Wegner,
1987) or cognitive group awareness (Janssen & Bodemer,
2013). Accordingly, referencing is facilitated to the extent to
which the collaborating learners possess knowledge regard-
ing other group members’ knowledge, ideas, and perspec-
tives as well as how far there is a shared understanding
among the group members (Gijlers & de Jong, 2009; Janssen
et al., 2007; Janssen & Bodemer, 2013; Janssen &
Kirschner, 2020).
Individual preparation as a potential aid to improve
subsequent collaboration
As outlined so far, interactive activities involve simultaneous
retrieval, inferencing, and referencing. When subjects are
asked to collaborate, they often struggle with the demands
of these cognitive subtasks due to the costs arising from the
collaboration: individual information processing can be
impeded by co-learners’ externalizations, for example by dis-
ruption (e.g., retrieval strategy disruption, production block-
ing), interference (e.g., retrieval inhibition, fixation), and/or
information overload. In addition, learners’ limited working
memory capacities are burdened by the need to invest trans-
action costs. Group learning situations are therefore often
more complex and resource-demanding than situations of
individual learning. Hence, the potential benefits of collab-
orative learning often do not materialize.
EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGIST 33
Individual preparation is frequently argued as being
effective in addressing the difficulties learners are faced with
during collaboration (e.g., Andrews & Rapp, 2015; Tsovaltzi
et al., 2015). In the following sections, we revisit the collab-
orative memory, group brainstorming, and collaborative
learning literature in order to develop hypotheses regarding
the advantages and disadvantages of having versus not hav-
ing learners prepare individually prior to collaboration.
Afterward, we address the issue of how design features of
the individual preparation phase, namely the preparation
task type and the provision of awareness induction support,
relate to these advantages and disadvantages.
Individual preparation for collaboration compared to
immediate collaboration
Based on the research revisited, we hypothesize individual
preparation for collaboration—as compared to immediate
collaboration—to yield an information processing advantage
and at the same time a coordination disadvantage. The infor-
mation-processing advantage is that learners can initially
process the instructional material with full cognitive capacity
and without the costs resulting from being exposed to co-
learners’ externalizations. Moreover, they do not have to
cope with transaction costs (cf. Andrews & Rapp, 2015;
Blumen & Rajaram, 2008; Kohn et al., 2011; Korde &
Paulus, 2017; Tsovaltzi et al., 2015). Consequently, learners
might be better able to activate prior knowledge in order to
elaborate it more effectively in the subsequent collaboration
(Lam & Kapur, 2017; Lam & Muldner, 2017; cf. Schwartz
et al., 2007). Hence, having learners prepare individually
rather than collaborate immediately could be assumed to
foster their retrieval and inferencing performance. Retrieval
may be fostered, since having subjects encode to-be-learned
information or practice retrieval individually can strengthen
their personal memory organization. This in turn could
benefit subsequent group retrieval performance (cf. Barber
et al., 2010; Blumen et al., 2014; Blumen & Rajaram, 2008).
Inferencing may be fostered since learners can build up a
richer initial knowledge and develop a wider range of ideas
and perspectives around the learning content. This in turn
could foster the capabilities to draw inferences during subse-
quent collaboration (cf. Best et al., 2005; Kintsch, 1998; Lam
& Kapur, 2017; Schwartz et al., 2007).
Concerning learners’ referencing performance, the poten-
tial effect of having versus not having learners individually
prepare for collaboration seems to be less clear. Learners
may benefit from the information processing advantage
since they can process the instructional material before their
cognitive resources are burdened with the transaction costs.
Thus, more cognitive capacities might be available to deal
with these costs during collaboration (cf. Dillenbourg &
Betrancourt, 2006; Janssen & Kirschner, 2020).
Due to the coordination disadvantage, however, referenc-
ing may also be hampered: spending a part of one’s learning
time individually before collaborating results in a lack of
coordination opportunities and, thus, hinders the develop-
ment of cognitive group awareness or a transactive memory
system, respectively. Consequently, in subsequent
34 S. MENDE ET AL.
collaboration, the transaction costs to be invested in the ser-
vice of referencing might be increased (cf. Janssen &
Bodemer, 2013; Janssen & Kirschner, 2020; Wegner, 1987).
Hence, individual preparation for collaboration may not
necessarily foster learners’ referencing performance as com-
pared to immediate collaboration arrangements. As outlined
previously, effective mutual referencing (i.e., attending to
and taking up co-learners’ externalizations) is a prerequisite
to benefit from other co-learners as additional learning
resources in terms of retrieval and inferencing (cf. Janssen &
Kirschner, 2020; Wegner, 1987). Although the information
processing advantage may contribute to attenuate the costs
of collaboration for retrieval and inferencing, the coordin-
ation disadvantage may thus restrict the extent to which the
potential benefits of collaboration for these subtasks come
into effect.
The role of the individual preparation design: Task type
and awareness induction support
The arguments outlined above raise the question of which
factors in the design of individual preparation may influence
the manifestation of its potentials and risks. These design
factors should have an impact on the extent to which the
information processing advantage and the coordination dis-
advantage come into effect. Therefore, we consider the fol-
lowing two design factors: first, the type of the individual
preparation task which may affect how the information con-
tained in the instructional material is processed during prep-
aration. Second, the provision of group awareness support
which may affect coordination through stimulating the
learner to process the individual preparation products of the
future co-learners before the collaboration (e.g., Engelmann,
Tergan et al., 2009; Janssen & Bodemer, 2013).
Existing research particularly stresses the role of genera-
tive tasks for preparing students for subsequent (collabora-
tive) learning (e.g., Kapur, 2015; Lam & Kapur, 2017;
Schwartz et al., 2011). A generative task requires the learner
to infer new knowledge by connecting different information
from the instructional material and/or by linking this infor-
mation with preexisting knowledge (e.g., transforming an
expository text into a concept map or generating examples
for a concept; Fiorella & Mayer, 2016; Grabowski, 2004;
Wittrock, 1989). Research on individual learning shows that
generative tasks foster a) retrieval performance due to
deeper encoding (Craik & Tulving, 1975; Fiorella & Mayer,
2016; Grabowski, 2004; Kintsch, 2004) and b) inferencing
performance due to the acquisition of better-connected
knowledge that can be used more flexibly (Alfieri et al.,
2013; Chi, 2000; Kintsch, 2004; McNamara, 2004; Schwartz
et al., 2011). Thus, requiring learners to individually prepare
with a generative task may be suited to enforce the informa-
tion processing advantage since learners can use their undiv-
ided cognitive capacities in the service of deep information
processing. Consequently, a generative task may enhance the
benefits of individual preparation for subjects’ retrieval and
inferencing performance in later collaboration (cf. Lam &
Kapur, 2017).
A generative preparation task can also have beneficial
effects on learners’ referencing. It can lead the different
group members to build more divergent ideas, perspectives,
and knowledge before the start of the collaboration (cf.
Janssen & Kirschner, 2020; Jorczak, 2011). This may increase
the perceived interdependence which could positively affect
referencing performance during subsequent collaboration.
However, a higher knowledge divergence is also associated
with higher transaction costs which could hamper learners’
referencing (cf. Janssen & Kirschner, 2020).
An individual preparation phase could not only be used
to have the learners individually process the instructional
material but also to have them inspect each other’s individ-
ual preparation products before the collaboration. This then
represents a specific form of awareness induction
(Weinberger, 2011) or group awareness support (Janssen &
Bodemer, 2013). Awareness induction support is understood
as informing group members about each other’s knowledge,
ideas, and perspectives (e.g., Engelmann, Dehler et al., 2009;
Janssen & Bodemer, 2013). In this way, awareness induction
support can reduce transaction costs (Janssen & Bodemer,
2013; Jeong & Hmelo-Silver, 2016; Weinberger, 2011).
Hence, implementing such support might be particularly
suited to compensate for the coordination disadvantage of
individual preparation so that referencing could be fostered
(cf. Janssen & Bodemer, 2013). This in turn may enhance
the extent to which learners can profit from co-learners’
externalizations with respect to retrieval and inferencing: a
well-developed transactive memory system or group aware-
ness can foster cross-cueing and facilitate the alignment of
retrieval strategies in order to overcome retrieval strategy
disruption (cf. Blumen & Rajaram, 2008; Marion & Thorley,
2016; Moreland & Myaskovsky, 2000; Wegner, 1987).
Further, awareness induction support may increase the
extent to which learners can stimulate, provoke, and assist
each other’s inferencing during subsequent collaboration (cf.
Dugosh et al., 2000; Erkens et al., 2016; Noroozi
et al., 2013).
Summary and research questions
Learners often struggle with the cognitive subtasks of inter-
active activities in terms of retrieval, inferencing, and refer-
encing during collaboration. Preceding the collaboration
with individual preparation is considered to aid learners in
overcoming these difficulties. However, the research outlined
above suggests that individual preparation for collaboration
may at the same time yield an information processing
advantage and a coordination disadvantage. This attracts
attention to the individual preparation design, that is,
whether (a) a generative, as opposed to a non-generative
preparation task, may be particularly suited to enforce the
information processing advantage and (b) providing learners
with their future co-learners’ individual preparation prod-
ucts (i.e., awareness induction support) can compensate for
the coordination disadvantage.
To the best of our knowledge, none of these questions
have been subject to a systematic review so far. Accordingly,
 EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGIST 35

the present work aims at systematically reviewing the (3.1) individual preparation designs involving generative versus
research bodies of collaborative learning, collaborative mem- non-generative tasks?
ory, and group brainstorming with regard to the following
(3.2) individual preparation designs providing versus not
research questions (RQ):
providing awareness induction support?
RQ 1: What effects on (a) retrieval, (b) inferencing, and (c)
referencing are revealed by studies comparing individual We expect individual preparation for collaboration employ-
preparation for collaboration to immediate collaboration? ing generative preparation tasks to be superior to individual
preparation for collaboration employing non-generative prepar-
According to the hypothesized information processing
ation tasks in terms of retrieval and inferencing. We expect indi-
advantage, we expect individual preparation for collabor-
vidual preparation for collaboration involving awareness
ation to foster learners’ retrieval and inferencing perform-
induction support to be superior to individual preparation with-
ance as compared to immediate collaboration. Since
out awareness induction support in terms of retrieval, inferenc-
inferencing is a more complex, resource-demanding cogni-
ing, and referencing. Further, for studies varying task type and
tive task than the mere retrieval of stored knowledge (e.g.,
awareness induction support, we expect individual preparation
Kintsch, 2004), we expect the benefits of individual prepar-
for collaboration involving generative preparation tasks and
ation to be more pronounced for inferencing than for
awareness induction support to be superior to conditions where
retrieval (cf. Janssen & Kirschner, 2020). Further, learners’
only one or none of these design features are applied.
referencing performance may also benefit from the informa-
In addition, we will consider participants’ age level and the
tion processing advantage but at the same time suffer from
group size as control variables. Group size is likely to increase
the coordination disadvantage. Consequently, we have no
the transaction costs associated with referencing (Janssen &
clear expectations concerning the effect of individual prepar-
Kirschner, 2020). Age level can be seen as a raw indicator for
ation for collaboration on learners’ referencing performance.
learners’ prior knowledge which may affect the degree to which
RQ 2: Are the effects revealed by studies comparing individual learners profit from support strategies such as individual prep-
preparation for collaboration to immediate collaboration
aration (cf. Lam, 2019). For studies capturing measures of
dependent on the design of the individual preparation
phase, namely retrieval performance, we will additionally consider the collab-
orative retrieval test type as a control variable since it has been
(2.1) the individual preparation task type (i.e., generative versus evidenced to affect the degree to which retrieval strategy disrup-
non-generative)? tion appears, in turn impacting collaborative retrieval perform-
ance (Marion & Thorley, 2016).
(2.2) the provision of awareness induction support (i.e.,
provided versus not provided)?

