Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T15:05:33.052Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

16 - The Collaboration Principle in Multimedia Learning

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

By
David H. Jonassen ,
Chwee Beng Lee ,
Chia-Chi Yang  and
James Laffey
Edited by
Richard Mayer
David H. Jonassen
Affiliation:
University of Missouri
Chwee Beng Lee
Affiliation:
University of Missouri
Chia-Chi Yang
Affiliation:
University of Missouri
James Laffey
Affiliation:
University of Missouri
Richard Mayer
Affiliation:
University of California, Santa Barbara
Get access

Summary

Abstract

Based on sociocultural and social cognitive theory, computer support for collaborative learning (CSCL) has emerged as a new research and development subdiscipline of computer-mediated communication. The emphasis of CSCL is on supporting collaborative learning activities in online multimedia environments. In this chapter, we review research on the nature of the technology used, how the learning groups are comprised (e.g., group size, learner characteristics), the learning outcome engaged by the task, the role of the tutor, the effects of community-building activities, the nature of the learning or communication assessment, and the effects of scaffolds or discussion constraints on learning. Based on this research, we make a variety of recommendations for the design and implementation of learning environments.

Introduction to the Collaboration Principle

In the past decade, the study of learning has been influenced increasingly by constructivism and social theories. Not only have the epistemological and ontological assumptions about the nature of learning changed as a result of constructivist influences, but the nature of instructional and learning activities has changed dramatically. At the risk of oversimplification, the most obvious effect of this influence has been a shift from emphasis on instructional communication systems to an emphasis on practice-based, collaborative learning systems. The goal of instructional systems, informed by objectivist assumptions, was to effectively design messages to support the efficient transmission of knowledge about the world.

Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning , pp. 247 - 270
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2005

