The Evolution of Research on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning

From Design to Orchestration
  • Pierre Dillenbourg
  • Sanna Järvelä
  • Frank Fischer

This chapter summarizes two decades of research on computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL). We first review the key idea that has emerged, namely the fact that collaboration among peers can be “designed”, that is, directly or indirectly shaped by the CSCL environment. Second, we stress the fact that affective and motivational aspects that influence collaborative learning have been neglected by experimental CSCL researchers. Finally, we point out the emergence of a new trend or new challenge: integration of CSCL activities into larger pedagogical scenarios that include multiple activities and must be orchestrated in real time by the teacher.


Learning technologies Collaborative learning Collaboration scripts Technology-enhanced learning Shared knowledge Motivation Self-regulation 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Anderson, J. R., Greeno,J. G., Reder,L. M., & Simon, H. A. (2000). Perspectives on learning, thinking, and activity. Educational Researcher, 29(4), 11–13.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, A. H., Smallwood,L., MacDonald,R., Mullin,J., Fleming,A., & O’Malley, C. (2000). Video data and video links in mediated communication: What do users value ? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 52, 165–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arnseth, H. C., & Ludvigsen, S. (2006). Systemic versus dialogic research in CSCL. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1, 167–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Azevedo, R. (2005). Using hypermedia as a metacognitive tool for enhancing student learning? The role of self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 40, 199–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Azevedo, R., & Hadwin, A. F. (2005). Scaffolding self-regulated learning and metacognition: Implications for the design of computer-based scaffolds. Instructional Science, 33, 367–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baker, M., & Lund, K. (1997). Promoting reflective interactions in a CSCL environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 13, 175–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bauer, K., & Fischer, F. (2007). The educational research-practice interface revisited: A scripting perspective. Educational Research and Evaluation, 13, 221–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bielaczyk, K., & Collins, A. (1999). Learning communities in classrooms: A reconceptualization of educational practice. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (pp. 269–291). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  9. Blumenfeld, P., Kempler,T., & Krajcik, J. (2006). Motivation and cognitive engagement in learning environments. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 475–488). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Blumenfeld, P., Marx,R., Soloway,E., & Krajcik, J. (1996). Learning with peers: From small group cooperation to collaborative communities. Educational Researcher, 25(8), 37–40.Google Scholar
  11. Boekaerts, M., & Corno, L. (2005). Self-regulation in the classroom: A perspective on assessment and intervention. (Applied Psychology: An International Review, 54), 199–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Boekaerts, M., Pintrich,P. R., & Zeidner, M. (Eds.). (2000). Handbook of self-regulation. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  13. Burdett, J. (2003). Making groups work: University students’ perceptions. International Education Journal, 4, 177–191.Google Scholar
  14. Clark, H. H., & Brennan, S. E. (1991). Grounding in communication. In L. B. Resnick, J. Levine & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 127–149). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Crook, C. (2000). Motivation and the ecology of collaborative learning. In R. Joiner, K. Littleton, D. Faulkner, & D. Miell (Eds.), Rethinking collaborative learning (pp. 161–178). London: Free Association Books.Google Scholar
  16. Dickson, W. P., & Vereen, M. A. (1983). Two students at one microcomputer. Theory into Practice, 22, 296–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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, The Netherlands: Open Universiteit Nederland.Google Scholar
  18. Dillenbourg, P. (2005). Designing biases that augment socio-cognitive interactions. In R. Bromme, F. Hesse & H. Spada (Eds.), Barriers and biases in computer-mediated knowledge communication (pp. 243–264). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dillenbourg, P., & Fischer, F. (2007). Basics of computer-supported collaborative learning. Zeitschrift für Berufs- und Wirtschaftspädagogik, 21, 111–130.Google Scholar
  20. Dillenbourg, P., & Jermann, P. (2007). Designing integrative scripts. In F. Fischer, H. Mandl, Haake & I. Kollar (Eds.), Scripting computer supported communication of knowledge: Cognitive, computational and educational perspectives (pp. 275–301). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  21. Dillenbourg, P., & Tchounikine, P. (2007). Flexibility in macro-scripts for computer-supported collaborative learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dillenbourg, P., Baker,M., Blaye,A., & O’Malley, C. (1996). The evolution of research on collaborative learning. In E. Spada & P. Reimann (Eds.), Learning in humans and machine: Towards an interdisciplinary learning science (pp. 189–211). Oxford, United Kingdom: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  23. Dönmez, P., Rosè,C. P., Stegmann,K., Weinberger,A., & Fischer, F. (2005, May). Supporting CSCL with automatic corpus analysis technology. Paper presented at the International Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) 2005: The Next 10 Years, Taipei, Taiwan.Google Scholar
  24. Feltovich, P. J., Spiro,R. J., Coulson,R. L., & Feltovich, J. (1996). Collaboration within and among minds: Mastering complexity, individually and in groups. In T. Koschman (Ed.), Computer systems for collaborative learning (pp. 25–44). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  25. Fischer, F., & Dillenbourg, P. (2006, April). Challenges of orchestrating computer-supported collaborative learning. Paper presented at the 87th. Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA), San Francisco, USA.Google Scholar
  26. Fischer, F., & Mandl, H. (2005). Knowledge convergence in computer-supported collaborative learning – the role of external representation tools. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14, 405–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fischer, F., Wecker,C., Schrader,J., Gerjets,P. H., & Hesse, F. W. (2005, August). Use-inspired basic research on the orchestration of cognition, instruction and technology in the classroom. Paper presented at the SIG Invited Symposium “Instructional design and empirical research: Experiments and/or design experiments” at the 11th Conference of the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction (EARLI), Nicosia, Cyprus.Google Scholar
  28. Fussell, S. R., Kraut,R. E., & Siegel, J. (2000). Coordination of communication: Effects of shared visual context on collaborative work. In W. Kellogg & S. Whittaker (Eds.), Proceedings of CSCW 2000 (pp. 21–30). New York: ACM PressGoogle Scholar
  29. Goodyear, P., Jones,C., Asensio,M., Hodgson,V., & Steeples, C. (2004). Undergraduate students’ experiences of networked learning in UK higher education: A survey-based study. In P. Goodyear, S. Banks, V. Hodgson & D. McConnell (Eds.), Advances in research on networked learning (pp. 91–121). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Greenberg, S., & Fitchett, C. (2001). Phidgets: Easy development of physical interfaces through physical widgets. In J. Marks & E. Mynatt (Eds.), Proceedings of the 14th Annual ACM Symposium on User interface Software and Technology (pp. 209–218). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  31. Haake, J. (2006, May). Editable chat logs: A concept for seamless integration of chat conversations and documents in shared workspaces. Paper presented at COOP 2006: 7th International Conference on the Design of Cooperative Systems, Carry-le-Rouet, France.Google Scholar
  32. Hadwin, A. F., Winne,P. H., & Nesbit, J. C. (2005). Roles for software technologies in advancing research and theory in educational psychology. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hadwin, A., Oshige,M., Gress,G. Z., & Winne, P. (in press). Innovative ways for using gStudy to orchestrate and research social aspects of self-regulated learning. Computers in Human Behavior, doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2007.06.007.Google Scholar
  34. Hakkarainen, K., Lipponen,L., & Järvelä, S. (2002). Epistemology of inquiry and computer-supported collaborative learning. In T. Koschmann, N. Miyake & R. Hall (Eds.), CSCL2: Carrying forward the conversation (pp. 129–156). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  35. Hammond, M. (1999). Issues associated with participation in on line forums – the case of the communicative learner. Education and Information Technologies, 4, 353–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hickey, D. T., Moore,A. L., & Pellegrino, J. W. (2001). The motivational and academic consequences of elementary mathematics environments: Do constructivist innovations and reforms make a difference? American Educational Research Journal, 38, 611–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hoadley, C. (2004). Methodological alignment in design-based research. Educational Psychologist, 39, 203–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hollan, J., & Stornetta, S. (1992). Beyond being there. In P. Bauersfeld, J. Bennett & G. Lynch, (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer-Human Interaction (CHI’92) (pp. 119–125). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  39. Hurme, T-R., Merenluoto,K., Salonen,P., & Järvelä, S. (2007). Metacognition as shared process in networked mathematical problem solving. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  40. Ishii, H., & Ullmer, B., 1997. Tangible bits: Towards seamless interfaces between people, bits and atoms. In S. Pemberton (Ed.), Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 234–241). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  41. Järvelä, S., & Häkkinen, P. (2002). Web-based cases in teaching and learning: The quality of discussions and a stage of perspective taking in asynchronous communication. Interactive Learning Environments, 10, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Järvenoja, H., & Järvelä, S. (2005). How students describe the sources of their emotional and motivational experiences during the learning process: A qualitative approach. Learning and Instruction, 15, 465–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Järvelä, S., & Niemivirta, M. (2001). Motivation in context: Challenges and possibilities in studying the role of motivation in new pedagogical cultures. In S. Volet & S. Järvelä (Eds.), Motivation in leaning contexts (pp. 105–127). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  44. Järvelä, S., & Volet, S. (2004). Motivation in real-life, dynamic and interactive learning environments: Stretching constructs and methodologies. European Psychologist, 9, 193–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Järvelä, S., Järvenoja,H., & Veermans, M. (2007). Understanding dynamics of motivation in socially shared learning. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  46. Järvelä, S., Volet,S., & Järvenoja, H. (2007). Motivation in collaborative learning: New concepts and methods for studying social processes of motivation. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  47. Jeong, H., & Chi, M. (2007). Knowledge convergence and collaborative learning. Instructional Science, 35, 287–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Jermann, P., Soller,A., & Muhlenbrock, M. (2001). From mirroring to guiding: A review of state of the art technology for supporting collaborative learning. In P. Dillenbourg, A. Eurelings & K. Hakkarainen (Eds.), Proceedings of EuroCSCL (pp. 324–331). Maastricht, The Netherlands: McLuhan Institute.Google Scholar
  49. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1999). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning (5th edn.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  50. Jones, A., & Isroff, K. (2005). Learning technologies: Affective and social issues in computer-supported collaborative learning. (Computers & Education, 44), 395–408.Google Scholar
  51. Kaplan, F., Do Lenh, S., Bachour,K., Kao,G., Gault,C., & Dillenbourg, P. (2009). Interpersonal computers for higher education. In P. Dillenbourg, J. Huang & M. Cherubini (Eds.), Collaborative artefacts and interactive furniture (pp. 129–145). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  52. Kirschner, P. A., Sweller,J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based experiential and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41, 75–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Kollar, I., Fischer,F., & Hesse, F. W. (2006). Collaboration scripts – a conceptual analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 18, 159–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Kollar, I., Fischer,F., & Slotta, J. D. (2007). Internal and external scripts in computer-supported collaborative inquiry learning. Learning and Instruction, 17, 708–722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Kuutti, K., & Kaptelinin, V. (1997). Rethinking cognitive tools: From augmentation to mediation. In P. Marsh, C. Nehaniv & B. Gorayska (Eds.), Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Cognitive Technology (pp. 31–32). Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE.Google Scholar
  56. Lavie, A., & Rosè, C. P. (2004) . Optimal ambiguity packing in context-free parsers with interleaved unification. In H. Bunt, J. Carroll & G. Satta (Eds.), New developments in parsing technologies (pp. 307–321). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Press.Google Scholar
  57. Mäkitalo, K., Häkkinen,P., Järvelä,S., & Leinonen, P. (2002). The mechanisms of common ground in the web-based interaction. The Internet and Higher Education, 5, 247–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Manlove, S., Lazonder,A., & de Jong, T. (2005, April). Supporting collaborative self-regulation during online scientific inquiry learning. Paper presented at AERA 2005 Annual Meeting, Montreal, Canada.Google Scholar
  59. Nova, N., Girardin,F., & Dillenbourg, P. (2005). “Location is not enough!”: An empirical study of location-awareness in mobile collaboration. In H. Ogata & M. Sharples (Eds.), Proceedings of the Third IEEE International Workshop on Wireless and Mobile Technologies in Education (pp. 21–28). Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Press.Google Scholar
  60. O’Donnell, A. N., & Dansereau, D. F. (1992). Scripted cooperation in student dyads: A method for analyzing and enhancing academic learning and performance. In R. Hertz-Lazarowitz & N. Miller (Eds.), Interactions in cooperative groups: The theoretical anatomy of group learning (pp. 120–141). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  61. Olson, J. S., Olson,G. M., & Meader, D. K. (1995). What mix of video and audio is useful for remote real-time work. Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 362–368). Denver, CO: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  62. 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, 423–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Pellegrino, J. W., & Goldman, S. R. (2002). Be careful what you wish for: You may get it: Educational research in the spotlight. Educational Researcher, 31(8), 15–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Prante, T., Streitz,N. A., & Tandler, P. (2004). Roomware: Computers disappear and interaction evolves. IEEE Computer, 37, 47–54.Google Scholar
  65. Resnick, L. B. (1991). Shared cognition: Thinking as social practice. In L. Resnick, J. Levine & S. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 1–22). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 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. 69–97). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  67. Rosè, C. P., Wang,Y. C., Arguello,J., Stegmann,K., Weinberger,A., & Fischer, F. (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(3), 237–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Russell, D., Streitz,N. A., & Winograd, T. (2005). Building disappearing computers. Communications of the ACM, 48, 42–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Salomon, G., & Globerson, T. (1989). When teams do not function the way they ought to. International Journal of Educational Research, 13, 89–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge-building communities. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3, 265–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Schellens, T., & Valcke, M. (2005). Collaborative learning in asynchronous discussion groups: What about the impact on cognitive processing? Computers in Human Behavior, 21, 957–975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Schwartz, D. L. (1995). The emergence of abstract dyad representations in dyad problem solving. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4, 321–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Singer, J., Marx,R., Krajick,J., & Chambers, J. (2000). Constructing extended inquiry projects: Curriculum materials for science education reform. Educational Psychologist, 35, 165–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Strijbos, J. W., & Fischer, F. (2007). Methodological challenges for collaborative learning research. Learning and Instruction, 17, 389–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Summers, J. J. (2006). Effects of collaborative learning in math on sixth graders individual goal orientations from a socio-constructivist perspective. The Elementary School Journal, 106, 273–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Suthers, D., & Hundhausen, C. D. (2003). An experimental study of the effects of representational guidance on collaborative learning processes. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 183–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 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.), AI-Ed 95, the 7th world conference on artificial intelligence in education (pp. 266–273) Charlottesville, VA: AACE.Google Scholar
  78. Tabak, I. (2004). Synergy: A complement to emerging patterns of distributed scaffolding. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13, 305–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Ullmer, B., & Ishii, H. (2000). Emerging frameworks for tangible user interfaces. IBM Systems Journal, 393, 915–931.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Volet, S. E., & Karabenick, S. (2006). Help-seeking in cultural context. In S. Karabenick & R. Newman (Eds.), Help seeking in academic settings: Goals, groups and contexts. (pp. 117–150). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  81. 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 Macmillan.Google Scholar
  82. Wecker, C., & Fischer, F. (2007). Fading scripts in computer-supported collaborative learning: The role of distributed monitoring. In C. Chinn, G. Erkens & S. Puntambekar (Eds.), Proceedings of the CSCL 2007 (pp. 763–771). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  83. Wegerif, R. (2007). Dialogic education and technology: Expanding the space of learning. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Series. Berlin, Germany: Springer.Google Scholar
  84. Weinberger, A., Ertl,B., Fischer,F., & Mandl, H. (2005). Epistemic and social scripts in computer-supported collaborative learning. Instructional Science, 33, 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Weiser, M. (1993). Ubiquitous computing. IEEE Computer, 26(10), 71–72.Google Scholar
  86. de Wever, B., van Keer, H., Schellens,T., & Valcke, M. (2007). Applying multilevel modelling on content analysis data: Methodological issues in the study of the impact of role assignment in asynchronous discussion groups. Learning and Instruction, 17, 436–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Winne, P. H., Nesbit,J. C., Kumar,V., Hadwin,A. F., Lajoie,S. P., Azevedo,R. A., & Perry, N. E. (2006). Supporting self-regulated learning with gStudy software: The Learning Kit Project. Technology, Instruction, Cognition and Learning, 3, 105–113.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pierre Dillenbourg
    • 1
  • Sanna Järvelä
    • 2
  • Frank Fischer
    • 3
  1. 1.CRAFTSchool of Computer and Communication Sciences, Ecole Polytechnique Fèdèrale de LausanneSwitzerland
  2. 2.Department of Educational Sciences and Teacher EducationUniversity of OuluFinland
  3. 3.Department of PsychologyUniversity of MunichGermany

Personalised recommendations