Generative tasks may be suited to enhance the informa- Method

tion processing advantage of individual preparation. The literature research was conducted in four steps: keyword
Concerning retrieval and inferencing, we therefore expect extraction, database search, abstract screening, and full-text
the positive effects of individual preparation for collabor- assessment. Figure 1 summarizes the results of the search
ation as compared to immediate collaboration to be more and selection process.
pronounced in studies using generative tasks than in studies
using non-generative tasks. Yet, regarding the effects on
referencing we consider it premature to formulate concrete Search term extraction
expectations. Awareness induction support may be suited to
Relevant search terms were extracted from reviews, meta-
compensate for the coordination disadvantage of individual
analyses, overview articles, and representative studies of the
preparation. Regarding referencing we, therefore, expect that
research fields of collaborative memory, group brainstorm-
studies providing awareness support reveal positive effects of
ing, and collaborative learning. These search terms were
individual preparation for collaboration as compared to
complemented by database thesaurus consultation.
immediate collaboration. Since effective mutual referencing
In order to reduce the risk of overlooking relevant studies,
should also facilitate retrieval and inferencing, we expect the
we defined a separate set of search terms for each research
positive effects of individual preparation for collaboration as
field. In addition, we defined a separate search term set for the
compared to immediate collaboration on these subtasks to
group awareness support literature although we considered it
be more pronounced in studies providing than in studies
as part of the collaborative learning research field. This was
not providing awareness induction support. Moreover, we
necessary due to some specifics in the relevant keywords.
expect the most pronounced positive effects of individual
For the field of collaborative memory, we conjunctively
preparation for collaboration as compared to immediate col-
combined search terms referring to the social mode of inter-
laboration regarding all three subtasks of interactive activ-
est, such as “collaborati
,” “cooperati
,” “peer,” “dyad,” or
ities when generative preparation tasks and awareness
induction support are applied. “group,” with terms referring to the relevant dependent vari-
able, such as “encod
,” “inhibition,” “memory,” “recall,” or
RQ 3: What effects on (a) retrieval, (b) inferencing, and (c) “retriev
.” For the field of brainstorming, we defined single
referencing are revealed by studies comparing different designs
search terms such as “brainstorm
” or search term combina-
of individual preparation for collaboration, namely
tions such as “idea
” and “generat
.” For the field of group
36 S. MENDE ET AL.
Figure 1. Summary of the results of the literature research and selection process.
awareness, we combined search terms referring to the rele-
vant social mode with the term “aware
.”
For these three research fields, no specific restrictions
were made. For the collaborative learning search term set
we limited the findings to studies with terms like
“preparation” in the title or keywords because, otherwise,
the number of hits would have exceeded our analytical
capacities. Consequently, this search term set consisted not
only of a conjunctive combination of terms referring to the
relevant social mode and terms referring to the dependent
variable of interest (e.g., “learn
,” “comprehen
,” or
“discourse”). To limit the findings, we complemented the set
with terms referring to the relevant intervention (e.g.,
“prepar
,” “sequenc
,” or “structur
”) and terms referring to
the relevant social mode of the intervention (e.g., “individ
,”
“single
,” or “alone”).
Database search
The literature search was executed in the databases
PsycINFO, PsycARTICLES, PSYNDEX, and Web of Science
between May and August 2017 according to the following
basic criteria: (a) original empirical research reported in (b)
a peer-reviewed research article in (c) English or German
language which was (d) published since 1987, and (e) cate-
gorized in a discipline or subject concerned with cognitive
and/or group performance by the database providers (e.g.,
“group performance,” “Educational Psychology,” “cognitive
processes,” or “learning and memory”). These searches
resulted in an initial number of 2,947 records (see Figure 1).
Abstract screening
Inclusion criteria were developed in line with the PICOS
approach (Liberati et al., 2009; see Table 1). We screened
the titles and abstracts of the studies according to these
inclusion criteria. Due to the limited information provided
in abstracts and titles, studies were excluded at this stage
only if the given information was sufficient to clearly con-
clude that a criterion was not fulfilled. This process nar-
rowed the list to 487 records. One study (Lam & Muldner,
2017), a priori known to be potentially relevant by the
authors, was initially not part of the search results due to a
missing entry in the database PSYCINFO. However, the
 EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGIST 37

Table 1. Inclusion criteria according to the PICOS approach (Liberati et al., 2009).
Review questions 1. What effects on (a) retrieval, (b) inferencing, and (c) referencing are revealed by studies comparing individual
preparation for collaboration to immediate collaboration?
2. Are the effects revealed by studies comparing individual preparation for collaboration to immediate collaboration
dependent on the design of the individual preparation phase (i.e., task type and awareness induction support)?
3. What effects on (a) retrieval, (b) inferencing, and (c) referencing are revealed by studies comparing different designs
of individual preparation for collaboration (i.e., individual preparation designs differing in task type or the provision
of awareness induction support)?

Population  Adults and school children.

 Non-clinical populations.

Intervention Collaboration with a preceding individual preparation.

Comparator Collaboration without a preceding individual preparation (i.e., immediate collaboration) OR

Collaboration with a preceding individual preparation with the latter differing from the intervention either with
respect to
 the preparation task type (generative versus non-generative) or
 the provision of awareness induction support (present versus absent).

Further specifications The individual preparation phase …

 … has to be content-specific, that is, subjects are required to deal with the same subject matter or with the same
(superordinate) task as in the subsequent collaboration phase.
 … has to require subjects to execute observable actions focused on dealing with the subject matter or task (i.e., not
only passive reception).

Task type and the presence of awareness induction support are determined according to the following definitions:
 A generative task requires the subject to create meaningful connections not already stated in the available
instructional material. Such connections could be drawn between different pieces of information from the
instructional material and/or between the information from the instructional material and preexisting knowledge (Chi
& Wylie, 2014; Fiorella & Mayer, 2016; Grabowski, 2004; Wittrock, 1989).
 An individual preparation is considered to be complemented by awareness induction support if learners are explicitly
provided with and instructed to inspect the preparation products of their (future) group members before
collaboration (cf. Engelmann, Dehler et al., 2009; Janssen & Bodemer, 2013; Weinberger, 2011).

Outcomes At least one quantitative, non-subjective measure indicative of subjects’ retrieval, inferencing, or referencing performance
during collaboration
 Retrieval: ability to successfully retrieve previously studied content-relevant information during collaboration (e.g.,
Rajaram & Pereira-Pasarin, 2010).
 Inferencing: ability to generate content-relevant outputs beyond the given instructional material during collaboration
(e.g., Roscoe, 2014).
 Referencing: ability to attend to and to take up content-relevant information externalized by co-learners (e.g.,
Teasley, 1997).

For at least one comparison relevant to our review questions: report of summary data necessary to compute the
respective effect size and confidence interval.

Setting  Collaborative tasks requiring primarily cognitive performance.

 Small groups.

Study design  Empirical studies with experimental or quasi-experimental design.

 Within-designs only if counterbalanced.
 No confounding of individual preparation effects.

technical support of the database has assured the authors
that this was an unsystematic error. This study was added to
the pool of records manually.
Full-text assessment
After eliminating duplicates, a set of 288 records were sub-
jected to a full-text assessment. With this last step, the final
inclusion decisions were made for the remaining studies.
Some studies (n ¼ 5) were excluded as a result of unclear
reporting. We also excluded studies revealed to be non-ori-
ginal (n ¼ 10), non-empirical (n ¼ 2), or non-experimen-
tal (n ¼ 18).
The largest group of excluded papers was removed
because their research designs did not match our research
questions (n ¼ 186), for example, because no individual
preparation was implemented, the control condition
involved an individual phase between several collaborative
phases or individual preparation for collaboration was only
the general context rather than the subject of examination.
A further 29 studies were excluded because they did not cor-
respond with the criteria we derived for the present work from
the definition of individual preparation for collaboration. First,
we excluded studies that involved individually preparing sub-
jects in a non-content specific manner for the subsequent col-
laboration task (e.g., in the form of a general collaboration or
problem-solving skills training). In addition, studies were dese-
lected which implemented individual preparations only in the
form of requiring subjects to passively receive information
rather than to deal with them in an observable manner.
Moreover, we excluded studies comparing different individual
preparation for collaboration arrangements that did not focus
38 S. MENDE ET AL.
on non-generative versus generative preparation tasks or the
presence versus absence of awareness induction support (see
the respective definitions in Table 1). For example, studies were
excluded in which all conditions involved individual prepar-
ation for collaboration, but the manipulations consisted of hav-
ing the group members process the same versus different
contents or tasks during preparation, or prescribing different
sequences or numbers of individual generative or non-genera-
tive task processing phases.
We also excluded studies that did not fulfill the methodo-
logical criterion of internal validity regarding our research ques-
tions (n ¼ 12). For instance, we excluded studies applying a
within-design without counter-balancing. In addition, studies
were excluded if the manipulated conditions not only differed
concerning the presence or the kind of individual preparations
but also concerning the subsequent collaboration phases. For
example, some studies compared a collaboration only control
condition to a collaboration script condition, with the latter
involving not only an individual preparation phase but also
additional instructions and scaffolds in the collaboration phase.
In contrast, we included studies comparing conditions where
the products of individual preparations (e.g., problem solutions,
generated explanations, or concept maps) were available to the
subjects during subsequent collaboration with conditions where
the products were not available during collaboration. Giving
learners the opportunity to further use, discuss, and develop
each other’s preparation products is an inherent affordance of
individual preparation for collaboration.
A further set of inclusion criteria addressed the measures
applied in the studies. Generally, we accepted only quantified
measures which were non-subjective in nature, that is, meas-
ures not relying on the personal opinion or evaluation of the
subjects. Further, in order to be included a study had to cap-
ture at least one measure indicative of the subjects’ retrieval,
inferencing, or referencing performance during collaboration
(see Table 1 for the definitions). In this regard, the measures
were assessed according to the principle of caution: if we
could not clearly establish whether a measure reflects, for
instance, the mere repetition of previously studied material in
the sense of retrieval, the drawing of inferences going beyond
this information, or a mixture of both, it was not further con-
sidered for inclusion. A total of n ¼ 4 studies were excluded
because they did not provide any measure fulfilling our crite-
ria. One further study was excluded because it reported nei-
ther a statistical analysis nor summary data relevant to our
research questions. The full-text assessment and our subse-
quent selection process resulted in a final set of 20 records,
including 22 criteria-compliant experiments. An overview of
the selected studies and their characteristics is given in
Appendix A. Please note that only conditions that allow for at
least one comparison relevant to our research questions and
correspond to our inclusion criteria are presented.
Effect size calculation
In general, for each dependent variable in each study the effect
size index Hedge’s g and the related standard error was calcu-
lated based on the means, standard deviations, and condition
sample sizes as reported in the articles according to the formu-
lae given in Borenstein et al. (2009, pp. 26–27). Please note that
these summary data could either refer to the individual or to
the group level dependent on the unit of analysis chosen by the
authors of the respective study (see Appendix A, column 5).
Based on the standard errors, we further computed 95% confi-
dence intervals for each effect size according to the procedure
provided in Nakagawa and Cuthill (2007, p. 599). One study
reported findings based on a pretest-posttest-control design
(Erkens et al., 2016). Following the recommendations of the
What Works Clearinghouse Procedures Handbook (Institute of
Education Sciences, 2020, p. E-5) we inserted the between-con-
dition difference of the pretest-posttest-differences in the
numerator and the pooled posttest standard deviation in the
denominator of the Hedge’s g formula to compute the effect
size here. Since no pretest-posttest-correlation was reported, we
assumed a pre-post-intercorrelation of 0.50 for the standard
error calculation (Institute of Education Sciences, 2020, p. E-6).
Two further studies (Rajaram & Pereira-Pasarin, 2007, experi-
ment 1; Weldon & Bellinger, 1997, experiment 1) reported find-
ings based on mixed ANOVAS where the within subject factor
effects were of interest. Here we applied the formula provided
in Borenstein et al. (2009, p. 29). For standard error calculation,
a within-subjects’ correlation of 0.50 was assumed (cf. Institute
of Education Sciences, 2020). Details on how we dealt with
problems and exceptions regarding the calculation of effect sizes
can be found in Appendix B.
Data analysis
Because of the relatively small amount of quite heteroge-
neous studies available, conducting a meta-analysis by com-
puting pooled summary effect estimates in response to our
research questions did not prove to be an adequate method
(Boland et al., 2017; McKenzie & Brennan, 2019; Verbeek
et al., 2012). Consequently, we conducted a narrative synthe-
sis based on a structured overview of the direction, size, and
precision (i.e., confidence intervals) of effects obtained from
the single studies separately for each research question and
dependent variable (cf. McKenzie & Brennan, 2019; Popay
et al., 2006; Verbeek et al., 2012).
In line with the guidelines provided by Cohen (1988), we
considered effect sizes (Hedge’s g) of 0.20, 0.50, and 0.80 to
be small, medium, and large, respectively. An effect was
considered to be significant at a 5% significance level if the
95% confidence interval did not include zero (Sch€ unemann
et al., 2019). This has been indicated by an asterisk in
the text. For example, an effect size statement of Hedge’s
g ¼ 0.85
indicates the effect to be large and statistically sig-
nificant at the 5% level.
Results
RQ 1: Effects of individual preparation for collaboration
versus immediate collaboration
Table 2 presents an overview of the effects of the studies
comparing conditions of individual preparation for

