Table 1 The process assessment framework of collaborative quality (Meier et al., 2007)
From: Multimodal learning analytics of collaborative patterns during pair programming in higher education
Dimension | Rating rules | Â | Â |
|---|---|---|---|
| Â | Low (1 point) | Medium (3 points) | High (5 points) |
1. Sustaining mutual understanding | Students never or rarely sought peer feedback | Students tried to seek peer feedback, but failed to achieve mutual understanding | Students frequently clarified and elicited peer feedback to achieve mutual understanding |
2. Dialogue management | Students’ turn-taking was always confused due to the overlaps or chaos in dialogues | Students’ turn-taking was sometimes fluent, but there was still overlaps or chaos | Students’ turn-taking was always fluent by means of questions or explicit handovers in dialogues |
3. Information pooling | Students did not gather and share enough information | Students shared enough information, but sometimes it was not task-relevant | Students gathered and shared as much task-relevant information as possible |
4. Reaching consensus | Students failed to reach consensus | Students could reach consensus, yet lacked critical discussion and evidence exchange | Students reached consensus based on deep discussions and evidence-based arguments |
5. Task division | Students did not divide the task into subtasks | Students tried dividing the task into subtasks, but the goals and plans were unclear | Students divided the task into subtasks appropriately with explicit goals and plans |
6. Time management | Students failed to monitor or manage their time | Students managed the time but did not consciously monitor the remaining time | Students continually managed the time and monitored the remaining time based on progress |
7. Technical coordination | Students did not master the basic operation to reach technical coordination | Students mastered the technical operations, but did not take turns to coordinately operate the platform | Students coordinated with each other and took turns to operate the online platform |
8. Reciprocal interaction | Students failed to form respectful and supportive interaction | Students basically respected each other, yet one-side dominant behaviors still existed | Students respected each other equally and encouraged one another to make contributions |
9. Individual task orientation | Both students showed little interests in the task and usually became distracted | One student concentrated on the task, while the other usually became distracted | Both students focused on the task at most of the time and avoided distractions |