Context-oriented communication and the design of computer-supported discursive learning



Computer-supported discursive learning (CSDL) systems for the support of asynchronous discursive learning need to fulfil specific socio-technical conditions. To understand these conditions, we employed design experiments combining aspects of communication theory, empirical findings, and continuous improvement of the investigated prototypes. Our theoretical perspective starts with a context-oriented model of communication which is—as a result of the experiments—extended by including the role of a third-party such as a facilitator. The theory-driven initial design requirements lead to the CSCL-prototype, KOLUMBUS, emphasizing the role of annotations. In KOLUMBUS, annotations can be immediately embedded in their context of learning material. Practical experience with the prototype in five cases reveals possibilities for implementing improvements and observing their impact. On this basis, we provide guidelines for the design of CSDL systems that focus on the support of asynchronous discursive learning.


Communication Facilitation Design of CSCL-systems Evaluation 


  1. Ackerman, M. S., & Halverson, C. (2004). Sharing expertise: The next step for knowledge management. In V. Wulf, & M. Huysman (Eds.), Social capital and information technology (pp. 273–304). Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, T. (2004). Towards a theory of online learning. In T. Anderson, T. Elloumi, F. (Eds.), Theory and practice of online learning (pp. 33–60). Retrieved February 12, 2008, from
  3. Armitt, G., Slack, F., Green, S., & Beer, M. (2002). The development of deep learning during a synchronous collaborative on-line course. In G. Stahl (Ed.), Computer support for collaborative learning: Foundations for a CSCL community. Proceedings of CSCL 2002. Boulder, CO, USA. (pp. 151–159). Mahwah, NJ: LEA.Google Scholar
  4. Arnseth, H. C., & Ludvigsen, S. (2006). Approaching institutional contexts: Systemic versus dialogic research in CSCL. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(2), 167–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barab, S. A., & 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. Bernheim Brush, A. J., Bargeron, D., Grudin, J., Borning, A., & Gupta, A. (2002). Supporting interactions outside of class: Anchored discussions vs. discussion boards. In G. Stahl (Ed.), Computer support for collaborative learning: Foundations for a CSCL community. Proceedings of CSCL 2002. Boulder, CO, USA. (pp. 425–434). Mahwah, NJ: LEA.Google Scholar
  7. Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2, 137–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clark, H. H., & Brennan, S. E. (1991). Grounding in Communication. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 127–149). Washington, DC.: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Management Science, 32(5), 554–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Davis, J., & Huttenlocher, D. (1995). Shared annotation for cooperative learning. In J. L. Schnase & E. L. Cunnius (Eds.), Proceedings of the first international conference on computer support for collaborative learning. Proceedings of CSCL 1995. Bloomington, IN, USA. (pp. 84–88). Mahwah, NJ: LEA.Google Scholar
  11. Dennis, A. R., & Valacich, J. S. (1999). Rethinking media richness: Towards a theory of media synchronicity. In: Proceedings of the 32nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.Google Scholar
  12. Dourish, P., & Belotti, V. (1992). Awareness and coordination in shared workspaces. New York, NY, USA: ACM.Google Scholar
  13. Ducrot, O., & Todorov, T. (1987). Encyclopedic dictionary of the sciences of language. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  14. El-Shinnawy, M., & Markus, M. L. (1997). The poverty of media richness theory: Explaining people’s choice of electronic mail vs. voice mail. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies, 46(4), 443–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Enyedy, N., & Hoadley, C. M. (2006). From dialogue to monologue and back: Middle spaces in computer-mediated learning. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(4), 413–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gerson, E. M., & Star, S. L. (1986). Analyzing due process in the workplace. ACM Transactions on Office Information Systems, 4(3), 255–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Guzdial, M., & Turns, J. (2000). Effective discussion through a computer-mediated anchored forum. Journal of the Learning Science, 9(4), 437–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Herrmann, T. (1993). Loss of situative context and its relevance for computer mediated communication and cooperation. In A. Clement, et al. (Ed.), NetWORKing: Connecting workers in and between organizations (pp. 87–96). Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
  19. Herrmann, T. (2003). Learning and teaching in Socio-technical environments. In T. J. Van Wert, & R. K. Munro (Eds.), Informatics and the digital society. Social, ethical and cognitive issues (pp. 59–72). Boston: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  20. Herrmann, T. (2006). SeeMe in a nutshell. Retrieved from
  21. Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2002). Collaborative ways of knowing: Issues in facilitation. In G. Stahl (Ed.), Computer support for collaborative learning: Foundations for a CSCL community. Proceedings of CSCL 2002. Boulder, CO, USA. (pp. 199–208). Mahwah, NJ: LEA.Google Scholar