collaboration to conditions of immediate collaboration
(RQ1) separately for each dependent variable (i.e., retrieval,
inferencing, and referencing).
Retrieval
Eight studies capture learners’ retrieval performance with
effect sizes ranging from large negative (g ¼ 1.13
) to
large positive (g ¼ 0.87
). Three of these effect sizes are
statistically significant. One study shows a large, statistically
significant positive effect. Seven studies reveal negative
effects; two with large significant effect sizes and five with
small non-significant effect sizes.
Inferencing
The effect sizes of the seven studies with measures on sub-
jects’ inferencing performance range from small negative
(g ¼ 0.28) to large positive (g ¼ 1.15
). Two of these
effect sizes are statistically significant. Six studies reveal posi-
tive effects; one of large, one of moderate, and four of small
size. Two of these positive effects are statistically significant.
One study shows a small non-significant negative effect.
Referencing
Among the five studies measuring subjects’ referencing per-
formance, effect sizes range from moderate negative (g ¼
0.53
) to large positive (g ¼ 1.20
). Two of these effect
sizes are statistically significant. Three studies reveal positive
effects; one with a large, statistically significant effect size
and two with small non-significant effect sizes. Two studies
show negative effects (one significant moderate and one
non-significant small effect size).
To sum up, the vast majority of studies on retrieval per-
formance reveal negative effects, indicating individual prep-
aration for collaboration is inferior to immediate
collaboration. With respect to subjects’ inferencing perform-
ance, the opposite is true: here, most of the studies show
positive effects, favoring individual preparation for collabor-
ation over immediate collaboration. For referencing per-
formance no clear trend is discernable.
RQ 2: Effects of individual preparation for collaboration
versus immediate collaboration—role of task type and
awareness induction support
To address RQ 2 we compare the effects between different
subgroups of studies that compare conditions of individual
preparation for collaboration to conditions of immediate
collaboration. For RQ 2.1 the effects of studies employing a
generative preparation task are compared to the effects of
studies employing a non-generative preparation task, while
for RQ 2.2 the effects of studies where awareness induction
support is provided are compared to the effects of studies
where such support is not provided. To this end, the studies
in each dependent variable section are arranged in Table 2
according to the modifiers preparation task type and
EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGIST 39
awareness induction support (see columns 2 and 3).
Moreover, we consider whether the variability of the effects
can be further explained by variations in additional study
features, especially the size of the learning groups and par-
ticipants’ age level (see columns 4 and 5 in Table 2). For
studies capturing measures of retrieval performance we add-
itionally consider the type of the collaborative retrieval test
(indicated by superscript a or b in Table 2).
RQ 2.1: The role of the preparation task type for the
effects of individual preparation for collaboration versus
immediate collaboration
Retrieval. Out of the eight studies capturing measures of
retrieval, four apply a generative and four a non-generative
preparation task (see Table 2, column 2). Among the studies
employing generative preparation tasks, one reveals a large
and significant positive effect. Three studies show a negative
effect (one significant large and two non-significant small
effects). All studies applying non-generative preparation
tasks reveal negative effects (one significant large, one sig-
nificant moderate, and two non-significant small effects).
Hence, the comparisons reveal no discernable trend con-
cerning the role of the preparation task type (generative vs.
non-generative) for the effects of individual preparation for
collaboration as compared to immediate collaboration on
retrieval. However, considering additional study features
sheds more light on this picture:
When comparing those studies that differ in preparation
task type but are similar in terms of yielding a relatively low risk
of retrieval strategy disruption (closed collaborative retrieval
tests and group sizes of 2), studies with non-generative prepar-
ation tasks show two small, not significantly negative effects
(Allwood et al., 2003, experiment 1; Stephenson & Wagner,
1989). Studies employing generative preparation tasks show
one large significant positive effect (Barber et al., 2010, experi-
ment 1) and one small, not significantly negative effect
(Andersson & R€ onnberg, 1997, experiment 1). A notable differ-
ence between the Barber et al. (2010) and the Andersson and
R€onnberg (1997) studies consists in the complexity of the
applied generative preparation task: while the subjects of the
former study had to create sentences from given word pairs,
the participants of the latter study had to generate an associated
word for each given target word. Hence, the task applied by
Barber et al. involves a higher amount of information to be
meaningfully connected, probably evoking richer and more ela-
borated encoding (cf. Craik & Tulving, 1975).
When comparing the studies that differ in preparation task
type but are similar in terms of yielding a higher risk of
retrieval strategy disruption (open collaborative retrieval tests
and group sizes of 3), studies with non-generative preparation
tasks show moderate to large significant negative effect sizes
(Moreland & Myaskovsky, 2000; Weldon & Bellinger, 1997,
experiment 2). The study employing a generative preparation
task reveals a small and non-significant negative effect size
(Barber et al., 2012). One further study also involving a gen-
erative preparation task and an open collaborative retrieval
test but examining dyads shows a large significant negative
effect (Lambiotte et al., 1987). However, this effect is likely to
40 S. MENDE ET AL.

Table 2. Effects of individual preparation for collaboration (IC) versus immediate collaboration (C) on subjects’ retrieval, inferencing, and referencing
performance.
Awareness
Preparation induction
Study task type support Group size Age level Hedge’s g [95% CI]
Retrieval
Barber et al. (2010), experiment 1b Generative No 2 University students 0.87
[0.37, 1.38]
Andersson and R€onnberg (1997), Generative No 2 University students 0.17 [0.79, 0.45]
experiment 1b
Lambiotte et al. (1987)a Generative No 2 University students 1.13
[1.79, 0.46]
Barber et al. (2012)a Generative No 3 University students 0.42 [1.12, 0.29]
Allwood et al. (2003), Non-generative No 2 University students 0.14 [0.75, 0.47]
experiment 1b
Stephenson and Wagner (1989)b Non-generative No 2 University students 0.24 [1.12, 0.64]
Weldon and Bellinger (1997), Non-generative No 3 University students 1.04
[2.03, 0.05]
experiment 2a
Moreland and Myaskovsky (2000)a Non-generative No/yes 3 University students 0.31 [0.82, 0.20]c
0.61
[1.21, 0.01]d,e
for IC without awareness
induction support
0.02 [0.61, 0.56]e
for IC with awareness
induction support
Inferencing
Lam and Muldner (2017) Generative Yes 2 University students 0.49
[0.08, 0.91]
Gijlers et al. (2013) Generative Yes 2 School (primary) 0.23 [0.40, 0.86]
Huang et al. (2012) Generative Yes 3 University students 1.15
[0.24, 2.06]
Kohn et al. (2011), Generative Yes 3 University students 0.69 [0.11, 1.50]
experiment 1
Van Boxtel et al. (2000) Generative No 2 School (secondary) 0.28 [1.12, 0.56]
Korde and Paulus (2017), Generative No 3 University students 0.40 [0.31, 1.10]
experiment 1
Korde and Paulus (2017), Generative No 3 University students 0.20 [0.31, 0.70]
experiment 2
Referencing
Gijlers et al. (2013) Generative Yes 2 School (primary) 1.20
[0.50, 1.89]
Kohn et al. (2011), Generative Yes 3 University students 0.32 [0.57, 1.20]
experiment 1
Tsovaltzi et al. (2015), Generative No 2 University students 0.53
[1.03, 0.04]
experiment 3
Van Boxtel et al. (2000) Generative No 2 School (secondary) 0.34 [0.51, 1.18]
Barber et al. (2012) Generative No 3 University students 0.24 [0.94, 0.46]
Note. Positive effect sizes indicate individual preparation for collaboration (IC) is superior to immediate collaboration (C).
a
Open collaborative retrieval test (open recall). bNon-open collaborative retrieval test (cued recall or recognition). cThis effect size is considered when addressing
RQ 1. dThis effect size is considered when addressing RQ 2.1. eThese effect sizes are considered when addressing RQ 2.2.

p < 0.05.

have occurred due to issues of over-scripting the individually
preparing learners, as the authors acknowledge themselves
(Lambiotte et al., 1987).
To summarize, in collaborative retrieval situations where
the risk of retrieval strategy disruption is low, generative
preparation tasks may render individual preparation for col-
laboration to be superior to immediate collaboration. In sit-
uations where the risk of retrieval strategy disruption is
high, generative preparation tasks may diminish the negative
effects of individual preparation for collaboration as com-
pared to immediate collaboration. The results further indi-
cate that for this to occur also the complexity of the
generative preparation task and the risk of over-scripting
may have to be considered.
Inferencing. We identified no studies employing non-genera-
tive preparation tasks here. Hence, RQ 2.1 cannot be
addressed in view of subjects’ inferencing performance.
RQ 2.2: The role of awareness induction support for the
effects of individual preparation for collaboration versus
immediate collaboration
Retrieval. Out of the eight studies capturing retrieval measures,
only one study employs an individual preparation for collabor-
ation condition with awareness induction support (Moreland &
Myaskovsky, 2000; see Table 2, column 3). The comparison
between this condition and the immediate collaboration condi-
tion results in a small negative non-significant effect size. The
same study also includes an individual preparation for collabor-
ation condition without awareness induction support. When
this condition is compared to the immediate collaboration con-
dition, a significantly negative effect of moderate size occurs.
Finally, from the seven studies not involving awareness induc-
tion support, one is comparable to the Moreland and
Myaskovsky study in view of preparation task type, retrieval
test type, and group size. This study shows a large, significantly
negative effect (Weldon & Bellinger, 1997, experiment 2).

Referencing. The same is true concerning subjects’ referenc- Inferencing. Out of the seven studies capturing subjects’
ing performance. inferencing performance, four apply and three do not apply

Table 3. Effects resulting from comparisons between individual preparation for collaboration designs differing in the preparation task type or the provision of
awareness induction support on subjects’ retrieval, inferencing, and referencing performance.
Study
Retrieval: Individual preparation with generative vs. non-generative task
Rajaram and Pereira-Pasarin (2007), experiment 1b
Weldon and Bellinger (1997), experiment 1a
Inferencing: Individual preparation with generative vs. non-generative task
No studies obtained
Referencing: Individual preparation with generative vs. non-generative task
No studies obtained
Retrieval: Individual preparation with vs. without awareness induction support
Moreland and Myaskovsky (2000)a
Inferencing: Individual preparation with vs. without awareness induction support
Erkens et al. (2016)
Engelmann, Tergan et al. (2009)
Kablan (2014)
Referencing: Individual preparation with vs. without awareness induction support
Erkens et al. (2016)
Engelmann, Tergan et al. (2009)
Engelmann et al. (2014)
Note. A positive effect size indicates an individual preparation for collaboration condition involving a generative preparation task or awareness induction support
to outperform an individual preparation for collaboration condition with a non-generative task or without awareness support, respectively.
a
Open collaborative retrieval test (open recall). bNon-open collaborative retrieval test (cued recall or recognition).