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Admiraal, W. F., Lockhorst, D., Wubbels, T., Korthagen, F. A. J., & Veen, W. (1998). Computer-mediated communication environments in teacher education: Computer conferencing and the supervision of student teachers. Learning Environments Research 1(1), 59–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, T., & Kanuka, H. (1997). On-line forums: New platforms for professional development and group collaboration. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 3(3). Retrieved January 30, 2004, from http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol3/issue3/anderson.htmlGoogle Scholar
Angeli, C., Valanides, N., & Bonk, C. J. (2003). Communication in a web-based conferencing system: The quality of computer-mediated interactions. British Journal of Educational Technology, 34(1), 31–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arbaugh, A. B. (2000). Virtual classroom versus physical classroom: An exploratory study of class discussion patterns and student learning in an asynchronous internet-based MBA course. Journal of Management Education, 24, 213–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aviv, R., Erlich, Z., Ravid, G., & Geva, A. (2003). Network analysis of knowledge construction in asynchronous learning networks. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7, 1–23Google Scholar
Barab, S. A., & Duffy, T. M. (2000). From practice fields to communities of practice. In Jonassen, D. H. & Land, S. L. (Eds.), Theoretical foundations of learning environments (pp. 25–55). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum AssociatesGoogle Scholar
Benbunan-Fich, R., & Hiltz, S. R. (1999). Educational applications of CMCS: Solving case studies through asynchronous learning networks. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 4(3). Retrieved January 30, 2004, from http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol4/issue3/benbunan-fich.htmlGoogle Scholar
Bernard, R. M., & Lundgren-Cayrol, K. (2001). Computer conferencing: An environment for collaborative project-based learning in distance education. Educational Research and Evaluation, 7(2/3), 241–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bhattachary, M. (1999). A study of asynchronous and synchronous discussion on cognitive maps in a distributed learning environment. In Bra, P., & Legget, J. J. (Ed.), WebNet Conference on the WWW and Internet (Vol. 1, pp. 100–105). Charlottesville, VA: AACEGoogle Scholar
Biesenbach-Lucas, S. (2003). Asynchronous discussion groups in teacher training classes: Perceptions of native and non-native students. Journal of Asynchornous Learning Networks, 7, 24–46Google Scholar
Biscaglia, M. G., & Monk-Turner, E. (2001). Differences in attitudes between on site and distance site students in group teleconference course. The American Journal of Distance Education, 16, 37–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, K., & Cole, M. (2000). Socially-shared cognition: System design and the organization of collaborative research. In Jonassen, D. H. & Land, S. L. (Eds.), Theoretical foundations of learning environments (pp. 197–214). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum AssociatesGoogle Scholar
Cho, K.-L., & Jonnasen, D. H. (2002). The effects of argumentation scaffolds on argumentation and problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 5–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chou, C. (2001). Formative evaluation of synchronous CMC systems for learner-centered online course. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 12, 173–192Google Scholar
Constantino-Gonzalez, M. D. L. A., Suthers, D. D., & Santos, J G. E. D. L. (2003). Coaching web-based collaborative learning based on problem based solution differences and participation. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 13, 156–169Google Scholar
Curtis, D. C., & Lawson, M. J. (2001). Exploring collaborative online learning. Journal of Asynchrounous Learning Networks, 13, 21–34Google Scholar
Simone, C., Schmid, R. F., & McEwen, L. A. (2001). Supporting the learning process with collaborative concept mapping using computer-based communication tools and processes. Educational Research and Evaluation, 7(2/3), 263–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Docq, F., & Daele, A. (2001, March). Uses of ICT tools for CSCL: How do students make as their own the designed environment? Paper presented at Euro CSCL 2001, Maastricht, The Netherlands
Drayton, B., & Falk, J. (2003). Discourse analysis of Web texts: Initial results from a telementoring project for middle school girls. Education, Communication and Information, 3(1), 71–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki, Finland: Orienta- Konsultit OyGoogle Scholar
Fishman, B. J., & Gomez, L. M. (1997, December). How activities foster CMC tool use in classroom. Paper presented at CSCL 1997, Toronto, Canada
Gunawardena, C. N., Lowe, C. A., & Anderson, T. (1997). Analysis of a global online debate and the development of an interaction analysis model for examining social construction of knowledge in computer conferencing. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 17(4), 397–431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Häkkarainen, K., Lipponen, L., & Järvelä, S. (2002). Epistemology of inquiry and computer-supported collaborative learning. In Koschmann, T., Hall, R.., & Miyake, N. (Eds.), CSCL2: Carrying forward the conversation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum AssociatesGoogle Scholar
Häkkinen, P., Järvelä, S., & Byman, A. (2001, March). Sharing and making perspectives in web-based conferencing. Paper presented at Euro CSCL 2001, Mastricht, The Netherlands
Hara, N., Bonk, C. J., & Angeli, C. (2000). Content analysis of online discussion in an applied educational psychology course. Instructional Science, 28(2), 115–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hermann, H., Rummel, N., & Spada, H. (2001, March). Solving the case together: The challenge of net-based interdisciplinary collaboration. Paper presented at Euro CSCL 2001, Maastricht, The Netherlands
Herring, S. C. (2004). Computer-mediated discourse analysis: An approach to researching online behavior. In Barab, S., Kling, R., & Gray, J. H. (Eds.), Designing for virtual communities in the service of learning. New York: Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hewitt, J. (2001). Beyond threaded discourse. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 7(3), 207–221Google Scholar
Holt, G. R., & Morris, A. W. (1993). Activity theory and the analysis of organization. Human Organization, 52(1), 97–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge: MIT PressGoogle Scholar
