SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Journal of Educational Technology and Online Learning / 2026 / Volume: 9 Issue: 1

Exploring the impact of computer-supported collaborative instructional design on the development of creative and critical thinking skills

Cem Doğan(TC MİLLİ EĞİTİM BAKANLIĞI BURSA)0000-0002-0592-8751
Uğur Sırvermez(ULUDAĞ ÜNİVERSİTESİ, EĞİTİM BİLİMLERİ ENSTİTÜSÜ)0000-0001-7266-6408
Salih Birişçi(BURSA ULUDAĞ ÜNİVERSİTESİ, EĞİTİM FAKÜLTESİ, BİLGİSAYAR VE ÖĞRETİM TEKNOLOJİLERİ EĞİTİMİ BÖLÜMÜ)0000-0001-7131-5112
Pages
—
Publication Date
2026-01-31
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The results indicated that the participants’ exchange of ideas in group discussions developed their thinking skills, with respondents attributing their developmental experiences to the characteristics of the designed learning environment.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study aims to explore the impact of a computer-supported collaborative instructional design process on enhancing critical and creative thinking skills.
📊
Key Findings & Data:This research employed a case study methodology involving 12 sixth-grade students in northwestern Türkiye.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The results indicated that the participants’ exchange of ideas in group discussions developed their thinking skills, with respondents attributing their developmental experiences to the characteristics of the designed learning environment.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:K-8 technology education · complex thinking skills · instructional design

Abstract

This study aims to explore the impact of a computer-supported collaborative instructional design process on enhancing critical and creative thinking skills. This research employed a case study methodology involving 12 sixth-grade students in northwestern Türkiye. Data collection included audio recordings of collaborative sessions and structured views on the research process. The results indicated that the participants’ exchange of ideas in group discussions developed their thinking skills, with respondents attributing their developmental experiences to the characteristics of the designed learning environment. Collaborative sessions further promoted the acquisition of technological proficiency by embedding group activities within technological contexts. While this study emphasizes the importance of structuring collaborative learning paradigms within a systematic instructional design framework, it is also believed to significantly contribute to developing complex thinking skills, which are characterized as creative and critical.

🔖

Cite This Article

Doğan, C., Sırvermez, U., Birişçi, S. (2026). Exploring the impact of computer-supported collaborative instructional design on the development of creative and critical thinking skills. Journal of Educational Technology and Online Learning, Volume: 9 Issue: 1. https://doi.org/10.31681/jetol.1576510

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (86)