p < 0.05.
awareness induction support. All of the studies with aware-
ness induction support reveal positive effects (one significant
large, one not significant moderate, one significant small,
and one non-significant small effect size). The studies with-
out awareness induction support reveal two small non-sig-
nificant positive effects and one small non-significant
negative effect.
Hence, the results indicate that awareness induction sup-
port improves the effects of individual preparation for col-
laboration as compared to immediate collaboration.
Considering additional study features further supports this
view: when comparing the studies that either provide aware-
ness induction support or not, but are similar concerning
group size (2 or 3) and age level (school or university stu-
dents), studies involving awareness induction support sys-
tematically reveal higher effect sizes than studies without
awareness induction support. Further, regarding the Gijlers
et al. (2013) study that reveals only a small positive effect, it
has to be considered that the high complexity of the pre-
sented awareness information and procedure is likely to
have exceeded the learners’ cognitive capacities, as suggested
by the authors themselves. This may partly account for the
small effect size.
To sum up, the results suggest awareness induction sup-
port further enhances the positive effects of individual prep-
aration for collaboration as compared to immediate
collaboration in view of subjects’ inferencing performance.
For this to occur, the complexity of the presented awareness
information may be a further factor that needs to
be considered.
Referencing. Of the five studies capturing subjects’ referenc-
ing performance, two apply and three do not apply aware-
ness induction support. Both of the studies applying
awareness induction support reveal positive effects (one
large significant effect; one small non-significant effect).
Among the studies without awareness induction support,
one shows a small non-significant positive effect while two
EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGIST 41
Group size Age level Hedge’s g [95% CI]
3 University 1.24
[0.77, 1.71]
3 University 0.70
[0.18, 1.22]
3 University 0.63
[0.01, 1.25]
2 School (high) 0.40 [0.13, 0.94]
3 University students 0.76
[1.39, 0.14]
4 School (primary) 0.20 [0.26, 0.66]
2 School (high) 0.66
[0.12, 1.20]
3 University students 1.51
[0.72, 2.31]
3 University students 0.61 [0.01, 1.23]
show negative effects (one medium significant effect; one
small non-significant effect).
Hence, this result pattern suggests that awareness induc-
tion support can improve the effects of individual prepar-
ation for collaboration as compared to immediate
collaboration concerning subjects referencing performance.
Considering additional study features further supports this
view: when comparing the studies that either provide aware-
ness induction support or not, but are similar concerning
group size (2 or 3) and age level (school or university stu-
dents), studies involving awareness induction support sys-
tematically reveal higher effect sizes than studies without
awareness induction support.
RQ 3: Comparing different designs of individual
preparation for collaboration—effects of preparation
task type and awareness induction support
While RQ 2 examines whether generative preparation tasks
or awareness induction support could improve the effects of
individual preparation for collaboration as compared to
immediate collaboration, RQ 3 examines whether an indi-
vidual preparation for collaboration condition involving a
generative preparation task or awareness induction support
might outperform an individual preparation for collabor-
ation condition with a non-generative task or without
awareness support, respectively.
Table 3 presents an overview of the studies which allow
for such comparisons. These studies are organized according
to the dependent variable (retrieval, inferencing, or referenc-
ing) and the type of comparisons conducted: individual
preparation with a generative versus non-generative prepar-
ation task (RQ 3.1) and individual preparation with versus
without awareness induction support (RQ 3.2). Again, we
consider whether additional study features (i.e., group size,
participants’ age level, and retrieval test type) can further
explain the effects (see Table 3).
42 S. MENDE ET AL.
RQ 3.1: The effects of generative preparation tasks
Retrieval. We identified two studies measuring subjects’
retrieval performance and involving individual preparation
for collaboration conditions which vary concerning the
preparation task type (Rajaram & Pereira-Pasarin, 2007,
experiment 1; Weldon & Bellinger, 1997, experiment 1).
Both studies reveal significant positive effects of generative
as compared to non-generative individual preparation tasks,
one of large and one of medium size. Both studies are simi-
lar concerning group size and age level (groups of three uni-
versity students), but differ with respect to the collaborative
retrieval test type: the former study applies a closed and the
latter study an open retrieval test. This indicates individual
preparation prompted by a generative task is superior to
individual preparation prompted by a non-generative task in
terms of subjects’ retrieval performance, particularly when a
closed rather than an open collaborative retrieval test is
administered.
Inferencing. We identified no studies involving individual
preparation for collaboration conditions which vary con-
cerning the preparation task type here.
Referencing. The same is true concerning subjects referenc-
ing performance.
RQ 3.2: The effects of awareness induction support
Retrieval. We identified one experimental comparison in
which collaborative retrieval performance is captured and
the provision of awareness induction support is manipulated
among two individual preparation for collaboration condi-
tions. This comparison stems from the Moreland and
Myaskovsky (2000) study and reveals a medium-sized, statis-
tically significant positive effect, indicating individual prep-
aration for collaboration with awareness induction support
is superior to individual preparation for collaboration with-
out awareness induction support. It is worth considering
that this study yields a relatively high risk of retrieval strat-
egy disruption (open collaborative retrieval test and group
sizes of three).
Inferencing. We obtained three studies comparing individual
preparation for collaboration with versus without awareness
induction support in which learners’ inferencing perform-
ance is captured. Two reveal small non-significant positive
effects (Erkens et al., 2016; Kablan, 2014) and one reveals a
medium-sized significant negative effect (Engelmann,
Tergan et al., 2009). The three studies vary considerably
regarding the group sizes and the participants’ age levels
(see Table 3). Furthermore, a notable difference between the
Engelmann et al. and the Erkens et al. studies consists in the
complexity of the awareness information and procedure:
While the participants in the Engelmann, Tergan et al.
(2009) study had to deal with several complex information
sources (own concept map, co-learners maps, developing
joint map) before and during collaboration, the subjects of
Erkens et al. (2016) received a relatively concise visual
summary of the partner’s individual preparation product for
the subsequent discussion. Further, it is worth considering
that in the study of Kablan (2014) the participants assigned
to the condition without awareness induction also received
the instruction to share and discuss each other’s preparation
products, albeit only during the collaboration phase. Taken
together, we find mixed results on the effects of individual
preparation for collaboration with versus without awareness
induction support on inferencing.
Referencing. We identified three studies in which subjects’
referencing performance is assessed and the provision of
awareness induction support is manipulated among individual
preparation for collaboration conditions. All of these studies
reveal positive effects: one significant large (Engelmann,
Tergan et al., 2009), one significant medium (Erkens et al.,
2016), and one non-significant medium effect (Engelmann
et al., 2014). The study of Erkens et al. differs from the studies
of Engelmann et al. regarding group size (2 or 3) and age level
(high schoolers or university students). A notable difference
between the two Engelmann et al. studies consists in the
implementation of the awareness induction support: while the
participants of the condition with awareness induction sup-
port had access to the evolving individual preparation prod-
ucts of their future co-learners right from the start of the
individual preparation in the study of Engelmann et al.
(2014), the participants in the study of Engelmann, Tergan
et al. (2009) received the products of their co-learners only
after they had completed their own learning product.
To sum up, the results indicate that individual prepar-
ation for collaboration with awareness induction support is
superior to individual preparation for collaboration without
awareness induction support in terms of subjects’ referenc-
ing performance. This is found for high schoolers in groups
of two and university students in groups of three. A further
factor that may be worth considering relates to the time
point of providing learners with information about other
learners in terms of their (evolving) individual preparation
products: before or only after one’s own individual prepar-
ation product is completed.
Discussion
Individual preparation has often been suggested to benefit
collaborative learning. Yet, so far, the theoretical bases and
the empirical evidence have not been systematically
addressed in previous research. This review addressed these
gaps by developing and testing hypotheses regarding the
claim that individual preparation is associated with an infor-
mation processing advantage and at the same time with a
coordination disadvantage. We investigated whether individ-
ual preparation for collaboration has different consequences
for learners’ execution of the interactive activity subtasks
retrieval, inferencing, and referencing during subsequent col-
laboration. We further examined whether a generative indi-
vidual preparation task and the provision of awareness
induction support can enforce the advantage or mitigate the
disadvantage.

Figure 2. Heuristic model of the conditions and effects of individual preparation on the cognitive subtasks of interactive activity in subsequent collaboration.
Our review reveals that the research on individual prep-
aration for collaboration is still in its infancy. Accordingly,
drawing definite conclusions would be premature:
Regarding some of our hypotheses, no final decision can
be made due to a very low number of relevant studies. In
addition, many studies employ rather small sample sizes
which may or may not be a reason for non-significant
effects. Other hypotheses cannot be examined at all due to
a lack of studies. Nevertheless, the findings of the existent
studies inspire us to reconsider our initial hypotheses and
to draft a preliminary model of how individual preparation
may affect interactive activities in subsequent collaboration
(see Figure 2).
Summary of theoretical considerations and empirical
findings: A preliminary model
We claim within our preliminary model (Figure 2) that indi-
vidual preparation per se does not automatically promote
interactive activities since not all cognitive subtasks of inter-
active activities are fostered. We further claim that the net
effect of individual preparation for a collaboration depends
on whether its information processing advantage or its
coordination disadvantage prevails.
The results of this review suggest that, when compared to
immediate collaboration, individual preparation for collabor-
ation reduces learners’ retrieval performance, fosters their
inferencing performance, and has no clear impact on refer-
encing (RQ 1). Since inferencing requires successful
retrieval, this may seem somewhat contradictory. At least
two possibly complementary mechanisms could explain this
pattern of results.
EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGIST 43
First, if the cognitive demands of the collaboration phase
do not at least involve inferencing but only mere retrieval,
the information processing advantage may be smaller than
the coordination disadvantage (cf. Janssen & Kirschner,
2020; Kintsch, 2004). If only retrieval is required, it might
be more useful for the learners to collaborate from the out-
set in order to share retrieval strategies, which can enhance
cross-cuing and attenuate retrieval strategy disruption dur-
ing subsequent collaboration (cf. Barber et al., 2012; Blumen
et al., 2014; Blumen & Rajaram, 2008). This explanation
receives some support from the finding that the negative
effects of individual preparation for collaboration on
retrieval are more pronounced in studies where the risk of
retrieval strategy disruption is higher due to higher group
sizes and/or open collaborative retrieval tests (cf. Marion &
Thorley, 2016). Conversely, the positive effects of individual
preparation for collaboration in terms of inferencing tend to
be more pronounced for larger groups where more co-learn-
ers could harm initial information processing through dis-
ruption and overload.
Second, the information processing advantage of individ-
ual preparation may only exceed its coordination disadvan-
tage if the preparation task is sufficiently complex and
cognitively resource demanding. This interpretation is sup-
ported by two findings of the review. First, the results in
relation to RQ 2.1 and 3.1 indicate that generative as com-
pared to non-generative preparation tasks improve the
effects of individual preparation for collaboration on learn-
ers’ collaborative retrieval performance. Second, in the
course of investigating RQ 2.1 we found some hints suggest-
ing that not only the type of the preparation task (generative
vs. non-generative) but also the generative task complexity—
in terms of the amount of to-be-memorized information to
44 S. MENDE ET AL.
be meaningfully connected—may play a role in this regard
(see Andersson & R€ onnberg, 1997; Barber et al., 2010).
From prior research, we know that a higher amount of
information to be linked improves memory, but also
increases the burdens on learners’ cognitive capacities (Craik
& Tulving, 1975; Kalyuga, 2007; Kintsch, 2004; van
Merri€enboer & Sweller, 2005). Hence, it may be that indi-
vidual preparation for collaboration is only superior to
immediate collaboration when a task requires the generation
of so many meaningful connections that only individually
preparing learners are able to invest the necessary cognitive
resources, while immediately collaborating learners are not.
Among the studies comparing individual preparation for
collaboration to immediate collaboration, only the studies
capturing retrieval indicators vary concerning the prepar-
ation task type while all studies capturing inferencing indica-
tors employ generative preparation tasks (see Figure 2).
Hence, we cannot further disentangle whether the mainly
negative retrieval and the mainly positive inferencing effects
of individual preparation are due to the preparation task
characteristics, due to the complexity of the collaborative
learning requirements, or a mixture of both.
In general, the review results are also in line with the
hypothesis that reducing the coordination disadvantage of
individual preparation via the provision of awareness induc-
tion support may foster referencing, in turn raising the ben-
efits of collaboration for retrieval and inferencing (RQ 2.2
and 3.2). However, some restrictions and specifications have
to be considered here.
First, we found some hints that the timing of awareness
induction support may have an impact on its effectivity
regarding learners referencing performance (see Engelmann,
Tergan et al., 2009; Engelmann et al., 2014): when provided
after learners have completed their own individual prepar-
ation the group may possess a higher divergence of content-
related perspectives and ideas than when learners are
granted with access to others’ evolving products or solutions
right from the start of the preparation. Hence, in the former
case learners may perceive a higher interdependence so that
mutual referencing is encouraged to a higher degree (cf.
Janssen & Kirschner, 2020; Jorczak, 2011).
Second, we obtained only one study providing evidence
regarding the hypothesis that awareness induction support
might improve the individual preparation effects in view of
learners’ collaborative retrieval performance (Moreland &
Myaskovsky, 2000). Although this study supports our
hypothesis, more evidence is needed for clear confirmation.
Third, the results suggest awareness induction improves the
positive effects of individual preparation for collaboration as
compared to immediate collaboration in view of learners’
inferencing performance (RQ 2.2). However, with regard to
the studies comparing individual preparation arrangements
with and without awareness induction support (RQ 3.2), the
results reveal no clear picture. Here, the findings indicate
that a further factor of the individual preparation design
may play a role: the complexity of the presented awareness
information and instructions. When too complex, the sub-
jects’ cognitive capacities may be overstrained and, thus,
hinder the drawing of inferences during collaboration
(cf. Engelmann, Tergan et al., 2009; Gijlers et al., 2013).
To conclude, based on the review we include the follow-
ing claims into our preliminary model of the effects of indi-
vidual preparation for subsequent collaboration: the net
effect of individual preparation for collaboration increases
 with the degree to which the information processing
advantage is actually used during preparation and actually
useful for the subsequent collaboration and
 with the degree to which the coordination disadvantage
is mitigated.
The use of the information processing advantage during
the preparation seems to depend on the task type and pos-
sibly further task characteristics such as the task complexity,
whereas the cognitive requirements of the collaboration task
seem to influence the usefulness of the information process-
ing advantage for the subsequent collaboration. To mitigate
the coordination disadvantage, the provision of awareness
induction support per se, as well as further parameters such
as the timing and the complexity of the awareness informa-
tion presentation may play a role. In addition, the net effect
of individual preparation for collaboration may be influ-
enced by further variables including learner (e.g., age level,
prior knowledge, collaboration skills) and group characteris-
tics (e.g., group size, knowledge divergence).
Limitations
This work is subject to several limitations that stem from
methodological issues concerning a) the single studies
reviewed, b) the review itself as well as c) the generalizability
of the reviewed results.
Methodological issues at the level of the single studies
First, the sample sizes of the reviewed studies are often rela-
tively small, making the effect size confidence intervals quite
wide. This is likely to increase the risk of false positives and
false negatives (e.g., Button et al., 2013).
Second, some of the comparisons between conditions
involving collaboration with versus without individual prepar-
ation are potentially confounded. That is, the condition with-
out individual preparation sometimes does not include the
task required in the individual preparation. For example, Van
Boxtel et al. (2000) had their participants construct a learning
product in dyads either immediately (immediate collaboration
condition) or after individually making a design for the learn-
ing product (individual preparation for collaboration condi-
tion). Thus, it cannot clearly be concluded whether the effects
are due to the individual preparation itself, the task to make
a design that the immediate collaboration participants never
received, or a mixture of both.
Methodological issues at the level of the review
At least two limitations have to be mentioned here. First, we
considered not only direct process measures but also

