The effectiveness of technical-supported collaboration in promoting students’ learning outcomes: a meta-analysis based on empirical literature

Based on the results of the meta-analysis, this study has obtained quantitative evidence on the overall effects of computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) and its moderating factors. To ensure alignment with the research questions, the subsequent sections will provide an in-depth discussion centered around the Question 1 (the overall effects of CSCL on student learning outcomes and their three-dimensional differences) and Question 2 (whether experimental design variables contribute to effect size heterogeneity and their critical moderating roles). This discussion integrate existing theoretical frameworks to elucidate the underlying mechanisms and research limitations, thereby offering specific practical implications and recommendations.

The overall effectiveness of technical-supported collaboration on students’ learning outcomes proposed in Question 1

Technology-supported collaboration has become an important learning method in the intelligent era and is widely adopted in the field of education. Although there have been some studies on whether and to what extent technology-supported collaboration can improve or reduce students’ learning outcomes, there is no consistent research conclusion or even contradictory conclusions (e.g., Liu et al. 2024, Dan and Dong 2022, Persky and Pollack 2010), but the results of this meta-analysis further confirm the positive role of collaboration supported by technology in promoting students’ learning outcomes as a whole and also verify its enhancement effect on three specific learning outcomes, such as academic achievements, learning attitude, and learning participation. Previous studies have shown that providing personalized and timely feedback for learners’ collaborative learning through technology-supported methods in teaching practice can promote students’ participation and interaction quality, facilitate teachers’ presence and guidance feedback, and enhance the level of collaborative knowledge construction among groups (Li & Wang, 2022; Nokes et al., 2015; Luo & Zheng, 2024), thereby resolving conflicts among subjects in a socially constructed learning environment and leading to high-quality and deep-level learning outcomes (Stahl et al., 2006; Tsuei, 2011). This paper gives consistent statistical support for the research perspectives discussed above, confirming that “technology-supported collaboration” is an effective factor in boosting students’ learning outcomes. Therefore, the meta-analysis’s findings not only successfully respond to the initial research question about the overall impact of promoting learning outcomes and its effect on the three dimensions of learning outcomes (i.e., academic achievements, learning attitude, and learning participation) through the use of technology-supported collaboration approach but also boost our belief in promoting students’ learning outcomes by using technology-supported collaboration.

Additionally, while the concomitant increases in learning participation and attitude are only somewhat better, the associated improvements in academic achievements are substantially stronger. According to certain studies, academic achievements differ from learning attitudes and learning participation in school education. Academic achievement is regarded as an important criterion for students’ knowledge level and teachers’ teaching quality, and it receives special attention from teachers, students, and parents. The pursuit of academic achievement has become the most concerning teaching goal for both teachers and students (Xu et al., 2023; Huang, 2023; Wu et al., 2023). However, in the practice of collaborative learning supported by technology, due to the lack of design for learning attitude and learning participation activities, there are a large number of spurious collaborations in teaching activities, which to some extent affect students’ learning attitude and participation behavior (Xu, 2023; Strijbos et al., 2004; Lin, 2020). This finding is consistent with the research results of Jeong et al. (2019) and Ma et al. (2021), both of which found that there are differences in the impact of CSCL on students’ cognitive, emotional, and process learning effects and that the impact on emotional learning effects is the smallest. Therefore, we should strengthen the design of learning attitude and learning participation goals and activities in the collaborative learning process supported by technology so that students can release positive learning attitudes such as a sense of accomplishment and happiness during the activity experience, which in turn induces active participation in learning behavior, thus helping to achieve academic achievement goals (Wang et al., 2022; Liu et al., 2024). Effective collaboration with technology can reduce the cognitive burden of learners, thereby regulating their learning attitude and learning participation towards academic achievement in the context of technology-supported collaboration. Specifically, on the one hand, members of collaborative groups can actively participate in learning with the support of technology tools, which can enhance their self-efficacy in problem-solving, thereby releasing positive learning attitudes such as a sense of accomplishment and happiness, thus achieving high levels of academic achievement; on the other hand, members of collaborative groups can induce positive learning attitudes such as a sense of competition and accomplishment with the support of technology tools, and achieve positive learning participation behaviors through knowledge construction, collaborative argumentation, etc., thus achieving high levels of academic achievement; of course, high levels of academic achievement will stimulate students’ positive participation behavior and generate emotional experiences such as self-efficacy.

It is evident that technology-supported collaboration affects not only the learning outcomes as a whole but also their three specific dimensions, and this study illuminates the complex relationships that exist between academic achievements, learning attitude, and learning participation with regard to these three dimensions of learning outcomes. Future empirical studies should focus more on learning attitude and learning participation in order to completely develop students’ learning outcomes.

