Interactive Learning Environments

ISSN: 1049-4820 (Print) 1744-5191 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/nile20

The impact of transactive memory system and

interaction platform in collaborative knowledge
construction on social presence and selfregulation
Ramazan Yilmaz, Fatma Gizem Karaoglan Yilmaz & Ebru Kilic Cakmak
To cite this article: Ramazan Yilmaz, Fatma Gizem Karaoglan Yilmaz & Ebru Kilic Cakmak
(2016): The impact of transactive memory system and interaction platform in collaborative
knowledge construction on social presence and self-regulation, Interactive Learning
Environments, DOI: 10.1080/10494820.2016.1224905
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2016.1224905

Published online: 09 Sep 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 137

View related articles

View Crossmark data

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

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=nile20
Download by: [FU Berlin]

Date: 07 November 2016, At: 12:16

INTERACTIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS, 2016

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2016.1224905

The impact of transactive memory system and interaction

platform in collaborative knowledge construction on social
presence and self-regulation
Ramazan Yilmaza, Fatma Gizem Karaoglan Yilmaza and Ebru Kilic Cakmakb
a

Faculty of Education, Department of Computer Education and Instructional Technology, Bartin University, Bartin,
Turkey; bGazi Faculty of Education, Department of Computer Education and Instructional Technology, Gazi
University, Ankara, Turkey
ABSTRACT

ARTICLE HISTORY

The purpose of this study is to examine the impacts of transactive memory

system (TMS) and interaction platforms in computer-supported
collaborative learning (CSCL) on social presence perceptions and selfregulation skills of learners. Within the scope of the study, social
presence perceptions and self-regulation skills of students in
collaborative groups constructing knowledge in wiki, blog, podcast and
Facebook platforms in CSCL processes were compared. The study is
designed as a pretest and post-test control group study and was carried
out with 97 university students. Social presence and self-regulation
scales were administered as pretest in the study. At the end of process,
social presence, self-regulation, transactive memory scales and semistructured student opinion forms were administered as post-test. When
the findings were examined, it was seen that interaction platforms and
the TMS level of the group did not have a significant impact on social
presence perception individually; yet common impact of these two
variables was significant. When the impact of interaction platforms and
the TMS on self-regulation skills was examined, it was found that whilst
interaction platforms had a significant impact, the TMS alone and
interaction platformsTMS common impact were not significant.

Received 16 December 2015

Accepted 11 August 2016
KEYWORDS

Collaborative; transactive
memory system; interaction
platform; social presence;
self-regulation

Introduction
In constructivist theory, the need to construct information arises whilst the individual is trying to
make meaning of his experiences during the interaction of the individual with his platform. According
to the social constructivist education paradigm, there is a societal process in the essence of the cognitive process. Accordingly, it is societies that construct knowledge, not individuals alone. The meanings made out of experiences are valid as long as they are embraced by the members of a society. In
order to construct knowledge and form an agreement on knowledge, it is necessary that group
members interact with each other (Kim, 2001; Vygotsky, 1988). In the process of social construction
of knowledge, teachers include various collaborative learning activities in learningteaching processes in order to ensure learners interact and collaborate and to contribute to creating common
meanings. Thanks to the contributions of technology to the field of education, it is now possible
to materialize these collaborative learning activities outside of the classrooms as well (Kirschner,
Martens, & Strijbos, 2004). This type of collaborative learning practices, which are carried out
based on computer and Internet technologies and in which participants interact and communicate
CONTACT Ramazan Yilmaz

ramazanyilmaz067@gmail.com

2016 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

R. YILMAZ ET AL.

with each other using these technologies, is called computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL)
(e.g. Liu, 2006).
CSCL is based on the idea of creating a learning platform in which social-cognitive processes in
sharing and producing knowledge can be supported with computers (Komis, Avouris, & Fidas,
2002). Therefore, CSCL is defined as learning based on common knowledge construction occurring
as a result of intense social interaction processes (Brown & Hartley, 1999). This field of research,
which is represented as CSCL, focuses on how collaborative learning supported by technology can
strengthen interpersonal interactions and group work (Alsancak, 2010; Fransen, Weinberger, & Kirschner, 2013; Liu, 2006). Transactive memory system (TMS) and interaction platforms stand as important
factors in strengthening interaction in CSCL and group work (Alsancak, 2010; Noroozi, Teasley,
Biemans, Weinberger, & Mulder, 2013; Schreiber & Engelmann, 2010; Stahl, 2006; Yoo & Kanawattanachai, 2001).
When the literature and the practices are analysed, it is seen that such social interaction tools and
platforms as wiki, blog, podcast and Facebook are used in CSCL practices (Cress & Kimmerle, 2008;
Noroozi, Weinberger, Biemans, Mulder, & Chizari, 2012; Puhl, Tsovaltzi, & Weinberger, 2015; Tsovaltzi,
Judele, Puhl, & Weinberger, 2015). However, it is stated that the functioning and impacts of these
tools in providing the interaction and cooperation are different, and therefore, it is important to
plan which tools to choose for which reason (Yilmaz & Keser, 2016). On the other hand, the development of the TMS among collaborative group members, which is a critical factor on the efficiency of
CSCL, is stated to be as important as the CSCL platform (Noroozi, Biemans, Weinberger, Mulder, &
Chizari, 2013; Noroozi, Teasley, et al., 2013; Noroozi et al., 2012). As for Noroozi et al. (2012), an interaction platform and TMS are the components of the learning environment and learners conditions,
which are stated to have an impact on the process and outcomes of learning. It is also given that the
TMS could change depending on the interaction platform and the type and quality of the interactions
occurring on this platform (Noroozi, Teasley, et al., 2013). Accordingly, in designing CSCL process and
practices, it is seen that TMS variable as well as technological tool utilization is considered in improving the learning outcomes of the learners (Noroozi, Biemans, et al., 2013; Noroozi, Teasley, et al., 2013;
Noroozi et al., 2012). When the literature is reviewed, it is seen that the impact of the interaction platform and TMS in CSCL on such variables as group and individual learning (Buder & Bodemer, 2008),
knowledge transfer and convergence (Noroozi, Biemans, et al., 2013), group and individual construction of knowledge (Teasley, 1997; Weinberger & Fischer, 2006), argumentation skills (Marttunen &
Laurinen, 2001), interaction quality/processes (Prinsen, Volman, & Terwel, 2006), participation and
argument stratagems (Kim, Anderson, Nguyen-Jahiel, & Archodidou, 2007), inquiry learning (Li &
Lim, 2008) is discussed. On the other hand, there is a need for examining the impact of the interaction
environment and TMS on social presence and self-regulation skills, which are important problematic
areas in CSCL. With this study conducted, the aim is to look into the impact of the interaction environment and TMS on social presence perception and self-regulation skills during the collaborative
knowledge construction process, and thus to fill the gap in the literature. Besides, it is expected
that the results from this study will guide practitioners in the process of using TMS and choosing
the interaction environment whilst designing CSCL environment and processes, and expand the
depth and flow of research on the topic.
When the literature is reviewed, it is seen that it is mostly such text-based tools as emails and
forums that are used in collaborative discussion and knowledge construction processes (Noroozi
et al., 2012). In addition, it is emphasized that these tools have deficiencies towards having the
social modes of interaction, and thus, there could be deficiencies in social and cognitive presence
perceptions of the students in learning communities and this affects the process of knowledge
sharing and participation of the students (Karaoglan Yilmaz & Keser, 2016; Kirschner, 2015; Kreijns,
2004). Considering that such social interaction tools and platforms as wiki, blog, podcast and the
Facebook are used in todays CSCL applications, it is obvious that there is a need for studies
looking into the impact of these aforementioned tools and platforms on social presence perception.
In addition, depending on the TMS level among the collaborative group members, it is stated that the

INTERACTIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS

quality of interaction and cooperation could also change (Noroozi, Biemans, et al., 2013). This situation which is due to the level of TMS is believed to affect the social presence perceptions of the learners. Based on the literature, the impact of TMS on social presence perception is a topic that should
be studied.
On the other hand, online learning mostly happens depending on the self-directedness and
engagement of the learners (Yilmaz & Keser, 2016). Online learning mostly ends up in failure for
those learners whose skills to organize and manage their own learning have not developed. Therefore, instructional designers and teachers should help learners in the process of learning by providing
appropriate guidance and instructions for them (Moore & Kearsley, 2011). It is believed that in providing the guidance and instructions, the features of the interaction environment and the level of
TMS will improve individual awareness of the learners (Buder & Bodemer, 2008; Noroozi, Biemans,
et al., 2013; Weinberger, 2011; Yilmaz & Keser, 2016), and that, in turn, will affect the self-regulation
skills of the learners. In this respect, the impact of the interaction environment and TMS on the selfregulation skills of the learners is another dimension that is examined in this study.