post-collaborative measures to reflect subjects’ retrieval,
inferencing, or referencing performance during collabor-
ation. Post-collaborative measures can only serve as indirect
indicators for the degree to which related collaborative proc-
esses have occurred. For example, better achievement in a
transfer posttest may allow for the conclusion that more
inferences were drawn during the previous learning process
(e.g., Chi et al., 1994; Kintsch, 2004). Yet, without measures
directly captured from the collaboration process, it cannot
be fully determined whether such inferences were actually
carried out and when they were drawn (i.e., during collabor-
ation or another time such as during individual prepar-
ation). Unfortunately, our literature search revealed only a
few studies capturing process measures.
Second, in some cases, the reported effect sizes and confi-
dence intervals could not directly be computed due to missing
summary data in the primary studies. We followed established
recommendations to make assumptions about unknown sta-
tistics and applied the best possible methods to estimate the
indices in case of missing values as exact as possible based on
the given information (see Appendix B). However, it still has
to be acknowledged that some results are based on approxi-
mations of the true values, potentially limiting their validity.
Generalizability of the review results
At least two issues may limit the generalizability of our results.
First, half of the studies included in this review employ authen-
tic educational materials and relatively complex preparation
and collaboration tasks (e.g., concept mapping, application
questions, essay writing). The other half of the studies—stem-
ming primarily from group brainstorming and collaborative
memory research—involve more artificial tasks (e.g., memoriza-
tion and retrieval of word lists). Such tasks are not necessarily
group-worthy (e.g., Cohen, 1994; Janssen & Kirschner, 2020)
and the respective results are not directly generalizable to the
effects of individual preparation for collaborative learning at
school, university, or the workplace. However, these studies
apply highly controlled experiments suited to carve out the
basic factors and cognitive mechanisms underlying the per-
formance concerning important cognitive subtasks of meaning-
ful collaborative learning processes. For instance, although
group retrieval per se may be an artificial, not group worthy
task, insights into the basic factors facilitating or hindering
group retrieval can contribute to clarifying when and why indi-
vidual preparation may (not) foster interactive activities during
collaboration in authentic learning settings.
Second, only four of the reviewed studies investigate sam-
ples of K-12 students while the remaining studies examine
university students. Hence, based on the given evidence we
cannot draw reliable conclusions about whether the effects
of individual preparation for collaboration are comparable
for K-12 and university students or may vary as a function
of, for instance, developmental factors in terms of intellec-
tual ability or social competence (cf. Wentzel & Watkins,
2002). A similar issue meets the size of the collaborating
groups: except one, all studies employ either dyads or triads.
Hence, the present results allow no conclusions regarding
individual preparation effects for larger groups.
EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGIST 45
Directions for future research
The present review helped us to formulate a preliminary model
of whether and when individual preparation may foster the cog-
nitive subtasks of interactive activity during subsequent collab-
oration. More research is needed to examine its hypotheses and
to investigate the role of additional factors that are indicated to
be also potentially relevant by the present results.
First, in some cases none, and in many cases, only a few
studies were obtained that dealt with the independent and
dependent variables relevant to our research questions. Thus,
the current research state does not allow disentangling the
effects of task type and awareness induction support and does
not provide enough insights into the effects of a combination
of these design features. To address these gaps on a secondary
research level, further studies are needed that compare indi-
vidual preparation for collaboration to immediate collabor-
ation and (a) capture retrieval and apply awareness induction
support (see Table 2, third column) or (b) capture inferencing
and referencing and apply non-generative preparation tasks
(see Table 2, second column). Furthermore, studies are
needed that compare individual preparations according to
generative tasks with individual preparations according to
non-generative tasks in view of learners’ inferencing and
referencing performance (see Table 3). In addition, studies
employing a 2  2  2 design, varying (a) individual prepar-
ation for collaboration versus immediate collaboration, (b)
generative versus non-generative preparation tasks, and (c)
the provision of awareness induction support would allow for
a systematic examination of the role of each independent vari-
able, as well as their interactions at the primary research level.
Second, the reviewed studies measure subjects’ performance
in terms of the interactive activity subtasks, but not as an inte-
grated behavior. Hence, so far it is not possible to draw con-
clusions concerning the question of whether and under what
conditions an individual preparation might foster the execution
of interactive activities as such during subsequent collabor-
ation. Consequently, studies are needed which capture behav-
ioral data from the collaboration process according to coding
schemes reflecting the exact definition of interactive activities
(Deiglmayr et al., 2015; Mende et al., 2017).
Third, future (meta-)studies could look at the effects of
individual preparation for collaboration not only through a
cognitive but also a motivational or metacognitive lens by
considering further dependent variables. For example, an
interesting question would be how individual preparation
affects the learners’ capabilities to regulate their own and
each other’s learning on a metacognitive level and how this
relates to mutual cognitive knowledge construction in terms
of interactive activities (e.g., Miller & Hadwin, 2015).
Fourth, our results indicate that further factors may play
a role regarding the effects of individual preparation for col-
laboration. In future studies employing the above mentioned
2  2  2 design, the collaboration task demands could be
varied to examine whether individual preparation and its
design features may be more or less effective in dependence
of what the learners have to subsequently achieve together.
The same applies to potentially relevant parameters of the
individual preparation design: the amount of information to
46 S. MENDE ET AL.
be linked in order to process a generative preparation task,
the complexity of the presented awareness information, and
the timing of providing awareness information. Hence,
besides the question of whether a generative preparation task
or awareness induction support is provided, it may also
matter how these support strategies are themselves designed.
Fifth, future research should more explicitly relate individual
preparation to other support strategies and tools. For example,
collaboration scripts provide learners with external rules to
guide them to conducive collaborative practices (e.g., Fischer,
Kollar, Stegmann, & Wecker, 2013). As such, scripts can pre-
scribe individual preparation for collaboration but can (also)
provide more fine-grained scaffolds to directly support the col-
laboration phase. Similarly, external representation tools can be
applied during collaboration to help learners off-loading the
cognitive demands (e.g., Dillenbourg & Betrancourt, 2006; Van
Bruggen et al., 2002) but could also be provided already during
an individual preparation. Hence, future research could exam-
ine whether and under what conditions (a) individual prepar-
ation or direct collaboration support might be superior and/or
(b) a combination might be best.
Finally, it cannot be taken for granted that the effects of indi-
vidual preparation for collaboration and the mentioned prepar-
ation design parameters are the same regardless of individual
learner characteristics (e.g., Mende et al., 2017). In the field of
collaboration scripting research, it is frequently argued that a
given degree of guidance may be adequate to enable some learn-
ers to execute the desired learning or collaboration activity, while
it may be insufficient or redundant for other learners dependent,
for instance, on the prior knowledge or the collaboration skills
they already possess (e.g., Kollar et al., 2006; Vogel et al., 2017).
However, especially the role of learners’ prior knowledge is
under-researched in this concern and thus deserves further
research (cf. Vogel et al., 2017). Moreover, whether individual
preparation with a certain degree of support would be adequate
for a learner with a given prior knowledge level should also
depend on the complexity of the subsequent collaborative task
(Janssen & Kirschner, 2020; Kirschner et al., 2018).
Conclusions and significance
The findings and conclusions of this work are relevant to
both researchers and teachers. Adopting a researcher’s per-
spective, this review adds a suggestion for a theoretical
model elaborating on the cognitive mechanisms which may
explain when and how individual preparation for collabor-
ation affects the execution of interactive activities during
subsequent collaboration. It further highlights research strat-
egies for investigations necessary to confirm and to extend
our preliminary conclusions.
For teachers, it is of interest whether and under what con-
ditions individual preparation should be included in their
instructional toolbox. Some tentative suggestions can be for-
mulated: (a) apply individual preparation only if the subse-
quent collaboration requirements involve deep processing
(i.e., inferencing) of complex information not already well
known or understood, (b) use the individual preparation time
to ask students to go beyond the given instructional material,
for instance, in terms of generating new conclusions, connec-
tions, or ideas which could then be discussed and further
developed during later collaboration (i.e., generative prepar-
ation task), and (c) have a phase implemented in which the
single members of the future group inspect each other’s indi-
vidual preparation products before starting collaboration (i.e.,
awareness induction support). Teachers can use such strategic
suggestions in two respects: First, they can apply them to
orchestrate effective collaboration in the classroom in terms
of fostering interactive activities to promote deep knowledge
acquisition. Second, they can train their students to apply the
suggestions in terms of effective collaboration strategies and,
by doing so, empower them for the future as successful team
players in modern working environments.
Acknowledgments
We would like to express our sincere gratitude to the editor Professor
Kathryn Wentzel as well as three anonymous reviewers for their critical
reading of former versions of the manuscript and for challenging us to
deepen and strengthen our arguments with their very valuable critiques
and suggestions.
References
Alfieri, L., Nokes-Malach, T. J., & Schunn, C. D. (2013). Learning
through case comparisons: A meta-analytic review. Educational
Psychologist, 48(2), 87–113. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2013.775712
Allwood, C. M., Granhag, P. A., & Johansson, M. (2003). Increased
realism in eyewitness confidence judgements: The effect of dyadic
collaboration. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17(5), 545–561. https://
doi.org/10.1002/acp.888
Anderson, J. R., & Pirolli, P. L. (1984). Spread of activation. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 10(4),
791–798. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.10.4.791
Andersson, J., & R€ onnberg, J. (1997). Cued memory collaboration:
Effects of friendship and type of retrieval cue. European Journal of
Cognitive Psychology, 9(3), 273–287. https://doi.org/10.1080/713752558
Andrews, J. J., & Rapp, D. N. (2015). Benefits, costs, and challenges of
collaboration for learning and memory. Translational Issues in
Psychological Science, 1(2), 182–191. https://doi.org/10.1037/tps0000025
Arvaja, M., H€akkinen, P., & Kankaanranta, M. (2008). Collaborative
learning and computer-supported collaborative learning environ-
ments. In J. Voogt & G. Knezek (Eds.), International handbook of
information technology in primary and secondary education (pp.
267–279). Springer.
Atkinson, R. C., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1968). Human memory: A proposed
system and its control processes. In K. W. Spence & J. T. Spence
(Eds.), The psychology of learning and motivation - Advances in
research and theory (Vol. 2, pp. 89–195). Academic Press.
Barber, S. J., Rajaram, S., & Aron, A. (2010). When two is too many:
Collaborative encoding impairs memory. Memory & Cognition,
38(3), 255–264. https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.38.3.255
Barber, S. J., Rajaram, S., & Fox, E. B. (2012). Learning and remember-
ing with others: The key role of retrieval in shaping group recall
and collective memory. Social Cognition, 30(1), 121–132. https://doi.
org/10.1521/soco.2012.30.1.121
Barron, B. (2003). When smart groups fail. Journal of the Learning
Sciences, 12(3), 307–359. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327809JLS1203_1
Basden, B., Basden, D., Bryner, S., & Thomas, R. (1997). A comparison
of group and individual remembering: Does collaboration disrupt
retrieval strategies? Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning,
Memory, and Cognition, 23(5), 1176–1189. https://doi.org/10.1037/
0278-7393.23.5.1176