The moderating effects of technical-supported collaboration with regard to learning outcomes proposed in Question 2

As part of the meta-analysis, this study conducted subgroup analysis on the six types of moderating variables included in the experimental design of the 48 included papers to further investigate the critical elements influencing learning outcomes. The results showed that different moderating variables can positively affect students’ learning outcomes, with significant differences between groups in terms of group size, intervention duration, and subject area, all of which can be considered as key moderating factors affecting learning outcomes in a technology-supported collaborative learning environment. However, there were no significant differences in the effects between the groups of learning stage, technical tool, and collaborative field. As a result, we are unable to clearly explain the significance of these three elements for promoting students’ learning outcomes in the context of technology-supported collaboration.

Regarding the learning stage, different learning stages had an upper-middle-level effect on learning outcomes without a significant inter-group difference, indicating that we cannot adequately explain why it is essential to support the development of learning outcomes in the context of technology-supported collaboration. As stated in the study by Xu et al. (2023), “students’ cognitive characteristics vary depending on the learning stage, but this difference is reflected in the effectiveness of learning content and collaborative task design.” Therefore, the moderating variables of experimental design in each learning stage, such as group size, intervention period, and technical tools, may be more important for improving the effectiveness of technology-supported collaborative learning. On the other hand, in this meta-analysis, research in higher education accounts for 64.8% of all empirical studies included and has the highest overall effect value, indicating that researchers prefer to conduct technology-supported collaborative learning in universities. Future studies are necessary to fully understand this phenomenon, which could be associated with students’ cognitive growth.

In terms of group size, a collaborative group of 2–3 people has the best impact, which is consistent with earlier CSCL research findings that a group of three or four members is the most appropriate (Xu et al., 2023). However, the results of this meta-analysis did not reflect that “small groups can produce better interaction and performance than large groups” (Schellens & Valcke, 2006; Liu et al., 2024), which could be attributed to the fact that technology-supported collaboration is not limited by physical distance. Whether it is face-to-face collaboration or remote collaboration, the frequency and effectiveness of interaction among group members can be improved, and even a collaboration group with more members can increase the diversity of perspectives with the support of technology tools, which is helpful for improving overall learning effectiveness.

Regarding the intervention duration, different intervention durations have varying effects on learning outcomes, and the longer the intervention duration, the greater the effect size of the intervention duration. Thus, on the whole, the intervention duration has a positive correlation with learning outcomes. This is consistent with the findings of several studies, which state that “CSCL needs to last for more than 1 week or even several weeks to achieve beneficial learning outcomes” (Resta & Laferriere, 2007; Hu & Liu, 2015). An interesting finding in this meta-analysis is that when the intervention duration is less than one week, the effect size is the highest, indicating that due to the influence of technological novelty and peer novelty in the early stages of teaching experiments, there is a “Hawthorne effect” that overestimates the actual teaching effectiveness (Fox et al., 2008). In other words, a new technology is only loved and concerned about because it is new, but when the intervention time exceeds a certain range (such as one week), the degree of influence on learning outcomes is positively correlated with the intervention length. This result can also better explain the contradictions in the research results of Persky and Pollack (2010) and Liu (2024). Therefore, in long-term collaborative learning courses with technology support, appropriate technological updates and innovative teaching methods are needed to avoid the influence of the “Hawthorne effect” on learners’ real learning outcomes.

In terms of collaborative fields, different collaborative fields have a positive impact on learning outcomes without a significant inter-group difference, indicating that we cannot adequately explain why it is essential to support the development of learning outcomes in the context of technology-supported collaboration. Despite this, research on formal collaborative fields accounts for 85.6%, while research on informal fields such as outdoor and museums accounts for only 14.4%, but it has the highest effect on learning outcomes. As stated in the study by Uzunbylu et al. (2009), “The environment of informal fields that is not limited by time and location creates a sense of novelty for learners, which can better promote discussion and group exploration between students and peers, resulting in positive cognitive understanding and learning attitudes.” Therefore, although technology-supported collaboration occurs more in formal collaborative fields (such as classrooms), teachers should encourage or try to carry out immersive collaboration based on informal collaborative fields (such as museums and local projects) to stimulate learning motivation and interest.

Regarding the technical tools, all five types of supportive technical tools have a positive impact on the effectiveness of collaborative learning, which is consistent with the research conclusion that “technical tools can improve the learning effectiveness of CSCL” (Ma et al., 2021). It is worth noting that there are no variations in the inter-group effects; we cannot adequately explain why it is essential to support the development of learning outcomes in the context of technology-supported collaboration. Therefore, any tool that can enhance the interdependence among members of collaborative learning groups and promote high-level negotiation and construction can support students’ collaborative learning and influence the final learning outcome, which does not vary depending on the supporting technology. This result is consistent with Clark’s (1994) view that media and their attributes only affect the cost or speed of learning, whereas fundamentally different technology tools have no significant impact on learning outcomes.

