Skip to main content

Technology affordances for intersubjective meaning making: A research agenda for CSCL

International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning volume 1, pages 315–337 (2006)Cite this article

Abstract

Now well into its second decade, the field of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) appears healthy, encompassing a diversity of topics of study, methodologies, and representatives of various research communities. It is an appropriate time to ask: what central questions can integrate our work into a coherent field? This paper proposes the study of technology affordances for intersubjective meaning making as an integrating research agenda for CSCL. A brief survey of epistemologies of collaborative learning and forms of computer support for that learning characterize the field to be integrated and motivate the proposal. A hybrid of experimental, descriptive and design methodologies is proposed in support of this agenda. A working definition of intersubjective meaning making as joint composition of interpretations of a dynamically evolving context is provided, and used to propose a framework around which dialogue between analytic approaches can take place.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

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

References

  • Anderson, J. R., Corbett, A. T., Koedinger, K. R., & Pelletier, R. (1995). Cognitive tutors: Lessons learned. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(2), 167–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andriessen, J., Baker, M., & Suthers, D. (Eds.) (2003). Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker, M. (2003). Computer-mediated argumentative interactions for the co-elaboration of scientific notations. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 47–78). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker, M., Hansen, T., Joiner, R., & Traum, D. (1999). The role of grounding in collaborative learning tasks. In Dillenbourg (Ed.), Collaborative learning: Cognitive and computational approaches (pp. 31–63). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker, M., & Lund, K. (1997). Promoting reflective interactions in a CSCL environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 13, 175–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barab, S., & Squire, K. (2004). Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blackwell, A., & Green, T. (2003). Notational systems—The cognitive dimensions of notations framework. In J. M. Carroll (Ed.), HCI Models, theories and frameworks: Towards a multidisciplinary science (pp. 103–133). San Francisco: Mogan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bromme, R., Hesse, F. W., & Spada, H. (Eds.) (2005). Barriers and biases in computer-mediated knowledge communication—And how they may be overcome. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.

  • Bronckart, J. P. (1995). Theories of action, speech, natural language, and discourse. In J. V. Wertsch, P. Del Rio, & A. Alvarez (Eds.), Sociocultural studies of mind (pp. 75–91). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Button, G. Y., & Dourish, P. (1996). Technomethodology: Paradoxes and possibilities. In M. Tauber (Ed.), Proc. ACM conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 19–26). New York: ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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). Hyattsville, MD: American Psychological Association.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Colella, V. (2002). Participatory simulations: Building collaborative understanding through immersive dynamic modeling. In T. Koschmann, R. Hall, & N. Miyake (Eds.), CSCL 2: Carrying forward the conversation (pp. 357–391). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cresswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dervin, B. (2003). Chaos, order, and sense-making: A proposed theory for information design. In B. Dervin, L. Foreman-Wernet, E. Lauterbach (Eds.), Sense-making methodology reader selected writings of Brenda Dervin (pp. 325–340). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dillenbourg, P. (1999). What do you mean by “collaborative learning”? In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Collaborative learning: Cognitive and computational approaches. (pp. 1–19). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dillenbourg, P. (2002). Over-scripting 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. (2005). Designing biases that augment socio-cognitive interactions. In R. Bromme, F. W. Hesse, & H. Spada (Eds.), Barriers and biases in computer-mediated knowledge communication—And how they may be overcome (pp. 243–264). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Doise, W., & Mugny, G. (1984). The social development of the intellect. Oxford: Pergamon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dwyer, N., & Suthers, D. (2005). A study of the foundations of artifact-mediated collaboration. In T. Koschmann, D. Suthers, & T. W. Chan (Eds.), Proceedings of CSCL 2005: The next 10 years! (pp. 135–144.) Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engeström, Y. (2001) Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erickson, T., & Kellogg, W. A. (2000). Social translucence: An approach to designing systems that support social processes. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 7(1), 59–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, G., & Ostwald, J. (2005). Knowledge communication in design communities. In R. Bromme, F. W. Hesse, & H. Spada (Eds.), Barriers and biases in computer-mediated knowledge communication—And how they may be overcome (pp. 213–242). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, J. J. (1977). The theory of affordances. In R. Shaw & J. Bransford (Eds.), Perceiving, acting and knowing (pp. 67–82). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldman, R., Crosby, M., Swan, K., & Shea, P. (2004). Introducing quisitive research: Expanding qualitative methods for describing learning in ALN. In R. Starr Hiltz & R. Goldman (Eds.), Learning together online: Research on asynchronous learning networks (pp. 103–121). Mahwah, New Jersey: LEA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guzdial, M., Hmelo, C., Hubscher, R., Newstetter, W., Puntambekar, S., Shabo, A., et al. (1997). Integrating and guiding collaboration: Lessons learned in computer-supported collaboration learning research at Georgia Tech. In R. Hall, N. Miyake, & N. Enyedy (Eds.), Proceedings of computer support for collaborative learning 1997 (pp. 91–100). Toronto: University of Toronto.