Basden, B., Reysen, M. B., & Basden, D. (2002). Transmitting false
memories in social groups. The American Journal of Psychology,
115(2), 211–231. https://doi.org/10.2307/1423436
Berkowitz, M. W., Althof, W., Turner, V. D., & Bloch, D. (2008).
Discourse, development, and education. In F. K. Oser & W.
Veugelers (Eds.), Getting involved: Global citizenship development
and sources of moral values (pp. 189–201). Sense Publishers.
Best, R. M., Rowe, M., Ozuru, Y., & McNamara, D. S. (2005). Deep-
level comprehension of science texts: The role of the reader and the
text. Topics in Language Disorders, 25(1), 65–83. https://doi.org/10.
1097/00011363-200501000-00007
Blumen, H. M., & Rajaram, S. (2008). Influence of re-exposure and
retrieval disruption during group collaboration on later individual recall.
Memory, 16(3), 231–244. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658210701804495
Blumen, H. M., Young, K. E., & Rajaram, S. (2014). Optimizing group
collaboration to improve later retention. Journal of Applied Research
in Memory and Cognition, 3(4), 244–251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jarmac.2014.05.002
Boland, A., Cherry, G., & Dickson, R. (2017). Doing a systematic
review. Sage.
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L., Higgins, J., & Rothstein, H. (2009).
Introduction to meta-analysis. John Wiley & Sons.
Bromme, R., Hesse, F. W., & Spada, H. (2005). Barriers and biases in
computer-mediated knowledge communication. And how they may be
overcome. Springer.
Brown, V., Tumeo, M., Larey, T. S., & Paulus, P. B. (1998). Modeling
cognitive interactions during group brainstorming. Small Group
Research, 29(4), 495–526. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496498294005
Button, K. S., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Mokrysz, C., Nosek, B. A., Flint, J.,
Robinson, E. S. J., & Munaf o, M. R. (2013). Power failure: Why
small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience. Nature
Reviews. Neuroscience, 14(5), 365–376. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3475
Chase, C. C., Marks, J., Malkiewich, L. J., & Connolly, H. (2019). How
teacher talk guidance during Invention activities shapes students’
cognitive engagement and transfer. International Journal of STEM
Education, 6(14), 1–22.
Chi, M. T. H. (2000). Self-explaining: The dual processes of generating
inference and repairing mental models. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in
instructional psychology (pp. 161–238). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Publishers.
Chi, M. T. H. (2009). Active-constructive-interactive: A conceptual
framework for differentiating learning activities. Topics in
Cognitive Science, 1(1), 73–105. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-8765.
2008.01005.x
Chi, M. T. H., & Menekse, M. (2015). Dialogue patterns in peer collab-
oration that promote learning. In L. B. Resnick, C. Asterhan, & S.
Clarke (Eds.), Socializing intelligence through academic talk and dia-
logue (pp. 263–274). American Educational Research Association.
Chi, M. T. H., & Wylie, R. (2014). The ICAP Framework: Linking cogni-
tive engagement to active learning outcomes. Educational Psychologist,
49(4), 219–243. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.965823
Chi, M. T. H., Adams, J., Bogusch, E. B., Bruchok, C., Kang, S.,
Lancaster, M., Levy, R., Li, N., McEldoon, K. L., Stump, G. S.,
Wylie, R., Xu, D., & Yaghmourian, D. L. (2018). Translating the
ICAP theory of cognitive engagement into practice. Cognitive
Science, 42(6), 1777–1832. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12626
Chi, M. T. H., De Leeuw, N., Chiu, M.-H., & Lavancher, C. (1994).
Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive
Science, 18(3), 439–477. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1803_3
Cohen, E. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for product-
ive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64(1), 1–35.
https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543064001001
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences.
Erlbaum.
Cowan, N. (2014). Working memory underpins cognitive development,
learning, and education. Educational Psychology Review, 26(2),
197–223. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-013-9246-y
Craik, F. I. M., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A frame-
work for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal
EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGIST 47
Behavior, 11(6), 671–684. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-
5371(72)80001-X
Craik, F. I. M., & Tulving, E. (1975). Depth of processing and the
retention of words in episodic memory. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: General, 104(3), 268–294. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-
3445.104.3.268
Cress, U., & Kimmerle, J. (2008). A systemic and cognitive view on
collaborative knowledge building with wikis. International Journal of
Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3(2), 105–122. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11412-007-9035-z
Cuc, A., Koppel, J., & Hirst, W. (2007). Silence is not golden: A case
for socially shared retrieval-induced forgetting. Psychological Science,
18(8), 727–733. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01967.x
Damnik, G., Proske, A., Narciss, S., & K€ orndle, H. (2013). Informal
learning with technology: The effects of self-constructing externaliza-
tions. The Journal of Educational Research, 106(6), 431–440. https://
doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2013.832978
Deiglmayr, A., & Spada, H. (2010a). Training for fostering knowledge
co-construction from collaborative inference-drawing. Learning and
Instruction, 21(3), 441–451. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.
2010.06.004
Deiglmayr, A., & Spada, H. (2010b). Collaborative problem-solving
with distributed information: The role of inferences from inter-
dependent information. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations,
13(3), 361–378. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430209342259
Deiglmayr, A., Rummel, N., & Loibl, K. (2015, June 7–11). The media-
ting role of interactive learning activities in CSCL: An INPUT-
PROCESS-OUTCOME Model [Paper presentation]. The 11th
Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL),
Gothenburg, Sweden.
Dennis, A. R., & Williams, M. L. (2005). A meta-analysis of group size
effects in electronic brainstorming: More heads are better than one.
International Journal of e-Collaboration, 1(1), 24–42. https://doi.org/
10.4018/9781599043937.ch013 https://doi.org/10.4018/jec.2005010102
Diehl, M., & Stroebe, W. (1987). Productivity loss in brainstorming
groups: Toward the solution of a riddle. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 53(3), 497–509. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.
53.3.497
Dillenbourg, P. (1999). What do you mean by collaborative learning?
In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Collaborative-learning: Cognitive and com-
putational approaches (pp. 1–19). Elsevier.
Dillenbourg, P., & Betrancourt, M. (2006). Collaboration load. In J.
Elen & R. E. Clark (Eds.), Handling complexity in learning environ-
ments: Research and theory (pp. 142–163). Elsevier.
Dillenbourg, P., J€arvel€a, S., & Fischer, F. (2009). The evolution of
research on computer-supported collaborative learning: From design
to orchestration. In N. Balacheff, S. Ludvigsen, T. de Jong, A.
Lazonder, & S. Barnes (Eds.), Technology-enhanced learning:
Principles and products (pp. 3–19). Springer.
Dugosh, K. L., Paulus, P. B., Roland, E. J., & Yang, H. C. (2000).
Cognitive stimulation in brainstorming. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 79(5), 722–735. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.
79.5.722
Engelmann, T., Dehler, J., Bodemer, D., & Buder, J. (2009). Knowledge
awareness in CSCL: A psychological perspective. Computers in
Human Behavior, 25(4), 949–960. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2009.
04.004
Engelmann, T., Kozlov, M. D., Kolodziej, R., & Clariana, R. B. (2014).
Fostering group norm development and orientation while creating
awareness contents for improving net-based collaborative problem
solving. Computers in Human Behavior, 37, 298–306. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.chb.2014.04.052
Engelmann, T., Tergan, S. O., & Hesse, F. (2009). Evoking knowledge
and information awareness for enhancing computer-supported col-
laborative problem solving. The Journal of Experimental Education,
78(2), 268–290. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220970903292850
Erkens, M., Bodemer, D., & Hoppe, H. U. (2016). Improving collabora-
tive learning in the classroom: Text mining based grouping and rep-
resenting. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative
Learning, 11(4), 387–415. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-016-9243-5
48 S. MENDE ET AL.
Fiorella, L., & Mayer, R. E. (2016). Eight ways to promote generative
learning. Educational Psychology Review, 28(4), 717–741. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10648-015-9348-9
Fischer, F., Kollar, I., Stegmann, K., & Wecker, C. (2013). Toward a
script theory of guidance in computer-supported collaborative learn-
ing. Educational Psychologist, 48(1), 56–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00461520.2012.748005
Fischer, F., Kollar, I., Stegmann, K., Wecker, C., Zottmann, J., &
Weinberger, A. (2013). Collaboration scripts in computer-supported
collaborative learning. In C. E. Hmelo-Silver, C. A. Chinn, C. K. K.
Chan, & A. O’Donnell (Eds.), The international handbook of collab-
orative learning (pp. 403–419). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/
9780203837290.ch23
Fritz, C. O., Morris, P. E., & Richler, J. J. (2012). Effect size estimates:
Current use, calculations, and interpretation. Journal of Experimental
Psychology. General, 141(1), 2–18. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024338
Gijlers, H., & de Jong, T. (2009). Sharing and confronting propositions
in collaborative inquiry learning. Cognition and Instruction, 27(3),
239–268. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370000903014352
Gijlers, H., Weinberger, A., van Dijk, A. M., Bollen, L., & van
Joolingen, W. (2013). Collaborative drawing on a shared digital canvas
in elementary science education: The effects of script and task awareness
support. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative
Learning, 8(4), 427–453. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-013-9180-5
Grabowski, B. L. (2004). Generative learning contributions to the
design of instruction and learning. In D. J. Jonassen (Ed.),
Handbook of research on educational communications and technology
(Issue 2, pp. 719–743). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Graesser, A. C., Fiore, S. M., Greiff, S., Andrews-Todd, J., Foltz, P. W.,
& Hesse, F. W. (2018). Advancing the science of collaborative prob-
lem solving. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 19(2), 59–92.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100618808244
Higgins, J., Li, T., & Deeks, J. (2019). Choosing effect measures and
computing estimates of effect. In J. Higgins, J. Thomas, J. Chandler,
M. Cumpston, T. Li, M. Page, & V. Welch (Eds.), Cochrane hand-
book for systematic reviews of interventions version 6.0 (updated July
2019). Chochrane.
Hogan, K., Nastasi, B. K., & Pressley, M. (1999). Discourse patterns
and collaborative scientific reasoning in peer and teacher-guided dis-
cussions. Cognition and Instruction, 17(4), 379–432. https://doi.org/
10.2307/3233840 https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532690XCI1704_2
Hollingshead, A. B. (2001). Cognitive interdependence and convergent
expectations in transactive memory. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 81(6), 1080–1089. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-
3514.81.6.1080
Huang, H. W., Wu, C. W., & Chen, N. S. (2012). The effectiveness of
using procedural scaffoldings in a paper-plus-smartphone collabora-
tive learning context. Computers & Education, 59(2), 250–259.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.01.015
Institute of Education Sciences. (2020). What Works Clearinghouse:
Procedures handbook (Version 4.1). IES.
Janssen, J., & Bodemer, D. (2013). Coordinated computer-supported col-
laborative learning: Awareness and awareness tools. Educational
Psychologist, 48(1), 40–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2012.749153
Janssen, J., & Kirschner, P. (2020). Applying collaborative cognitive load
theory to computer-supported collaborative learning: Towards a
research agenda. Educational Technology Research and Development.
68, 783–805. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09729-5
Janssen, J., Erkens, G., & Kanselaar, G. (2007). Visualization of agree-
ment and discussion processes during computer-supported collab-
orative learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(3), 1105–1125.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2006.10.005
Janssen, J., Kirschner, F., Erkens, G., Kirschner, P. A., & Paas, F.
(2010). Making the black box of collaborative learning transparent:
Combining process-oriented and cognitive load approaches.
Educational Psychology Review, 22(2), 139–154. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s10648-010-9131-x
J€arvel€a, S., Kirschner, P. A., Panadero, E., Malmberg, J., Phielix, C.,
Jaspers, J., Koivuniemi, M., & J€arvenoja, H. (2015). Enhancing
socially shared regulation in collaborative learning groups:
Designing for CSCL regulation tools. Educational Technology
Research and Development, 63(1), 125–142. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11423-014-9358-1
Jeong, H., & Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2016). Seven affordances of com-
puter-supported collaborative learning: How to support collaborative
learning? How can technologies help? Educational Psychologist,
51(2), 247–265. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2016.1158654
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Stanne, M. B. (1989). Impact of goal
and resource interdependence on problem-solving success. The
Journal of Social Psychology, 129(5), 621–629. https://doi.org/10.
1080/00224545.1989.9713780
Jorczak, R. L. (2011). An information processing perspective on diver-
gence and convergence in collaborative learning. International
Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6(2),
207–221. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-010-9104-6
Kablan, Z. (2014). Comparison of individual answer and group answer
with and without structured peer assessment. Research in Science &
Technological Education, 32(3), 251–262. https://doi.org/10.1080/
02635143.2014.931840
Kalyuga, S. (2007). Enhancing instructional efficiency of interactive E-
learning environments: A cognitive load perspective. Educational
Psychology Review, 19(3), 387–399. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-007-
9051-6
Kapur, M. (2015). Learning from productive failure. Learning: Research
and Practice, 1(1), 51–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/23735082.2015.1002195
King, A. (1999). Discourse patterns for mediating peer learning. In
A. M. O’Donnell & A. King (Eds.), Cognitive perspectives on peer
learning (pp. 87–115). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition.
Cambridge University Press.
Kintsch, W. (2004). The Construction – Integration Model of text
comprehension and its implications for instruction. In R. Unrau &
N. Rudell (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (5th
ed., pp. 1270–1329). International Reading Association.
Kirschner, F., Paas, F., & Kirschner, P. (2009). A cognitive load
approach to collaborative learning: United brains for complex tasks.
Educational Psychology Review, 21(1), 31–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10648-008-9095-2
Kirschner, P., & Erkens, G. (2013). Toward a framework for CSCL
research. Educational Psychologist, 48(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.
1080/00461520.2012.750227
Kirschner, P., Sweller, J., Kirschner, F., & Zambrano, J. R. (2018).
From cognitive load theory to collaborative cognitive load theory.
International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning,
13(2), 213–233. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-018-9277-y
Kohn, N. W., & Smith, S. M. (2011). Collaborative fixation: Effects of
others’ ideas on brainstorming. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25(3),
359–371. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1699
Kohn, N. W., Paulus, P. B., & Choi, Y. (2011). Building on the ideas of
others: An examination of the idea combination process. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 47(3), 554–561. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jesp.2011.01.004
Kolfschoten, G., French, S., & Brazier, F. (2014). A discussion of the
cognitive load in collaborative problem-solving: The decision-mak-
ing phase. EURO Journal on Decision Processes, 2(3–4), 257–280.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40070-014-0034-9
Kollar, I., Fischer, F., & Hesse, F. (2006). Collaboration Scripts – A
conceptual analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 18(2), 159–185.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-006-9007-2
Korde, R., & Paulus, P. B. (2017). Alternating individual and group idea
generation: Finding the elusive synergy. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 70, 177–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2016.11.002
Lam, R. (2019). What students do when encountering failure in collab-
orative tasks. Npj Science of Learning, 4(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.
1038/s41539-019-0045-1
Lam, R., & Kapur, M. (2017). Preparation for future collaboration:
Cognitively preparing for learning from collaboration. Journal of
Experimental Education, 86(4), 546–559. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00220973.2017.1386156

