Chapter 3.4
Collaborative learning and computer-supported collaborative learning environments
Maarit Arvaja*, Päivi Häkkinen and Marja Kankaanranta
Institute for Educational Research, University of Jyväskylä, Finland
*Address for correspondence: Maarit Arvaja, Institute for Educational Research, University of Jyväskylä, P.O. Box 35, FI-40014 University of Jyväskylä, Finland, Tel: +358 14260 3253, Fax +358 14260 3201
Abstract
A focus on purely individual cognition has set a stage to social construction of knowledge (Greeno, 1998). New learning environments, in many cases supported by computer technology, are often based on collaborating and sharing expertise (Dillenbourg, 1999). As a result research on Computer Supported Collaborative learning (CSCL) environments is a significant and growing field, which actively seeks new methods to resolve the challenges of human learning across diverse levels of interaction in a modern information society. In this chapter we will discuss the concept of collaborative learning and the issues involved in using information and communication technology to support collaborative learning. We begin with the definition of collaboration, which lays the foundation for diverse research perspectives and methodologies on collaborative learning. The chapter also reviews the potential of CSCL environments, and addresses the challenges CSCL environments face.
Key words: collaborative learning; shared knowledge construction; computer supported collaborative learning (CSCL); collaborative technology; collaborative use of technology
Introduction: Collaboration defined
What is collaboration and collaborative learning, after all? Both in everyday discussions among practitioners in the schools and among researchers in the field of learning and instruction, the term collaboration is sometimes used very loosely and the definition of collaboration is blurred. In many notions it has been regarded similar to co-operation, which is typical activity in school projects, where the students work towards a shared goal, usually a shared product, but the actual work is divided. Students may divide the task into sub-tasks which individuals complete alone. This kind of division of labor is called vertical (Dillenbourg, 1999), and in the literature it is typically referred to as co-operation instead of collaboration (Cohen, 1994). In addition, collaboration is sometimes referred to very generally as a shared activity of the students, interaction between students or participating in learning communities. However, in those notions the nature of activity, interaction or participation is not specified. Next we open up the definition of collaboration used in this chapter more precisely.
The most widely used definition of collaboration describes it as a construction of shared understanding through interaction with others (Dillenbourg, 1999; Roschelle & Teasley, 1995). It is assumed that in collaborative activity the participants are committed to or engaged in shared goals and problem solving. Furthermore, collaboration is often defined in a way that necessitates participants to be engaged in a co-ordinated effort to solve a problem or perform a task together. Collaboration is also commonly referred to as co-construction of knowledge (Baker, 2002), building collaborative knowing (Stahl, 2004), co-argumentation (Baker, 2002), negotiating of shared meaning (Pea 1993), construction of common knowledge (Crook, 2002), exploratory talk (Mercer, 1996) or co-ordination (Barron, 2000). Furthermore, the definitions of successful collaborative activity demonstrate the nature of collaboration, where cognitive, social and emotional aspects are tightly intertwined.
Baker (2002) defines collaboration as “a symmetrical and aligned form of co-operation in problem-solving, independently of whether the participants agree or not” (p. 602). According to Baker, interaction is symmetrical if the participants adopt certain roles equally throughout the interaction, i.e. participate equally in problem solving. Even though Baker (2002) does not refer to symmetry of knowledge, a certain degree of knowledge symmetry is essential to enable equal roles (Dillenbourg, 1999). According to Van Boxtel (2000), all participants have to contribute equally to the elaboration and solution of the problem at hand.
In Baker’s (2002) definition, the degree of alignment refers to the extent to which participants are ‘in phase’ with respect to different aspects of the problem-solving activity, that is, to what extent they are genuinely working together. For example, interaction is non-aligned in a situation where students have no mutual (conceptual) understanding of the problem or the concepts at hand, and thus, are not genuinely able to work together (until they negotiate a shared understanding). Maintaining and constructing shared understanding requires continuous attention and reflection on one's own and other’s understanding (Baker, 2002).
