TOOL5100: CSCL Intro to CSCL, part 2

1. TOOL5100: CSCLIntro to CSCL, part 2 Presentation Theme: Lipponen, L. (2002). Exploring foundations for computer-supported collaborative learning. In G. Stahl (Ed.), Computer Support for Collaborative Learning: Foundations for a CSCL Community, Proceedings of CSCL 2002. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, New Jersey, pp. 72-80. Stahl, G., Koschmann, T., & Suthers, D. (2006) Computer-supported collaborative learning. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Presented by:Elena Stamatova

2. Outline • Exploring foundations for computer-supported collaborative learning • Abstract of the paper • What is CSCL? • Concepts and theories underlying CSCL research • Empirical research on CSCL • Challenges and advantages of CSCL • Technology for collaboration • Implementation of CSCL: from technical infrastructure to social infrastructure • Computer-supported collaborative learning • Abstract of the paper • Definition for CSCL • CSCL within education • The historical evolution of CSCL • The interplay of learning and technology in CSCL • The multi-disciplinarity of CSCL • CSCL research in future • Comparing the foundations and the complex nature of CSCL research

3. Abstract of the paper by Lipponen • In 1996 Koschmann (1996) suggested computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) as an emerging paradigm of educational technology. After six years, how has the field developed? What does research say about CSCL to date? What is the state of the art? The aim of the present paper is to explore the foundations for CSCL, and in doing so, to contribute to the theoretical as well as empirical understanding and development of CSCL research.

4. What is CSCL? • In 1996 Koschmann (1996) recognized computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) as an emerging paradigm of educational technology. According to Koschmann (1996), CSCL research is grounded on a very different concept of learning, pedagogy, research methodology, and research questions than its antecedents, CAI (Computer Assisted Instruction), ITS (Intelligent Tutoring Systems), and, Logo-as-Latin did. • It is hard to say when CSCL emerged as a separate field of study, or as an emerging paradigm of educational technology. The first CSCL workshop took place in 1991 (Koschmann, 1994), and the first international CSCL conference was held 1995 in Bloomington, Indiana. Partly, the inspiration for CSCL arose from the research on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW). • How should one define computer-supported collaborative learning? Put briefly, CSCL is focused on how collaborative learning supported by technology can enhance peer interaction and work in groups, and how collaboration and technology facilitate sharing and distributing of knowledge and expertise among community members.

5. Concepts and theories underlying CSCL research • Concepts of collaboration Collaboration can be considered as a special form of interaction. Engeström (1992) has elaborated a three-level notion of developmental forms of interaction; coordination, cooperation, and reflective communication. According to another definition Collaboration can be defined as a process of participating in knowledge communities. As pointed out by Brufee (1993, p.3) collaboration is "a reculturative process that helps students become members of knowledge communities whose common property is different from the common property of the knowledge communities they already belong to". In sum, even this very short look to the definitions of collaboration has shown how difficult it is to find a total consensus in this issue, although both approaches, collaboration as a special form of interaction, and collaboration as a process of participation in collective activities ("working together"), include the idea of achieving shared goals. It appears that we can--that perhaps we must--analyze collaborative activities on both micro and macro levels. • Theories of collaboration Whether one considers collaboration as a special form of interaction or as a process of participation, traces back to the conversation of two metaphors of learning, acquisition and participation, or on the depate between the cognitive perspective and the situative perspective of learning. Whether relying on the acquisition or participation metaphor of learning, there exist two main theoretical perspectives for a mechanism promoting learning in a CSCL setting. These perspectives, which seem to be agreed among researchers, trace back to the thinking of Piaget and Vygotsky. The first mechanism that is seen to promote learning in the context of CSCL is Piagetian socio-cognitive conflict.The second well-known mechanism for promoting learning in context of social interaction is formulated on the basis of Vygotsky’s ideas. In many cases the theories of Piaget and Vygotsky are seen to represent opposite explanations of human development and learning. In the future, a fruitful approach might be to attempt to reconcile these two perspectives

6. Empirical research on CSCL • Typical methods for analysis are ethnographical methods and discourse analysis with descriptive, observational, and non-experimental data. Stress is put on the ecological validity of the research. In contrast to its predecessors that studied human cognition with experimental design and in laboratories, CSCL research is conducted also in "real world contexts", for instance, at schools. • What then should researchers study in the context of CSCL? One should in collaborative interactions zoom in more intensively on the micro level. • If one studies only interactions of mutual engagement one can then ask, what is the relevance of CSCL research at schools, or in workplaces in general. As pointed out earlier, collaboration can also considered as a process of participating in practices of a community. • How then, should one speak about and analyze collaboration at the collective (macro) level? One idea would be to think about communities as interaction networks, and interactions representing strong and weak links among participants. • It is a challenging task to compare empirical studies conducted under the label CSCL, because they differ from each other in several significant aspects. First of all, there is no agreement whether one should study effects of or effects with CSCL. In 1991, Salomon, Perkins, and Globerson made educators aware of two ways of thinking about learning and technology. According to them, one should look at effects of technology, this is, what one has learned and can transfer from those situation working with computer. Yet one should also look at the effects with technology; what one could achieve in synergy with a computer. In the same sense one can speak about effects of CSCL; that is, as a result of interacting with others and computers, persons individually practice new competencies and gain knowledge that can be transfer to new situations. Or, by contrast, one may speak of effects with CSCL, referring to processes people and computers achieve in synergy. • As a consequence of the ambiguity (or richness if you will) of the empirical studies in the CSCL research, it is difficult to integrate the empirical studies and findings or to make any solid conclusions that some particular approach, instructional method, or application would give better results than some others. One does not know exactly the circumstances in which one set of results can be extended to another context.

7. Challenges and advantages of CSCL • Collaboration can be supported with very different instructional ideas and computer applications. Crook (1994), for instance, has proposed four kinds of interaction in which computers play a part: 1) interactions at the computers, 2) interactions around computers, 3) interactions related to computer applications, and 4) interactions through computers. • There are other challenges of CSCL: knowledge management problems with large databases, fact-oriented knowledge construction, short discussion threads with divergence topics, and unequal participation patterns • Why has CSCL been so slowly adopted? As proposed by Kling (1991) in the context of CSCW, it might be that the meanings attached to collaboration are too positively loaded, or the collaborative settings are interpreted too narrowly referring only to positive phenomenon. This may restrict one from seeing that collaborative situations are also full of contradictions, competition, and conflicts. • On the other hand, technology offers the kind of potentials for learning which are very different from those available in other contexts. One self-evident benefit is, that computer networks break down the physical and temporal barriers of schooling by removing time and space constraints. The delay of asynchronous communication allows time for reflection in interaction. Making thinking visible by writing should help students to reflect on their own and others' ideas and share their expertise.

8. Technology for collaboration • It might be meaningful to make a distinction between collaborative use of technology and collaborative technology. Imagine a pair of students working at the computer running a simulation program in physics. The simulations on the screen can help the students to collaborate, by creating a referential anchor, a point of shared reference (Crook, 1994). This referential anchor can function as a "concrete" shared representation, can support the negotiation of meanings, and mediate students’ communication activities in their development of reciprocal understanding (Hakkarainen, et al., 1998; Järvelä, et. al., 1999). In this case, the technology, the software developed for the individual user, is utilized in creating and establishing collaborative activities. • Technology itself does not solve the challenges of learning and collaboration. For collaborative technology can, of course, be used for other purposes than for supporting collaboration; it can easily be applied in transmitting and delivering knowledge.

9. Implementation of CSCL: from technical infrastructure to social infrastructure • One of the major challenges of CSCL, or educational technology in general, is scaling-up; how to expand and implement the good practices that researcher and teachers have found and developed. • Bielaczyc (2001) has presented a parallel idea. According to her, one of the key factors in successful implementation of CSCL is to build an appropriate social infrastructure around the technical infrastructure. • The author of the paper thinks thatBielaczyc is right on the mark, but only partly. • What Lipponen proposes, is that the idea of co-evolution should be the starting point for thinking about implementing technology and new forms of learning activities. This approach is very much pedagogy and activity driven. It implies that technology should be very flexible and tailorable. Learners are not the same as the everyday people or experts, but need software designed especially for the learners. • There is one more thing to consider concerning infrastructures. Perhaps, as stated by Crook (1994), classrooms are still too neatly resourced for successful collaboration, and the material world is too often underestimated in building collaboration; material objects offer points of shared reference for developing genuine collaborative interactions.

10. Abstract of the paper by Stahl et al • Computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) is an emerging branch of the learning sciences. It is concerned with studying how people can learn together with the help of computers. As we will see in this chapter, such a simple statement conceals considerable complexity. The interplay of learning with technology turns out to be quite intricate. The inclusion of collaboration, computer mediation and distance education has problematized the very notion of learning and called into question prevailing assumptions about how to study it. Like many active fields of scientific research, CSCL has a complex relationship to established disciplines, evolves in ways that are hard to pinpoint and includes important contributions that seem incompatible. The field of CSCL has a long history of controversy about its theory, methods and definition. Furthermore, it is important to view CSCL as a vision of what may be possible with computers and of what kinds of research should be conducted, rather than as an established body of broadly accepted laboratory and classroom practices. We will start from some popular understandings of the issues of CSCL and gradually reveal its more complex nature.

11. CSCL within education • CSCL is intimately concerned with education. It considers all levels of formal education from kindergarten through graduate study as well as informal education, such as museums. • However, the ability to combine the two ideas (computer support and collaborative learning, or technology and education) to effectively enhance learning remains a challenge—a challenge that CSCL is designed to address. • COMPUTERS AND EDUCATION CSCL is based on the Vision: it proposes the development of new software and applications that bring learners together and that can offer creative activities of intellectual exploration and social interaction. As CSCL developed, a transformation of the whole concept of learning was required, including significant changes in schooling, teaching and being a student. Many of the necessary changes are reflected in the educational approaches, for instance adopting educational frameworks of constructivism, knowledge building, apprenticeship, project-based inquiry and situative learning in action. • E-LEARNING AT A DISTANCE CSCL is often conflated with e-learning, the organization of instruction across computer networks. E-learning is too often motivated by a naïve belief that classroom content can be digitized and disseminated to large numbers of students with little continuing involvement of teachers or other costs, such as buildings and transportation. There are a number of problems with this view. • COOPERATIVE LEARNING IN GROUPS The study of group learning began long before CSCL. Since at least the 1960s, before the advent of networked personal computers, there was considerable investigation of cooperative learning by education researchers. Research on small groups has an even longer history within social psychology. To distinguish CSCL from this earlier investigation of group learning, it is useful to draw a distinction between cooperative and collaborative learning. In a detailed discussion of this distinction, Dillenbourg (1999) defined the distinction roughly as follows: In cooperation, partners split the work, solve sub-tasks individually and then assemble the partial results into the final output. In collaboration, partners do the work ‘together.’ (p. 8) • COLLABORATION AND INDIVIDUAL LEARNING To some extent, CSCL has emerged in reaction to previous attempts to use technology within education and to previous approaches to understand collaborative phenomena with the traditional methods of the learning sciences. The learning sciences as a whole have shifted from a narrow focus on individual learning to an incorporation of both individual and group learning, and the evolution of CSCL has paralleled this movement.

12. The historical evolution of CSCL • THE BEGINNINGS All of the projects—ENFI, CSILE and 5thD—shared a goal of making instruction more oriented toward meaning making. All three turned to computer and information technologies as resources for achieving this goal, and all three introduced novel forms of organized social activity within instruction. In this way, they laid the groundwork for the subsequent emergence of CSCL. • FROM CONFERENCES TO A GLOBAL COMMUNITY In 1983, a workshop on the topic of “joint problem solving and microcomputers” was held in San Diego. Six years later, a NATO-sponsored workshop was held in Maratea, Italy. The 1989 Maratea workshop is considered by many to mark the birth of the field, as it was the first public and international gathering to use the term “computer-supported collaborative learning” in its title. The first full-fledged CSCL conference was organized at Indiana University in the fall of 1995. A book series on CSCL published by Kluwer (now Springer) includes five volumes to date. The CSCL conference proceedings have been the primary vehicle for publications in the field. A number of journals have also played a role, particularly the Journal of the Learning Sciences. An International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning will start publishing in 2006. Although the community was centered in Western Europe and Northern America in its early years, it has evolved into a rather well-balanced international presence (Hoadley, 2005; Kienle & Wessner, 2005). The 2005 conference in Taiwan and the establishment of the new international journal were planned to make the community truly global.

13. The historical evolution of CSCL(cont) • FROM ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE TO COLLABORATION SUPPORT The field of CSCL can be contrasted with earlier approaches to using computers in education. Koschmann (1996) identified the following historical sequence of approaches: (a) computerHandbook Chapter 21 6 Stahl, Koschmann, Suthers assisted instruction, (b) intelligent tutoring systems, (c) Logo as Latin, (d) CSCL. The shift from mental models of individual cognition to support for collaborating groups had enormous implications for both the focus and the method of research on learning. The gradual acceptance and unfolding of these implications has defined the evolution of the field of CSCL. • FROM INDIVIDUALS TO INTERACTING GROUPS The focus was no longer on what might be taking place “in the heads” of individual learners, but what was taking place between and among them in their interactions. • FROM MENTAL REPRESENTATIONS TO INTERACTIONAL MEANING MAKING Collaboration is primarily conceptualized as a process of shared meaning construction. The meaning making is not assumed to be an expression of mental representations of the individual participants, but is an interactional achievement. • FROM QUANTITIVE COMPARISIONS TO MICRO CASE STUDIES Methodologies like conversation analysis (Sacks, 1992; ten Have, 1999) or video analysis (Koschmann, Stahl, & Zemel, 2005) based on ethnomethodology (Garfinkel, 1967) produce detailed case studies of collaborative meaning making (Sawyer, this volume). These case studies are not merely anecdotal. They can be based on rigorous scientific procedures with intersubjective validity even though they are interpretive in nature and are not quantitative.

14. The interplay of learning and technology in CSCL • THE TRADITIONAL CONCEPTION OF LEARNING Edwin Thorndike (quoted in Jonçich, 1968), a founder of the traditional educational approach, once wrote: If, by a miracle of mechanical ingenuity, a book could be so arranged that only to him who had done what was directed on page one would two become visible, and so on, much that now requires personal instruction could be managed by print …. Children [could] be taught, moreover to use materials in a manner that will be most useful in the long run. • DESIGNING TECHNOLOGY TO SUPPORT LEARNER MEANING MAKING CSCL must continue with its work of self-invention. New sources of theory are introduced, analyses of learner practice are presented, and artifacts are produced accompanied by theories of how they might enhance meaning-making. The design of CSCL technology, which opens new possibilities for collaborative learning, must be founded on an analysis of the nature of collaborative learning. • THE ANALYSIS OF COLLABORATIVE LEARNING The study of the interactional accomplishment of intersubjective learning or group cognition gives rise to interesting questions that are among the most challenging facing any socialbehavioral science, and even touch upon our nature as conscious beings. Do cognitive phenomena take place trans-personally in group discourse? How is it possible for learning, usually conceived of as a cognitive function, to be distributed across people and artifacts? How can we understand knowledge as accomplished practice rather than as a substance or even predisposition? • THE ANALYSIS OF COMPUTER SUPPORT CSCL research should identify the unique advantages of computational media, and explore how these are used by collaborators and how they influence the course of their meaning making. Then we will design technologies that offer collections of features through which participants can interactionally engage in learning with flexible forms of guidance.

15. The multi-disciplinarity of CSCL • CSCL can presently be characterized as consisting of three methodological traditions: experimental, descriptive and iterative design. • Many empirical studies follow the dominant experimental paradigm that compares an intervention to a control condition in terms of one or more variables. • The ethnomethodological tradition (exemplified in CSCL by Koschmann et al., 2003; Koschmann et al., 2005; Roschelle, 1996; Stahl, 2006) is more suited for descriptive case analyses. • The iterative design tradition is exemplified by Fischer & Ostwald (2005), Lingnau, et al. (2003) and Guzdial et al. (1997) (also see Confrey, this volume).

16. CSCL research in future • CSCL researchers form a community of inquiry that is actively constructing new ways to collaborate in the design, analysis and implementation of computer support for collaborative learning. A broad range of research methods from the learning sciences may be useful in analyzing computer-supported coll aborative learning. Having appropriated ideas, methods and functionality from cognate fields, CSCL may in its next phase collaboratively construct new theories, methodologies and technologies specific to the task of analyzing the social practices of intersubjective meaning making in order to support collaborative learning.

17. Comparing the foundations and the complex nature of CSCL research • Lipponen shares the idea that appears on the homepage of the CSCL 2002 conference (http://www.cscl2002.org/intro.html): " … further progress is needed to provide a solid foundation for CSCL as a robust, effective research field. We [CSCL researchers] need to start to coalesce and strengthen a set of coherent foundations --without imposing a narrow approach or stifling the healthy interchange of conflicting interdisciplinary perspectives". This task is absolutely worthwhile of striving for. But as my exploration showed, it will also be a very demanding task, it might be even a mission impossible. • Stahl et al argued that CSCL requires a focus on the meaning-making practices of collaborating groups and on the design of technological artifacts to mediate interaction, rather than a focus on individual learning. Whether this focus can, will or should lead to a coherent theoretical framework and research methodology for CSCL remains to be seen.