Lam, R., & Muldner, K. (2017). Manipulating cognitive engagement in
preparation-to-collaborate tasks and the effects on learning.
Learning and Instruction, 52, 90–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lear-
ninstruc.2017.05.002
Lambiotte, J. G., Dansereau, D. F., Rocklin, T. R., Fletcher, B.,
Hythecker, V. I., Larson, C. O., & O’Donnell, A. M. (1987).
Cooperative learning and test taking: Transfer of skills.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 12(1), 52–61. https://doi.org/
10.1016/S0361-476X(87)80038-3
Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P. C.,
Ioannidis, J. P., Clarke, M., Devereaux, P. J., Kleijnen, J., & Moher,
D. (2009). The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews
and meta- analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions:
Explanation and elaboration. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology,
62(10), E1–E34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.006
Lipsey, M., & Wilson, D. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Sage.
Marion, S. B., & Thorley, C. (2016). A meta-analytic review of collab-
orative inhibition and postcollaborative memory: Testing the predic-
tions of the retrieval strategy disruption hypothesis. Psychological
Bulletin, 142(11), 1141–1164. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000071
McKenzie, J., & Brennan, S. (2019). Synthesizing and presenting find-
ings using other methods. In J. Higgins, J. Thomas, J. Chandler, M.
Cumpston, T. Li, M. Page, & V. Welch (Eds.), Cochrane handbook
for systematic reviews of interventions version 6.0 (updated July
2019). Chochrane.
McNamara, D. S. (2004). SERT: Self-explanation reading training.
Discourse Processes, 38(1), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1207/s153269
50dp3801_1
McNamara, D. S., & Magliano, J. (2009). Toward a comprehensive
model of comprehension. Psychology of Learning and Motivation,
51, 297–384. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(09)51009-2
Mende, S., Proske, A., K€ orndle, H., & Narciss, S. (2017). Who benefits
from a low versus high guidance CSCL script and why?
Instructional Science, 45(4), 439–468. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-
017-9411-7
Menekse, M., & Chi, M. T. H. (2019). The role of collaborative interac-
tions versus individual construction on students’ learning of engin-
eering concepts. European Journal of Engineering Education, 44(5),
702–725. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2018.1538324
Miller, M., & Hadwin, A. (2015). Scripting and awareness tools for reg-
ulating collaborative learning: Changing the landscape of support in
CSCL. Computers in Human Behavior, 52, 573–588. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.chb.2015.01.050
Moreland, R. L., & Myaskovsky, L. (2000). Exploring the performance
benefits of group training: Transactive memory or improved com-
munication? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
82(1), 117–133. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.2000.2891
Mullen, B., Johnson, C., & Salas, E. (1991). Productivity loss in brain-
storming groups: A meta-analytic integration. Basic and Applied
Social Psychology, 12(1), 3–24. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324834
basp1201_1
Nakagawa, S., & Cuthill, I. C. (2007). Effect size, confidence interval
and statistical significance: A practical guide for biologists. Biological
Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 82(4), 591–605.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-185X.2007.00027.x
Nijstad, B. A., & Stroebe, W. (2006). How the Group Affects the mind:
A cognitive model of idea generation in groups. Personality and
Social Psychology Review, 10(3), 186–213. https://doi.org/10.1207/
s15327957pspr1003_1
Nijstad, B. A., Stroebe, W., & Lodewijkx, H. (2003). Production block-
ing and idea generation: Does blocking interfere with cognitive
processes? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39(6), 531–548.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1031(03)00040-4
Nijstad, B. A., Stroebe, W., & Lodewijkx, H. F. M. (2002). Cognitive
stimulation and interference in groups: Exposure effects in an idea
generation task. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38(6),
535–544. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1031(02)00500-0
Nokes-Malach, T. J., Richey, J. E., & Gadgil, S. (2015). When is it bet-
ter to learn together? Insights from research on collaborative
EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGIST 49
learning. Educational Psychology Review, 27(4), 645–656. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10648-015-9312-8
Noroozi, O., Teasley, S. D., Biemans, H. J. A., Weinberger, A., &
Mulder, M. (2013). Facilitating learning in multidisciplinary groups
with transactive CSCL scripts. International Journal of Computer-
Supported Collaborative Learning, 8(2), 189–223. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s11412-012-9162-z
O’Donnell, A., & O’Kelly, J. (1994). Learning from peers: Beyond the
rhetoric of positive results. Educational Psychology Review, 6(4),
321–349. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02213419
Paulus, P. B., Kohn, N. W., Arditti, L. E., & Korde, R. M. (2013).
Understanding the group size effect in electronic brainstorming.
Small Group Research, 44(3), 332–352. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1046496413479674
Piaget, J. (1926). The language and thought of the child (1st ed.).
Harcourt Brace.
Pociask, S., & Rajaram, S. (2014). The effects of collaborative practice
on statistical problem solving: Benefits and boundaries. Journal of
Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 3(4), 252–260. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2014.06.005
Popay, J., Roberts, H., Sowden, A., Petticrew, M., Arai, L., & Rodgers,
M. (2006). Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in system-
atic reviews (Version 1). Economic and Social Research Council.
Rajaram, S. (2011). Collaboration both hurts and helps memory: A
cognitive perspective. Current Directions in Psychological Science,
20(2), 76–81. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721411403251
Rajaram, S., & Pereira-Pasarin, L. P. (2007). Collaboration can improve
individual recognition memory: Evidence from immediate and
delayed tests. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14(1), 95–100. https://
doi.org/10.3758/bf03194034
Rajaram, S., & Pereira-Pasarin, L. P. (2010). Collaborative memory:
Cognitive research and theory. Perspectives on Psychological Science:
a Journal of the Association for Psychological Science, 5(6), 649–663.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691610388763
Roschelle, J., & Teasley, S. D. (1995). The construction of shared know-
ledge in collaborative problem solving. In C. O’Malley (Ed.),
Computer supported collaborative learning. Springer.
Roscoe, R. D. (2014). Self-monitoring and knowledge-building in learn-
ing by teaching. Instructional Science, 42(3), 327–351. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11251-013-9283-4
Roscoe, R. D., & Chi, M. T. H. (2007). Understanding tutor learning:
Knowledge-building and knowledge-telling in peer tutors’ explana-
tions and questions. Review of Educational Research, 77(4), 534–574.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654307309920
Santanen, E. L., Briggs, R. O., & De Vreede, G. J. (2004). Causal rela-
tionships in creative problem solving: Comparing facilitation inter-
ventions for ideation. Journal of Management Information Systems,
20(4), 167–197. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2004.11045783
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge building: Theory,
pedagogy, and technology. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge hand-
book of the learning sciences (pp. 97–115). Cambridge University Press.
Sch€unemann, H., Vist, G., Higgins, J., Santesso, N., Deeks, J., Glasziou,
P., Akl, E., & Guyatt, G. (2019). Interpreting results and drawing
conclusions. In J. Higgins, J. Thomas, J. Chandler, M. Cumpston, T.
Li, M. Page, & V. Welch (Eds.), Cochrane handbook for systematic
reviews of interventions version 6.0 (updated July 2019). Cochrane.
2019. www.training.cochrane.org/handbook
Schwartz, D. L., Chase, C. C., Oppezzo, M. A., & Chin, D. B. (2011).
Practicing verus inventing with contrasting cases: The effects of tell-
ing first on learning and transfer. Journal of Educational Psychology,
103(4), 759–775. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025140
Schwartz, D. L., Sears, D., & Chang, J. (2007). Reconsidering prior
knowledge. In M. C. Lovett & P. Shah (Eds.), Thinking with data
(pp. 319–344). Routledge.
Slavin, R. E. (2011). Instruction based on cooperative learning. In R. E.
Mayer & P. A. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of research on learning
and instruction (pp. 344–360). Taylor & Francis.
Stephenson, G. M., & Wagner, W. (1989). Origins of the misplaced
confidence effect in collaborative recall. Applied Cognitive
Psychology, 3(3), 227–236. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.2350030303
50 S. MENDE ET AL.

Stroebe, W., Nijstad, B. A., & Rietzschel, E. F. (2010). Beyond product-
ivity loss in brainstorming groups: The evolution of a question. In
M. P. Zanna & J. M. Olson (Eds.), Advances in experimental social
psychology (pp. 157–203). Academic Press.
Sweller, J., & Sweller, S. (2006). Natural information processing sys-
tems. Evolutionary Psychology, 4(1), 434–458. https://doi.org/10.
1177/147470490600400135
Teasley, S. D. (1997). Talking about reasoning: How important is the
peer in peer collaboration? In L. B. Resnick, R. S€alj€ o, C. Pontecorvo,
& B. Burge (Eds.), Discourse, tools and reasoning: Essays on situated
cognition (pp. 361–384). Springer.
Tsovaltzi, D., Judele, R., Puhl, T., & Weinberger, A. (2015). Scripts,
individual preparation and group awareness support in the service
of learning in Facebook: How does CSCL compare to social net-
working sites? Computers in Human Behavior, 53, 577–592. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.04.067
van Boxtel, C., Van der Linden, J., & Kanselaar, G. (2000).
Collaborative learning tasks and the elaboration of conceptual know-
ledge. Learning and Instruction, 10(4), 311–330. https://doi.org/10.
1016/S0959-4752(00)00002-5
Van Bruggen, J. M., Kirschner, P. A., & Jochems, W. (2002). External
representation of argumentation in CSCL and the management of
cognitive load. Learning and Instruction, 12(1), 121–138. https://doi.
org/10.1016/S0959-4752(01)00019-6
van Merri€enboer, J. J. G., & Sweller, J. (2005). Cognitive load theory
and complex learning: Recent developments and future directions.
Educational Psychology Review, 17(2), 147–177. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s10648-005-3951-0
Verbeek, J., Ruotsalainen, J., & Hoving, J. L. (2012). Synthesizing study
results in a systematic review. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment
& Health, 38(3), 282–290. https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.3201
Vogel, F., Wecker, C., Kollar, I., & Fischer, F. (2017). Socio-cognitive
scaffolding with computer-supported collaboration scripts: A meta-
analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 29(3), 477–511. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10648-016-9361-7
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: the development of higher psy-
chological processes. Harward University Press.
Wang, H., & Rose, C. P. (2007, August 1–4). A process analysis of idea
generation and failure [Paper presentation]. 29th Annual Meeting of
the Cognitive Science Society, Nashville, TN, USA.
Webb, N. M. (1989). Peer interaction and learning in small groups.
International Journal of Educational Research, 13(1), 21–39. https://
doi.org/10.1016/0883-0355(89)90014-1
Webb, N. M. (2013). Information processing approaches to collabora-
tive learning. In C. E. Hmelo-Silver, C. A. Chinn, C. K. K. Chan, A.
O’Donnell (Eds.), The international handbook of collaborative learn-
ing (pp. 19–40). Taylor & Francis.
Wegner, D. M. (1987). Transactive memory: A contemporary analysis
of the group mind. In B. Mullen & G. R. Goethals (Eds.), Theories
of group behavior (pp. 185–208). Springer.
Weinberger, A. (2011). Principles of transactive computer-
supported collaboration scripts. Journal of Digital Literacy, 6(3),
189–202.
Weinberger, A., Stegmann, K., & Fischer, F. (2007). Knowledge conver-
gence in collaborative learning: Concepts and assessment. Learning
and Instruction, 17(4), 416–426. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learnin-
struc.2007.03.007
Weldon, M. S., & Bellinger, K. D. (1997). Collective memory:
Collaborative and individual processes in remembering. Journal of
Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23(5),
1160–1175. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.23.5.1160 https://doi.
org/10.1037//0278-7393.23.5.1160
Wentzel, K. R., & Watkins, D. E. (2002). Peer relationships and collab-
orative learning as contexts for academic enablers. School Psychology
Review, 31(3), 366–377. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2002.
12086161
Wittrock, M. C. (1989). Generative processes of comprehension.
Educational Psychologist, 24(4), 345–376. https://doi.org/10.1207/
s15326985ep2404_2

Appendix A. Characteristics of studies included in the review

Individual preparation for Immediate collaboration Analysis unit;
No. Reference; country collaboration condition (IC) condition (C) relevant measures Sample; Group size Topic; task GPT AIS
1 Allwood et al. (2003), Individual retrieval Collaborative Group; 80 university Crime scenario No No
experiment 1; Sweden practice þ confidence retrieval þ confidence Retrieval: group students; (video);
judgements followed by judgements recognition dyads retrieval
collaborative
retrieval þ confidence
judgements