Theoretical background and literature review

Collaborative knowledge construction and CSCL
CSCL platforms have been designed to facilitate transactive knowledge sharing and transfer in collaborative problem-solving settings (Noroozi, Teasley, et al., 2013; Weinberger, Stegmann, &
Fischer, 2007). In CSCL students are encouraged to discuss problems, concepts and ideas from different perspectives (Van Bruggen, 2003). In doing so, the aim is to help students construct new knowledge together and to review existing knowledge and reconstruct them (Noroozi, Biemans, Busstra,
Mulder, & Chizari, 2011). In other words, CSCL prepares students to have experiences related to authentic problems and find solutions to such problems (Jacobson & Wilensky, 2006), and thus support
the learning process and its results (Noroozi et al., 2011). CSCL often implies that learners communicate with each other via text-based, asynchronous discussion boards (Weinberger & Fischer, 2006). In
CSCL, especially asynchronous discussion platforms are considered as tools that enable the collaborative knowledge construction process with such possibilities as offering users the opportunity to participate in the discussions independent of time and place and to think before they participate in a
discussion (Stegmann, Wecker, Weinberger, & Fischer, 2012).
In addition to the positive impacts of CSCL on the process and results of learning, when the studies
are examined, it is seen that learners could face challenges in engagement and commitment, and
understanding (Bluemink, Hmlinen, Manninen, & Jrvel, 2010). Besides, the problems students
experience related to social presence perception and self-regulation skills in the CSCL environment
are among the problems observed in the applications and the literature (Kirschner, 2015; Kreijns,
2004; Noroozi, Teasley, et al., 2013; Park & Seo, 2013; Weinberger, 2011). As for Noroozi et al.
(2012), the main factors with an effect on the process and results of learning in CSCL studies are
the learning environment and learner conditions. And in the context of learning environment and
learners conditions, the most important variables in CSCL research are the TMS of the collaborative
group and the CSCL platform used.

TMS in constructing collaborative knowledge

One of the research focuses of CSCL is in strengthening collaborative studies with technology support
and ensuring cognitive and social development on an individual and group basis. At this point, group
interaction, group cognition, group thinking and meaning of group are considered as important
factors in the success of CSCL and the social construction of knowledge (Bodemer & Dehler, 2011;
Choi, Lee, & Yoo, 2010; Jrvel et al., 2014; Stahl, 2006). The term group cognition is a term related
to the CSCL approach and is based on transactive memory theory, which is a group cognition

R. YILMAZ ET AL.

theory (Alsancak & Altun, 2011). Transactive memory, on the other hand, is a term that is formed as a
result of interaction between group members and one that enables the formation of group consciousness (Wegner, 1987). This common ground explains the significance of transactive memory,
which develops as a result of interaction between group members and explains the formation of
group consciousness, for CSCL.
The extent to which learners operate on the reasoning of their peers has been termed transactivity
(Teasley, 1997). As for Weinberger and Fischer (2006), transactivity is the extent to which learners
build on others reasoning and potentially arrive at a shared understanding. Transactivity of learners
discourse is positively related to individual knowledge acquisition (Teasley, 1997; Weinberger &
Fischer, 2006). Transactive memory, which is an element indicating the social sharing and the use
of individual cognition, pioneers sharing more knowledge within a group (Choi et al., 2010). The
term, which is represented as transactive memory at the individual level and as TMS at the group
level, is defined as how group members actively use their transactive memory to collaboratively
code, store and retrieve knowledge at the group level (Lewis, 2003). TMS is the shared awareness
of who knows what within a group and is formed of cognitive sharing of effort in a group
(Noroozi, Biemans, et al., 2013; Wegner, 1987). In other words, TMS facilitates raising the individuals
awareness of knowledge in other group members memory, which is separate to his or her own, and
accessing this knowledge when necessary. Thus, cognitive effort is divided so as to fulfil group work
(Alsancak, 2010). If the TMS of a group is strong, group members agree on who knows what and are
aware of this. As a result, each group member retrieves the knowledge more than she or he has
(Jackson & Moreland, 2009). When TMS develops within a group, individuals learn where the expertise lies and learn to rely on each other to contribute (Hollingshead, 2001; Wegner, 1987).
If group members get to know each other, they could allocate the tasks better and the most
appropriate member fulfils the given task. Distribution of the tasks or knowledge among the
group members is transactive and TMS facilitates other members accessing the stored knowledge
in group members. This occurs in the interaction and communication of the group members (Moreland & Myaskovsky, 2000). This shows the importance of group interaction in the development of
TMS (Hollingshead, 1998a, 1998b; Lewis, 2004). In their study, Yoo and Kanawattanachai (2001)
examine the relationship between transactive memory, development of group cognition and performance in virtual groups. The result of the study demonstrates that there is no relationship
between transactive memory and performance in the measurements made before the process,
whereas in the measurements made in the middle of the process and in the end of the process, a
significant positive- and medium-level relationship was found. In a study conducted by Huang
(2009), it was found that there is a positive- and medium-level relationship between transactive
memory and knowledge sharing. Furthermore, it was remarked that transactive memory mediates
the relationship between trust and knowledge sharing. The results show that transactive memory
is important for the CSCL as it plays a role in forming group cognition and is developed as a result
of the interaction and communication among the group members. In CSCL platforms, one of the
most important problems occurs if the students are not aware of the knowledge (Jrvel et al.,
2014). It is essential to possess metacognition skills and situate oneself in the group work in terms
of ensuring an effective learning experience (Janssen, Erkens, Kirschner, & Kanselaar, 2012) that
emerges as a result of the interaction and communication between the group members. Thus, the
need for recognizing others knowledge could be met (Alsancak, 2010).
When the studies on transactive memory are examined, it is seen that in recent years the importance of transactive memory in studies based on information technologies is highlighted. In existing
studies, it is found that TMS increased the social construction of knowledge and knowledge sharing,
made collaboration easier and developed group cognition and performance (Choi et al., 2010;
Noroozi, Teasley, et al., 2013; Schreiber & Engelmann, 2010; Sparrow, Liu, & Wegner, 2011).
Besides, in studies on transactive memory in CSCL, it is stated that interaction tools and platforms
play a significant role in the development of a groups TMS. However, researchers indicate that
there are a lot of topics to be studied concerning transactive memory in CSCL studies (Alsancak,

INTERACTIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS

2010; Alsancak & Altun, 2011; Ariff, Milton, Bosua, & Sharma, 2011; Choi et al., 2010; Chung, Lee, & Han,
2015; Jackson & Klobas, 2010). One of these topics to be studied is the impact of TMS on social presence perception and self-regulation skills.

Interaction platform, TMS and social presence perception

According to Tu and McIsaac (2002), social presence perception is a measure of the feeling of community that a learner experiences in an online learning platform. In their study on CSCL platforms,
Remesal and Colomina (2013, p. 358) redefine social presence in the historical context and in the
sociocultural learning process as
the result of constructive and evolutionary discursive group interaction which promotes the creation of a community feeling, the maintenance of positive relational dynamics, and the enhancement of self- and collective efficacy in front of the learning task, in such a way that the learning process is supported.