  1. Akay, E. (2023). Development of problem-solving skills of a student with a cochlear implant in social studies: An action research. Participatory Educational Research, 10(6), 175-191. http://dx.doi.org/10.17275/per.23.95.10.6
  2. Anderson, N. (2012). Design thinking: employing an effective multidisciplinary pedagogical framework to foster creativity and innovation in rural and remote education. Australian and International Journal of Rural Education, 22(2), 43-52. http://doi.or/10.47381/aijre.v22i2.611
  3. Beldarrain, Y. (2006). Distance education trends: Integrating new technologies to foster student interaction and collaboration. Distance Education, 27, 139-153. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587910600789498
  4. Baş, T., & Akturan, U. (2008). Nitel Araştırma Yöntemleri, NVivo ile Nitel Veri Analizi [Qualitative Research Methods, Qualitative Data Analysis with NVivo]. Seçkin Publishing.
  5. Birgin, O., & Acar, H. (2022). The effect of computer-supported collaborative learning using GeoGebra software on 11th-grade students' mathematics achievement in exponential and logarithmic functions. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 53(4), 872-889. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2020.1788186
  6. Birişçi, S. (2013). Çevrimiçi ve sınıf ortamlarında grup çalışmasına dayalı problem çözme süreçlerinin incelenmesi (Investigation of Problem Solving Processes on Group Study Based Online and InClass Settings). [Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation]. Karadeniz Technical University.
  7. Birişçi, S., & Karal, H. (2011). The effect of collaborative work on creative thinking skills of pre-service teachers while designing materials in a computer-aided environment. Ahi Evran University Journal of Faculty of Education, 12(2), 203-219. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2020.1788186
  8. Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, the classification of educational goals, handbook I: Cognitive Domain. New York: David McKay Company.
  9. Borge, M., Toprani, D., Yan, S., & Xia, Y. (2019). Embedded design: engaging students as active participants in the learning of human-centered design practices. Computer Science Education, 30(1), 47–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2019.1688592
  10. Briggs, L. J., & Wager, W. (1981). Handbook for procedures for the design of instruction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications. 35-38. https://www.jstor.org/stable/30220673
  11. Cavanagh, M. (2011). Students’ experiences of active engagement through cooperative learning activities in lectures. Active Learning in Higher Education 12(1), 23–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787410387724
  12. Chen, W., Looi, C., & Tan, S. (2010). What do students do in a F2F CSCL classroom? The optimization of multiple communications modes. Computers and Education, 55, 1159-1170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.05.013
  13. Chen, J., Wang, M., Kirschner, P. A., & Tsai, C.-C. (2018). The role of collaboration, computer use, learning environments, and supporting strategies in cscl: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 88(6), 799-843. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.08.005
  14. Chmiliar, I. (2010). Multiple-case designs. In A. J. Mills, G. Eurepas & E. Wiebe (Eds.), Encyclopedia of case study research (pp 582-583). Sage Publications.
  15. Cohen, J. (1971). Thinking. Rand McNally.
  16. Dale, S. (2014). Gamification: Making work fun or making fun of work? Business Information Review, 31(2), 82-90. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266382114538350
  17. Dennen, V. P., & Hoadley, C. (2013). Designing collaborative learning through computer support. In C. Ehmelo-Silver, C. A. Chinn, C. K. K. Chan, & A. O’Donnel (Eds.), The international handbook of collaborative learning (pp. 389–403). Routledge Press.
  18. Dillenbourg, P. (1999). What do you mean by collaborative learning? In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Collaborative-learning: Cognitive and Computational Approaches, (pp. 1-19). Elsevier Press.
  19. Fernández-Sánchez, M. R., & Silva-Quiroz, J. (2021). Emerging educational design in online training in higher education. Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 79(3), 397-411. https://doi.org/10.33225/pec/21.79.397
  20. Freeman, S., Eddy, S.L., McDonough, M., Smith, M.K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M.P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Psychological and Cognitive Sciences, 111(23), 8410-8415, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111
  21. Gagné, R. M. (1985). The conditions of learning (4th ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.
  22. Gagné, R. M., Briggs, L. J., & Wager, W. W. (1988). Principles of instructional design. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.