  22. Kienle, A. (2006). Integration of knowledge management and collaborative learning by technical supported communication processes. Education and Information Technologies, 11(2), 161–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kienle, A. (2007). Designing asynchronous communication support for collaborative learning. In P. Isaias, M. B. Nunes, & J. Barroso (Eds.), Proceedings of the IADIS International Conference WWW/Internet vol. 2 (pp. 44–49). Spain: IADIS.Google Scholar
  24. Kienle, A., & Herrmann, Th. (2004). Collaborative learning at the workplace by technical support of communication and negotiation. In: H. H. Adelsberger et al. (Eds.), Multikonferenz Wirtschaftsinformatik (MKWI) 2004, Band 1. Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 43–57.Google Scholar
  25. Kienle, A., & Ritterskamp, C. (2007). Facilitating asynchronous discussions in learning communities—The impact of moderation strategies. International Journal on Behavior and Information Technology, 26(1), 73–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kobbe, L., Weinberger, A., Dillenbourg, P., Harrer, A., Hämäläinen, R., Häkkinen, P., et al. (2007). Specifying computer-supported collaboration scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(2–3), 211–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lakalla, M., Ilomäki, L., Lallimo, J., & Hakkarainen, K. (2002). Virtual communication in middle students’ and teachers’ inquiry. In G. Stahl (Ed.), Computer support for collaborative learning: Foundations for a CSCL community. Proceedings of CSCL 2002. Boulder, CO, USA. (pp. 443–452). Mahwah, NJ: LEA.Google Scholar
  28. Littlejohn, S. (1999). Theories of human communication (6th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  29. Ludvigsen, S., & Morch, A. (2003). Categorisation in knowledge building. In B. Wasson, S. Ludvigsen, & U. Hoppe (Eds.), Designing for change in networked learning environments. Proceedings of the CSCL 2003 (pp. 67–76). Amsterdam: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  30. Luhmann, N. (1995). Social systems. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Maturana, H., & Varela, F. (1998). The tree of knowledge. The biological roots of human understanding. Boston: Shambhala Revised edition.Google Scholar
  32. McCarthy, J. C., & Monk, A. F. (1994). Channels, conversation, cooperation and relevance: all you wanted to know about communication but were afraid to ask. In: Collaborative Computing I ( pp. 35–60). London: Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
  33. Mercer, N., & Wegerif, R. (1999). Is ‘exploratory talk’ productive talk? In K. Littleton, & P. Light (Eds.), Learning with computers. Analysing productive interaction (pp. 79–101). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  34. Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., & Lamon, M. (1994). The CSILE project: Trying to bring the classroom into world 3. In: McGilly, K. (Ed.) Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice. Cambridge: MIT Press (pp. 201–228).Google Scholar
  35. Shannon, C. E., & Weaver, W. (1949). The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana, IL: The University of Illinois.Google Scholar
  36. Stahl, G. (2000). Collaborative information environments to support knowledge construction by communities. AI & Society, 14(1), 71–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Stahl, G. (2002). Contributions to a theoretical framework on CSCL. In G. Stahl (Ed.), Computer support for collaborative learning: Foundations for a CSCL community. Proceedings of CSCL 2002. Boulder, CO, USA. (pp. 62–71). Mahwah, NJ: LEA.Google Scholar
  38. Stahl, G., Herrmann, T. (1999). Intertwining perspectives and negotiation. In Proceedings of the International ACM SIGGROUP Conference on Supporting Group Work (Group ‘99: November 14–17, 1999) Phoenix, Arizona, USA. New York: ACM Press, pp. 316–325.Google Scholar
  39. Suthers, D. D. (2006). Technology affordances for intersubjective meaning making: A research agenda for CSCL. International Journal on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(3), 315–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ungeheuer, G. (1982). Vor-Urteile über Sprechen, Mitteilen, Verstehen. In G. Ungeheuer (Ed.), KommunikationstheoretischeSchriften1. (pp. 229–338). Aachen, Germany: Rader.Google Scholar
  41. van der Pol, J., Admiraal, W., & Simons, P. R. J. (2006). The affordance of anchored discussion for the collaborative processing of academic texts. International Journal on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning(1), 339–357.Google Scholar
  42. von Glasersfeld, E. (1995). Radical constructivism: A way of knowing and learning. London: Falmer.Google Scholar
  43. Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J. H., & Jackson, D. D. (1967). Pragmatics of human communication: Study of interactional patterns, pathologies and paradoxes. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  44. Wilson, B. (1999). The dangers of theory-based design. ITFORUM, Paper #31. Retrieved February 12, 2008, from

Copyright information

© International Society of the Learning Sciences, Inc.; Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Applied Work ScienceRuhr University of BochumBochumGermany
  2. 2.Fraunhofer IPSIDarmstadtGermany

Personalised recommendations