Mercer (1996) sees collaboration as shared knowledge construction. According to him shared knowledge construction is manifested in talk. He distinguishes three forms of talk, namely exploratory, cumulative and disputational talk. Exploratory talk occurs when participants engage critically but constructively in each other’s ideas. In exploratory talk, statements and suggestions are offered for joint consideration. These are challenged and counter-challenged with justifications and alternative hypotheses. In exploratory talk, knowledge is made publicly accountable and reasoning is visible. Cumulative and disputational talks do not promote joint critical problem solving. In cumulative talk, the participants build positively, but uncritically on what the other has said. The participants use this type of talk to construct common knowledge by accumulation. Typical elements of cumulative talk are repetitions, confirmations and elaborations. Disputational talk is characterized by disagreement, competitiveness and individual decision making. There are only few attempts to solve problems together or to offer constructive criticism or suggestions. Only exploratory talk contributes to shared knowledge construction.
According to Barron (2003), collaborative activities have a dual nature, which means that the participants have to develop and monitor both the content space and the relational space. The content space refers to the cognitive aspect of collaboration: how the subject at hand is reasoned; how the ideas are developed in discussion; and how the shared understanding is constructed. Relational space refers more to the way in which participants orientate towards each other in dialogue (or monologue) and how willing they are to engage in interaction (Barron, 2003). The content and relational spaces are negotiated simultaneously, and thus compete for attention. For example, if the relational space is more focused on competitive interaction or self-focused (individualistic) problem-solving, it prevents the participants from gaining joint attention and mutual engagement, and from reaching common understanding on the same topic. At the same time, success in the content space requires success in the relational space. The content and relational spaces thus have a reciprocal relationship, both being part of the same collaborative process, and are therefore hard to separate.
Research traditions on collaborative learning
The definitions of collaboration as such do not explain how collaborative learning takes place. A more detailed analysis of specific forms of collaboration can contribute to our understanding of how to engage participants to solve cognitive conflict and identify what constitutes productive collaborative learning. In the history of research on collaborative learning, several researchers have anchored their research on two main traditions, namely neo-Piagetian ideas of socio-cognitive conflict (e.g. Doise, 1985) and Vygotsky’s (1978) sociocultural approach. Later notions of social aspects of learning vary from perspectives focusing on individuals that participate in group activities (Anderson, Reder & Simon, 1997) to perspectives focusing on groups that are made up of individuals (Greeno, 1998).
The research tradition building on the socio-cognitive perspective is interested in cognitive processes relevant to collaborative knowledge construction (Fischer, Bruhn, Gräsel & Mandl, 2002). The underlying assumption of this approach is that the cognitive processes and outcomes of collaborative work are related. This type of research has focused on studying the relationship between the cognitive aspects of student interaction and individual learning. According to many studies, productive interaction manifested in cognitively high-level discussion is related to high-level understanding and learning (Howe & Tolmie, 1999; King, 1999). Positive results of collaborative interactions have been explained by the notion that peer interaction stimulates the elaboration of knowledge, and hence, promotes individual cognitive gains (Van Boxtel, 2001). Thus, the main interest is in studying how collaboration contributes to individual knowledge construction, the mental content of individual minds.
The socio-cultural approach to learning, building on the Vygotskian framework (1978), emphasizes the meaning of social interaction and activity in the process of knowledge construction, as well as the mediative role of tools and the historical and cultural settings in which the knowledge construction occurs. According to Wertsch (1991), it is not possible to study thinking and cognition independently of the social, interpersonal, cultural, and historical settings in which they occur. Cognition is a public, social process embedded within a historically-shaped material world (Goodwin, 2000) in the sense that it relies on conceptual and material resources and tools that originate in our culture (Bliss & Säljö, 1999). According to the socio-cultural approach, understanding collaborative learning requires making sense of the conversation that students engage in and the tools that mediate their learning, rather than studying the mental content of individual minds (Hmelo-Silver, 2003). According to this view, learning is always situational and it must be considered in the context where it takes place. Thus, collaborative knowledge construction has to be analyzed within the context of the group situated in a larger community, where the knowledge is distributed in the material and discursive environment in the form of tools, symbol systems, social practices and physical spaces (Goodwin, 2000; Stahl, 2004).
What is Computer-Supported collaborative learning (CSCL)?
Research on collaborative learning and the use of information and communication technologies (ICT) has been integrated in the research area called Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL; Koschmann, 1996). Although there is no unified theory of CSCL, the common feature of the various diverse viewpoints is to focus on how collaboration supported by technology can facilitate sharing and distributing of knowledge and expertise among group or community members. Furthermore, the crucial question in CSCL is how peer interaction and work in groups supported by technology can enhance learning. Two main perspectives that have strongly contributed to the development of CSCL tradition are research on collaborative learning (e.g. Dillenbourg, 1999) and Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) (Dourish, 1998). The latter focuses on the collaborative nature of work supported by groupware. It excludes issues of learning, but provides a basis for developing groupware tools that can be used for learning purposes (Häkkinen, Arvaja & Mäkitalo, 2004).
Lipponen (2001) has made a distinction between the collaborative use of technology and collaborative technology. The collaborative use of technology refers to situations where the computer can serve in a face-to-face event as a referential anchor, coordinate joint attention and interaction, and be an object for manipulation, and thus, support collaboration (Lipponen, 2001). In this approach, technological tools are not designed as such to support collaboration, but they can be utilized in varied ways for the purpose of enhancing collaborative learning. Such tools and environments are widely used and many of them are available in the Internet and can be easily modified for different purposes. For example, different kinds of simulations and graphical representations in the computer screen can operate as reference objects that help participants to construct shared understanding (e.g. Roschelle & Teasley, 1995). In the case of computer-mediated communication, the technology may be used collaboratively in at least two ways. Firstly, participant's thoughts and ideas are stored on a common platform, which serves as a public memory, and thus, are made available and visible for reflection in the long term. And secondly, participants are engaged in asynchronous (e.g. discussion boards) or synchronous (e.g. chat) discussions.
According to Lipponen (2001), collaborative technology refers to specific technological support for collaboration built in to computer networks. Such collaborative technology in connection with corresponding pedagogical practices is usually called a CSCL environment. Different studies have revealed that CSCL environments can facilitate higher-level cognitive achievements such as critical reasoning, explaining, generating own research questions, setting up and improving one’s own intuitive theories, and searching for scientific information (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1994; Hakkarainen, Lipponen & Järvelä, 2002).
A common feature of collaborative technology is that it supports participants’ cognitive activities by providing advanced socio-cognitive scaffolding. Knowledge Forum (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1994; http://www.knowledgeforum.com/ and http://csile.oise.utoronto.ca/) is a well-known example of a CSCL environment. It is basically an environment where students build and refine a database of notes. A note is a passage or picture representing student’s idea or research question. When students create ‘notes’ they are asked to label the type of their ‘note’ (for example “Problem”, “My theory”). These types are called “Thinking types” and they are intended to scaffold students’ inquiry process. This environment is collaborative in the sense that notes are public in a Knowledge Forum’s database, and students can build onto other students’ notes, and they may refer to other’s work and create new syntheses (Lipponen, 2001). In other words, this kind of environment can function as a collective memory for a learning community, helping to store the history of knowledge construction process for future revisions and use. The environment provides scaffolds in different areas, such as, text analysis, theory building (thinking types) and debating (Lipponen, 2001).
The following list presents some examples of well-known CSCL environments:
· Knowledge Forum and CSILE (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1994). Knowledge Forum is collaborative technology that enables students and teachers to work collaboratively in the support of knowledge building. Knowledge Forum is an electronic group workspace designed to support students and teachers in the process of knowledge building. It provides tools for sharing information, launching collaborative investigations, and building networks of new ideas. http://www.knowledgeforum.com/ and http://csile.oise.utoronto.ca/ (see also in this handbook: Chan & van Aalst, 2008; Tan, Seah, Yeo & Hung, 2008).
· WISE - Web-based Integrated Science Environment (Slotta, 2002). WISE is a web-based inquiry science environment through which students can examine real world evidence and analyze scientific controversies.
http://wise.berkeley.edu/
Earlier version was KIE - Knowledge Integration Environment: http://www.kie.berkeley.edu/KIE.html (see also in this handbook: Chan & van Aalst, 2008; Tan, Seah, Yeo & Hung, 2008)
· Belvedere (Suthers, Weiner, Connelly & Paolucci, 1995). Belvedere is collaborative technology for constructing and reflecting on diagrams of one's ideas, such as evidence maps and concept maps. It is designed to support problem-based collaborative learning scenarios.