  23. Gezgin, D. M., Azaz, E. & Atabay, E. (2022) The effect of cooperative learning attitude, problem solving skill perception and personality types on middle school students' robotics and coding education achievement: A causal comparison study. Journal of Instructional Technologies and Teacher Education, 11(2), 28-42. https://doi.org/10.51960/jitte.1165083
  24. Gokhale, A. A. (1995). Collaborative learning enhances critical thinking. Journal of Technology Education, 7(1), Online. https://doi.org/10.21061/jte.v7i1.a.2
  25. Goodson, L. A. (2000). Teaching and learning strategies for complex thinking skills. In M. Crawford, & M. Simonson. (Eds.), Annual Proceedings of Selected Research and Development Papers Presented at the National Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (pp.173-181). Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Bloomington, IN.
  26. Gros, B. (2001). Instructional design for computer-supported collaborative learning in primary and secondary school. Computers in Human Behavior, 17, (5-6), 439-451. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0747-5632(01)00016-4
  27. Gube, M., & Lajoie, S. (2020). Adaptive expertise and creative thinking: A synthetic review and implications for practice. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 35, Article no. 100630. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100630
  28. Hadjileontiadou, S., Nikolaidou, G., & Hadjileontiadis, L. (2012). Instructional design on controlling the quality of collaboration in a cscl setting through illusionary adaptive support. In A. Jimoyiannis (Ed.), Research on e-Learning and ICT in Education, (pp. 141-155), Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-1083-6_11
  29. Häkkinen, P. (2002). Challenges for design of computer–based learning environments. British Journal of Educational Technology, 33, 461-469. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8535.00282
  30. Hartman, D. P. (1977). Considerations in the choice of interobserver reliability estimates. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10, 103–116.
  31. Hasırcı, D., & Demirkan, H. (2003). Creativity in learning environments: The case of two sixth grade art-rooms. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 37, 17-41. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.2003.tb00824.x
  32. Haymana, İ., & Özalp, D. (2020). The effect of robotics and coding education on creative thinking skills of primary school 4th grade students. Journal of Faculty of Education. 6(2). 247-274. https://doi.org/10.17932/IAU.EFD.2015.013/efd_v06i2007
  33. Herrmann, K. J. (2013). The impact of cooperative learning on student engagement: Results from an intervention. Active Learning in Higher Education, 14(3), 175–187. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787413498035
  34. Hunicke, R., LeBlanc, M., & Zubek, R. (2004). MDA: A formal approach to game design and game research. In G. Ferguson, & D. McGuinnes (Eds.), Proceedings of the AAAI Workshop on Challenges in Game AI (p. 1722-1726). University of Maryland.
  35. International Society Technology Education [ISTE], (2016). ISTE standards for students. ISTE. https://iste.org/standards/students
  36. Jeong, H., & Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2010). Productive use of learning resources in an online problem-based learning environment. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(1), 84–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2009.08.020
  37. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1999). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning (5th ed.). Allyn and Bacon.
  38. Johnson, D. W. & Johnson, R. T. (2009) An educational psychology success story: Social interdependence theory and cooperative learning. Educational Researcher 38(5), 365–79. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X09339057
  39. Kapur, M. (2016). Examining productive failure, productive success, unproductive failure, and unproductive success in learning. Educational Psychologist, 51(2), 289–299. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2016.1155457
  40. Karadag, E., Su, A., & Ergin-Kocaturk, H. (2021). Multi-level Analyses of Distance Education Capacity, Faculty Members’ Adaptation, and Indicators of Student Satisfaction in Higher Education during COVID19 Pandemic. International Journal Educational Technology High Education, 18, Article no. 57. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-021-00291-w
  41. Karagiorgi, Y., & Symeou, L. (2005). Translating Constructivism into Instructional Design: Potential and Limitations. International Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 8(1), 17-27.
  42. Karataş, S., & Özcan, S. (2015). The effect of creative activities in cooperative learning environment on students' creative and critical thinking and academic achievement. Educational Technology Theory and Practice. 5(2). https://doi.org/10.17943/etku.56500