    Google Scholar 

  • Häkkinen, P., Järvelä, S., & Mäkitalo, K. (2003). Sharing perspectives in virtual interaction: Review of methods of analysis. In B. Wasson, S. Ludvigsen, & U. Hoppe (Eds.), Proceedings of CSCL 2003: Designing for change in networked learning environments (pp. 395–404). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, T., Dirckinck-Holmfeld, L., Lewis, R., & Rugelj, J. (1999). Using telematics for collaborative knowledge construction. In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Collaborative learning: Cognitive and computational approaches (pp. 169–196). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hermann, D. (Ed.) (2003). Narrative theory and the cognitive sciences. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hollan, J., Hutchins, E., & Kirsh, D. (2002). Distributed cognition: Toward a new foundation for human-computer interaction research. In J. M. Carroll (Ed.), Human–computer interaction in the new millennium (pp. 75–94). New York: ACM/Addison Wesley. (Reprinted from ACM Transactions on Computer–Human Interaction, 7(2), June 2000.).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hollan, J., & Stornetta, S. (1992). Beyond being there. In P. Bauersfeld, J. Bennett, & G. Lynch (Eds.), Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 119–125). New York: ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jermann, P., & Dillenbourg, P. (2003). Elaborating new arguments through a CSCL script. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 205–226). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jermann, P., Soller, A., & Lesgold, A. (2004). Computer software support for CSCL. In J. W. Strijbos, P. A. Kirschner, & R. L. Martens (Eds.), What we know about CSCL and implementing it in higher education (pp. 141–166). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, R. B, & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jordan, B., & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(1), 39–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaput, J., & Hegedus, S. (2002). Exploiting classroom connectivity by aggregating student constructions to create new learning opportunities. In A. D. Cockburn & E. Nardi (Eds.), Proceedings of the 26th annual conference of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education, vol. 3 (pp. 177–184). University of East Anglia: Norwich, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kato, H., Yamazaki, K., Suzuki, H., Kuzuoka, H., Miki, H., & Yamazaki, A. (2001). Designing a video-mediated collaboration system based on a body metaphor. In T. Koschmann, R. Hall, & N. Miyake (Eds.), CSCL 2: Carrying forward the conversation (pp. 409–423). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    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). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Koschmann, T. (2002). Dewey’s contribution to the foundations of CSCL research. In G. Stahl (Ed.), Proceedings of CSCL 2002: Foundations for a CSCL community (pp. 17–22). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koschmann, T., & LeBaron, C. (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: Proc. Eighth European conference on computer-supported cooperative work. Amsterdam: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koschmann, T., Stahl, G., & Zemel, A. (2004). The video analyst’s manifesto (or the implications of Garfinkel’s policies for the development of a program of video analytic research within the learning sciences). In Y. Kafai, W. Sandoval, N. Enyedy, A. Nixon, & F. Herrera (Eds.), Proceedings of the sixth international conference of the learning sciences (pp. 278–285). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koschmann, T., Zemel, A., Conlee-Stevens, M., Young, N., Robbs, J., & Barnhart, A. (2003). Problematizing the problem: A single case analysis in a dPBL Meeting. In B. Wasson, S. Ludvigsen, & U. Hoppe (Eds.), Proceedings of CSCL 2003: Designing for change in networked learning environments (pp. 37–46). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koschmann, T., Zemel, A., Conlee-Stevens, M., Young, N., Robbs, J., & Barnhart, A. (2005). How do people learn? Members’ methods and communicative mediation. In R. Bromme, F. W. Hesse, & H. Spada (Eds.), Barriers and biases in computer-mediated knowledge communication—And how they may be overcome (pp. 265–294). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kreijns, K., & Kirschner, P. A. (2004). Designing sociable CSCL environments. In Strijbos, Kirschner, & Martens (Eds.), What we know about CSCL and implementing it in higher education (pp. 221–243). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (1990). Drawing things together. In M. Lynch & S. Woolgar (Eds.), Representation in scientific practice (pp. 19–68.). Cambridge, MA: MIT.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Lingnau, A., Hoppe, H. U., Mannhaupt, G. (2003). Computer supported collaborative writing in an early learning classroom. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19(2), 186–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matusov, E. (1996). Intersubjectivity without agreement. Mind, Culture and Activity, 3(1), 25–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norman, D. N. (1999). Affordance, conventions, and design. ACM interactions, 6(3), 38–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nunberg, G. (1993). Indexicality and deixis. Linguistics and Philosophy, 16(1), 1–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olson, G. M., & Olson, J. S. (2000). Distance matters. Human–computer interaction, 15(2/3), 139–178. (Reprinted in: J. M Carroll (Ed.), (2002). Human–computer interaction in the new Millennum (pp. 397–417). New York: ACM.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pfister, H. R. (2005). How to support synchronous net-based learning discourses: Principles and perspectives. In R. Bromme, F. W. Hesse, & H. Spada (Eds.), Barriers and biases in computer-mediated knowledge communication—And how they may be overcome (pp. 39–58). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Piaget, J. (1976). The grasp of consciousness: Action and concept in the young child. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Resnick, P. (2002). Beyond bowling together: Sociotechnical capital. In J. M. Carroll (Ed.), Human–computer interaction in the new millennium (pp. 647–672). New York: ACM Addison Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rieber, L. P. (2004). Microworlds. In D. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (2nd ed.) (pp. 583–603). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robertson, J, Good, J., Pain, H. (1998). BetterBlether: The design and evaluation of a discussion tool for education. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 9 Online: http://cbl.leeds.ac.uk/ijaied/abstracts/Vol_9/robertson.html.

  • Rogoff, B. (1995). Observing sociocultural activity on three planes: Participatory appropriation, guided participation, and apprenticeship. In J. V. Wertsch, P. Del Rio, & A. Alvarez (Eds.), Sociocultural studies of mind (pp. 139–164). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roschelle, J. (1994, May). Designing for cognitive communication: Epistemic fidelity or mediating collaborative inquiry? The Arachnet Electronic Journal of Virtual Culture, 2(2) Retrieved from http://www.infomotions.com/serials/aejvc/aejvc-v2n02-roschelle-designing.txt.

  • Roschelle, J., & Teasley, S. D. (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 

  • Rummel, N., & Spada, H. (2005). Sustainable support for computer-mediated collaboration. How to achieve and how to assess it. In R. Bromme, F. W. Hesse, & H. Spada (Eds.), Barriers and biases in computer-mediated knowledge communication—And how they may be overcome. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking in conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1991). Higher levels of agency for children in knowledge building: A challenge for the design of new knowledge media. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1(1), 37–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaffer, D. W., & Clinton, K. A. (2005). Why all CSL is CL: Distributed mind and the future of computer supported collaborative learning. In T. Koschmann, D. Suthers, & T. W. Chan (Eds.), Proceedings of CSCL 2005: The next 10 years! (pp. 592–601). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slavin, R. E. (1995). Cooperative learning: Theory, research and practice, (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smolka, A. L. B., De Goes, M. C. R., & Pino, A. (1995). The constitution of the subject: A persistent question. In J. V. Wertsch, P. Del Rio, & A. Alvarez (Eds.), Sociocultural studies of mind (pp. 165–184). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stahl, G. (2000). Collaborative information environments to support knowledge construction by communities. AI & Society, 14, 71–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Star, S. L. (1990). The structure of ill-structured solutions: Boundary objects and heterogeneous distributed problem solving. In L. Gasser & M. N. Huhns (Eds.), Distributed artificial intelligence: vol. 2 (pp. 37–54). San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suthers, D. (2006). A qualitative analysis of collaborative knowledge construction through shared representations. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 1(2), 1–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suthers, D., Girardeau, L., & Hundhausen, C. (2003). Deictic roles of external representations in face-to-face and online collaboration. Proceedings of CSCL 2003: Designing for change in networked learning environments (pp. 173–182). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suthers, D., & Hundhausen, C. (2003). An empirical study of the effects of representational guidance on collaborative learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(2), 183–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. G. W. C. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toth, E., Suthers, D., & Lesgold, A. (2002). Mapping to know: The effects of evidence maps and reflective assessment on scientific inquiry skills. Science Education, 86(2), 264–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van der Pol, J., Admiraal, W., & Simons, R.-J. (2003). Grounding in electronic discussions: Standard (threaded) versus anchored discussion. In B. Wasson, S. Ludvigsen, & U. Hoppe (Eds.), Proceedings of CSCL 2003: Designing for change in networked learning environments (pp. 77–81). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Glasersfeld, E., (1995). A constructivist approach to teaching. In L. Steffe & J. Gale (Eds.), Constructivism in education (pp. 3–16). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (Originally published in 1930.)

    Google Scholar 

  • Wartofsky, M. (1979). Models, representation and scientific understanding. Boston, MA: Reidel.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weinberger, A., Reiserer, M., Ertl, B., Fischer, F., & Mandl, H. (2005). Facilitating collaborative knowledge construction in computer-mediated learning environments with cooperation scripts. In R. Bromme, F. W. Hesse, & H. Spada (Eds.), Barriers and biases in computer-mediated knowledge communication—And how they may be overcome. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wenger, E. (1987). Artificial intelligence and tutoring systems: Computational and cognitive approaches to the communication of knowledge. Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice: A guide to managing knowledge. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitworth, B., Gallupe, B., & McQueen, R. (2000). A cognitive three-process model of computer-mediated group interaction. Group Decision and Negotiation, 9, 431–456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yukawa, J. (2006). Co-reflection in online learning: Collaborative critical thinking as narrative. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(2), 203–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Information and Computer Sciences, University of Hawaii, 1680 East West Road, POST 309, Honolulu, HI, 96822, USA

    Daniel D. Suthers

Authors
  1. Daniel D. Suthers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniel D. Suthers.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Suthers, D.D. Technology affordances for intersubjective meaning making: A research agenda for CSCL. Computer Supported Learning 1, 315–337 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-006-9660-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-006-9660-y

Keywords

  • CSCL research agenda
  • Intersubjective meaning making
  • Representational guidance
  • Technology affordances