Where it is used
Each entry identifies the volume, edition, chapter or appendix in which the work appears.
The evidence behind the series
Follow the research.
Explore every source.
Browse the scientific research and professional literature used across all seven volumes of The Science of Learning for Educators.
7book volumes
8author ranges
1searchable library
Search the collection
Find a paper, author or idea.
Choose an author range, search a title or concept, or narrow the collection by source type. Open any result to see where it appears in the books, read its evidence summary and follow available source links.
5 references
-
- Vol 3 RE: Chapters 5, 9
- Vol 7 RE: Chapter 5, App B
computer-supported collaborative learningscience, technology, engineering, and mathematics educationcollaborative knowledge constructioninstructional scaffoldinggroup processeslearning outcomesJournal article Evidence summaryAt a glance
Jeong, Hmelo-Silver, and Jo meta-analyse computer-supported collaborative learning in STEM education published from 2005 through 2014. The review codes studies across science, mathematics, engineering, computer science, health, and education-related domains and examines learning outcomes alongside instructional, technological, and contextual characteristics.
Key ideas
Overall, CSCL produces a positive moderate effect, with variation across designs and settings. The authors investigate how collaboration is structured, what technologies mediate activity, which supports are provided, and whether studies occur in classrooms, laboratories, or other environments. Classroom effects are not significantly different from other settings in the reported comparison, underscoring that location alone does not explain success. Technology is not treated as an independent causal ingredient: outcomes depend on tasks, group processes, pedagogy, scaffolds, and how tools enable interaction and shared knowledge construction.
Why it matters
The synthesis is bounded by the quality and reporting of included studies and by heterogeneity in interventions and measures. Its practical implication is to design the collaborative process deliberately rather than assume that placing learners together around digital tools will produce effective STEM learning.
-
- Vol 3 RE: Chapters 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, App D
- Vol 3 TE: App C
- Vol 6 RE: Chapter 13, App C, App D, App E
- Vol 7 RE: App C, D
self-regulationco-regulationsocially shared regulationcollaborative learningcomputer-supported collaborationregulatory scaffoldsshared awarenessprocess-sensitive supportJournal article Evidence summaryAt a glance
Järvelä and Hadwin explain why productive computer-supported collaborative learning requires regulation at several interacting levels. Self-regulation concerns an individual’s planning, monitoring, motivation, emotion, and strategy use.
Key ideas
Co-regulation is temporary support through which one participant helps another regulate. Socially shared regulation occurs when a group jointly constructs goals, monitors progress, manages motivation and emotion, adapts strategies, and takes collective responsibility for the activity. Collaboration creates regulatory demands that individual-learning models alone cannot capture: participants must coordinate interpretations, effort, roles, standards, and responses to emerging challenges. The authors connect research on computer-based support for individual regulation with tools for collaborative knowledge construction and propose a new design frontier. Technology can prompt planning, externalise goals and progress, create shared awareness, support reflection, and make otherwise hidden processes available for group discussion.
Why it matters
Tools should not mechanically regulate learners or merely display data; prompts must be timed, meaningful, and integrated with the task. The article provides a conceptual agenda rather than definitive intervention evidence, calling for process-sensitive research that traces how regulation develops over time.
-
- Vol 4 RE: App D
socially shared regulationregulation toolscollaborative learningshared goalslearning analyticsregulatory promptsgroup awarenesslearner agencyJournal article Evidence summaryAt a glance
Järvelä and colleagues develop design principles for technological tools that support socially shared regulation of learning in collaborative groups. Effective collaboration requires more than exchanging ideas: learners must regulate cognition, motivation, emotion, behaviour, goals, and strategy both individually and together.
Key ideas
The authors identify three connected design aims. Tools should increase awareness of one’s own and others’ learning processes; help learners externalise and share goals, plans, progress, and internal states; and prompt the activation or acquisition of regulatory processes when needed. Their illustrative tool uses structured prompts and shared visual information to help groups recognise challenges, discuss regulation, and coordinate action. Support should foster learners’ agency and shared responsibility rather than prescribe every step or substitute a dashboard for dialogue.
Why it matters
The article synthesises theory and prior evidence and demonstrates a design application, but it is not a conclusive trial of effects on achievement. Its contribution is a bridge from socially shared regulation theory to testable CSCL features, highlighting that timing, interpretation, group interaction, and integration with authentic tasks determine whether an intervention becomes useful regulation rather than additional workload.
-
- Vol 5 RE: App D
computer-supported collaborative learningpowerful learning environmentsdistributed cognitionsociocultural theoryknowledge buildingcollaborative regulationshared workspacesinstructional scaffoldingBook chapter Evidence summaryAt a glance
Lehtinen reviews computer-supported collaborative learning as an approach to constructing powerful learning environments. He rejects assumptions that computers improve education simply by delivering information more efficiently or supporting an isolated “solo learner.” From sociocultural and distributed-cognition perspectives, learning is participation in shared intellectual activity in which people use language, representations, tools, and one another’s expertise.
Key ideas
Collaboration can prompt explanation, argument, perspective-taking, mutual regulation, and the externalization of incomplete ideas, but productive interaction does not arise automatically from placing learners in groups. Tasks must be sufficiently complex and interdependent, participants need relevant knowledge and collaborative norms, and technologies must make thinking and communication visible without imposing unnecessary barriers. The chapter surveys synchronous and asynchronous environments, shared workspaces, knowledge-building systems, and forms of scaffolding that support coordination and inquiry. It also notes uneven empirical results caused by differences in task design, group composition, guidance, and measures of learning.
Why it matters
The central implication is that technology should be designed as part of a social and pedagogical system, with teachers structuring goals, discourse, resources, and support for genuine joint knowledge construction.
-
- Vol 3 TE: App C
computer-supported collaborative learningsociocultural learningdistributed cognitioncollaborative knowledge buildingshared meaning-makingsocial interactioninteraction analysiscommunity normsConference paper Evidence summaryAt a glance
Lipponen reviews the emerging foundations of computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) six years after it was identified as a distinct educational-technology paradigm. The paper argues that CSCL should not be reduced to placing learners together around networked tools.
Key ideas
Its central concern is how technology can support social interaction, shared meaning-making, and the construction of knowledge within a community. Lipponen surveys theoretical roots in sociocultural learning, distributed cognition, and collaborative knowledge building, then examines recurring empirical and methodological difficulties. These include defining genuine collaboration, analysing interaction at both individual and group levels, and connecting the affordances of software with pedagogical practices. The review also distinguishes cooperation, in which work may be divided, from collaboration involving sustained joint engagement.
Why it matters
For educators and designers, the main implication is that productive CSCL depends on deliberately structured tasks, discourse, participation, and community norms; technology provides conditions for collaboration but does not itself create it.
A transparent research trail
More than a bibliography.
What it contributes
Evidence summaries explain the central idea and why the source matters to educators.
How to access it
Entries link to lawful full text where available, or to a publisher, library or purchase page.
Edition abbreviations
- TE
- Teacher Edition
- PE
- Practice Edition
- RE
- Research Edition
Citation checks
References are checked against publisher records, scholarly indexes, DOI or ISBN metadata, repositories and author records where available. An entry marked [Citation not verified] preserves the wording found in the relevant volume without attributing findings to an unconfirmed work.
From sources to a coherent pathway