  43. Kaya, C. & Gökalp, M. (2021) The effect of cooperative learning method on students' academic achievement in 6th grade mathematics course algebraic expressions. Electronic Journal of Educational Sciences, 10(20), 186-198. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/1732747
  44. Khalil, M. K., & Elkhider, I. A. (2016). Applying learning theories and instructional design models for effective instruction. Advances in Physiology Education, 40(2), 147-156. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00138.2015
  45. Kılbaş, M., Halvaşi, B., & Bağcı, H. (2022) Investigation of the use of cooperative learning method in music education. Turkish Studies, 17(2), 353-367. https://doi.org/10.7827/TurkishStudies.58151
  46. Kızılay, E., Kırmızıgül, A. S., & Çevik, M. (2023). The impact of technology-supported interdisciplinary integration on critical thinking and creativity: The perspective of pre-service teachers. Participatory Educational Research, 10(3), 247-265. https://doi.org/10.17275/per.23.54.10.3
  47. Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: an analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1
  48. Koroneou, L., Paraskeva, F., & Alexiou, A. (2013). Designing a framework based on problem-based learning for CSCL environments in order to enhance 21st century skills. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 3(2), 135-138. http://doi.org/10.7763/IJIET.2013.V3.250
  49. Koschmann, T. (1999). Computer support for collaboration and learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8, 495-497. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1466644
  50. Lipponen, L. (2002). Exploring foundations for computer-supported collaborative learning. In G. Stahl (Ed.), Proceedings of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, (pp. 72-81). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates (LEA).
  51. Lor, R. (2017). Design thinking in education: a critical review of literature. In Conference Proceedings of Asian Conference on Education & Psychology, (pp. 36-68), Bangkok, Thailand, 24-26 May.
  52. Lumpkin, A., Achen, R.M., & Dodd, R.K. (2015). Student perceptions of active learning. College Student Journal, 49, 121-133.
  53. Moseley, D., Elliot, J., Gregson, M., & Higgins, S. (2005). Thinking skills frameworks for use in education and training. British Educational Research Journal, 31(3), 367-390. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920500082219
  54. Noroozi, O., Weinberger, A., Biemans, H. J., Mulder, M., & Chizari, M. (2013). Facilitating argumentative knowledge construction through a transactive discussion script in CSCL. Computers & Education, 61, 59-76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.08.013
  55. Nurrijal, N., Setyosari, P., Kuswandi, D., & Ulfa, S. (2023). Creative Problem Solving Process Instructional Design in the Context of Blended Learning in Higher Education. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 21(2),80-97. https://doi.org/10.34190/ejel.21.2.2653
  56. Okumuş, S. (2020). The effect of argumentation-supported cooperative learning model on academic achievement, critical thinking disposition and attitude towards socioscientific issues. Ondokuz Mayıs University Journal of Education Faculty, 39(2), 269-293. https://doi.org/10.7822/omuefd.570419
  57. Parlar, H. (2014). School development in all aspects. Nobel Publishing.
  58. Patiño, A., Ramírez-Montoya, M. S., & Buenestado-Fernández, M. (2023). Active learning and education 4.0 for complex thinking training: Analysis of two case studies in open education. Smart Learning Environments, 10(1), 8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-023-00229-x
  59. Paul, R. (1991). Critical thinking: What every person needs to survive in a changing world. NASSP Bulletin, 75(533), 120-122. https://doi.org/10.1177/019263659107553325
  60. Peterson, C. (2003). Bringing ADDIE to life: Instructional design at its best. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 12(3), 227-241.
  61. Prince, M., & Felder, R. (2007). The many faces of inductive teaching and learning. Journal of College Science Teaching, 36(5), 14–20.
  62. Puccio, G. J., Talbot, R. J., & Joniak, A. J. (2000). Examining creative performance in the workplace through a person–environment fit model. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 34(4), 227–247. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.2000.tb01213.x
  63. Ramirez, H. J. M., & Monterola, S. L. C. (2019). Co-creating scripts in computer-supported collaborative learning and its effects on students logical thinking in earth science. Interactive Learning Environment, 30(5), 908-921. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1702063
  64. Ramirez, H. J. M. (2021). Facilitating computer-supported collaborative learning with question asking scripting activity and its effects on students’ conceptual understanding and critical thinking in science. International Journal of Innovation in Science and Mathematics Education, 29(1), 31-45. https://doi.org/10.30722/IJISME.29.01.003
