Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Technology in Support of Collaborative Learning

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Educational Psychology Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper reviews the research conducted in the last 20 years on the application of technology in support of collaborative learning in higher education. The review focuses primarily on studies that use Internet-based technologies and social interaction analysis. The review provides six sets of observations/recommendations regarding methodology, empirical evidence, and research gaps and issues that may help focus future research in this emerging field of study.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Computer-supported collaborative learning is encouraged in campus-based classrooms or distance education. In the latter case see (IHEP, 2001; WASC, 2000).

References

  • Alavi, M. (1994). Computer-mediated collaborative learning: An empirical evaluation. MIS Quarterly, 18(2), 59–174.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andriessen, J., Baker, M., & Suthers, D. (2003). Argumentation, computer support, and the educational context of confronting cognitions. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 1–25). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bales, R. F. (1950). Interaction process analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barab, S. A., Kling, R., & Gray, J. (Eds.) (2004). Designing for virtual communities in the service of learning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

  • Barkley, E., Cross, K., & Major, C. (2005). Collaborative learning techniques: A handbook for college faculty. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bean, J. C. (1996). Engaging ideas: The professor’s guide to integrating writing, critical thinking, and active learning in the classroom. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benbunan-Fich, R., Hiltz, S. R., & Turoff, M. (2003). A comparative content analysis of face-to-face vs. asynchronous group decision making. Decision Support Systems, 34(4), 457–469.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bereiter, C. (2002). Education and mind in the knowledge age. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1989). Intentional learning as a goal of instruction. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 361–392). Hillsdale, NJ: Earlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1993). Surpassing ourselves: An inquiry into the nature and implications of expertise. Chicago, IL: Open Court.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Lou, Y., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Wozney, L., et al. (2004). How does distance education compare with classroom instruction? A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Review of Educational Research, 74(3), 379–439.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biggs, J. B. (1989). Approaches to the enhancement of tertiary teaching. Higher Education Research and Development, 8(1), 7–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Soloway, E., & Krajcik, J. (1996). Learning with peers: From small group cooperation to collaborative communities. Educational Researcher, 25(8), 43–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brandon, D. P., & Hollingshead, A. B. (1999). Collaborative learning and computer-supported groups. Communication Education, 48(2), 108–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brett, C. (2004). Off-line factors contributing to online engagement. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 13(1), 83–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, A. L. (1997). Transforming schools into communities of thinking and learning about serious matters. American Psychologist, 52(4), 399–413.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (2000). The social life of information. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Business-Higher Education Forum (2003). Building a nation of learners: The need for changes in teaching and learning to meet global challenges. Washington, DC: Business-Higher Education Forum. Available: http://www.bhef.com/publications.

  • Chan, C., Burtis, J., & Bereiter, C. (1997). Knowledge building as a mediator of conflict in conceptual change. Cognition and Instruction, 15(1), 1–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chickering, A., & Ehrmann, S. C. (1996). Implementing the seven principles: Technology as lever. AAHE Bulletin. October, 3–6. Available: http://www.tltgroup.org/programs/seven.html.

  • Clark, H. H., & Schaefer, E. F. (1989). Contributing to discourse. Cognitive Science, 13(2), 259–294.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cockrell, K. S., Caplow, H., & Donaldson, J. F. (2000). A context for learning: Collaborative groups in the problem-solving learning environment. The Review of Higher Education, 23(3), 347–363.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collis, B., & Moonen, J. (2001). Flexible learning in a digital world: Experiences and expectations. London, UK: Kogan Page.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cranton, P. (1998). No one way: Teaching and learning in higher education. Toronto: Wall & Emerson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dede, C. (1996). Emerging technologies and distributed learning. American Journal of Distance Education, 10(2), 4–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 & Education, 46(1), 6–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dillenbourg, P. (Ed.), (1999). Collaborative learning. Cognitive and computational approaches. Oxford: Elsevier.

