toward a theory of computer collaborative learning

8/8/2019 Toward a Theory of Computer Collaborative Learning

1/8

Introduction: Toward a Theory of Computer Support for Collaborative LearningAuthor(s): T. D. KoschmannSource: The Journal of the Learning Sciences, Vol. 3, No. 3, Computer Support forCollaborative Learning (1993 - 1994), pp. 219-225Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1466820Accessed: 28/11/2010 18:45

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=taylorfrancis .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of the Learning Sciences.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=taylorfrancishttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1466820?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=taylorfrancishttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=taylorfrancishttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1466820?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=taylorfrancis


2/8

THE JOURNAL OF THE LEARNING CIENCES, 994, 3(3), 219-225Copyright 1994, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, nc.

Toward a Theory of ComputerSupport for Collaborative Learning

T. D. KoschmannSouthern Illinois University

Things change. For decades teachers have adhered to the familiar and theroutine, teaching largely as they themselves were taught (Cuban, 1993). Butthere are signs of change in today's classroom. Teachers are beginning toseek new theories and approaches to learning. One currently prominenttheme of change is the movement away from the traditional, teacher-cen-tered approach to instruction toward more collaborative approaches such ascooperative learning (Slavin et al., 1985), project-based learning(Blumenfeld et al., 1991), problem-based learning (Barrows & Tamblyn,1980), and reciprocal instruction (Palincsar & Brown, 1984) in which peer-to-peer interaction is highly valued.

One interesting question, with respect to these newly emerging forms ofinstruction, is how can they be supported and enhanced by technology? Thedominant paradigm for past work in the use of computers (both in instruction

and in other settings) has involved designing software for the solitary user.Recently, however, researchers have begun to investigate the practices andshared artifacts by which groups coordinate their work with an eye towardthe development of new facilitating technologies (Bodker & Pederson,1991). This emerging area of study, known as computer support for cooper-ative work (CSCW), is founded on the notion that computers can be used tofacilitate, augment, and even redefine interactions among members of awork group (Galegher & Kraut, 1990). The term groupware has been coinedfor software that is meant to be used by groups rather than single individuals

(Stefik & Brown, 1989). Research in this area has stimulated interest in theeducational possibilities engendered by CSCW, and the acronym CSCL isoften used for computer support of collaborative learning, the more focusedstudy of the use of collaboration technology in instruction.

Requests or reprints hould be sent to T. D. Koschmann, outhern llinois University, Schoolof Medicine, P. O. Box 19230, Cognitive Science Division, Springfield, L 62794.


3/8

220 KOSCHMANN

WHAT IS IN AN ACRONYM? OR WHAT S THESECOND "C" N CSCL?)

There has been some controversy surrounding what the letters CSCL repre-sent. When we organized our first workshop on CSCL in 1991 (Koschmann,1992), we billed it as the Workshop on Computer Support for CooperativeLearning-simply substituting learning for work and drawing on the per-ceived connection to prior research in CSCW. Trent Batson sent me a note atthe time observing that cooperative learning has a special meaning in theeducation world (cf., Slavin et al., 1985) and encouraging me to considercollaborative learning as an alternative. Although the term collaborative

learning was also not new (e.g., Greeno, 1986), it had yet to denote anyspecific set of educational methods. We, therefore, decided to change thename of our workshop to the Workshop on Computer Support for Collabora-tive Learning.' In this issue, Roy Pea argues that collaborative learning isoften not descriptive of what we find happening in the classroom and sug-gests that collective learning may be a more apt term. I think the termcoordinated learning may also apply (in the sense in which the term coordi-nated activity is used by social constructivists (Blumer, 1969; Heritage,1984; Suchman, 1987) to describe the mutually constitutive interactions ofindividuals in social settings. At this point, however, the best policy might beto simply use the acronym, allowing individual interpretation of what theletters might actually represent.

