An examination of CSCL methodological practices and the influence of theoretical frameworks 2005–2009

Article

Abstract

The goal of this research is to provide an overview of CSCL methodological practices. CSCL is a vibrant interdisciplinary research field where several different theoretical and methodological traditions converge. Given the diversity of theoretical and methodological traditions that co-exist in CSCL, it is important to document the kinds and range of methodological practices and examine how they are related to the diverse theoretical perspectives in the field. In the current study, we examined CSCL research methodology in terms of (1) research designs, (2) research settings, (3) data sources, and (4) analysis methods. We then examined how these dimensions are related to the theoretical frameworks of the research. A content analysis was carried out based on empirical CSCL studies published in seven leading journals of the field during 2005–2009. The analysis identified the dominant CSCL research practices. We found that the modal CSCL study used descriptive designs that were carried out in classroom settings, typically collected questionnaires and/or analyzed the data quantitatively. CSCL research methods, however, were also quite diverse and eclectic, as researchers used range of data collection and analysis practices. Methodological practices were influenced by the theoretical framework of the research. A cluster analysis examined how these practices co-varied and revealed four distinctive method-theory clusters. Remaining methodological challenges of the field are discussed along with suggestions to move the field toward meaningful synthesis.

Keywords

CSCL Research methodology Content meta-analysis Research designs Research settings Data Analysis methods Theoretical frameworks Interdisciplinary research 

Supplementary material

11412_2014_9198_MOESM1_ESM.doc (160 kb)
ESM 1(DOC 160 kb)