In terms of subject area, education (especially educational technology), medicine, and science (including physics, chemistry, biology, and nature) have a greater impact on learning outcomes, which is consistent with the findings of Kyndt et al. (2013), who found that technology-supported collaboration has significant advantages in areas such as scientific inquiry. It can not only break through the limitations of traditional classrooms and achieve greater communication and dialogue but also bring scientists, parents, community members, and others outside the classroom into inquiry learning negotiation and communication activities, thereby improving the efficiency of negotiation and communication in the process of inquiry learning as well as the effectiveness of collaborative inquiry learning. Despite this, technology-supported collaboration has also had a positive impact in other subject areas, with significant differences between groups, indicating that technology has been widely applied and positively influenced in certain subject areas. Even though distinct subject areas may have different needs and purposes for technology, technology support can provide new tools and methods for certain subject areas, promote the dissemination and exchange of knowledge, and improve collaborative communication and problem-solving skills.

Limitations

This meta-analysis has some limitations, but they can be addressed in further studies. First, because only English and Chinese were allowed as search languages, it’s possible that relevant studies published in other languages were missed, leaving an insufficient number of papers for review. Second, some information supplied by the included studies is lacking, such as whether or not teachers and students received training on how to use technical tools and the variations in learning outcomes between students of different ages and genders. Third, this meta-analysis had a time limit since, as is common with review papers, more studies were published throughout the process of doing it. As pertinent information continues to emerge, more studies addressing these topics are important and extremely relevant.

Teaching suggestions for implementing technical-supported collaboration

According to this meta-analysis, technology-supported collaboration is an effective factor in promoting students’ learning outcomes. In order to more effectively enhance the learning outcomes of dimensions such as academic achievement, learning attitude, and learning participation, the following suggestions are offered in addition to what has been mentioned in the prior discussion:

1. (1)

   Teachers should pay attention to the two core elements of “technology support and collaborative interaction” in carrying out teaching applications. Technical-supported collaboration can not only boost the efficiency and quality of learner interaction, promote teacher presence and guidance feedback, and facilitate in-depth explanation and timely correction among groups but are also crucial for resolving conflicts among subjects in a socially constructed learning environment and triggering high-quality and deep-level learning effects. Therefore, teachers must pay special attention to the two core elements of technology support and collaborative interactions, design collaborative problem-solving tasks that are directed towards real-world task situations with the support of technology, and encourage students to effectively engage in social collaboration such as discussion, negotiation, questioning, and debate using technology tools in the context of technology-supported collaboration. They can reach consensus on issues within the field and form solutions, thereby promoting learners’ mastery of domain knowledge and the development of thinking skills.

2. (2)

   Teachers should establish collaborative fields with technology-support in real-world situations and carry out long-term teaching interventions. The purpose of learning is not to acquire knowledge but to solve problems in real-world learning situations. However, the knowledge students get in formal fields such as schools is often fragmented and disconnected from real-life situations, and it cannot be applied to solve problems in real and rich learning situations. In addition, learning outcomes, as a comprehensive key ability, are difficult to meaningfully improve in a short intervention period. On the contrary, it can be cultivated through ongoing instruction and the gradual accumulation of knowledge over time. Therefore, teachers should design complex and ill-structured problems based on real-life situations that involve multidisciplinary knowledge over the long term, and provide specific technological support scaffolds for extended teaching practices, in order to encourage students to engage in social collaboration through technology, discuss issues, share perspectives, and engage in critical debates.

3. (3)

   Teachers should explore emerging technologies and enhance the design of technology-support collaborative learning environments. While emerging technologies such as generative artificial intelligence and virtual reality can create rich collaborative learning environments and provide new ways to enhance student interaction, engagement, and personalized learning experiences, they are not inherently designed for collaborative learning contexts. As prominent outcomes of artificial intelligence development, these technologies are often not specifically tailored to foster collaboration learning. Therefore, teachers should carefully consider the characteristics of the subject area and the type of knowledge being taught in their instructional practices, and design and present diverse collaborative interaction environments. These environments should offer multimodal interactive support that aligns with students’ emotional communication and knowledge learning needs. This approach will help students, with the support of emerging technologies, to clearly articulate social phenomena, knowledge concepts, and abstract logic, while also preventing learners from becoming overly immersed in the novelty effects of new technologies, which could lead them to neglect a focused engagement with the content knowledge.