  • Dillenbourg, P. (2002). Overscripting CSCL: The risks of blending collaborative learning with instructional design. In P. A. Kirschner (Ed.), Three worlds of CSCL. Can we support CSCL? (pp. 61–91). Heerlen: Open Universiteit Nederland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dillenbourg, P., Baker, M., Blaye, A., & O’Malley, C. (1996). The evolution of research on collaborative learning. In E. Spada & P. Reiman (Eds.), Learning in Humans and Machine: Towards an interdisciplinary learning science (pp. 189–211). Oxford: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dirckinck-Holmfeld, L. (2002). Designing virtual learning environments based on problem oriented project pedagogy. In L. Dirckinck-Holmfeld & B. Fibiger (Eds.), Learning in virtual environments (pp. 31–54). Frederiksberg: Samfundslitteratur Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duisburg, M., & Hoope, U. (1999). Computer supported interaction analysis of group problem solving. In C. Hoadley & J. Roschelle (Eds.), Proceedings of the Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, CSCL-99 (pp. 398–405). Palo Alto, CA.

  • Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki, Finland: Orienta-Konsultit.

    Google Scholar 

  • Felder, R. M., Felder, G. N., Mauney, M., Hamrin, Jr., C. E., & Dietz, E. J. (1995). A longitudinal study of engineering student performance and retention. III. Gender differences in student performance and attitudes. Journal of Engineering Education, 84(2), 151–163.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferdig, R. E. (2006). Assessing technologies for teaching and learning: Understanding the importance of technological pedagogical content knowledge. British Journal of Educational Technology, 37(5)749–760.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fjermestad, J. (2004). An analysis of communication mode in group support systems research. Decision Support Systems, 37(2), 239–263.

    Google Scholar 

  • Francescato, D., Porcelli, R., Mebane, M., Cuddetta, M., Klobas, J., & Renzi, P. (2006). Evaluation of the efficacy of collaborative learning in face-to-face and computer-supported university contexts. Computers in Human Behavior, 22(2), 163–176.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaver, W. W. (1996). Situating action II: Affordances for interaction: The social is material for design. Ecological Psychology, 8(2), 111–129.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gifford, B., & Enyedy, N. D. (1999). Activity centered design: Towards a theoretical framework for CSCL. In Proceedings of the third international conference on computer support for collaborative learning-99 (pp. 189–197). University of Stanford. Available: http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/enyedy/pubs/Giffcrd&Enyvedy_CSCL2000.pdf.

  • Gokhale, A. A. (1995). Collaborative learning enhances critical thinking. Journal of Technology Education, 7(1), 22–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodlad, J., Soder, R., & Sirotnik, K. (1990). The moral dimensions of teaching. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guimond, S. (2001). Introduction to the special issue: The social psychology of academic achievement: Progress and prospects. Social Psychology of Education, 4(3–4), 215–217.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gunawardena, C. N., Lowe, C. A., & Anderson, T. (1997). Analysis of a global online debate and the development of an interaction analysis model for examining social construction of knowledge in computer conferencing. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 17(4), 397–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hakkarainen, K. (2006, August). Developing methods of studying knowledge practices. Paper presented at the Knowledge building Summer Institute, OISE/UT, Toronto.

  • Harasim, L. M., Hiltz, S. R., Teles, L., & Turoff, M. (1995). Learning networks: A field guide to teaching and learning online. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hewitt, J. (2002). From a focus on tasks to a focus on understanding: The cultural transformation of a Toronto classroom. In T. Koschmann, R. Hall, & N. Miyake (Eds.), Computer supported cooperative learning volume 2: Carrying forward the conversation (pp. 11–41). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hiltz, S. R., Dufner, D., Holmes, M., & Poole, S. (1991). Distributed group support systems: Social dynamics and design dilemmas. Journal of Organizational Computing, 2(1), 135–159.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235–266.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holliman, R., & Scanlon, E. (2006). Investigating cooperation and collaboration in near synchronous computer mediated conferences. Computers & Education, 46(3), 322–335.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howell-Richardson, C., & Mellar, H. (1996). A methodology for the analysis of patterns of participation within computer-mediated communication courses. Instructional Science, 24(1), 47–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hübscher-Younger, T., & Narayanan, N. H. (2003). Authority and convergence in collaborative learning. Computers & Education, 41(4), 313–334.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • IHEP (2001). Quality on the line: Benchmarks for success in Internet-based distance education. Institute for Higher Education Policy. Washington, DC: Institute for Higher Education Policy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and research. Edina, MN: Interaction.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1996). Cooperation and the use of technology. In D. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 785–812). London: MacMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (1998a). Cooperative learning: Increasing college faculty instructional productivity, ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Reports, N. 4. Washington, DC: George Washington University.

  • Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (1998b). Cooperative learning returns to college: What evidence is there that it works? Change, 30(4), 26–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R., Stanne, M., & Garibaldi, A. (1990). The impact of group processing on achievement in cooperative groups. Journal of Social Psychology, 130, 507–516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, R., Johnson, D. W., Stanne, M., Smizak, B., & Avon, J. (1987). Effect of composition pairs at the word processor on quality of writing and ability to use the word processor. Minneapolis: Cooperative Learning Center, University of Minnesota.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. (1994). Thinking technology: Toward a constructivist design model. Educational Technology, 34(4), 35–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, C., Dirckinck-Holmfeld, L., & Lindström, B. (2006). A relational, indirect, meso-level approach to CSCL design in the next decade. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning , 1(1), 35–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, A., Scanlon, E., & Blake, C. (2000). Conferencing in communities of learners: Examples from social history and science communication. Educational Technology and Society, 3(3), 215–226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kafai, Y. B., & Resnick, M. (Eds.), (1996). Constructionism in practice: Designing, thinking, and learning in a digital world. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

  • Kirschner, P. A. (2001). Using integrated electronic environments for collaborative teaching/learning. Learning and Instruction, 10(Suppl. 1), 1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirschner, P. A., Martens, R. L., & Strijbos, J. W. (2004). CSCL in higher education? A framework for designing multiple collaborative environments. In J. W., Strijbos, P. A., Kirschner, & R. L., Martens (Eds.), What we know about CSCL: And implementing it in higher education (pp. 3–30). Boston, MA: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koschmann, T. (Ed.) (1996). CSCL: Theory and practice of an emerging paradigm. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

  • Koschmann, T. (2002). Dewey’s contribution to the foundations of CSCL research. In Proceedings of Computer Support for Collaborative Learning 2002 (pp. 17–22). Boulder, CO.

  • Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P. A., & Jochems, W. (2003). Identifying the pitfalls for social interaction in computersupported collaborative learning environments: A review of the research. Computers in Human Behaviour, 19(3), 335–353.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lai, M., & Law, N. (2005). Peer scaffolding of knowledge building through collaboration of groups with differential learning experiences. CSCL Proceedings. Taiwan.

  • Landauer, T. K., Foltz, P. W., & Laham, D. (1998). Introduction to latent semantic analysis. Discourse Processes, 25(2–3), 259–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laurillard, D. (2001). Rethinking university teaching: A conversational framework for the effective use of educational technology. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levine, J. M., Resnick, L. B., & Higgins, E. T. (1993). Social foundations of cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 44(1), 585–603.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lim, J. (2003). A conceptual framework on the adoption of negotiation support systems. Information and Software Technology, 45(8), 469–477.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lim, J., & Liu, Y. (2006). The role of cultural diversity and leadership in computer-supported collaborative learning: A content analysis. Information and Software Technology, 48(3), 142–153.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipponen, L. (2000). Towards knowledge building: From facts to explanations in primary students’ computer mediated discourse. Learning Environments Research, 3(2), 179–199.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 the Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 2002 Conference (pp. 72–81). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipponen, L., Hakkarainen, K., & Paavola, S. (2004). Practices and orientations of CSCL. In J. W. Strijbos, P. A. Kirschner, & R. L. Martens (Eds.), What we know about CSCL in higher education (pp. 31–51). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Littleton, K., & Whitelock, D. (2005). The negotiation and co-construction of meaning and understanding within a postgraduate online learning community. Learning, Media and Technology, 30(2), 147–164.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lockyer, L., Patterson, J., & Harper, B. (2001). ICT in higher education: Evaluating outcomes for health education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 17(3), 275–283.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lonchamp, J. (2006). Supporting synchronous collaborative learning: A generic, multi-dimensional model. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(2), 246–276.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lou, Y., Abrami, P. C., & d’Apollonia, S. (2001). Small group and individual learning with technology: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 71(3), 449–521.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mason, R., & Romiszowski, A. (1996). Computer-mediated communication. In D. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 438–456). New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • McAllister, S., Ravenscroft, A., & Scanlon, E. (2004). Combining interaction and context design to support collaborative argumentation using a tool for synchronous CMC. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20(3), 194–204.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCain, T., & Jukes, I. (2001). Windows in the future: Education in the age of technology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • McManus, M., & Aiken, R. (1995). Monitoring computer-based problem solving. Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 6(4), 307–336.

    Google Scholar 

  • Monteil, J. M., & Huguet, P. (1999). Social context and cognitive performance: Towards a social psychology of cognition. Hove, East Sussex: Psychology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, E. (2004). Recognizing and promoting collaboration in online asynchronous discussions. British Journal of Educational Technology, 35(4), 421–431.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oblinger, D. G., & Oblinger, J. L. (Eds.). (2005). Educating the Net generation. Washington, DC: Educause. Available: http://www.educause.edu/educatingthenetgen.

  • Ocker, R. J., & Yaverbaum, G. L. (2001). Collaborative learning environments: Exploring student attitudes and satisfaction in face-to-face and asynchronous computer conferencing settings. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 12(4), 427–448.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palmieri, P. (1997). Technology in education ... Do we need it? ARIS Bulletin, 8(2), 1–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Panitz, T. (1996). A definition of collaborative versus cooperative learning. Deliberations [Online]. Available: http://www.londonmet.ac.uk/deliberations/collaborative-learning/panitz-paper.cfm.

  • Pea, R. D. (1994). Seeing what we build together: Distributed multimedia learning environments for transformative communications. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(3), 219–225.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pea, R. D. (2004). The social and technological dimensions of scaffolding and related theoretical concepts for learning, education and human activity. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 423–451.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pea, R. D., Edelson, D. C., & Gomez, L. M. (1994, February). Distributed collaborative science learning using scientific visualization and wideband telecommunications. Paper presented at the 160th Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, in the symposium: “Multimedia information systems for science and engineering education: Harnessing technologies », Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.

  • Pearson, J. (2006). Investigating ICT using problem-based learning in face-to-face and online learning environments. Computers & Education, 47(1), 56–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reeder, K., Macfadyen, L. P., Roche, J., & Chase, M. (2004). Negotiating cultures in cyberspace: Participation patterns and problematics. Language Learning and Technology, 8(2), 88–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rick, J., & Gudzial, M. (2006). Situating CoWeb: A scholarship of application. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(1), 89–115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rimmershaw, R. (1999). Using conferencing to support a culture of collaborative study. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 15(3), 189–200.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roschelle, J. (1992). Learning by collaboration: Convergent conceptual change. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(3), 235–276.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roschelle, J., & Teasley, S. (1995). The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving. In C. E. O’Malley (Ed.), Computer supported collaborative learning (pp. 69–197). Berlin Heidelberg New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing social presence in asynchronous text-based computer conferencing. Journal of Distance Education, 14(2), 51–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rovai, A. (2002). A preliminary look at the structural differences of higher education classroom communities in traditional and ALN courses. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 6(1), 41–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Salomon, G. (Ed.) (1993). Distributed cognition: Psychological and educational considerations. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

  • Salomon, G., & Perkins, D. N. (1998). Individual and social aspects of learning. In Pearson, P. D. & Iran-Nejad, A. (Eds.), Review of Research in Education, 23 (pp.1–24). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scardamalia, M. (2002). Collective responsibility for the advancement of knowledge. In B. Smith (Ed.), Liberal Education in a Knowledge Society (pp. 67–98). Chicago, IL: Open Court.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge-building communities. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(3), 265–283.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1996). Engaging student in a knowledge society. Educational Leadership, 54(3), 6–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2003). Knowledge building. In J. W. Guthrie (Ed.), Encyclopedia of education (2nd ed. pp. 1370–1373). New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schellens, T., & Valcke, M. (2006). Fostering knowledge construction in university students through asynchronous discussion groups. Computers & Education, 46(4), 349–370.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlager, M., & Fusco, J. (2004). Teacher professional development, technology, and communities of practice: Are we putting the cart before the horse? In S. Barab, R. Kling, & J. Gray (Eds.), Designing for virtual communities in the service of learning (pp. 120–153). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlager, M. S., & Schank, P. (1997). Tapped in: A new online community concept for the next generation of Internet technology. In R. Hall, N. Miyake, & N. Enyedy (Eds.), Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning. (pp. 231–240). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schrage, M. (1990). Shared minds: The new technologies of collaboration. New York: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational Researcher, 27(2), 4–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slavin, R. E. (1996). Research for the future: Research on cooperative learning and achievement: What we know, what we need to know. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21(1), 43–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slavin, R. E. (1997). Educational psychology: Theory and practice (5th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, K. A. (1996). Cooperative learning: Making “group work” work. In T. E. Sutherland & C. C. Bonwell (Eds.), Using active learning in college classes: A range of options for faculty (pp. 71–82). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spiro, R. J., Coulson, R. L., Feltovich, P. J., & Anderson, D. K. (1988). Cognitive flexibility theory: Advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains. In The Tenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

