Situating CoWeb: a scholarship of application



Since 1998, we have been developing and researching CoWeb, a version of Wiki designed to support collaborative learning. In this article, we summarize our results of situating CoWeb across the academic landscape of Georgia Tech. In architecture, CoWeb enabled faculty to serve more students in a design-based course. In English composition, a comparison study demonstrated significant learning benefits without incurring disproportionate costs. Yet, situating CoWeb was not always successful. In many STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) classes, students actively resisted collaboration. From these studies, we conclude that the culture of the classroom and the discipline needs to be compatible with the medium for computer-supported collaborative learning to be effective. Finally, we demonstrate how collaboration can be designed into the culture. A new class on introductory computing was explicitly designed to take advantage of the collaborative possibilities that CoWeb affords. We report our findings of the success of this approach. We characterize this research as a scholarship of application. We demonstrate that this mode of scholarship is a viable mode of scholarship in the learning sciences. Unlike traditional scholarship of discovery, we are not solely concerned with discovering new knowledge. Instead, we support others in the application of a new technology to serve genuine and complex learning situations. By doing so, we seek to understand the potential that one new medium, a Wiki, has for supporting learning.


Design-based research Scholarship of application WikiWikiWeb CoWeb Multimedia Media theory Culture of the classroom 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. AAAS (2005). Preparing women and minorities for the IT workforce. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.Google Scholar
  2. AAUW (2000). Tech-Savvy: Educating girls in the new computer age. New York: American Association of University Women Education Foundation.Google Scholar
  3. ABET (1996, March). Engineering criteria 2000: Criteria for accrediting programs in engineering in the United States (pp. 41–44). ASEE Prism.Google Scholar
  4. ACM/IEEE. (2001). Computing curriculum 2001. Scholar
  5. Barab, S., & Squire, K. (2004). Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Berners-Lee, T. (1999). Weaving the web: The original design and ultimate destiny of the World Wide Web by its inventor. San Franciso: Harper.Google Scholar
  7. Bolter, J. D., & Grusin, R. (1999). Remediation: Understanding new media. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  8. Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Hoboken, NJ: Jossey-Bass Books.Google Scholar
  9. Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bruckman, A., Jensen, C., & DeBonte, A. (2002). Gender and programming achievement in a cscl environment. In G. Stahl (Ed.), Proceedings of CSCL 2002 (pp. 119–127).Google Scholar
  11. Bruer, J. (1993). Schools for thought: A science of learning in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  12. Cohen, E. G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64(1), 1–35.Google Scholar
  13. Collaborative Software Laboratory. (2000). A catalog of coweb uses. Technical Report GIT-GVU-00-19, Georgia Tech GVU Center.Google Scholar
  14. Collins, A. (1992). Towards a design science of education. In E. Scanlon & T. O'Shea (Eds.), New directions in educational technology (pp. 15–22). New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  15. Craig, D., ul Haq, S., Khan, S., Zimring, C., Kehoe, C., Rick, J., et al. (2000). Using an unstructured collaboration tool to support peer interaction in large college classes. In B. J. Fishman & S. F. O'Conner-Divelbiss (Eds.), Proceedings of ICLS 2000 (pp. 178–184). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  16. Craig, D. L., & Zimring, C. (2000). Supporting collaborative design groups as design communities. Design Studies, 20(2), 187–204.Google Scholar
  17. diSessa, A. A. (2000). Changing minds: Computers, learning, and literacy. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  18. Fishman, B., Marx, R. W., Blumenfeld, P., Krajcik, J., & Soloway, E. (2004). Creating a framework for research on systemic technology innovations. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 43–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Forte, A. & Guzdial, M. (2004). Computers for communication, not calculation: Media as a motivation and context for learning. Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.Google Scholar
  20. Guzdial, M. (2003). A media computation course for non-majors. Proceedings of the Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE) 2003 Conference. New York, NY: ACM, pp. 104–108Google Scholar
  21. Guzdial, M. (2004a). Introduction to media computation: A multimedia cookbook in Python. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  22. Guzdial, M. (2004b). Programming environments for novices. In S. A. Fincher & M. Petre (Eds.), Computer science education research (pp. 127–154). London: Taylor & Francis Group, PLC.Google Scholar
  23. Guzdial, M., & Forte, A. (2005). Motivation and non-majors in computer science: Identifying discrete audiences for introductory courses. IEEE Transactions on Education, 48(2), pp. 248–253.Google Scholar
  24. Guzdial, M., Rick, J., & Kehoe, C. (2001). Beyond adoption to invention: Teacher-created collaborative activities in higher education. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10(3), 265–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Guzdial, M., Rick, J., & Kerimbaev, B. (2000). Recognizing and supporting roles in CSCW. Proceedings of CSCW 2000 (pp. 261–268). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  26. Hoadley, C. P. (2002). Creating context: Design-based rearch in creating and understanding cscl. In G. Stahl (Ed.), Proceedings of CSCL 2002 (pp. 453–462). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  27. Kay, A., & Goldberg, A. (1977, March). Personal dynamic media. IEEE Computer, 31–41.Google Scholar
  28. Kehoe, C. (2001). Supporting critical design dialog. Unpublished PhD thesis. Atlanta, GA: Georgia Institute of Technology, College of Computing.Google Scholar
  29. Koschmann, T. (Ed.) (1996). CSCL: Theory and practice of an emerging paradigm. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  30. Lave, J. (1997). What's special about experiments as contexts for thinking. In M. Cole, Y. Engeström, & O. Vasquez (Eds.), Mind, culture, and activity: Seminal papers from the laboratoryof comparative human cognition (pp 57–69). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Leuf, B., & Cunningham, W. (2001). The wiki way: Quick collaboration on the web. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  33. Levin, H. M., & McEwan, P. J. (2001). Cost-effectiveness analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.Google Scholar
  34. Lipponen, L., & Hakkarainen, K. (1997). Developing culture of inquiry in computer-supported collaborative learning. In R. Hall, N. Miyake & N. Enyedy (Eds.), Proceedings of CSCL '97 (pp. 164–168).Google Scholar
  35. Margolis, J., & Fisher, A. (2002). Unlocking the clubhouse: Women in computing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  36. McCandliss, B. D., Kalchman, M., & Bryant, P. (2003). Design experiments and laboratory approaches to learning: Steps toward collaborative exchange. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 14–16.Google Scholar
  37. McDowell, C., Bullock, H., Fernald, J., & Werner, L. (2002). The effects of pair-programming on performance in an introductory programming course. In D. Knox (Ed.), The Proceedings of the Thirty-Third SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, 2002 (pp. 38–42). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  38. McLuhan, H. M. (1962). The Gutenberg Galaxy: The making of Typographic Man. University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  39. McLuhan, H. M. (1964). Understanding media: The extensions of man. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  40. Meyrowitz, J. (1985). No sense of place: The impact of electronic media on social behavior. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Mortensen, T., & Walker, J. (2002). Blogging thoughts: Personal publication as an online research tool. In A. Morrison (Ed.), Researching ICTs in context (pp. 249–279). InterMedia Report.Google Scholar
  42. Nagappan, N., Williams, L., Ferzil, M., Wiebe, E., Yang, K., Miller, C., et al. (2003). Improving thecs1 experience with pair programming. In D. Joyce & D. Knox (Eds.), Twenty-fourth SIGCSE technical symposium on computer science education (pp. 359–362). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  43. Papert, S. (1993). Mindstorms: Children, computers and powerful ideas (2nd ed.). New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  44. Pfleeger, S. L., Teller, P., Castaneda, S. E., Wilson, M., & Lindley, R. (2001). Increasing the enrollment of women in computer science. In R. McCauley & J. Gersting (Eds.), The Proceedings of the Thirty-Second SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 386–387). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  45. Radick, G. (2003). R. l. garner and the rise of the edison phonograph in evolutionary philology. In L. Gitelman & G. B. Pingree (Eds.), New media, 1740–1915 (pp. 175–206). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  46. Resnick, M., Bruckman, A., & Martin, F. (1996). Pianos not stereos: Creating computational construction kits. Interactions, 3(6), 41–50.Google Scholar
  47. Rich, L., Perry, H., & Guzdial, M. (2004). A cs1 course designed to address interests of women. Proceedings of the ACM SIGCSE Conference (pp. 190–194). Newyork: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  48. Rick, J., Guzdial, M., Carroll, K., Hollaway-Attaway, L., & Walker, B. (2002). Collaborative learning at low cost: Coweb use in english composition. In G. Stahl (Ed.), Proceedings of CSCL 2002 (pp. 435–442). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  49. Rick, J., & Lamberty, K. K. (2005). Medium-based design: Extending a medium to create and exploratory learning environment. Interactive Learning Environments, 13(3), 179–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Roumani, H. (2002). Design guidelines for the lab component of objects-first cs1. In D. Knox (Ed.), The Proceedings of the Thirty-third SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, 2002 (pp. 222–226). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  51. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1991). Higher levels of agency for children in knowledge building: A challenge for the design of new knowlege media. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1(1), 37–68.Google Scholar
  52. Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc.Google Scholar
  53. Songer, N. B. (1998). Beyond “real school” obstacles: Ten essentials for adoption of technology-rich programs in urban middle schools. In A. S. Bruckman, M. Guzdial, J. L. Kolodner, & A. Ram (Eds.), Proceedings of ICLS 1998 (pp. 270–276). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.Google Scholar
  54. Stone, A. R. (1998). The war of desire and technology at the close of the mechanical age. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  55. Turkle, S. (1984). The second self: Computers and the human spirit. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  56. Turkle, S. (1995). Life on the screen: Identity in the age of the internet. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  57. van Aalst, J., & Chan, C. K. K. (2001). Beyond “sitting next to each other:” A design experiment on knowledge building in teacher education. In P. Dillenbourg, A. Eurelings, & K. Hakkarainen (Eds.), Proceedings of the First European Conference on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (pp. 20–28).Google Scholar
  58. Vegso, J. (2005). Interest in cs as a major drops among incoming freshmen. Computing Research News, 17(3).Google Scholar
  59. Webb, N. M., & Palincsar, A. S. (1996). Group processes in the classroom. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 841–873). New York, NY: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.Google Scholar
  60. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd edn). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  61. Zimring, C., Khan, S., Craig, D., ul Haq, S., & Guzdial, M. (2001). Cool studio: Using simple tools to expand the discursive space of the design studio. Automation in Construction, 10(6), 675–685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society of the Learning Sciences, Inc., Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Computing/GVU CenterGeorgia Institute of TechnologyAtlantaUSA

Personalised recommendations