2 Andersson and a) Individual creation of a) Collaborative creation of Group; 80 university Random words; Yes No
R€
onnberg (1997), single associations to single associations to Retrieval: cued group students; retrieval
experiment 1a; Sweden target words followed by target words followed by recall (semantic/ dyads
collaborative retrieval collaborative retrieval episodic cues)
(semantic cues) (semantic cues)
b) Individual creation of b) Collaborative creation of
single associations to single associations to
target words followed by target words followed by
collaborative retrieval (one collaborative retrieval
episodic cue per item) (episodic cues)
c) Individual creation of
single associations to
target words followed by
collaborative retrieval (two
episodic cues per item)

3 Barber et al. (2010),
experiment 1a; USA
Individual creation of
sentences from target word
pairs followed by
collaborative retrieval
a) Collaborative creation of Group; 144 university Random words; Yes No
sentences from target Retrieval: cued group students; retrieval
word pairs followed by recall (part-list cues) dyads
collaborative retrieval with
the same partner
b) Collaborative creation of
sentences from target
word pairs followed by
collaborative retrieval with
a different partner

4 Barber et al. Individual creation of Collaborative creation of Group; 90 university Random words; Yes No
(2012)a; USA sentences from target word sentences from target word Retrieval: open group students; retrieval
triads followed by triads followed by recall triads
collaborative retrieval collaborative retrieval Referencing: post-
collaborative
shared memory

(continued)
 EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGIST 51

Continued.
Individual preparation for Immediate collaboration Analysis unit;
No. Reference; country collaboration condition (IC) condition (C) relevant measures Sample; Group size Topic; task GPT AIS
5 Engelmann, Tergan et al. a) Individual concept Group; 90 university Ecology; Yes Yes (ICb)
(2009); Germany mapping followed by Inferencing: drawn students; concept mapping
collaborative elements in group triads
concept mapping concept map (nodes/
b) Individual concept relations)
mapping þ inspecting Referencing: inter-
future co-learners’ subjective uptakes/ post-
individually constructed collaborative knowledge
concept maps followed by awareness test
collaborative
concept mapping

6 Engelmann et al. a) Individual concept Group; 120 university Ecology; Yes Yes (ICb)
(2014); Germany mapping followed by Referencing: post- students; concept mapping
collaborative collaborative knowledge triads
concept mapping awareness test
b) Individual concept
mapping þ inspecting
future co-learners’
individually constructed
concept maps followed by
collaborative
concept mapping

7 Erkens et al. a) Individual essay writing Individual; 54 high school Geography; Yes Yes (ICb)
(2016); Germany followed by Inferencing: post- students; essay writing
collaborative discussion collaborative sum of dyads
b) Individual essay topic’s extent
writing þ inspecting future Referencing: post-
co-learners’ essay-related collaborative knowledge
topic-coverage followed convergence
by collaborative discussion

8 Gijlers et al. (2013)a; Individual drawing þ Collaborative drawing Group; 56 primary school Biology; Yes Yes
Netherlands inspecting future co-learners’ Inferencing: drawn students; drawing
individually generated elements in group dyads
drawings followed by drawing (concepts/
collaborative drawing processes)
Referencing: consensus-
building
(integration/conflict)

9 Huang et al. Individual answering of Collaborative answering of Group; 60 university Economics; Yes Yes
(2012); Taiwan concept application concept Inferencing: group students; concept application
questions þ inspecting future application questions concept application triads
co-learners’ individually performance
given answers followed by
collaborative answering of
the questions

10 Kablan (2014)a; Turkey a) Individual answering of Individual; 53 primary school Physics; Yes Yes (ICb)
thought-provoking Inferencing: post- students; concept application
questions followed by collaborative transfer quartets
collaborative answering of test (multiple choice/
the questions open questions)
b) Individual answering of
thought-provoking
questions þ peer
assessment followed by
collaborative answering of
the questions

11 Kohn et al. (2011), Individual idea Collaborative idea Group; 54 university Ways to improve Yes Yes
experiment 1a; USA generation þ inspection of generation þ inspection of Inferencing: total of idea students; university;
the future group members’ the group members’ combinations triads brainstorming and
individually generated ideas generated ideas followed by Referencing: idea idea combination
followed by collaborative collaborative idea combinations involving
idea combination combination others ideas

12 Korde and Paulus (2017), Individual idea generation Collaborative idea generation Group; 90 university “Thumbs problem;” Yes No
experiment 1a,b, USA followed by collaborative followed by collaborative Inferencing: group students; brain-writing
idea generation idea generation ideation productivity triads

13 Korde and Paulus (2017), Individual idea generation Collaborative idea generation Group; 180 university “Thumbs problem;” Yes No
experiment 2a,b, USA followed by collaborative followed by collaborative Inferencing: group students; brain-writing
idea generation idea generation ideation productivity triads

14 Lam and Muldner a) Individual assignment of a) Collaborative assignment Individual; 90 university Psychology; Yes Yes
(2017); USA concepts to empirical of concepts to Inferencing: post- students; interpretation of
data þ inspecting future empirical data collaborative dyads empirical data
partner’s individually b) Collaborative invention of transfer test
made assignments concepts from
followed by collaborative empirical data
assignment of concepts to
empirical data
b) Individual invention of
concepts from empirical
data þ inspecting future
partner’s individually
generated inventions
followed by collaborative
invention of concepts
from empirical data
(continued)
52 S. MENDE ET AL.

Continued.
Individual preparation for Immediate collaboration Analysis unit;
No. Reference; country collaboration condition (IC) condition (C) relevant measures Sample; Group size Topic; task GPT AIS

15 Lambiotte et al. Individual application of a Collaborative application of a Individual; 39 university Geography; Applying Yes No
(1987)a; USA text learning strategy text learning strategy Retrieval: open group students; a learning and test
(MURDER-I) followed by (MURDER-I) followed by recall (total/accuracy) dyads taking strategy
collaborative retrieval collaborative retrieval

16 Moreland and a) Individual retrieval Collaborative retrieval Group; 189 university Device assembly No Yes (ICb)
Myaskovsky (2000), USA practice followed by practice followed by Retrieval: open students; procedure;
collaborative retrieval collaborative retrieval group recall triads performance
b) Individual retrieval and retrieval
practice þ receiving
information about future
group members’ expertise
followed by
collaborative retrieval

17 Rajaram and Pereira- a) Individual rating of the Individual; 30 university Random words/ Yes (ICb) No
Pasarin (2007), sharpness/graphical Retrieval: cued students; pictures;
experiment 1a,c; USA quality of the target items group recall triads retrieval
followed by
collaborative retrieval
b) Individual rating of the
pleasantness of the target
items followed by
collaborative retrieval

18 Stephenson and Wagner Individual retrieval practice Collaborative retrieval Group; 34 university Interrogation No No
(1989)a; GB followed by collaborative practice followed by Retrieval: group students; scenario (video);
retrieval collaborative retrieval recognition dyads retrieval

19 Tsovaltzi et al. (2015), a) Individual argument Collaborative argumentation Group; 128 university Psychology; Yes No
experiment 3; Germany construction followed by Collaborative argumentation Referencing: post- students; argumentation
collaborative (supported by a script) collaborative dyads
argumentation shared knowledge
b) Individual argument
construction followed by
collaborative
argumentation (both
supported by a script)

20 Van Boxtel et al. (2000); a) Individual design of a
Netherlands concept map followed by
collaborative
concept mapping
b) Individual design of a
poster followed by
collaborative
poster generation
a) Collaborative Group; 40 secondary school Electricity; Yes No
concept mapping Inferencing: reasoning students; concept mapping/
b) Collaborative episodes dyads poster generation
poster generation Referencing: subject
matter related conflicts

21 Weldon and Bellinger a) Individual rating of the Group; 48 university Random words/ Yes (ICb) No
(1997), experiment sharpness/graphical Retrieval: open students; pictures;
1a,c; USA quality of the target items group recall triads retrieval
followed by collaborative
retrieval practice followed
by collaborative retrieval
b) Individual rating of the
pleasantness of the target
items followed by
collaborative retrieval
practice followed by
collaborative retrieval

22 Weldon and Bellinger Individual retrieval practice Collaborative retrieval Group; 48 university Narrative text; No No
(1997), experiment followed by practice followed by Retrieval: open students; retrieval
2a; USA collaborative retrieval collaborative retrieval group recall triads
Notes. GPT: generative preparation task: a task which requires the subject to create meaningful connections not already stated in the available instructional
material. Such connections could be drawn between different pieces of information from the instructional material and/or between the information from the
instructional material and preexisting knowledge (see Table 1); AIS: awareness induction support: an individual preparation is considered to be complemented
by awareness induction support if learners are explicitly provided with and instructed to inspect the preparation products of their (future) group members
before collaboration (see Table 1). If a study includes more than one IC and/or C condition, this is indicated by different letters at the beginning of the condi-
tion description. If two IC conditions (a) and (b) differ regarding GPT or AIS, this is indicated by “Yes (ICb)” in columns 7 or 8.
a
The design of this study contains more conditions than mentioned here. However, as this/these conditions are not relevant for our research questions, they are
omitted and the reported sample size is adapted accordingly. bFurther phases follow after the phases in each experimental condition described here. Since
these phases are not relevant concerning our research questions, they are omitted. cWithin-manipulation.

Appendix B. Rules and procedures applied to the calculation of effect sizes for studies with multiple
measures for the same dependent variable, more than one experimental and/or control condition, and
missing summary data
Issue
Study contains more than one individual preparation and/or
immediate collaboration condition without reporting overall
summary data.
This issue concerns studies used to answer RQ 1 and 2 only.
None of the studies used to answer RQ 3 include more than
one condition for each individual preparation design variation.
Study reports summary data for two or more measures
indicative of one dependent variable and these measures do
not represent several sub-measures of the same
overall measure
Study reports summary data for a) two or more measures
representing sub-measures of the same overall measure or b)
two or more measurements at different time points in the
collaboration phase and c) does not report summary data
averaged across all sub-measures or time points, respectively
Study does not report subsample sizes for the
experimental conditions
Study does not report the standard deviations necessary to
compute Hedge’s g and the related confidence interval
EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGIST 53
Concerned studies and applied rule/procedure
Andersson and R€onnberg (1997, experiment 1); Barber et al. (2010, experiment 1); Moreland
and Myaskovsky (2000); Tsovaltzi et al. (2015, experiment 3); Van Boxtel et al. (2000):
Collapse the mean values, standard deviations, and sample sizes of the respective conditions
using the method provided in Borenstein et al. (2009, pp. 221–222)
Moreland and Myaskovsky (2000): Three effect sizes are computed because the study
compares two conditions of individual preparation for collaboration—one with and one
without awareness induction support—to an immediate collaboration condition:
1. Comparison between immediate collaboration and the collapsed summary data of both
individual preparation for collaboration conditions (RQ 1)
2. Comparison between immediate collaboration and individual preparation for
collaboration without awareness induction support (RQ 2.1 and RQ 2.2)
3. Comparison between immediate collaboration and individual preparation for
collaboration with awareness induction support (RQ 2.2)
Choose the most relevant measure:
 Engelmann, Tergan et al. (2009): the number of intersubjective uptakes during
collaboration reflects participants referencing during collaboration more directly than
post-collaborative knowledge awareness.
 Lambiotte et al. (1987): recall accuracy is more comparable to the retrieval measures
captured in the other collaborative memory studies than total recall performance
Gijlers et al. (2013); Kablan (2014); Kohn et al. (2011, experiment 1):
Compute effect sizes and standard errors for each sub-measure or time point and then
combine them, assuming a measure intercorrelation of 0.50 (cf. Borenstein et al., 2009,
pp. 227–229).
Tsovaltzi et al. (2015, experiment 3):
Impute equal distribution of the reported overall sample size over the single conditions
Contact the authors. When without response:
 Engelmann, Tergan et al. (2009); Engelmann et al. (2014); Weldon and Bellinger (1997,
experiment 2): Compute effect sizes and confidence intervals based on test statistics
(F-values) reported for the comparisons of interest (Lipsey and Wilson, 2001, p. 199)
 Moreland and Myaskovsky (2000): Derive the standard deviations from p-value thresholds
(Higgins et al., 2019)
 Van Boxtel et al. (2000): Apply the formula of Lipsey and Wilson (2001, p. 181) to derive
the pooled standard deviation for the respective comparison from the overall sample
standard deviation reported for the measure of interest
 Rajaram and Pereira-Pasarin (2007, experiment 1); Stephenson and Wagner (1989);
Weldon and Bellinger (1997, experiment 1): Insert the square root of reported ANOVA
mean square errors which refer to factor effects including the comparisons of interest but
also irrelevant conditions as an approximate value for the pooled standard deviation (cf.
Fritz et al., 2012)