Wheeler (2005) states that when social presence perception in CSCL and collaborative learning
platforms is low, group dynamics will be damaged and group members will feel unconnected;
whilst in case the social presence perception is high, group members will feel more connected
and participate in group processes. According to Aragon (2003), if the learning platform does not
have social presence perception, the participants cannot adapt to the platform and the amount of
knowledge shared with others is reduced. Also, in their study, Kreijns, Kirschner, and Vermeulen
(2013) emphasize the importance of social interaction among the group members in group formation
and group dynamics. Therefore, high social presence perception is important in creating a successful
CSCL platform (Kreijns & Kirschner, 2004).
As for Tu and McIsaac (2002), interaction develops social presence perception. There are various
interaction tools and platforms that can be used in ensuring interaction, forming a CSCL platform and
the social construction of knowledge (Beldarrain, 2006; Chou & Min, 2009). Most often preferred Web
2.0 tools and platforms used in forming collaborative learning platforms in education are the wiki,
blog, podcast and social networks. These tools and platforms made it easy for participants to
come together in virtual platforms and create content; discuss this content and construct it socially
and with a common mind; and share it with each other. Although these technologies provide a platform in ensuring interaction and collaboration, they could differ in terms of the processes of forming
interaction and collaboration. Therefore, it is believed that this differentiation will reflect upon the
collaborative group structure and will have an impact on a groups TMS and consequently on
social presence perception. However, researchers indicate that what kind of an impact the type of
interaction platform and groups TMS will have on social presence perception has not been
studied yet and that these should be looked into in order to create successful CSCL platforms and
processes (Alsancak, 2010; Alsancak & Altun, 2011; Kahn, 2013).

Interaction platform, TMS and self-regulation

One issue of concern in CSCL studies and in the process of social construction of knowledge is how
the TMS of the collaborative group and the interaction and collaborative patterns of group members
that they carry out via the interaction platform affect self-regulation behaviours of the individuals
(Alsancak, 2010; Alsancak & Altun, 2011). Pintrich (1999) defines self-regulated learning as an
active and constructive process whereby learners set goals for their learning and then attempt to
regulate their cognition, motivation and behaviour, guided and constrained by their goals and the
contextual features in the platform. According to Zimmerman (1990), social construction, looking
for social assistance from peers, teachers, family and adults are effective factors on an individuals
self-regulation skills. According to Duncan and McKeachie (2005), learning from peers and strategies
for help are important in the development of self-regulation skills.

R. YILMAZ ET AL.

In this context, it is predicted that the TMS that collaborating individuals have might affect their
self-regulation skills and might improve their individual consciousness levels on the issue. Because, as
the TMS levels of collaborative groups improve, the group members will know who is better on which
topic; will be able to compare their knowledge with others; will be aware of their insufficiencies and
mistakes and use the knowledge of other members who have expertise on the issue; and thus
develop their own self-regulation skills. According to Noroozi, Teasley, et al. (2013), transactivity
has been regarded as one of the main engines of collaborative knowledge construction and is connected to the level of cognitive elaboration and individual knowledge construction. Therefore, it is
believed that high levels of TMS among collaborative groups will improve learners self-regulation
skills. In addition to that, it is also expected that the interaction and collaboration features of the interaction platform will not only increase the individual awareness of the learners, but also contribute to
the development of TMS of the group, and thus help to develop self-regulation skills. Because, as for
Weinberger (2011), the tools and scripts that CSCL platforms have could provide contributions to
increasing the individual awareness and organizing the learning process. Thus, as Zimmerman
(2002) suggests, it is believed that a solution will be provided to the question of how students
can manage their own learning processes? Researchers emphasize the necessity to study the
impact of the TMS that a collaborative group in CSCL has on their self-regulation skills (Alsancak,
2010; Alsancak & Altun, 2011).

Purpose
It is believed that studies on transactive memory are required to ensure awareness among group
members of each others knowledge and to create group consciousness in CSCL platforms. With
transactive memory development, group members know with whom they should consult on a
topic they want to learn. It is believed that this will be useful in ensuring learning in collaborative processes. In addition, this study will look into the relationship between transactive memory and
interaction tools and platforms; and the impact of this interaction on social presence perceptions
and self-regulation behaviours of learners indicates the significance of the study.
The purpose of this study, which is carried out considering the uncertainties and cases related to
CSCL mentioned above, is to determine the impacts of collaborative learning platforms formed using
different interaction platforms and TMS on social presence perceptions and self-regulation skills of
the learners. Answers to the following questions are looked for in the light of this overall objective:
.
.

Do interaction platforms and TMS of collaborative groups have a significant effect on social presence perceptions of the students?
Do interaction platforms and TMS of collaborative groups have a significant impact on self-regulation skills of the students?

Method
Research model and participants
The experimental design in this study is a pretest and post-test control group design. The participants
of the study were 97 freshman students studying in Management Information Systems Department
at a state university in the 20132014 spring semester. Of the participating students, 50 (51.5%) were
female and 47 (48.5%) were male. And these participant students took applied courses on basic computer hardware, operating systems, word processor, spreadsheet, making presentations and using
the Internet during Computing I course, and have basic computer and Internet literacy skills. Students
were randomly assigned to four classes and these classes formed the experimental groups of the
study. Which class will be which experimental group was determined through an unbiased assignment. With such random assignment, each group had almost the same number of students. After

INTERACTIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS

the unbiased assignment of groups, Experimental Group I had 23 students and these students used a
wiki-based interaction platform; whilst Experimental Group II had 24 students and they used a blogbased interaction platform; Experimental Group III had 25 students and they used a podcast-based
interaction platform and Experimental Group IV had 25 students and these students used a Facebook-based interaction platform. Figure 1 shows the research model of the present study.

Construction of interaction platforms and content

After the students were randomly assigned to four classes, students in each experimental group were
asked to form their collaborative learning groups of three to five people. The studies carried out
revealed that the development of transactive memory is related to knowing the group members
(Jackson & Moreland, 2009), the feeling of trust among group members (Akgn, Byrne, Keskin,

Figure 1. Research model.

R. YILMAZ ET AL.

Lynn, & Imamoglu, 2005) and communication among group members (Alsancak, 2010). Therefore,
students formed their collaborative study groups according to their own preferences. As for
imek (2000), interaction among small groups is higher. On the other hand, in case the number
of members in a group is too small, interaction will decrease and this will jeopardize collaboration.
And the increase in the number of members in a group could result in behaviours that are not
related to the task and might make it difficult to focus on the task. Therefore, it is stated that the
number of students in a group should be between 3 and 5 (imek, 2000). Accordingly, after students
choose their own group members, groups each having members between 3 and 5 were formed. Following that, the distribution of topics was made according to their own preferences. The topics were
related to digital citizenship, which included digital access, digital commerce, digital communication,
digital literacy, digital ethics, digital law, digital rights and responsibilities, digital health and digital
security. After the groups chose their topics, the researchers introduced groups to the interaction
platforms whereby the topic they chose would be collaboratively constructed. The researchers had
introduced instructional design models (Gagnes model was explained) and digital media design
principles to the students in the groups in the previous term. Within the scope of the study, it was
explained that design principles should be followed in designing learning, content and materials. Following the planning of the study, the CSCL groups were given a six-week period to construct collaborative knowledge. Throughout this process, students structured the interaction platform as well as
the content and materials they would use in this platform and made the interaction platform ready
for use. During this six-week period, students constructed the content both face-to-face and using the
synchronous/asynchronous communication channels of the interaction platform.

Procedure
Following the six-week collaborative design and construction process, each week the learning platform and content that each group prepared were made available to other group members and the
students were asked to examine the course subject, materials and content prepared and to discuss
them. Discussions over the content students prepared continued until the end of the semester (for
seven weeks), although it was more intense in the week the content was presented. Collaborative
group members constructed their content and materials based on the discussions. Thus, the interaction features of the learning platform were utilized and the knowledge was socially constructed.
In this process of constructing knowledge, the teacher served as a guide and counsellor, and thus
tried to improve the quality of the discussion and knowledge construction process. This role of
the teacher was similar in all groups.
Due to the structural features of the interaction platforms, features such as communication, file
sharing, construction of content and discussion platforms differ. Therefore, how learners benefited
from the constructed platforms whilst constructing collaborative knowledge differed as well.
Moodles wiki plug-in was used (see Figure A1) as the wiki platform in the study, and after the
content that the subgroups constructed was opened to the access of other learners, the content
was collaboratively organized through discussions on the content. Blogger.com was used (see
Figure A2) as the blog platform and after the content that the subgroups constructed was opened
to the access of other learners, text-based discussions were made on the content using the
comment/discussion section below the relevant content; and the reconstruction of the content
after the discussions was made by the collaborative group members who prepared the content. podbean.com was used (see Figure A3) as the podcast platform, and the content here was opened to
student access after they subscribed to relevant podcasts. After students subscribed to the podcasts,
the podcasts prepared by group members were automatically downloaded to the mobile devices of
the students. And the discussions about the podcasts were made using the discussion section at podbean.com. In contrast to the wiki and blog, whilst constructing the content, group members recorded
their voice and video and presented it as podcast. In addition, students also participated in the discussions on podcasts by sending their voice and video records through a subscription system. In the

INTERACTIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS

knowledge construction process on Facebook (see Figure A4), on the other hand, each group
member prepared a Facebook page and the content and materials prepared were opened to the
access of other students.

Data collection tools

The data in the study were collected through a self-regulation scale used to measure students selfregulation skills, a social presence perception scale used to measure students social presence perceptions and a transactive memory scale used to measure the CSCL groups knowledge sharing status. In
addition, a semi-structured interview form was used to find out students opinions on collaborative
learning platforms. The self-regulation scale formed by Brown, Miller, and Lawendowski (1999) was
developed to assess the self-regulatory processes and was adapted into Turkish by Aydn (2012).
After the adaptation, the scale included 3 sub-scales and 51 items. Cronbach alpha coefficient for
the whole scale was found as .87. The self-regulation scale was used as a pretest at the beginning
of the study and as a post-test at the end of the study.
Developed by Kang, Choi, and Park (2007), the social presence scale was adapted into Turkish by
Olpak and Cakmak (2009). The scale includes 3 sub-scales and 19 items. The analysis conducted
revealed that the coherence indices of the scale were acceptable and the Cronbach alpha coefficients
of the sub-scales ranged between .79 and .91. Cronbach alpha coefficient for the whole scale was
found as .94. The social presence scale was administered as a pretest after the collaborative
groups were created and 6 weeks of the interaction platform was formed; and as a post-test at
the end of the process.
The transactive memory scale, developed by Lewis (2003), was adapted into Turkish by Alsancak
(2010). As a result, the scale had 3 sub-scales and 12 items. The Cronbach alpha coefficient for the
whole scale was found as .79. The scale was used as a post-test in the end of the research process.
In order to identify students opinions about the online learning platform, a semi-structured interview form including semi-structured questions was developed by the researchers. The questions in
the form are towards determining the transactive memory structures of collaborative groups and
their acceptance and usage of the interaction platform. The questions in the form were first submitted to experts opinion and used in the study after their comments.

Data analysis
Whether the scores of the students in the study group from the self-regulation, the social presence
and the transactive memory scales showed a normal distribution or not was tested via the KolmogorovSmirnov test. The test results showed that the data showed a normal distribution (p > .05)
and in analysing the data, ANCOVA parametric test were used. However, whilst looking into the
common impact of transactive memory and social presence perception levels within experimental
groups, since the number of students decreased, KruskalWallis test was used and in pairwise comparisons, MannWhitney U, a non-parametric test, was used. In significance tests in the study, 0.05
significance level was taken as a ground. Students opinions on interaction environment and TMS
during the collaborative learning process were analysed using their answers to the student
opinion form. In the student opinion form, related to the interaction environment, all students
were asked about the advantages and disadvantages of the environment in terms of collaborative
working, communicating and making discussions; and the easy and difficult things about utility of
the environment. And about TMS, students were asked about the strengths and weaknesses of
group members on awareness of the members about professional knowledge, team coordination
and reliance. In analysing the data collected through open-ended questions, content analysis techniques were used. In the content analysis, the collected data were grouped after an in-depth analysis
and later, draft coded were formed.

10

R. YILMAZ ET AL.

The collected data in the study were coded by a researcher and later, to ensure the reliability of the
study, the data were coded again by another researcher. To calculate the reliability of the coding, the
common code number by the two researchers was divided into total code number. Coding reliability
per cent was found as 86%. For the remaining 14% difference, the researchers came together and
reached an agreement. When the written explanations of the students were examined, it was seen
that the difference was due to the fact that some answers of the students were collected under
more than one sub-theme.

Findings
Findings concerning quantitative data
Findings in line with the purpose and research questions and interpretations of the findings are given
below.
Within the scope of the first research question, the answer to whether the interaction platforms
and TMS of collaborative groups have a significant effect on social presence perceptions of the students was looked for.
Students social presence perception level adjusted averages in the interaction platforms were
(
x = 74.174) for blog, (
x = 83.87) for Facebook, (
x = 76.70) for podcast and (
x = 72.52) for wiki, respectively. Students social presence perception level adjusted averages were calculated as (
x = 73.99) for
those with low TMS and as (
x = 79.64) for those with high TMS. When the pretest scores of the students from the social presence scale were checked in these platforms, whether the post-test scores
showed a significant difference based on interaction platform and transactive memory status was
looked for using ANCOVA, and the results of the analysis are given in Table 1.
When Table 1 is examined, when the pretest scores of the students from the social presence scale
are taken under control, it is seen that there is no significant difference in adjusted post-test average
scores in terms of the interaction platform [F(3,88): 2.31; p = .082 > .05]. When the ANCOVA results are
examined, it is seen that when the pretest scores of the students from the social presence scale are
taken under control, there is no significant difference in adjusted post-test average scores among
groups with different TMS levels [F(1,88): 3.83; p = .054 > .05]. However, when the common impact
of the interaction platform and the transactive memory levels of the students in this platform are
compared, a significant difference is found [F(3,88): 6.49; p = .001 < .05; Cohens f = 0.181]. Whilst
looking into the difference arising from the common impact, the KruskalWallis test, a non-parametric test, was used because of the small number of students in the groups. To find out among
which groups this difference exists, paired comparisons were made using the MannWhitney U
test. Whilst making comparisons, because there was only one student in Facebook-low TMS
group, it was not included in the analysis. When the results were examined, significant differences
were found between the blog-high TMS group and the wiki-low TMS group; between the Facebook-high TMS group and the wiki-low TMS group; between the podcast-high TMS group and
the wiki-low TMS group; between the podcast-high TMS group and the wiki-high TMS group;
and between the wiki-low TMS group and the wiki-high TMS group. It is seen that the differences
arise from TMS groups with high- and low-wiki levels.
Table 1. The results of ANCOVA concerning social presence perception scores of the students based on the interaction platform
and TMS levels.
Source of variance
Social presence perception pretest
Interaction environment
TMS level (low/high)
Interaction environment * TMS level
Error
Total

Sum of squares

Degree of freedom (df)

Mean square

Significance level (p)

1418.63
450.86
249.42
1268.52
5732.278
9998.680

1
3
1
3
88
96

1418.63
150.28
249.42
422.84
65.14

21.78
2.31
3.83
6.49

.000
.082
.054
.001

INTERACTIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS

11

Within the scope of the second research question, the answer to whether the interaction platforms
and TMS of collaborative groups have a significant impact on self-regulation skills of the students was
looked for. Students self-regulation skills levels adjusted averages were found as (
x = 174.70) for blog,
(
x = 201.30) for Facebook, (
x = 191.36) for podcast and (
x = 181.91) for wiki. Students self-regulation
skills adjusted averages were calculated as (
x = 188.36) for those with low TMS and as (
x = 186.28) for
those with high TMS. When the pretest scores of the students from the self-regulation scale were
checked in these platforms, whether the post-test scores showed a significant difference based on
the interaction platform and transactive memory status was looked for using ANCOVA, and the
results of the analysis are given in Table 2.
When Table 2 is examined, when the pretest scores of the students from self-regulation scale are taken
under control, it is seen that there is a significant difference in adjusted post-test average scores in terms
of the interaction platforms [F(3,88): 6.42; p = .001 < .05; Cohens f = 0.180]. To find out among which groups
this difference exists, the Bonferroni test was administered. When the analyses were examined, it was
found that the significance arose from the blog and Facebook; the blog and the podcast; and Facebook
and the wiki interaction platforms; and that the difference was in factor of those using Facebook and the
podcast. When the ANCOVA results are examined, it is seen that when the pretest scores of the students
from the self-regulation scale are taken under control, there is no significant difference in adjusted posttest average scores among groups with different TMS levels [F(1,88): .24; p = .622 > .05]. In addition, when
the common impact of the interaction platforms and TMS levels of the students are compared, there is no
significant difference found [F(3,88): .41; p = .749 > .05].

Findings concerning qualitative data

Collaborative group members using the wiki platform mostly reported negative opinions about this
platform compared to other platforms. Only a small number of students stated that the wikis collaborative working and discussion features supported collaborative work and that page organization
was easy. When the negative opinions are examined, it is seen that the majority of the participants
indicate that organizing a page is difficult and complex. The users in the wiki platform are seen to
have difficulties in adding photos and videos to the page. In addition, the users also indicate that
the discussion feature of wiki should be developed and that as in social networks, feedback
should be given when knowledge is shared. Students in the wiki groups with low TMS indicate
that collaboration groups formed before not knowing each other well are unsuccessful and that in
future collaborative work, they will be more careful when choosing group members. It is seen that
the same view is valid among other groups in other platforms with low TMS. Some of the student
views are given below:
S1: It is weak in terms of visual; we cannot completely customize the page.
S2: Problems in language, writing order, colouring, video, visual elements etc. make it less interesting. So I think it
does not contribute to collaboration among and learning of the students.
S3: I did not like it much technically. Also, we had difficulties while uploading photos or videos, I think wiki is a
little primitive compared to blogs.

Table 2. The results of ANCOVA concerning self-regulation skills scores of the students based on the interaction platform and TMS
levels.
Source of variance
Self-regulation skills pretest
Interaction environment
TMS level (low/high)
Interaction environment * TMS level
Error
Total

Sum of squares

Degree of freedom (df)

Mean square

Significance level (p)

4395.58
2686.87
34.07
170.11
12,281.321
24,831.113

1
3
1
3
88
96

4395.58
895.62
34.07
56.71
139.56

31.50
6.42
.24
.41

.000
.001
.622
.749

12

R. YILMAZ ET AL.

S4: I am glad with the wiki environment only because it makes it easier for the group to work together. Personally,
I am not glad with wiki apart from what I said.

Members using blogs stated that the features of the blog that support and facilitate the visual presentation of knowledge during the collaboration process, as well as having high accessibility and the
possibility of adding comments, support the process of collaboration and the social construction of
knowledge. The features that users were mostly content with were visuality, comment space and
accessibility, respectively. Users particularly emphasized that the comment space was useful in
terms of summarizing what had been taught and ensuring the retention of knowledge. In addition,
they also stated that such elements as videos and images added to the page made teaching interesting and enjoyable and provided multimedia support. And concerning the negativities, despite
being less compared to wiki users, users indicated that page organization in the blog was difcult
and time consuming. Furthermore, some other users also indicated that reading long texts on the
blog was boring. Some of the student views are given below:
S1: I believe that blog environment provides a lot of advantages in terms of presentation of the information such
as the use of visuals, speed and being attention-grabbing. It enabled us to create not a normal text that we can
see everywhere but one that is interesting and technically rich.
S2: I used the blog for the first time in a group work but I understood how useful and colourful world it is. Blogs
helped us understand many things that we did not know. Using such elements as sound and video in addition to
the text in the blog was useful in terms of exchanging knowledge and helped us understand better.
S3: In blogs, we can access the information we look for in a quicker and shorter way and this gives us an advantage. I believe that the research our friends made on different topics and shared on the blogs were useful. I would
like to use it again because such studies are interesting and informative.
S4: I think that it helped us to work together in coordination and developed the communication among group
members. It helped socialization.

Participants who used the podcast system indicated that the comment space below podcasts
supported knowledge exchange. In addition, participants consider the feature of publishing
different le types in the form of podcasts is an important feature in enabling accessibility. Participants stated that they were content with podcasts because it is accessible and provides easy
sharing and multimedia support. And concerning the negativities, participants indicated that they
were not happy about the daily upload limitations in the system. Some of the student views are
given below:
S1: Easy transfer of video and sound recordings to the users and the small size of these files are important advantages of this system. We can download these files automatically on our mobile phones and listen to it as many
times as we want and think over them. Later, it becomes easier to comment.
S2: We had fun. I can make video and sound broadcast and use it to get comments from those who listen.
S3: We cannot upload enough files. File sizes create problems.
S4: It made knowledge sharing with the group fun. We followed what was shared closely and contributed to the
learning of each other.

When the ideas on the social network platform are examined, it is seen that majority of the users
indicated that le sharing features of social networking were good, accessibility was high, communication and discussion structure (such as social bookmarking and socialemotional smiley) was developed and that the simple and known interface option supported knowledge exchange and
collaboration. The number of participants stating positive opinions about these features of social networks is higher compared to other platforms. On the other hand, it is stated that discussion entries in
social networks come one after another, topic-specic discussions cannot be distinguished and it is
difcult to nd what one looks for in a long discussion ow. Some of the student views are as given
below:

INTERACTIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS

13

S1: It provided easy use technically because it is social sharing and communication environment that everyone
use. It made it easy to communicate and share information within the group.
S2: It helped a lot with fast sharing and dialogue establishing possibilities. We worked better with the group.
S3: I received notifications both on my mobile and personal computer as my friends made comment. And I replied
rapidly to their comment and let my friends know.
S4: Facebook is a web page that is intended for chatting. Therefore I have problems in group work and discussions. I am distracted.

Discussion and conclusions

In the first research question, the impact of the interaction environment and TMS on social presence
perception was examined. Although no studies that examine the common impact of the interaction
platform and TMS on social presence perception were found in the literature, the findings of the
present study relating to the interaction platform are consistent with the findings of Olpak (2010)
and Karaoglan Yilmaz (2014). In those studies, it was found that there was no significant difference
in social presence perceptions of students using different interaction platforms (blog, texting,
forum, chat and podcasts). The reason behind that is that it was ensured that the students used
these interaction platforms effectively. In terms of social presence of the learners, when the opportunities provided by the interaction platform are used well, which tool is used becomes unimportant.
As in the interaction environment, TMS alone (low/high) does not have a significant effect on social
presence perception. However, the common effect of the interaction environment and TMS is
significant.
The results of this study show that interaction platforms and high TMS scores of the groups using
this platform are important in increasing social presence perceptions. The findings of the study indicate that the most efficient groups in increasing social presence perception are groups in Facebook
and with high TMS. It is also seen that those groups with the lowest social presence perception scores
are those using the wiki platform and having low TMS. When student opinions are examined, it is
seen that among those students using the wiki in the process of collaborative knowledge construction, the wikis acceptance in ensuring collaboration and communication is low compared to other
platforms. At this point, it is seen that the qualitative findings of the study are parallel to the quantitative findings of the study. The findings support the design principles developed by Jrvel et al.
(2014) for the socially shared regulation of learning. It was seen that depending on the quality of the
interaction platform and the groups high TMS, learner awareness of their own and others learning
processes increases; as a result, social presence perception increases as well. As it is indicated in
Cheung, Chiu, and Lees (2011) study, it is seen that among those students using the Facebook platform, acceptance of the platform, communication, social bookmarking, discussion structure and
knowledge sharing options made collaboration and communication easier and this increased their
social presence perception. This result can be explained with the significant relationship found
between communication and transactive memory in the studies of Lewis (2004) and Yoo and Kanawattanachai (2001). Because, as the students communication level and types among each other
improves, their transactive memory levels will improve as well and that, as a result, will increase
their social presence perception. Noroozi, Biemans, et al.s (2013) study analysed the impact of transactive CSCL scripts on knowledge sharing and transfer. The results of the study revealed that interaction effected transactive memory, and this effected transactive knowledge sharing and transfer. It is
mentioned in the studies carried out that knowledge sharing in virtual communities effects social
presence perceptions (Yilmaz, 2016). In their study, Chung et al. (2015) found that TMS development
in the Facebook platform improved knowledge sharing among group members.
In this respect, in order to enable the development of transactive memory in collaborative group
work, it is believed that using the Facebook social network as the interaction platform or any other
CSCL environment that is designed in a similar way could be useful. In addition, in the studies carried

14

R. YILMAZ ET AL.

out, it is given that social scripts can be used in CSCL environments in order to increase interaction
and improve TMS (Noroozi et al., 2012; Weinberger, Ertl, Fischer, & Mandl, 2005). In their study, Weinberger and Fischer (2006) found that social script fostered transactive social modes. Therefore, in
future studies, the impact of social scripts on increasing social presence perception in CSCL environments could be examined.
On the other hand, when taking a critical look at the existing research results, it could be seen that
wiki-based platforms are not used as much as the Facebook and blog platforms by todays students
(Stoddart, Chan, & Liu, 2016). Therefore, this situation might lead to diversify the technology acceptance process of the students. Even though there is no significant differentiation among social presence perception of the students based on the interaction platform, it is important to consider the
likely effect of the acceptance of the interaction platform on a groups TMS, and depending on
the coefficiency, social presence scores might be differentiated between groups. This could be a limitation of the study and in future studies, it could be ensured that the students share a similar experience of the interaction platform. It is the same limitation for self-regulation skills.
The second research question of the study looked into the impact of the interaction environment
and TMS on the self-regulation skills of the learners. When the impact of interaction platforms and the
TMS levels of the collaborative groups on self-regulation skills is examined, it is seen that the interaction platform has a significant impact on the self-regulation skills of the students and that this
impact arises from the Facebook and podcast platforms. However, the impact of TMS alone (low/
high) and the common impact of the interaction environment and TMS is not significant on self-regulation skills. However, the common effect of the interaction environment and TMS is significant.
The qualitative findings of the study support these findings concerning the interaction platform.
Similar to the findings of Cheung et al. (2011) and Kays (2012) studies, students indicated that the
discussion feature in Facebook and podcast platforms improved studentstudent interactions, and
enabled students to observe each other and construct their own ideas and see their own mistakes.
And this supports social construction of knowledge and enables students to make self-regulation.
Students who used Facebook platform where students had the highest self-regulation scores
stated that with social bookmarking and instant feedback support in the discussion process, Facebook platform supported self-regulation skills development. However, it is seen that TMS did not
create a difference on self-regulation scores. This could be explained by the fact that as the TMS
of the group develops, students know with whom they should consult for what (Hollingshead,
2001; Noroozi, Teasley, et al., 2013). In other words, group members will know which group
member knows what and leaves the responsibility to that person and thus, they will tend to use
such self-regulation strategies as looking for help and peer collaboration less often. One other
reason is that in groups with low TMS, as the expertise levels of the learners cannot be seen
clearly, group members do not know with whom to collaborate on certain topics. In their study,
which supports this finding, Noroozi, Biemans, et al. (2013) indicate that a performance success of
a group in CSCL will not only be the same as individual performance. Group members may
employ strategies that enhance their group product, but this is not necessarily the same as individual
performance (Noroozi, Biemans, et al., 2013; Weinberger & Fischer, 2006). As for Prichard, Stratford,
and Bizo (2006), those members in a group who are active and know well may want to complete
the task. As a result, other members of the group who are less active and know less could be unsuccessful in increasing their individual performance. In this case, as in our study, it is seen that TMS does
not have an impact in developing self-regulation skills of the learners.
Overall, it was found in the present research that an interaction platform alone does not have a
significant impact on increasing social presence; rather, it is important to consider a groups high
TMS level along with the interaction platform, as these have a significant coefficient. In qualitative
findings, it was revealed that to improve TMS, it was important for students to know each other
well, and to know their strengths and restrictions in order to form collaborative groups. Therefore,
whilst forming groups, students should be free to form their own collaborative groups. Since the students were freshman in this study, it is believed that they formed the groups without knowing each

INTERACTIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS

15

other well and therefore, the transactive memory scores were low in some groups, and that collaboration and interaction could not be established well enough, and this appears as a condition hampering the learning process. In fact, the studies conducted support this result and it is found that
there is a positive relationship between acquaintance level and transactive memory level (Akgn
et al., 2005; Jackson & Moreland, 2009; Lewis, 2004).
On the other hand, the collaborative groups in this study were asked to be composed of 35 students depending on how students want their groups to be. However, when the literature is reviewed,
it is seen that collaboration and TMS could be more effective in dyads (Noroozi, Biemans, et al., 2013;
Noroozi et al., 2012). According to Strijbos, Martens, and Jochems (2004), group size could affect discussion performance and quality. Because active participation to group procedures could be higher
in dyads, common ground can be established and cooperation among partners could be established
more rapidly and easily. Therefore, in future studies the impact of interaction environments and TMS
on social presence perception and self-regulation skills could be measured among collaborative
groups formed as dyads.
Members in the learning group have tendencies to test, evaluate and regulate themselves by
observing the knowledge sharing and interaction behaviours on Facebook. However, what should
be taken into consideration in terms of the process of developing self-regulation skills in collaborative
learning is that the TMS of the group should not hamper self-regulation. Although studies conducted
indicate that the TMS of the group improved the social construction of knowledge and increased
sharing knowledge, made collaboration easier and developed group consciousness and performance
(Choi et al., 2010; Schreiber & Engelmann, 2010; Sparrow et al., 2011), this case could cause group
members not to develop themselves in an area that one of the group members knows well, and
thus to remain at the back on that topic. At this point, the teacher has important duties and responsibilities. The teacher can take various precautions for the other members of the group to benefit
from the knowledge of a member in the group and to improve themselves. For example, by
taking measures for group members to act together on a topic that one of the group members
knows well, all group members could be enabled to act together. In fact, as in the study of Liang,
Moreland, and Argote (1995), group members can be provided with teamwork trainings, and thus
the transactive memory levels of the groups can be improved. In addition, to create a balance
between those learners who are more active and know well and others who are less active and
know less, the discussion process can be constructed such as assigning roles. In fact, the studies indicate that assigning roles has an effect on interaction processes, group interaction, critical thinking,
argumentation processes, process of knowledge construction and performance (Lin & Crawford,
2007; Marttunen & Laurinen, 2001; Schellens, Van Keer, De Wever, & Valcke, 2007; Strijbos,
Martens, Jochems, & Broers, 2004). In future studies, the impact of role assigning in the CSCL
process on TMS development and accordingly on social presence perception and self-regulation
skills could be examined. As Fransen et al. (2013, p. 20) remark, In most situations there is no
need for team leadership, only coordination, although role division and inequality of participation
are important issues in collaborative learning practices, which could be dealt with by assigning
roles and/or scripting collaboration. To sum up, in ensuring social presence whilst a groups high
TMS level along with the interaction platform is meaningful, high level of TMS might also jeopardize
self-regulation skills.
When considering the drawbacks of ex post facto research design and its disadvantage as preventing the researchers from entirely controlling the variables, as well as taking into account
Remesal and Colominas (2013) dimensions in their definitions of social presence, data collection
tools, data collection process and external factors influencing the overall research process, some
limitations of the research could be seen. First of all, a similar research study dealing with the
impact of the same variables in a wider participant group and longer period of time could provide
important results in the CSCL literature. It is because, as Kirschner (2015) remarks, in order to
ensure self-regulation, the messages in the discussions must be read and discussed. As the students
groups are small in size in the present research, this condition is ensured. However, drawing on the

16

R. YILMAZ ET AL.

discussions on group size, it should be examined whether the students in larger groups pay attention
to the messages and frequency of their participation in discussions. Furthermore, although in the
present study the impact of collaborative knowledge construction on social presence and self-regulation skills was examined, it was not measured whether the students really constructed knowledge.
In future studies, the impact of existing research design on the learning process and results, such as
knowledge construction, cognitive presence and attitude, could be investigated.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors
Ramazan Yilmaz is assistant professor at the Bartin University, Turkey. His main research interests are online learning,
distance education, technology integration and humancomputer interaction.
Fatma Gizem Karaoglan Yilmaz is assistant professor at the Bartin University, Turkey. Her main research interests are
instructional design, technology integration, online learning and multimedia learning.
Ebru Kilic Cakmak is associate professor at the Gazi University, Turkey. Her main research interests are educational technology, instructional design and technology integration.

References
Akgn, A. E., Byrne, J., Keskin, H., Lynn, G. S., & Imamoglu, S. Z. (2005). Knowledge networks in new product development
projects: A transactive memory perspective. Information & Management, 42(8), 11051120.
Alsancak, D. (2010). The investigation of the relationship between transactive memory with group cohesion, group atmosphere and performance in computer supported collaboration learning environments (master thesis). Hacettepe
University, Ankara.
Alsancak, D., & Altun, A. (2011). The relationship between transactive memory and group cohesion, group atmosphere
and performance in computer supported collaboration learning environments. Eitim Teknolojisi Kuram ve Uygulama,
1(2), 116.
Aragon, S. R. (2003). Creating social presence in online environments. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education,
2003(100), 5768.
Ariff, M. I. M., Milton, S. K., Bosua, R., & Sharma, R. (2011). Exploring the role of ICT in the formation of transactive memory
systems in virtual teams. In 15th Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems: Quality research in pacific (PACIS 2011)
(pp. 112). Queensland: Queensland University of Technology.
Aydn, S. (2012). The effects of project-based learning environment on preservice biology teachers self-regulation levels and
self-efficacy beliefs (Unpublished PhD thesis). Gazi University, Ankara.
Beldarrain, Y. (2006). Distance education trends: Integrating new technologies to foster student interaction and collaboration. Distance Education, 27, 139153.
Bluemink, J., Hmlinen, R., Manninen, T., & Jrvel, S. (2010). Group-level analysis on multiplayer game collaboration:
How do the individuals shape the group interaction? Interactive Learning Environments, 18(4), 365383.
Bodemer, D., & Dehler, J. (2011). Group awareness in CSCL environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(3), 1043
1045.
Brown, E. C., & Hartley, J. R. (1999). Effective pedagogies for managing collaborative learning in on-line learning environments. Educational Technology & Society, 2(2), 3957.
Brown, J. M., Miller, W. R., & Lawendowski, L. A. (1999). The self-regulation questionnaire. In L. VandeCreek & T. L. Jackson
(Eds.), Innovations in clinical practice: A source book (pp. 281289). Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Press.
Buder, J., & Bodemer, D. (2008). Supporting controversial CSCL discussions with augmented group awareness tools.
International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3(2), 123139.
Cheung, C. M., Chiu, P. Y., & Lee, M. K. (2011). Online social networks: Why do students use Facebook? Computers in
Human Behavior, 27(4), 13371343.
Choi, S. Y., Lee, H., & Yoo, Y. (2010). The impact of information technology and transactive memory systems on knowledge
sharing, application, and team performance: A field study. MIS Quarterly, 34(4), 855870.
Chou, S. W., & Min, H. T. (2009). The impact of media on collaborative learning in virtual settings: The perspective of social
construction. Computers & Education, 52(2), 417431.
Chung, N., Lee, S., & Han, H. (2015). Understanding communication types on travel information sharing in social media: A
transactive memory systems perspective. Telematics and Informatics, 32(4), 564575.

INTERACTIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS

17

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), 105122.
Duncan, T. G., & McKeachie, W. J. (2005). The making of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire. Educational
Psychologist, 40(2), 117128.
Fransen, J., Weinberger, A., & Kirschner, P. A. (2013). Team effectiveness and team development in CSCL. Educational
Psychologist, 48(1), 924.
Hollingshead, A. B. (1998a). Communication, learning, and retrieval in transactive memory systems. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 34(5), 423442.
Hollingshead, A. B. (1998b). Retrieval processes in transactive memory systems. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 74(3), 659671.
Hollingshead, A. B. (2001). Cognitive interdependence and convergent expectations in transactive memory. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 81(6), 10801089.
Huang, C. C. (2009). Knowledge sharing and group cohesiveness on performance: An empirical study of technology R&D
teams in Taiwan. Technovation, 29, 786797.
Jackson, M., & Moreland, R. L. (2009). Transactive memory in the classroom. Small Group Research, 40(5), 508534.
Jackson, P. D., & Klobas, J. E. (2010). Exploring the potential of Web 2.0 to improve knowledge directories and group mind.
Milan: Bocconi University, Carlo F. Dondena Centre for Research on Social Dynamics.
Jacobson, M. J., & Wilensky, U. (2006). Complex systems in education: Scientific and educational importance and implications for the learning sciences. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(1), 1134.
Janssen, J., Erkens, G., Kirschner, P. A., & Kanselaar, G. (2012). Task-related and social regulation during online collaborative
learning. Metacognition and Learning, 7(1), 2543.
Jrvel, S., Kirschner, P. A., Panadero, E., Malmberg, J., Phielix, C., Jaspers, J., Jrvenoja, H. (2014). Enhancing socially
shared regulation in collaborative learning groups: Designing for CSCL regulation tools. Educational Technology
Research and Development, 63(1), 125142.
Kahn, A. S. (2013). Were all in this (game) together: Transactive memory systems, social presence, and social information
processing in video game teams. Los Angeles, CA: University of Southern California.
Kang, M., Choi, H., & Park, S. (2007). Construction and validation of a social presence scale for measuring online learners
involvement. In C. Montgomerie & J. Seale (Eds.), Proceedings of world conference on educational multimedia, hypermedia and telecommunications (pp. 18291833). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
Karaoglan Yilmaz, F. G. (2014). The effect of reflective thinking activities in e-learning environments on academic success,
social presence and motivation (Unpublished PhD thesis). Ankara University, Ankara.
Karaoglan Yilmaz, F. G., & Keser, H. (2016). The impact of reflective thinking activities in e-learning: A critical review of the
empirical research. Computers & Education, 95, 163173.
Kay, R. H. (2012). Exploring the use of video podcasts in education: A comprehensive review of the literature. Computers in
Human Behavior, 28(3), 820831.
Kim, B. (2001). Social constructivism. Emerging Perspectives on Learning, Teaching, and Technology, 1(1), 16.
Kim, I., Anderson, R. C., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., & Archodidou, A. (2007). Discourse patterns during childrens collaborative
online discussions. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16(3), 333370.
Kirschner, P. A. (2015). Facebook as learning platform: Argumentation superhighway or dead-end street? Computers in
Human Behavior, 53, 621625.
Kirschner, P. A., Martens, R. L., & Strijbos, J. W. (2004). CSCL in higher education? A framework for designing multiple collaborative environments. In J. W. Strijbos, P. A. Kirschner, & R. L. Martens (Eds.), What we know about CSCL, and implementing it in higher education (pp. 330). Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Komis, V., Avouris, N., & Fidas, C. (2002). Computer-supported collaborative concept mapping: Study of synchronous peer
interaction. Education and Information Technologies, 7(2), 169188.
Kreijns, K. (2004). Sociable CSCL environments: Social affordances, sociability, and social presence (Unpublished PhD thesis).
Open University of the Netherlands, Heerlen.
Kreijns, K., & Kirschner, P. A. (2004). Determining sociability, social space and social presence in (a)synchronous collaborating teams. Cyberpsychology and Behavior, 7(2), 155172.
Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P. A., & Vermeulen, M. (2013). Social aspects of CSCL environments: A research framework.
Educational Psychologist, 48(4), 229242.
Lewis, K. (2003). Measuring transactive memory systems in the field: Scale development and validation. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 88(4), 587604.
Lewis, K. (2004). Knowledge and performance in knowledge-worker teams: A longitudinal study of transactive memory
systems. Management Science, 50, 15191533.
Li, D. D., & Lim, P. C. (2008). Scaffolding online historical inquiry tasks: A case study of two secondary school classrooms.
Computers and Education, 50(4), 13941410.
Liang, D. W., Moreland, R., & Argote, L. (1995). Group versus individual training and group performance: The Mediating
role of transactive memory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(4), 384393.
Lin, S. J., & Crawford, Y. (2007). Innovations in teaching: An online debate series for first-year pharmacy students. American
Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 71(1), 18.

18

R. YILMAZ ET AL.

Liu, X. (2006). Effects of different explanation prompts on computer supported collaborative learning n a case-based environment (Unpublished PhD thesis). University of Nebraska, Lincoln.
Marttunen, M., & Laurinen, L. (2001). Learning of argumentation skills in networked and face-to-face environments.
Instructional Science, 29, 127153.
Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (2011). Distance education: A systems view of online learning. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.
Moreland, R. L., & Myaskovsky, L. (2000). Exploring the performance benefits of group training: Transactive memory or
improved communication? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(1), 117133.
Noroozi, O., Biemans, H. J., Busstra, M. C., Mulder, M., & Chizari, M. (2011). Differences in learning processes between successful and less successful students in computer-supported collaborative learning in the field of human nutrition and
health. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(1), 309318.
Noroozi, O., Biemans, H. J., Weinberger, A., Mulder, M., & Chizari, M. (2013). Scripting for construction of a transactive
memory system in multidisciplinary CSCL environments. Learning and Instruction, 25, 112.
Noroozi, O., Teasley, S. D., Biemans, H. J., 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.
Noroozi, O., Weinberger, A., Biemans, H. J., Mulder, M., & Chizari, M. (2012). Argumentation-based computer supported
collaborative learning (ABCSCL): A synthesis of 15 years of research. Educational Research Review, 7(2), 79106.
Olpak, Y. Z. (2010). Effects of different interaction tools used in online learning environments to the achievements and social
presence perceptions of students (Master thesis). Gazi University, Ankara.
Olpak, Y. Z., & Cakmak, E. K. (2009). Assessing social presence in e-learning environments: Validity and reliability analysis.
Yznc Yl niversitesi Eitim Fakltesi Dergisi, 6(1), 142160.
Park, H., & Seo, S. (2013). Effects of collaborative activities on group identity in virtual world. Interactive Learning
Environments, 21(6), 516527.
Pintrich, P. R. (1999). The role of motivation in promoting and sustaining self-regulated learning. International Journal of
Educational Research, 31, 459470.
Prichard, J. S., Stratford, R. J., & Bizo, L. A. (2006). Team-skills training enhances collaborative learning. Learning and
Instruction, 16(3), 256265.
Prinsen, F. R., Volman, M. L. L., & Terwel, J. (2006). The influence of learner characteristics on degree and type of participation in a CSCL environment. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(6), 10371055.
Puhl, T., Tsovaltzi, D., & Weinberger, A. (2015). Blending Facebook discussions into seminars for practicing argumentation.
Computers in Human Behavior, 53, 605616.
Remesal, A., & Colomina, R. (2013). Social presence and online collaborative small group work: A socioconstructivist
account. Computers & Education, 60(1), 357367.
Schellens, T., Van Keer, H., De Wever, B., & Valcke, M. (2007). Scripting by assigning roles: Does it improve knowledge
construction in asynchronous discussion groups? International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative
Learning, 2(23), 225246.
Schreiber, M., & Engelmann, T. (2010). Knowledge and information awareness for initiating transactive memory system
processes of computer-supported collaborating ad hoc groups. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6), 17011709.
imek, A. (2000). Snfta demokrasi [Democracy in the classroom]. Ankara: Eitim-Sen Publications.
Sparrow, B., Liu, J., & Wegner, D. M. (2011). Google effects on memory: Cognitive consequences of having information at
our fingertips. Science, 333(6043), 776778.
Stahl, G. (2006). Group cognition: Computer support for building collaborative knowledge. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Stegmann, K., Wecker, C., Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2012). Collaborative argumentation and cognitive elaboration in a
computer-supported collaborative learning environment. Instructional Science, 40(2), 297323.
Stoddart, A., Chan, J. Y. Y., & Liu, G. Z. (2016). Enhancing successful outcomes of wiki-based collaborative writing: A stateof-the-art review of facilitation frameworks. Interactive Learning Environments, 24(1), 142157.
Strijbos, J. W., Martens, R. L., & Jochems, W. M. G. (2004). Designing for interaction: Six steps to designing computer-supported group-based learning. Computers and Education, 42(4), 403424.
Strijbos, J. W., Martens, R. L., Jochems, W. M. G., & Broers, N. J. (2004). The effect of functional roles on group efficiency:
Using multilevel modeling and content analysis to investigate computer-supported collaboration in small groups.
Small Group Research, 35(2), 195229.
Teasley, S. (1997). Talking about reasoning: How important is the peer in peer collaboration? In L. B. Resnick, R. Slj, C.
Pontecorvo, & B. Burge (Eds.), Discourse, tools and reasoning: Essays on situated cognition (pp. 361384). Berlin: 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 networking sites? Computers in Human
Behavior, 53, 577592.
Tu, C. H., & McIsaac, M. (2002). The relationship of social presence and interaction in online classes. American Journal of
Distance Education, 16(3), 131150.
Van Bruggen, J. M. (2003). Explorations in graphical argumentation: The use of external representations in collaborative
problem solving (PhD dissertation). Open University of the Netherlands, Heerlen.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1988). Thought and language. Cambridge: MIT Press.

INTERACTIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS

19

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. 185208). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
Weinberger, A. (2011). Principles of transactive computer-supported collaboration scripts. Nordic Journal of Digital
Literacy, 6(3), 189202.
Weinberger, A., Ertl, B., Fischer, F., & Mandl, H. (2005). Epistemic and social scripts in computer supported collaborative
learning. Instructional Science, 33(1), 130.
Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2006). A framework to analyze argumentative knowledge construction in computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers & Education, 46(1), 7195.
Weinberger, A., Stegmann, K., & Fischer, F. (2007). Knowledge convergence in collaborative learning: Concepts and
assessment. Learning and Instruction, 17(4), 416426.
Wheeler, S. (2005). Creating social presence in digital learning environments: A presence of mind? Featured paper for the
TAFE conference, Queensland, Australia.
Yilmaz, R. (2016). Knowledge sharing behaviors in e-learning community: Exploring the role of academic self-efficacy and
sense of community. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 373382.
Yilmaz, R., & Keser, H. (2016). The impact of interactive environment and metacognitive support on academic achievement and transactional distance in online learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research. doi:10.1177/
0735633116656453
Yoo, P., & Kanawattanachai, Y. (2001). Development of transactive memory and collective mind in virtual teams. The
International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 9(2), 187208.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1990). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview. Educational Psychologist, 25(1),
317.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(2), 6470.

Appendix
Sample screenshots of the interactive learning environments.

Figure A1. Screenshots of a wiki-based platform and discussions.

20

R. YILMAZ ET AL.

Figure A2. Screenshots of a blog-based platform and discussions.

Figure A3. Screenshots of a podcast-based platform and discussions.

INTERACTIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS

Figure A4. Screenshots of a Facebook-based platform and discussions.

21