CSCL applications can be categorized by a number of dimensions(O'Malley & Koschmann, 1993). Three important ones are the locus of use,how the use is coordinated in time, and the intended instructional role of theapplication. CSCL applications have been designed to be used in a variety ofsettings-applications for use in the classroom (intra-classroom applica-

tions), applications that connect users across classrooms (inter-classroomapplications), and applications that are used outside the classroom (extra-classroom applications). Many CSCL applications involve groups of learnersworking on different (but connected) processors. Depending on the applica-tion, their interaction can be coordinated synchronously or asynchronously.2The instructional role of the application may also be quite variable. Technol-ogy, for example, can be used to present or simulate a problem for study,helping to situate it in a real-world context (e.g., Jason Woodbury MathSeries; Bransford & The Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt,1992). Alternatively, computers can be used to mediate communication

1Aworkshop with the same name had been organized year earlier n Maratea, taly, underthe auspices of the NATO Special Programme n Advanced Educational echnology O' Malley,in press). Tim O'Shea (personal ommunication) nformed me that he term computer-supportedcollaborative earning was already n use in Europe as early as 2 years prior o that meeting.

2A telephone call is a paradigmatic xample of a synchronized nteraction; orrespondencethrough he mail is an example of asynchronous ommunication.


4/8

TOWARD A THEORY OF CSCL 221

within (Bruce & Peyton, 1991) and across classrooms (e.g., Learning Circleson the AT&T Learning Network; Riel, 1992) and to introduce new resourcesinto the classroom (Pea, 1993). Computers can provide archival storage forthe products of group work, thereby supporting "knowledge building"(Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1991) and "communities of learning" (Campione,Brown, & Jay, 1992). Finally, computers can support the creation of repre-sentational formalisms that enable learners to model their shared understand-ing of new concepts (e.g., the Envisioning Machine; Roschelle, 1992).

OVERVIEW OF THIS SPECIAL ISSUE

The articles that appear in this issue were first presented in 1992 at anAmerican Educational Research Association Symposium entitled "TheoriesUnderlying the Use of Networked Computers in the Classroom."3 This spe-cial issue was put together to allow the presenters to further refine their ideasand present them in a more coherent form.

The first article describes work being undertaken at the Southern IllinoisUniversity School of Medicine. We begin by enumerating our own commit-ments with respect to teaching and learning in the form of a list of principles.We then describe how these principles are served by a particular approach tocollaborative instruction, known as problem-based learning (PBL). Finally,we discuss several ways that technology could be used to support andenhance PBL. The applications described are largely designed for intra-classroom use, though support for extra-classroom activities is also planned.They include using computers to present clinical problems for study, tomediate communication in face-to-face meetings, and to provide archivalstorage of the group's deliberations.

The article by Scardamalia and Bereiter describes the theories of learningand instruction underlying the Computer-Supported Intentional LearningEnvironments (CSILE) project (Scardamalia et al., 1992) at the OntarioInstitute for Studies in Education. The CSILE provides a framework in theform of a hypertext journal for creating, editing, storing, annotating, andretrieving materials generated by a team of students working on a commonproject. An important eature of the CSILE project is that material gathered byone team of students can be used as a resource for future groups. Scardamaliaand Bereiter view this kind of "knowledge-building" ctivity as similar in manyways to the activities that occur in academic research communities. As de-scribed, the CSILE program s an example of another intra-classroom applica-tion, although the emphasis on knowledge building imparts an inter-classroomflavor (i.e., for classrooms separated by time rather than space).

3A fourth paper (by Denis Newman) was also presented at that symposium but was, regretta-bly, not available for inclusion in this issue.


5/8

222 KOSCHMANN

In the third article, Roy Pea argues for a transformative view of commu-nication by which both teachers and students are transformed through theprocess of communication. He asserts that educators have traditionally em-braced a transmissive view of communication and as a consequence havefailed to recognize the social and material embeddedness of interaction inthe classroom. Pea then describes the Dynagrams project as an example of aresearch project inspired by a transformative perspective. This project wasundertaken to investigate ways in which technology could be used to aug-ment student sense-making in the context of solving optics problems in ahigh-school physics course. The Dynagrams project is another example of anintra-classroom CSCL application, in this case one in which a specially

designed microworld provided a representational formalism to support adesired form of conversation among student problem solvers. Pea's morerecent work has moved in the direction of inter-classroom and extra-class-room applications. The Collaborative Visualization (CoVis) project (Pea,1993) focuses on the use of high-speed telecommunications gear to providesimilar kinds of representational support for dispersed groups of students.

WHY COLLABORATIVE NSTRUCTION?

On the surface, the applications described in this issue may appear to havelittle in common-some are used in the classroom, but some are not; someinvolve networks, but some reside on a single machine; some are used in realtime, but some are used asynchronously. What they do hold in common,however, is a concern for the importance of supporting collaboration ininstruction.

Each of the articles presents a slightly different argument for why we needcollaborative instruction in the first place. The article by Koschmann,Myers, Feltovich, and Barrows, for example, presents collaborative learningas one way of addressing some of the known failures of traditional methodsof instruction (e.g., low rates of retention, failure to transfer learning, inabil-ity of learners to apply knowledge flexibly). Learning in groups providesopportunities for exposure to multiple perspectives and interpretations. Italso provides participants with opportunities to articulate their newly ac-quired knowledge. For Scardamalia and Bereiter, the idea of knowledgebuilding in CSILE is to allow learners to make the fruits of their researchapparent to and usable by their peers. This, they hope, will enhance theintentional character of their learning. The argument is largely a motiva-tional one. Pea's article argues for a new model of communication in theclassroom, one that acknowledges its transformative character. If classroomdiscussions are viewed as transformative activities, they can be understoodin a different way, leading, we hope, to the development of new and betterforms of instruction. He privileges a particular type of conversation-the


6/8


sense-making conversation that leads to the social construction of under-standing and individual conceptual change. What characterizes collaborativelearning is a model of instruction that honors other types of communication(i.e., peer-to-peer, student-to-teacher) in addition to the traditional one-waycommunication of teacher to student. A theory of communication is central,therefore, to a theory of collaborative learning.

SOME OTHER EMERGENT THEMES

Two other important themes present themselves in these articles-a view ofthe learner as an active participant in the learning process and the need fornew forms of communication in the classroom.

All three articles maintain a view of learning as an active process. This istaken up in the article by Koschmann et al. as one of the six principles ofeffective learning and instruction (i.e., the Principle of Activeness). Thenotion of intentional learning developed by Scardamalia and Bereiter in thisissue and elsewhere (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1989, 1991) implicitly as-sumes a model in which

learningis a constructive

process. They suggestin

their article that one of the central problems of education today is thatschools are too much like factories in which the workers have little or noinput into the design of the product. Finally, Pea writes "Students are notblank slates, written upon with curricular lessons. They are active [italicsadded] learners ..." (p. 290).

As mentioned earlier, what distinguishes collaborative forms of instructionfrom more conventional methods of teaching is a shift in the types of communi-cation that are sanctioned. It is not surprising, therefore, that all three articles

directly address issues of classroom discourse and call for new forms of conver-sational activities to support instruction. This is the central message of Pea'sarticle, but it emerges as an important heme in the other two articles as well. Forexample, Scardamalia and Bereiter state, "Knowledge-building discourse is atthe heart of the superior education that we have in mind" (p. 266). These newpatterns of discourse may introduce new instructional challenges, however.Koschmann et al.'s and Scardamalia and Bereiter's articles both observe thatbecause of the nature of group dynamics, simple discussion may not be the mostefficacious way of

achieving groupsense

making.Both articles

express hope,however, that these limitations of group discussion can be addressed through theintroduction of new technologies.

This special issue was conceived to serve at least two objectives: first, toprovide a representative sample of ongoing work in CSCL; second, to eluci-date some of the underlying theories that currently inform design in the area.I believe that it succeeds on both counts. My greatest hope is that it willinitiate a wider discussion of the important issues pertaining to the introduc-tion of technologies into collaborative learning settings.


7/8

224 KOSCHMANN

REFERENCES

Barrows, H. S., & Tamblyn, R. (1980). Problem-based learning: An approach to medicaleducation. New York: Springer.

Blumenfeld, P., Soloway, E., Marx, R., Krajcik, J., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A. (1991).Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. EducationalPsychologist, 26, 369-398.

Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Bodker, K., & Pederson, J. (1991). Workplace cultures: Looking at artifacts, symbols and

practices. In J. Greenbaum & M. Kyng (Eds.), Design at work: Cooperative design ofcomputer systems (pp. 121-136). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Bransford, J. D., & The Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1992). The Jasperexperiment series as an example of anchored instruction: Theory, program description, andassessment data. Educational Psychologist, 27, 291-315.

Bruce, B., & Peyton, J. K. (1991). A new writing environment and an old culture: A situatedevaluation of computer networking to teach writing. Interactive Learning Environments, 1,171-191.

Campione, J., Brown, A., & Jay, M. (1992). Computers in a community of users. In E. DeCorte,M. C. Linn, H. Mandl, & L. Verschaffel (Eds.), Computer-based learning environments andproblem solving (NATO ASI Series F: Computer and Systems Sciences, Vol. 84; pp. 163-188). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the craft ofreading, writing and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning and instruction:Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453-494). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associ-ates, Inc.

Cuban, L. (1993). How teachers taught: Constancy and change in American classrooms (1890-1990) (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.

Galegher, J., & Kraut, R. E. (1990). Technology for intellectual teamwork: Perspectives onresearch and design. In J. Galegher, R. Kraut, & C. Egido (Eds.), Intellectual teamwork:Social and technological foundations of cooperative work (pp. 1-20). Hillsdale, NJ: Law-rence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Greeno, J. (1986). Collaborative teaching and making sense of symbols: Comment on Lampert's"Knowing, doing, and teaching multiplication." Cognition and Instruction, 3, 343-347.

Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge, England: Polity.Koschmann, T. D. (Ed.). (1992). Computer support for collaborative learning: Experience,

theory and design [Special issue]. ACM SIGCUE Outlook, 21(3).O'Malley, C. (Ed.). (in press). Computer supported collaborative learning (NATO Advanced

Science Series F: Computer and Systems Sciences, Special Programme on Advanced Educa-tional Technology). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

O'Malley, C., & Koschmann, T. D. (1993). Tutorial on using computers to support collaborativelearning. Presented at InterCHI '93, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering andcomprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117-175.

Pea, R. (1993). The collaborative visualization project. Communications of the ACM, 36(5),60-63.

Riel, M. (1992). A functional analysis of educational telecomputing: A case study of learningcircles. Interactive Learning Environments, 2, 15-30.

Roschelle, J. (1992). Learning by collaboration: Convergent conceptual change. The Journal ofthe Learning Sciences, 2, 235-276.

Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1989). Intentional learning as a goal of instruction. In L. B.Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp.361-392). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.


8/8


Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1991). Higher evels of agency for children n knowledgebuilding: A challenge or the design of new knowledge media. The Journal of the LearningSciences, 1, 37-67.

Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., Brett, C., Burtis, P., Calhoun, C., & Smith Lea, N. (1992).Educational pplications f a networked ommunal atabase. nteractive Learning Environ-ments, 2, 45-71.

Slavin, R., Sharan, ., Kagan, S., Lazarowitz, R. H., Webb, C., & Schmuck, R. (1985). Learningto cooperate, cooperating to learn. New York: Plenum.

Stefik, M., & Brown, J. S. (1989). Toward portable deas. In M. Olson (Ed.), Technologicalsupport for work group collaboration (pp. 147-165). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates, Inc.

Suchman, L. (1987). Plans and situated actions: The problem of human/machine communica-tion. Cambridge, ngland: Cambridge niversity Press.

toward a theory of computer collaborative learning

Documents