References

  1. Alpers, G. W., Winzelberg, A. J., Classen, C., Roberts, H., Dev, P., Koopman, C., et al. (2005). Evaluation of computerized text analysis in an Internet breast cancer support group. Computers in Human Behavior, 21, 361–376.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, T., & Shattuck, J. (2012). Design-based research: A decade of progress in education research? Educational Researcher, 41(1), 16–25.Google Scholar
  3. Ares, N. (2008). Cultural practices in networked classroom learning environments. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3, 301–326.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, 167–185.Google Scholar
  5. Baker, M., Andriessen, J., Lund, K., van Amelsvoort, M., & Quignard, M. (2007). Rainbow: A framework for analyzing computer-mediated pedagogical debates. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2, 315–357.Google Scholar
  6. Barab, S. A., & Kirshner, D. (2001). Methodologies for capturing learner practices occurring as part of dynamic learning environments. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10, 5–6.Google Scholar
  7. Barab, S. A., & Squire, K. D. (2004). Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 1–14.Google Scholar
  8. Barron, B. (2006). Interest and self-sustained learning as catalysts of development: A learning ecology perspective. Human Development, 49(4), 193.Google Scholar
  9. Beers, P., Boshuizen, H. P. A., Kirschner, P., & Gijselaers, W. H. (2007). The analysis of negotiation of common ground in CSCL. Learning and Instruction, 17, 427–435.Google Scholar
  10. Berge, O., & Fjuk, A. (2006). Understanding the roles of online meetings in a net-based course. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22, 13–23.Google Scholar
  11. Blin, F., & Munro, M. (2008). Why hasn’t technology disrupted academics’ teaching practices? Understanding resistance to change through the lens of activity theory. Computers and Education, 50, 475–490.Google Scholar
  12. Borrego, M. (2007). Conceptual difficulties experienced by engineering faculty becoming engineering education researchers. Journal of Engineering Education, 96(2), 91–102.Google Scholar
  13. Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141–178.Google Scholar
  14. Bryman, A. (1984). The debate about quantitative and qualitative research: A question of method or epistemology. The British Journal of Sociology, 35(1), 75–92.Google Scholar
  15. Calinski, T., & Harabasz, J. (1974). A dendrite method for cluster analysis. Communications in Statistics-Theory and Methods, 3(1), 1–27.Google Scholar
  16. Chen, W., & Hirschheim, R. (2004). A paradigmatic and methodological examination of information systems research from 1991 to 2001. Information Systems Journal, 14, 197–235.Google Scholar
  17. Chi, M. T. H. (1997). Quantifying qualitative analyses of verbal data: A practical guide. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6(3), 271–315.Google Scholar
  18. Chi, M. T. H. (2009). Active-constructive-interactive: A conceptual framework for differentiating learning activities. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1, 73–105.Google Scholar
  19. Chi, M. T. H., Siler, S. A., Jeong, H., Yamauchi, T., & Hausmann, R. G. (2001). Learning from human tutoring. Cognitive Science, 25, 471–533.Google Scholar
  20. Cho, K., & Schunn, C. (2007). Scaffolded writing and rewriting in the discipline: A web-based reciprocal peer review system. Computers and Education, 48, 409–426.Google Scholar
  21. Cobb, P., & Jackson, K. (2008). The consequences of experimentalism in formulating recommendations for policy and practice in mathmatics education. Educational Researcher, 37(9), 573–581.Google Scholar
  22. Cooper, H., Hedges, L. V., & Valentine, J. C. (Eds.). (2009). Handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (2nd ed.). New York: Russell Sage.Google Scholar
  23. Council, N. R. (2002). Scientific culture and educational research. Washington: National Academies of Press.Google Scholar
  24. Cress, U. (2008). The need for considering multilevel analysis in CSCL research—an appeal for the use of more advanced statistical methods. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3, 69–84.Google Scholar
  25. Cress, U., Barquero, B., Schwain, S., & Hesse, F. W. (2007). Improving quality and quantity of contributions: Two models for promoting knowledge exchange with shared database. Computers and Education, 49, 423–440.Google Scholar
  26. Davies, A., Fidler, D., & Gorbis, M. (2011). Future work skills 2020. Palo Alto: Institue for the future.Google Scholar
  27. De Laat, M., Lally, V., Lipponen, L., & Simons, R.-J. (2007). Online teaching in networked learning communities: A multi-method approach to studying the role of the teacher. Instructional Science, 35, 257–286.Google Scholar
  28. De Lisi, R., & Golbeck, S. L. (1999). Implications of Piagetian theory for peer learning. In A. M. O’Donnell & A. King (Eds.), Cognitive perspectives on peer learning. Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  29. De Wever, B., Schellens, T., Valcke, M., & van Keer, H. (2006). Content analysis schemes to analyze transcripts of online asynchronous discussion groups: a review. Computers and Education, 46, 6–28.Google Scholar
  30. De Wever, B., van Keer, H., Schellens, T., & Valcke, M. (2007). Applying multi-level modelling to content analysis data: Methodological issues in the study of role assignment in asynchronous discussion groups. Learning and Instruction, 17, 436–447.Google Scholar
  31. Dillenbourg, P., Jarvela, S., & Fischer, F. (2009). The evolution of research on computer-supported collaborative learning. In N. Balacheff (Ed.), Technology-enhance learning. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  32. Doise, W., Mugny, G., & Perret-Clermont, A. (1975). Social interaction and the development of cognitive operations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 5(3), 367–383.Google Scholar
  33. Dori, Y. J., & Belcher, J. (2005). How does technology-enabled active learning affect undergraduate students’ understanding of electromagnetism concepts? Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(2), 243–279.Google Scholar
  34. Dringus, L. P., & Ellis, T. (2005). Using data mining as a strategy for assessing asynchronous discussion forum. Computers and Education, 45, 141–160.Google Scholar