  • Springer, L., Stanne, M., & Donovan, S. (1998). Effects of cooperative learning on undergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 69(1), 21–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stahl, G. (2004). Building collaborative knowing: Elements of a social theory of CSCL. In J.-W. Strijbos, P. Kirschner, & R. Martens (Eds.), What we know about CSCL: And implementing it in higher education (pp. 53–86). Boston, MA: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stahl, G. (2006). Group cognition: Computer support for building collaborative knowledge. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steinkuehler, C. A., Derry, S. J., Hmelo-Silver, C., & DelMarcelle, M. (2002). Cracking the resource nut with distributed problem-based learning in secondary teacher education. Journal of Distance Education, 23(1), 23–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone-Wiske, M. (2002). New technologies to support teaching for understanding. International Journal of Educational Research, 35(5), 483–501.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strijbos, J. W., Kirschner, P. A., & Martens, R. L. (Eds.) (2004). What we know about CSCL: And implementing it in higher education. Berlin Heidelberg New York: Springer.

  • Strijbos, J. W., Martens, R. L., & Jochems, W. M. G. (2004). Designing for interaction: Six steps to designing computer-supported group-based learning. Computers & Education, 42(4), 403–424.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strijbos, J. W., Martens, R. L., Jochems, W. M. G., & Broers, N. (2004). The effect of functional roles on group efficiency. Using multilevel modeling and content analysis to investigate computer supported collaboration in small groups. Small Group Research, 35(2), 195–229.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strijbos, J. W., Martens, R. L., Prins, F. J., & Jochems, W. M. G. (2006). Content analysis: What are they talking about? Computers & Education, 46(1), 29–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suthers, D., Weiner, A., Connelly, J., & Paolucci, M. (1995). Belvedere: Engaging students in critical discussion of science and public policy issues. In J. Greer (Ed.), Proceedings of AI-ED 95: World Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (pp. 266–273). Washington, DC: AACE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tapscott, D. (1998). Growing up digital: The rise of the net generation. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teasley, S. D., & Roschelle, J. (1993). Constructing a joint problem space: The computer as a tool for sharing knowledge. In S. P. Lajoie & S. J. Derry (Eds.), Computers as Cognitive Tools (pp. 229–258). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNESCO (2005). Towards knowledge societies: Unesco World report (WSIS) [Online]. Available: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001418/141843e.pdf.

  • Valcke, M., & Martens, R. (2006). The problem arena of researching computer supported collaborative learning: Introduction to the special section. Computers & Education, 46(1), 1–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Aalst, I., & Chan, C., (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). Maastricht: University of Maastrich.

    Google Scholar 

  • Veerman, A. L., & Treasure-Jones, T. (1999). Software for problem solving through collaborative argumentation. In P. Poirier & J. Andriessen (Eds.), Foundations of argumentative test processing (pp. 203–230). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallace, R. (2003). Online learning in higher education: A review of research on interactions among teachers and students. Education, Communication & Information, 3(2), 241–280.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warschauer, M. (1997). Computer-mediated collaborative learning: Theory and practice. The Modern Language Journal, 81(4), 470–481.

    Google Scholar 

  • WASC (2000). Guidelines for Distance Education: Principles of Good Practice. Alameda, CA: Western Association of Schools and Colleges.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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: Simon & Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wegerif, R. (2006). Towards a dialogic understanding of the relationship between teaching thinking and CSCL. International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(1), 143–157.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weinberger, A., Fischer, F., & Mandl, H. (2002). Fostering computer supported collaborative learning with cooperation scripts and scaffolds. In G. Stahl (Ed.), Computer support for collaborative learning: foundations for a CSCL community (pp. 573–574). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, E. (2000). Student characteristics and computer-mediated communication. Computers and Education, 34(2), 67–76.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Curriculum and Instruction, Learning Technology Center, The University of Texas at Austin, 1 University Station D5900, Austin, TX, 78712, USA

    Paul Resta

  2. Laval University, Quebec City, QC, Canada

    Thérèse Laferrière

Authors
  1. Paul Resta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Thérèse Laferrière
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paul Resta.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Resta, P., Laferrière, T. Technology in Support of Collaborative Learning. Educ Psychol Rev 19, 65–83 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-007-9042-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-007-9042-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation