A development research agenda for online collaborative learning

  • Thomas C. ReevesEmail author
  • Jan Herrington
  • Ron Oliver


Although important, traditional basic-to-applied research methods have provided an insufficient basis for advancing the design and implementation of innovative collaborative learning environments. It is proposed that more progress may be accomplished through development research or design research. Development research protocols require intensive and long-term collaboration among researchers and practitioners. In this article, we propose guidelines for implementing development research models more widely, and conclude with a prescription for an online collaborative learning research agenda for the next five to ten years.


Learning Environment Educational Technology Instructional Design Collaborative Learning Online Learning 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2003).Sizing the opportunity: The quality and extent of online education in the United States, 2002 and 2003. Needham, MA: The Sloan Consortium. Report retrieved December 12, 2003 from Scholar
  2. Anderson, T. (2003). Modes of interaction in distance education: Recent developments and research questions. In M. G. Moore & W. G. Anderson (Eds.),Handbook of distance education (pp. 129–144). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  3. Bannan-Ritland, B. (2003). The role of design in research: The integrative learning design framework.Educational Researcher, 32(1), 21–24.Google Scholar
  4. Barab, S. A., Squire, K. D. & Dueber, W. (2000). A coevolutionary model for supporting the emergence of authenticityEducational Technology Research and Development, 48(2), 37–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bernard, R. M., Lou, Y., Abrami, P. C., Wozney, L., Borokhovski, E., Wallet, P. A., Wade, A., & Fiset, M. (2003, April).How does distance education compare to classroom instruction? A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. Paper retrieved October 5, 2003 from Scholar
  6. Bonk, C. J., & Dennen, V. (2003). Frameworks for research, design, benchmarks, training, and pedagogy in Web-based distance education. In M. G. Moore & W. G. Anderson (Eds.),Handbook of distance education (pp. 331–348). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  7. Boshier, R., Mohapi, M., Moulton, G., Qayyum, A., Sadownik, L., & Wilson, M. (1997). Best and worst dressed Web lessons: Strutting into the 21st century in comfort and style.Distance Education, 18(1), 327–349.Google Scholar
  8. Bottge, B. A., & Hasselbring, T. S. (1993). Taking word problems off the page.Educational Leadership, 50(7), 36–38.Google Scholar
  9. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000).How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Book retrieved September 4, 2003 from Scholar
  10. Bransford, J. D., Sherwood, R. D., Hasselbring, T. S., Kinzer, C. K., & Williams, S. M. (1990). Anchored instruction: Why we need it and how technology can help. In D. Nix & R. Spiro (Eds.),Cognition, education and multimedia: Exploring ideas in high technology (pp. 115–141). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  11. Bransford, J. D., Vye, N., Kinzer, C., & Risko, V. (1990). Teaching thinking and content knowledge: Toward an integrated approach. In B. F. Jones & L. Idol (Eds.),Dimensions of thinking and cognitive instruction (pp. 381–413). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  12. Britto, M. (2002).An exploratory study of the development of a survey instrument to measure the pedagogical dimensions of Web-based instruction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Georgia.Google Scholar
  13. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning.Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cavanaugh, C. S. (2001). The effectiveness of interactive distance education technologies in K-12 learning: A meta-analysis.International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 7(1), 73–88.Google Scholar
  15. Cheng, H-C., Lehman, J., Armstrong, P. (1991). Comparison of performance and attitude in traditional and computer conference classes.The American Journal of Distance Education, 5(3), 51–64.Google Scholar
  16. Clark, R. E. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning with media.Review of Educational Research 53(4), 445–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1990a). Anchored instruction and its relationship to situated cognition.Educational Researcher, 19(6), 2–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1990b). Technology and the design of generative learning environments.Educational Technology, 31(5), 34–40.Google Scholar
  19. Crook, C. (2002). Learning as cultural practice. In. M. Lea and K. Nicoll (Eds.),Understanding distributed learning (pp. 152–169). London, Routledge Falmer.Google Scholar
  20. Cuban, L. (2001).Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2003).The landscape of qualitative research: Theories and issues. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  22. Design-Based Research Collective. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry.Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5–8.Google Scholar
  23. DiBiase, D. (2000). Is distance teaching more work or less?American Journal of Distance Education, 14(3), 6–20.Google Scholar
  24. Duchastel, P. C. (1997). A Web-based model for university instruction.Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 25(3), 221–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Duderstadt, J. J., Atkins, D. E., Van Houweling, D. (2002).Higher education in the digital age: Technology issues and strategies for American colleges and universities. Westport, CT: American Council on Education and Praeger.Google Scholar
  26. Feuer, M. J., Towne, L., & Shavelson, R. J. (2002). Scientific culture and educational research.Educational Researcher, 31(8), 4–14.Google Scholar
  27. Gordon, R. (1998). Balancing real-world problems with real-world results.Phi Delta Kappan, 79, 390–393.Google Scholar
  28. Green, K. (2001).Campus computing report 2001, Encino, CA: The Campus Computing Project. Report retrieved December 9, 2003 from Scholar
  29. Hara, N., & Kling, R. (1999). Students' frustrations with a Web-based distance education course.First Monday,4(12). Article retrieved October 10, 2003 from Scholar
  30. Harasim, L. (2002). What makes online learning communities successful: The role of collaborative learning in social and intellectual development. In C. Vrasidas and G. V. Glass (Eds.),Distance education and distributed learning (181–200). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  31. Herrington, J., & Herrington, A. (1998). Authentic assessment and multimedia: How university students respond to a model of authentic assessment.Higher Education Research and Development, 17(3), 305–322.Google Scholar
  32. Herrington, J., Oliver, R., & Reeves, T. C. (2003). Patterns of engagement in authentic online learning environments.Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 19(1), 59–71.Google Scholar
  33. Herrington, J., Reeves, T. C., Oliver, R., & Woo, Y. (2004). Designing authentic activities in Web-based courses.Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 16(1), 3–29.Google Scholar
  34. Jonassen, D. (1991). Evaluating constructivistic learning.Educational Technology, 31(9), 28–33.Google Scholar
  35. Jonassen, D. H., & Reeves, T. C. (1996). Learning with Technology: Using Computers as cognitive tools. In D. H. Jonassen, (Ed.),Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 693–719). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  36. Kearsley, G. (2000).Online education: Learning and teaching in cyberspace. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.Google Scholar
  37. Kelly, A. E. (2003). Research as design.Educational Researcher, 32(1), 3–4.Google Scholar
  38. Kirschner, P. A., & Kreijns K. (2004). The sociability of computer-mediated collaborative learning environments: Pitfalls of social interaction and how to avoid them. In R. Bromme, F. Hesse, & H. Spada (Eds.)Barriers and biases in computer-mediated knowledge communication—And how they may be overcome. Dordrecht, NL: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  39. Koory, M. A. (2003). Differences in learning outcomes for the online and F2F versions of “An Introduction to Shakespeare.”Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks,7(2). Article retrieved January 5, 2004 from Scholar
  40. Lagemann, E. C. (2000).An elusive science: The troubling history of educational research. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  41. Lajoie S. P. (Ed.) (2000).Computers as cognitive tools: No more walls, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  42. Lebow, D., & Wager, W. W. (1994). Authentic activity as a model for appropriate learning activity: Implications for emerging instructional technologies.Canadian Journal of Educational Communication, 23(3), 231–244.Google Scholar
  43. Lockee, B., Moore, D., & Burton, J. (2004). Foundations of programmed instruction. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.),Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (2nd ed., pp. 545–569). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  44. Lumsdaine, A. A. (1963). Instruments and media of instruction. In N. Gage (Ed.),Handbook of research on teaching. Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
  45. MacDonald, M., & Bartlett, J. E. (2000). Comparison of Web-based and traditional delivery methods in a business communications unit.Delta Pi Epsilon Journal 42(2), 90–100.Google Scholar
  46. Machtmes, K., & Asher, J. W. (2000). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of telecourses in distance education.The American Journal of Distance Education 14(1), 27–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Mielke, K. W. (1968). Questioning the questions of ETV research.Educational Broadcasting, 2, 6–15.Google Scholar
  48. Moore, M. G., & Anderson, W. G. (Eds.). (2003).Handbook of distance education. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  49. Myers, S. (1993). A trial for Dmitri Karamazov.Educational Leadership, 50(7), 71–72.Google Scholar
  50. Naidu, S. (2003). Designing instruction for e-learning environments. In M. G. Moore & W. G. Anderson (Eds.),Handbook of distance education (pp. 349–365). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  51. National Research Council (2002).Scientific research in education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Report retrieved August 23, 2003 from Scholar
  52. Noble, D. F. (2001).Digital diploma mills: The automation of higher education. New York: Monthly Review Press.Google Scholar
  53. Norman, D. A. (1988).The psychology of everyday things. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  54. Orrill, C. H., Hannafin, M. J., & Glazer, E. M. (2004). Disciplined inquiry and the study of emerging technology. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.),Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (2nd ed., pp. 335–353). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  55. Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (1999).Building learning communities in cyberspace. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  56. Perkins, D. N. (1986).Knowledge as design. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  57. Phipps, R., & Merisotis, J. (1999).What's the difference? A review of contemporary research on the effectiveness of distance learning in higher education. Washington, DC: The Institute for Higher Education Policy. Report retrieved October 5, 2003 from Scholar
  58. Pittinsky, M. S. (Ed.) (2003).The wired tower: Perspectives on the impact of the internet on higher education. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice HallGoogle Scholar
  59. Reeves, T. C. (1993). Pseudoscience in computer-based instruction: The case of learner control research.Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 20(2), 39–46.Google Scholar
  60. Reeves, T. C. (2002). Distance education and the professorate: The issue of productivity. In C. Vrasidas and G. V. Glass (Eds.),Distance education and distributed learning (135–156). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  61. Reeves, T. C. (2003). Storm clouds on the digital education horizon.Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 15(1), 3–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Reeves, T. C., & Okey, J. R. (1996). Alternative assessment for constructivist learning environments. In B. G. Wilson (Ed.),Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional design (pp. 191–202). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.Google Scholar
  63. Reeves, T. C., & Reeves, P. M. (1997). The effective dimensions of interactive learning on the WWW. In B. H. Khan, (Ed.),Web-based instruction (pp. 59–66). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.Google Scholar
  64. Resnick, L. (1987). Learning in school and out.Educational Researcher, 16(9), 13–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Ross, S. M., & Morrison, G. R. (2004). Experimental research methods. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.),Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (2nd ed., pp. 1021–1043). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  66. Saettler, P. (1990)The evolution of American educational technology. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.Google Scholar
  67. Sammons, M. (2003). Exploring the new conception of teaching and learning in distance education. In M. G. Moore & W. G. Anderson (Eds.),Handbook of distance education (pp. 387–397) Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  68. Schank, R. C. (2002).Designing world-class e- learning. How IBM, GE, Harvard Business School, and Columbia University are succeeding at e-learning. New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  69. Schramm, W. (1977).Big media, little media. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  70. Seels, B., Fullerton, K., Berry, L., & Horn, L.J. (2004). Research on learning from television. In D.H. Jonassen (Ed.),Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (2nd ed., pp. 249–334). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  71. Shulman, L. (2001). Inventing the future. In P. Hutchings (Ed),Opening lines: Approaches to the scholarship of teaching and learning. Menlo Park, CA: Carnegie Publications.Google Scholar
  72. Stokes, D. E. (1997).Pasteur's quadrant: Basic science and technological innovation. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  73. Twigg, C. A. (2003). Quality, cost and access: The case for redesign. In M. S. Pittinsky (Ed.),The wired tower: Perspectives on the impact of the Internet on higher education (pp. 111–143. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  74. van den Akker, J (1999). Principles and methods of development research. In J. van den Akker, N. Nieveen, R. M. Branch, K. L. Gustafson, & T. Plomp, (Eds.),Design methodology and developmental research in education and training (pp. 1–14). The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  75. Vonderwell, S. (2003). An examination of asynchronous communication experiences and perspectives of students in an online course: A case study.Internet and Higher Education, 6, 77–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Weigel, V. B. (2002).Deep learning for a digital age: Technology's untapped potential to enrich higher education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  77. Wilson, B. G. (Ed.). (1996).Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional design. Engle-wood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.Google Scholar
  78. Winn, W. (1993). Instructional design and situated learning: Paradox or partnership.Educational Technology, 33(3), 16–21.Google Scholar
  79. Young, M. F. (1993). Instructional design for situated learning.Educational Technology Research and Development, 41 (1), 43–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Young, M. F. (1995). Assessment of situated learning using computer environments.Journal of Science Education and Technology, 4(1), 89–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Young, M. F., & McNeese, M. (1993). A situated cognition approach to problem solving with implications for computer-based learning and assessment. In G. Salvendy & M. J. Smith (Eds.),Human-computer interaction: Software and hardware interfaces (pp. 825–830). New York: Elsevier Science Publishers.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications and Technology 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Education at the University of WollongongAustralia
  2. 2.Edith Cowan UniversityAustralia
  3. 3.Instructional TechnologyThe University of GeorgiaAthens

Personalised recommendations