  35. Dyke, G., Lund, K., & Girardot, J.-J. (2009). Tatiana: An environment to support the CSCL analysis process. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference of the Learning Sciences, International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar
  36. Ellis, R. A., Goodyear, P., Prosser, M., & O’Hara, A. O. (2006). How and what university students learn through online and face-to-face discussion: conceptions, intentions and approaches. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22(4), 244–256.Google Scholar
  37. Engeström, R. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133–156.Google Scholar
  38. Erkens, G., & Janssen, J. (2008). Automatic coding of dialogue acts in collaboration protocols. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3, 447–470.Google Scholar
  39. Everitt, B. S., Landau, S., Leese, M., & Stahl, D. (2011). Cluster analysis (Wiley series in probability and statistics) (5th ed.). West Sussex: Wiley.Google Scholar
  40. Finch, H. (2005). Comparison of distance measures in cluster analysis with dichotomous data. Journal of Data Science, 3(1), 85–100.Google Scholar
  41. Fuks, H., Pimentel, M., & de Lucena, C. J. P. (2006). R-U-Typing-2-Me? Evolving a chat tool to increase understanding in learning activities. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1, 117–142.Google Scholar
  42. Gee, J. P., & Green, J. L. (1998). Discourse analysis, learning, and school practice: A methodological study. Review of Research in Education, 23, 119–169.Google Scholar
  43. Glaser, B. G., & Straus, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New Brunswick: Aldine transaction.Google Scholar
  44. Greenhow, C., Robelia, B., & Hughes, J. E. (2009). Learning, teaching, and scholarship in a digital age web 2.0 and classroom research: what path should we take now? Educational Researcher, 38(4), 246–259.Google Scholar
  45. Greeno, J. G. (2006). Authorative, accountable positioning and connected, general knowing: progressive themes in understanding transfer. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(4), 537–547.Google Scholar
  46. Guribye, F., & Wasson, B. (2002). The ethnography of distributed collaborative learning. In Proceedings of the Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning: Foundations for a CSCL Community. International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar
  47. Hew, K. F., Kale, U., & Kim, N. (2007). Past research in instructional technology: Results of a content analysis of empirical studies published in three prominent instructional technology journals from the year 2000 through 2004. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 36(3), 269–300.Google Scholar
  48. Hewitt, J., & Brett, C. (2007). The relationship between class size and online activity patterns in asynchronous computer conferencing environments. Computers and Education, 49, 1258–1271.Google Scholar
  49. Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2003). Analyzing collaborative knowledge construction: Multiple methods for integrated understanding. Computers and Education, 41, 397–420.Google Scholar
  50. Howley, I., Kumar, R., Mayfield, E., Dyke, G., & Rosé, C. P. (2013). Gaining insights from sociolinguistic style analysis for redesign of conversational agent based support for collaborative learning Productive multivocality in the analysis of group interactions (pp. 477–494): Springer.Google Scholar
  51. Hrastinski, S., & Keller, C. (2007). An examination of research approaches that underlie research on educational technology: A review from 2000 to 2004. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 36(2), 175–190.Google Scholar
  52. Hummel, H. G. K., Burgos, D., Tattersall, F., Brouns, F., Kurvers, H., & Koper, R. (2005). Encouraging contributions in learning networks using incentive mechanisms. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21, 355–365.Google Scholar
  53. Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  54. Jacobs, N., & McFarlane, A. (2005). Conferences as learning communities: Some early lessons in using ‘back-channel’ technologies at an academic conference-distributed intelligence or divided attention? Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21, 317–329.Google Scholar
  55. Jeong, H. (2013). Verbal data analysis for understanding interactions. In C. Hmelo-Silver, A. M. O’Donnell, C. Chan, & C. Chinn (Eds.), The international handbook of collaborative learning (pp. 168–183). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  56. Jeong, H., & Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2010a). Technology use in CSCL: A content meta-analysis. In Proceedings of the 43rd Hawaiian International Conference on System Science. IEEE.Google Scholar
  57. Jeong, H., & Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2010b). An overview of CSCL methodologies. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference of the Learning Sciences, International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar
  58. Jeong, H., & Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2011). A portrait of CSCL methodologies. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference of the Learning Sciences. International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar
  59. Jeong, H., & Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2012). Technology supports in CSCL. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference of the Learning Sciences. International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar
  60. Jermann, P., & Dillenbourg, P. (2008). Group mirrors to support interaction regulation in collaborative problem solving. Computers and Education, 51, 279–296.Google Scholar
  61. Johnson, R., & Christensen, L. (2008). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  62. Johnson, R., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed method research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14–26.Google Scholar
  63. Jordan, B., & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice. The Journal of the Learning Science, 4(1), 39–103.Google Scholar
  64. Kelly, A. (2004). Design research in education: Yes, but is it methodological? Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 115–128.Google Scholar