Issroff, K., Scanlon, E., & Jones, A. (1997, December). Two empirical studies of CSCL in science: Methodological and affective implications. Paper presented at CSCL 1997, Toronto, Canada
Järvelä, S., & Häkkinen, P. (2002). Web-based cases in teaching and learning – the quality of discussions and a stage of perspective taking in asynchronous communication. Interactive Learning Environments, 10(1), 1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jehng, J.-C. J. (1997). The psycho-social processes and cognitive effects of peer-based collaborative interactions with computers. Journal Educational Computing Research, 17(1), 19–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jessup, L. M., Egbert, J. L., & Connolly, T. (1995). Understanding computer-supported group work: The effects of interaction frequency on group process and outcome. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 28, 190–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2004). Cooperation and the use of technology. In Jonassen, D. H. (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 785–811). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum AssociatesGoogle Scholar
Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Revisiting activity theory as a framework for designing student-centered learning environments. In Jonassen, D. H. & Land, S. L. (Eds.)., Theoretical foundations of learning environments (pp. 197–214). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum AssociatesGoogle Scholar
Jonassen, D. H. (2004). Learning to solve problems: An instructional design guide. San Francisco: Pfeiffer/Jossey-BassGoogle Scholar
Jonassen, D. H., & Grabowski, B. G. (1993). Handbook of individual differences, learning, and instruction. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum AssociatesGoogle Scholar
Jonassen, D. H., & Henning, P. (1999). Mental models: Knowledge in the head and knowledge in the world. Educational Technology, 39(3), 37–42Google Scholar
Jonassen, D. H., & Kwon, H. I. (2001). Communication patterns in computer-mediated vs. face-to-face group problem solving. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 49(10), 35–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jonassen, D. H., Reeves, T. C., Hong, N., Dyer, D., & Peters, K. M. (1997). Concept mapping as cognitive learning and assessment tools. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 8(3/4), 289–308Google Scholar
Jonassen, D. H., & Remidez, H. (2005). Mapping alternative discourse structures onto computer conferences. International Journal of Knowledge and Learning, 1(1), 113–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jonassen, D. H., & Wang, S. (1993). Acquiring structural knowledge from semantically structured hypertext. Journal of Computer-based Instruction, 20(1), 1–8Google Scholar
Kirkley, S. E., Savery, J. R., & Grabner-Hagen, M. M. (1998). Electronic teaching: Extending classroom dialogue and assistance through e-mail communication. In Bonk, C. J. and King, K. S. (Eds.), Electronic collaborators: Learner-centered technologies for literacy, apprenticeship, and discourse (pp. 209–232). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum AssociatesGoogle Scholar
Kitchner, K. S. (1983). Cognition, metacognition, and epistemic cognition: A three-level model of cognitive processing. Human Development, 26, 222–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ku, H. K. & Lohr, L. (2001). A case study of Chinese students' attitudes toward their first online learning experience. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50, 94–102Google Scholar
Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kumpulainen, K., & Wray, D. (Eds.). (2002). Classroom interaction and social learning. From theory to practice. London: Routledge FalmerGoogle Scholar
Lahti, H., Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P., & Hakkarainen, K. (2001, March). The nature of collaboration in computer supported designing. Paper presented at Euro CSCL 2001, Maastricht, The Netherlands
Lee, S.-Y., & Songer, B. B. (2001, April). To what extent does classroom discourse synergistically support electronic discourse? A study of the kids as global scientists message board. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA
Lipponen, L., & Hakkarainen, K. (1997). Developing culture of inquiry in computer-supported collaborative learning. In Hall, R., Miyake, N., & Enyedy, N. (Ed.), Proceedings of CSCL' 97: The Second International Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning (pp. 164–168). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum AssociatesCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marttunen, M. (1998). Electronic mail as a forum for argumentative Interaction in higher education studies. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 18(4), 387–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marttunen, M., & Laurinen, L. (2001). Quality of students' argumentation by e-mail. Learning Environments Research, 5(1), 99–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLoughlin, C., & Luca, J. (2001). Investigating processes of social knowledge construction in online environments. World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications, 2001(1), 1287–1292Google Scholar
Meij, H. V. D., & Boersma, K. (2002). Email use in elementary school: An analysis of exchange patterns and content. British Journal of Educational Technology, 22, 189–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, K. A. (2003). Face-to-face versus threaded discussions: The role of time and higher-order thinking. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7, 55–65Google Scholar
Murphy, K. L. (1998). A constructivist look at interaction and collaboration via computer conferencing. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 4(2/3), 237–261Google Scholar
Nardi, B. A. (1996). Studying context: A comparison of activity theory, situated action models, and distributed cognition. In Nardi, B. A. (Ed.), Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer interaction. Cambridge, MA: MIT PressGoogle Scholar
Ocker, R. J., & Yaverbaum, G. J. (2001). Collaborative learning environments: Exploring student attitudes and satisfaction in face-to-face and asynchronous computer conferencing settings. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 12, 427–449Google Scholar
Oliver, M., & Shaw, G. P. (2003). Asynchronous discussion in support of medical education. Journal of Asynchornous Learning Networks, 7, 57–67Google Scholar
O'Malley, C. (1995). Computer supported collaborative learning. New York: Springer-VerlagCrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Neil, D. K., & Gomez, C. M. (1994). The Collaboratory Notebook: A distributed knowledge building environment for project-based learning. Proceedings of EDMEDIA 94. Vancouver, BC
O'Reilly, M., & Newton, D. (2002). Interaction online: Above and beyond requirements of assessment. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 18(1), 57–70Google Scholar
Orly, Y., Avigail, O., & David., M. (2001). The educational MOO-user profile. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 7, 271–293Google Scholar
Oshima, J., & Oshima, R. (2002). Coordination of asynchronous and synchronous communication: Differences in qualities of knowledge advancement discourse between experts and novices. In Koshmann, T., Hall, R.., & Miyake, N. (Eds.), CSCL2: Carrying forward the conversation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum AssociatesGoogle Scholar
Piaget, J. (1970). Genetic epistemology. New York: Columbia University PressGoogle Scholar
Picciano, A. G. (2002). Beyond student perceptions: Issues of interaction, presence, and performance in an online course. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 6(1), 21–40Google Scholar
Pilkington, R. M., & Walker, S. A. (2003). Facilitating debate in networked learning: Reflecting on online synchronous discussion in higher education. Instructional Science, 31, 41–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poole, D. M. (2000). Student participation in a discussion-oriented online case: A case study. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 33, 167–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ranney, M., & Schank, P. (1998). Modeling, observing, and promoting the explanatory coherence of social reasoning. In Read, S. & Miller, L. (Eds.), Connectionist and PDP models of social reasoning. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum associatesGoogle Scholar
Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free PressGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rourke, L., & Anderson, T. (2002). Exploring social communication in computer conferencing. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 13, 259–276Google Scholar
Rovai, A. P. (2001). Building classroom community at a distance: A case study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49, 33–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salmon, G. (2000) E-moderating: The key to teaching and earning online. London: Kogan PageCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salomon, G. (1995). Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
Scanlon, E., O'Shea, T., Smith, R. B., & Li, Y. (1997, December). Supporting the distributed synchronous learning of probability: Learning from an experiment. Paper presented at CSCL 1997, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Schrader, P. G., Leu, D. J. J., Ataya, R., Kinzer, C. K., Cammack, D., Teale, W. H., et al. (2003). Using internet delivered video cases, to support pre-service teachers' understanding of effective early literacy instruction: An exploratory study. Instructional Science, 31, 317–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scifers, E. L., Gunderson, D. E., & Behara, R. S. (1998). An empirical investigation of electronic groups in the classroom. Journal of Education for Business, 73, 247–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaw, G. P., & Pieter, W. (2000). The use of asynchronous learning networks in nutrition education: Student attitude, experiences and performance. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 4, 40–51Google Scholar
Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications. London: John Wiley and SonsGoogle Scholar
Shotsberger, P. G. (1999). Forms of synchronous dialogue resulting from web-based professional development. Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference, 1999, 1777–1782
Smith, G. G., Ferguson, D., & Caris, M. (2001). Teaching on-line versus face-to-face. Journal of Educational Technology, 30, 337–364Google Scholar
Sorensen, E. K., & Takle, E. S. (2002). Collaborative knowledge building in web-based learning: Assessing the quality of dialogue. International Journal on E-learning, 1, 28–34Google Scholar
Sotillo, S. M. (2000). Discourse functions and syntactic complexity in synchronous and asynchronous communication. Language Learning and Technology, 14, 82–119Google Scholar
Stacey, E., & Rice, M. (2002). Evaluating an online learning environment. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 18(3), 323–340Google Scholar
Suthers, D. D. (1998, April). Representations for scaffolding collaborative inquiry on ill-structured problems. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA
Suthers, D. D., & Hundhausen, C. D. (2003). An experimental study of the effects of representational guidance on collaborative learning processes. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 183–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suthers, D. D., & Hundhausen, C. (2003). Deictic roles of external representations in face-to-face and online collaborations. In Wasson, B., Ludvigsen, S., & Hoppe, U. (Eds.), Computer Support for Collaborative Learning, (pp. 173–182). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic PublicationsGoogle Scholar
Tapola, A., Niemivirta, M., Hakkaranien, K., Syri, J., Lipponen, L., & Palonen, T. (2001, March). Motivation and participation in inquiry learning within a networked learning environment. Paper presented at Euro CSCL 2001, Maastricht, The Netherlands
Thomas, M. J. W. (2002). Learning within incoherent structures: The space of online discussion forums. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18(3), 351–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
Uribe, D., Klein, J. K., & Sullivan, H. (2003). The effect of computer-mediated collaborative learning on solving ill-defined problems. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(1), 5–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Veerman, A., & Veldhuis-Diermanse, D. (2001, March). Collaborative learning through computer mediated communication in academic education. Paper presented at Euro CSCL 2001, Maastricht, The Netherlands
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University PressGoogle Scholar
Wang, M., Laffey, J., & Poole, M. J. (2001). The construction of shared knowledge in an Internet-based shared environment for Expeditions (iExpeditions). International Journal of Educational Technology, 2(2). Retrieved January 30, 2004 from http://www.outreach.uiuc.edu/ijet/v2n2/v2n2feature.htmlGoogle Scholar
Wertsch, J. (1998). Mind as action. New York: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice – Learning, Meaning, and Identity. New York: Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×