  65. Reigeluth, C. M. (1983). Instructional design: What is it and why is it. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: An overview of their current status (pp. 3-36). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrance Erlbaum Associates.
  66. Reigeluth, C. M. (1999). What is instructional-design theory and how is it changing? In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (Vol. 2, pp. 5-29). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  67. Rhodes, M. (1961). An analysis of creativity. The Phi Delta Kappan, 42, 305-310. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20342603
  68. Rowland, G. (1993). Designing and instructional design. educational technology research and development, 41(1), 79-91
  69. Shukor, N. A., Tasir, Z., Zaid, N., & Ahmad, N. (2014) The design of a computer-supported collaborative learning environment that promotes interaction. In Proceedings of the 2014 International Conference on Teaching and Learning in Computing and Engineering (pp. 47–51), IEEE Computer Society, USA. https://doi.org/10.1109/LaTiCE.2014.17
  70. Smith, P. L., & Ragan, T. J. (2004). Instructional design. John Wiley & Sons Inc.
  71. Stahl, G., Koschmann, T., & Suthers, D. (2006). Computer-supported collaborative learning: A historical perspective. In R. K. Sawyer, (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp.409-426). Cambridge University Press
  72. Sun, J.C. and Rueda, R. (2012). Situational interest, computer self-efficacy and self-regulation: Their impact on student engagement in distance education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43, 191-204. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2010.01157.
  73. Şimşek, A. (2021). Öğretim Tasarımı [Instructional design]. (5th Edition). Nobel Publishing.
  74. Tang, T., Vezzani, V., & Eriksson, V. (2020). Developing critical thinking, collective creativity skills and problem solving through playful design jams. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 37(4), Article no. 100696. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100696.
  75. Tezci, E., & Gürol, A. (2003). Constructivist instructional design and creativity. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 2(1), 50-55. https://www.tojet.net/articles/v2i1/218.pdf
  76. Ünal, E., & Özdinç, F. (2019). Examining the experiences of pre-service teachers regarding the technology-supported collaborative learning process. MANAS Journal of Social Research, 8(1), 794-810. https://doi.org/10.33206/mjss.468144
  77. Watermeyer, R., Crick, T., Knight, C., & Goodall, J. (2021). COVID-19 and Digital Disruption in UK Universities: Afflictions and Affordances of Emergency Online Migration. Higher Education, 81, 623–641. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10734-020-00561-y
  78. Weinberger, A., Stegmann, K., Fischer, F., & Mandl, H. (2007). Scripting Argumentative Knowledge Construction in Computer-Supported Learning Environments. In: Fischer, F., Kollar, I., Mandl, H., Haake, J.M. (Eds.), Scripting Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, vol 6. (pp. 191-211). Springer, Boston
  79. Williams, F. K. (2017). John Dewey in the 21st Century. Journal of Inquiry & Action in Education, 9(1), 91-102. https://digitalcommons.buffalostate.edu/jiae/vol9/iss1/7/
  80. Yang, S. C., & Lin, W. C. (2004). The relationship among creative, critical thinking and thinking styles in Taiwan high school students. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 31(1), 33–45.
  81. Yıldırım-Yakar, Z. (2022). University students’ online cooperative learning attitudes and its relationship with course achievement. Journal of Educational Technology & Online Learning, 5(3), 500-518. https://doi.org/10.31681/jetol.1055170
  82. Yılmaz, R., Karaoglan Yilmaz, F. G., & Keser, H. (2020). Vertical versus shared e-leadership approach in online project-based learning: a comparison of self-regulated learning skills, motivation and group collaboration processes. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 32, 628-654. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-020-09250-2
  83. Yin, R. K. (1984). Case study research: design and methods. Sage Publications.
  84. Yoldaş, C. (2009). The effect of environmental science course on critical thinking skills, achievement and attitudes of prospective primary school teachers [Doctoral dissertation, Publication No.239318] Council of Higher Education Thesis Center.
  85. Zabolotna, K., Malmberg, J., & Järvenoja, H. (2022). Examining the interplay of knowledge construction and group-level regulation in a computer-supported collaborative learning physics task. Computers in Human Behavior, 138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2022.107494
  86. Zheng, L., Zhang, X., & Gyasi, J. F. (2019). A literature review of features and trends of technology supported collaborative learning in informal learning settings from 2007 to 2018. Journal of Computers in Education, 6(4), 529-561. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-019-00148-2