  65. Keppel, G., & Wickens, T. D. (2004). Design and analysis. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  66. Koschmann, T. (2013). Conversation analysis and collaborative learning. In C. Hmelo-Silver, A. M. O’Donnell, C. Chan, & C. Chinn (Eds.), International handbook of collaborative learning. London: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  67. Koschmann, T., & LeBaron, C. D. (2003). Reconsidering common ground: Examining Clark’s contribution theory in the OR. In K. Kuutti, E. Karsten, G. Fitzpatrick, P. Dourish, & K. Schmidt (Eds.), ECSCW 2003 (pp. 81–98). Amsterdam: Kluwer Academic Publishing.Google Scholar
  68. Krauss, R. M., & Fussell, S. R. (1990). Mutual knowledge and communicative effectiveness. In J. Galegher, R. E. Kraut, & C. Edigo (Eds.), Intellectual teamwork: Social and technological foundations of cooperative work. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  69. Lee, E. Y. C., Chan, C. K. K., & van Aalst, J. (2006). Students assessing their own collaborative knowledge building. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1, 57–87.Google Scholar
  70. Levine, J. M., & Thompson, L. (1996). Conflict in groups. In E. T. Higgins & A. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles. New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  71. Lim, C. P., & Barnes, S. (2005). A collective case study of the use of ICT in economics courses: A sociocultural approach. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(4), 489–526.Google Scholar
  72. Long, P., & Siemens, G. (2011). Penetrating the fog: Analytics in learning and education. EDUCAUSE Review, 46(5), 30–32.Google Scholar
  73. Markett, C., Sanchez, I. A., Weber, S., & Tangney, B. (2006). Using short message service to encourage interactivity in the classroom. Computers and Education, 46, 280–293.Google Scholar
  74. Martin, T., & Sherin, B. (2013). Learning analytics and computational techniques for detecting and evaluating patterns in learning: an introduction to the special issue. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 22(4), 511–520. doi:10.1080/10508406.2013.840466.Google Scholar
  75. Martinez, A., Dimitriadis, Y., & Fuente, P. d. l. (2003). Interaction analysis for formative evaluation in CSCL. In M. Llamas, M. J. Fernández & L. E. Anido (Eds.), Computers and Education. Towards a Lifelong Learning Society (pp. 227–238): Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
  76. Martinez, A., Dimitriadis, Y., Gomez-Sanchez, E., Rubia-Avi, B., Jorrin-Abellan, I., & Marcos, J. A. (2006). Studying participation networks in collaborating using mixed methods. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1, 383–408.Google Scholar
  77. Mayring, P. (2000). Qualitative content analysis. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 1(2). Art. 20, http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs0002204.
  78. McCarthy, C., Bligh, J., Jennings, K., & Tangney, B. (2005). Virtual collaborative learning environments for music networked drumsteps. Computers and Education, 44, 173–195.Google Scholar
  79. Meier, A., Spada, H., & Rummel, N. (2007). A rating scheme for assessing the quality of computer-supported collaboration processes. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2, 63–86.Google Scholar
  80. Miyake, N. (2006). Computer supported collaborative learning. In R. Andrew & C. Haythornwaite (Eds.), Sage handbook of e-learning research. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  81. Morken, E. M., Divitini, M., & Haugalokken. (2007). Enriching spaces in practice-based education to support collaboration while mobile: the case of teacher education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23, 300–311.Google Scholar
  82. Morrow, R. A., & Brown, D. B. (1994). Deconstructing the conventional discourse of methodology. Critical theory and methodology. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publication.Google Scholar
  83. Munneke, L., Andriessen, J., Kanselaar, G., & Kirschner, P. (2007). Supporting interactive argumentation: influence of representational tools on discussing a wicked problem. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 1072–1088.Google Scholar
  84. Naidu, S., & Jarvela, S. (2006). Analyzing CMC for what? Computers and Education, 46, 96–103.Google Scholar
  85. Neuendorf, K. A. (2002). The content analysis: Guidebook. London: Thousand Oaks.Google Scholar
  86. Pintrich, P. R. (1999). The role of motivation in prompting and sustaining self-regulated learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 31, 459–470.Google Scholar
  87. Plomp, T., & Nieveen, N. (2007). An introduction to educational design research. In Proceedings of the Seminar Conducted at the East China Normal University. Netherlands: SLO-Netherlands Institute for Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  88. Powell, W. W., Koput, K. W., & Smith-Doerr, L. (1996). Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(1), 116–145.Google Scholar
  89. Puntambekar, S. (2013). Mixed methods for analyzing collaborative learning. In C. Hmelo-Silver, A. M. O’Donnell, C. Chan, & C. Chinn (Eds.), The international handbook of collaborative learning. London: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  90. Raffleff. (2007). The reliability of content analysis of computer conference communication. Computers and Education, 49, 230–242.Google Scholar
  91. Rick, M., & Guzdial, M. (2006). Situating coweb: A scholarship of application. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1, 89–115.Google Scholar
  92. Robertson, J., & Howells, C. (2008). Computer game design: Opportunities for successful learning. Computers and Education, 50, 559–578.Google Scholar
  93. Rogoff, B. (1998). Cognition as a collaborative process. In W. Damon (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology (pp. 679–744). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  94. Romero, C., Ventura, S., & Garcia, E. (2008). Data mining in course management systems: Moodle case study and tutorial. Computers and Education, 51, 368–384.Google Scholar
