Scripting computer-supported collaborative learning has been shown to greatly enhance learning, but is often criticized for hindering learners’ agency and thus undermining learners’ motivation. Beyond that, what makes some CSCL scripts particularly effective for learning is still a conundrum. This meta-analysis synthesizes the results of 53 primary studies that experimentally compared the effect of learning with a CSCL script to unguided collaborative learning on at least one of the variables motivation, domain learning, and collaboration skills. Overall, 5616 learners enrolled in K-12, higher education, or professional development participated in the included studies. The results of a random-effects meta-analysis show that learning with CSCL scripts leads to a non-significant positive effect on motivation (Hedges’ g = 0.13), a small positive effect (Hedges’ g = 0.24) on domain learning and a medium positive effect (Hedges’ g = 0.72) on collaboration skills. Additionally, the meta-analysis shows how scaffolding single particular collaborative activities and scaffolding a combination of collaborative activities affects the effectiveness of CSCL scripts and that synergistic or differentiated scaffolding is hard to achieve. This meta-analysis offers the first counterevidence against the widespread criticism that CSCL scripts have negative motivational effects. Furthermore, the findings can be taken as evidence for the robustness of the positive effects on domain learning and collaboration skills.

中文翻译：

---

学习有益，动机不利？对计算机支持的协作脚本的效果进行的荟萃分析

用脚本编写的计算机支持的协作学习已被证明可以极大地促进学习，但是经常被批评为阻碍学习者的动因并因此损害学习者的动力。除此之外，使某些CSCL脚本对学习特别有效的原因仍然是一个难题。这项荟萃分析综合了53项主要研究的结果，这些研究通过实验将使用CSCL脚本进行的学习与无指导的协作学习对变量动机，领域学习和协作技能中至少一项的影响进行了比较。总体而言，参加K-12，高等教育或专业发展的5616名学习者参加了此次研究。随机效应meta分析的结果显示，与中海集运的脚本导致学习动机上无显著积极作用（套期摹 = 0.13），一个小的正效应（树篱克 域学习= 0.24）和介质积极作用（树篱上协作能力克= 0.72）。此外，荟萃分析显示了单个特定协作活动的脚手架和协作活动的组合的脚手架如何影响CSCL脚本的有效性，并且难以实现协同或差异化的脚手架。这项荟萃分析首次证明了CSCL脚本具有负面动机影响这一广泛批评。此外，这些发现可以作为对领域学习和协作技能的积极作用的鲁棒性的证据。