  95. Rosé, C., Wang, Y.-C., Cui, Y., Arguello, J., Stegmann, K., Weinberger, A., et al. (2008). Analyzing collaborative learning processes automatically: Exploiting the advances of computational linguistics in computer-supported collaborative learning. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3, 237–271.Google Scholar
  96. Rummel, N., & Spada, H. (2005). Learning to collaborate: An instructional approach to promoting collaborative problem solving in computer-mediated settings. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(2), 201–241.Google Scholar
  97. Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on conversation. Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  98. Salomon, G. (Ed.). (1993). Dsitributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  99. Sandoval, W. A. (2014). Conjecture mapping: An approach to systematic educational design research. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 23, 18–36.Google Scholar
  100. Schmid, E. C. (2008). Potential pedagogical benefits and drawbacks of multimedia use in the English language classroom equipped with interactive whiteboard technology. Computers and Education, 51, 1553–1568.Google Scholar
  101. Schwarz, B. B., & Glassner, A. (2007). The role of floor control and of ontology in argumentative activities with discussion-based tools. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2, 449–478.Google Scholar
  102. Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company.Google Scholar
  103. Shavelson, R. J. (1996). Statistical reasoning for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  104. Shavelson, R. J., Phillips, D. C., Towne, L., & Feuer, M. J. (2003). On the science of education design studies. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 25–28.Google Scholar
  105. Shiffrin, R. M., & Schneider, W. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending, and a general theory. Psychological Review, 84(2), 127–190.Google Scholar
  106. Shih, M., Feng, J., & Tsai, C.-C. (2008). Research and trends in the field of e-learning from 2001 to 2005: A content analysis of cognitive studies in selected journals. Computers and Education, 51, 955–967.Google Scholar
  107. Stahl, G. (2006). Group cognition: Computer support for building collaborative knowledge. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  108. Stahl, G. (2013). Learning across levels. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 8(1), 2–11.Google Scholar
  109. Stahl, G., Koschmann, T., & Suthers, D. D. (2006). Computer-supported collaborative learning: A historical perspective. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  110. Straus, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research. Newbury Park: Sage publication.Google Scholar
  111. Strijbos, J., & Stahl, G. (2007). Methodological issues in developing a multi-dimensional coding procedure for small-group chat communication. Learning and Instruction, 17, 394–404.Google Scholar
  112. Strijbos, J., Martens, R. L., Prins, F. J., & Jochems, W. M. G. (2006). Content analysis: What are they talking about? Computers and Education, 46, 29–48.Google Scholar
  113. Sung, S., Shen, J., & Zhang, D. (2012). Toward a cognitive framework of interdisciplinary understanding. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference of the Learning Sciences. International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar
  114. Suthers, D. D. (2006). Technology affordances for intersubjective meaning making: A research agenda for CSCL. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1, 315–337.Google Scholar
  115. Suthers, D. D., Lund, K., Rose, C., Teplovs, C., & Law, N. (2013). Productive multivocality in the analysis of group interactions. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  116. Swinglehurst, D., Russell, J., & Greenhalgh, T. (2008). Peer observation of teaching in the online environment: An action research approach. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24, 383–393.Google Scholar
  117. The Secretary’s Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills. (1991). What work require of schools: A SCANS report for America 2000. Washington: US Department of Labor.Google Scholar
  118. Tulving, E., & Madigan, S. A. (1970). Memory and verbal learning. Annual Review of Psychology, 21, 437–484.Google Scholar
  119. Van der Meij, H., de Vries, B., Boersma, K., Pieters, J., & Wegerif, R. (2005). An examination of interactional coherence in email use in elementary school. Computers in Human Behavior, 21, 417–439.Google Scholar
  120. Van der Pol, J., Van den Berg, B., Admiraal, W. F., & Simons, P. R. J. (2008). The nature, reception, and use of online peer feedback in higher education. Computers and Education, 51(4), 1804–1817.Google Scholar
  121. Van Drie, J., van Boxtel, C., Jaspers, J., & Kanselaar, G. (2005). Effect of representational guidance on domain specific reasoning in CSCL. Computers in Human Behavior, 21, 575–602.Google Scholar
  122. Von Glaserfeld, E. (1987). Learning as a constructive activity. In C. Janvier (Ed.), Problems of representation in the teaching and learning of mathematics (pp. 3–38). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  123. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  124. What Works Clearninghouse. (2008). Procedures and standards handbook (version 2.1) Retrieved February 14, 2013, from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/DocumentSum.aspx?sid=19.
  125. Yanchar, S. C., & Williams, D. D. (2006). Reconsidering the compatibility thesis and electicism: Five proposed guidelines for method use. Educational Researcher, 35(9), 3-12.Google Scholar
  126. Yang, Z., & Liu, Q. (2007). Research and development of web-based virtual online classroom. Computers and Education, 48(2), 171–184.Google Scholar
  127. Yukawa, J. (2006). Co-reflection in online learning: Collaborative critical thinking as narrative. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1, 203–228.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society of the Learning Sciences, Inc. 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Heisawn Jeong
    • 1
  • Cindy E. Hmelo-Silver
    • 2
  • Yawen Yu
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyHallym UniversityChuncheonSouth Korea
  2. 2.Indiana UniversityBloomingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations