Extending the SIPS-Model: A Research Framework for Online Collaborative Learning

  • Karel Kreijns
  • Paul A. Kirschner
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11082)


The SIPS-model, introduced to emphasize social aspects of online collaborative learning (OCL) expresses the degree to which online environments for collaborative learning support social aspects through social affordances by the sociability attribute. However, OCL-environments are primarily meant to support collaborative learning. Hence, SIPS was extended by adding an educability attribute to express the degree to which these environments have educational affordances for collaborative learning (CL). In this paper, we propose a second extension, adding hedonicity to express the extent to which OCL-environments give pleasure and enjoyment during the interacting with them. By adding hedonicity, we stress that learning should not only be effective and efficient but also enjoyable. That aspect, though missing in SIPS, is an important element in learning. To reduce complexity of the SIPS-model caused by the two extensions, SIPS is split into three distinct sub-models: the PIP-, SIP-, and HES-model. By characterizing OCL-environments by the attributes hedonicity, educability, and sociability, we can more accurately evaluate the impact of OCL-environments on social presence, participation, social interaction, and social space which are needed for socio-cognitive (where group learning/knowledge construction takes place) and socio-emotional processes (where group forming/dynamics takes place) in groups. The TEL-community should take up the non-trivial task of designing OLC-environments that possess hedonicity, educability, and sociability through their respective affordances.


Online collaborative learning Hedonicity Educability Sociability Social presence Social space Affordances Extended SIPS-model CSCL 


  1. 1.
    Ali-Hassan, H., Nevo, D., Wade, M.: Linking dimensions of social media use to job performance: The role of social capital. J. Strateg. Inf. Syst. 24(2), 65–89 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Argyle, M., Dean, J.: Eye contact, distance and affiliation. Sociometry 28, 289–304 (1965)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Aronson, E., Patnoe, S.: The jigsaw classroom. Addison Wesley Longman, New York (1997)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Blythe, M., Monk, A. (eds.): Funology 2: From usability to enjoyment. Springer, Cham (2018)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brandtzæg, P.B., Heim, J.: Why people use social networking sites. In: Ozok, A.A., Zaphiris, P. (eds.) OCSC 2009. LNCS, vol. 5621, pp. 143–152. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chen, W.-K., Chang, D.-S., Chen, C.-C.: The role of utilitarian and hedonic values on users’ continued usage and purchase intention in a social commerce environment. J. Econ. Manag. 13(2), 193–220 (2017)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Daft, R.L., Lengel, R.H.: Information richness: a new approach to managerial behavior and organizational behavior, vol. 6, pp. 191–233. JAI Press, Greenwich (1984)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dichiva, D., Dichev, C., Agre, G., Angelova, G.: Gamification in education: A systematic mapping study. Educ. Technol. Soc. 18(3), 1–14 (2015)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Festinger, L., Schachter, S.S., Back, K.W.: Social pressures in informal groups: A study of human factors in housing. Stanford University Press, Stanford (1950)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fischer, F., Kollar, I., Stegmann, K., Wecker, C.: Toward a script theory of guidance in computer-supported collaborative learning. Educ. Psychol. 48(1), 56–66 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Garrison, D.R., Anderson, T., Archer, W.: Critical thinking in a text-based environment: computer conferencing in higher education. Internet High. Educ. 2(2), 87–105 (2000)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gilson, L.L., Goldberg, C.B.: Editors’ comment: so, what is a conceptual paper? Group Organ. Manag. 40(2), 127–130 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gunawardena, C.N.: Social presence theory and implications for interaction and collaborative learning in computer conferences. Int. J. Educ. Telecommun. 1(2&3), 147–166 (1995)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hostetter, C., Bush, M.: Community matters: social presence and learning outcomes. J. Sch. Teach. Learn. 13(1), 77–86 (2013)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Huang, W.H-Y., Soman, D.: A practitioner’s guide to gamification of education. Research Report Series: Behavioural Economics in Action, University of Toronto, Rotman School of Management (2013)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Huotari, K., Hamari, J.: Defining gamification: a service marketing perspective. In: Proceedings of the 16th International Academic MindTrek Conference, pp. 17–22. ACM, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jacques, D.: Learning in groups, 2nd edn. Kogan Page, London (1992)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T.: An educational psychology success story: social interdependence theory and cooperative learning. Educ. Res. 38(5), 365–379 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T.: Critical thinking through structured controversy. Educ. Leadersh. 45(8), 58–64 (1988)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., Smith, K.A.: Cooperative learning: improving university instruction by basing practice on validated theory. J. Excell. Coll. Teach. 25(3–4), 85–118 (2014)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kapur, M.: Examining productive failure, productive success, unproductive failure, and unproductive success in learning. Educ. Psychol. 51(2), 289–299 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Katz, E., Blumler, J.G., Gurevitch, M.: Uses and gratifications research. Public Opin. Q. 37(4), 509–523 (1973)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kirschner, P.A., Gerjets, P.: Instructional design for effective and enjoyable computer-supported learning. Comput. Hum. Behav. 22(1), 1–9 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kirschner, P.A., Sweller, J., Kirschner, F., Zambrano, J.R.: From cognitive load theory to collaborative cognitive load theory. Int. J. Comput.-Support. Collab. Learn. (2018) (First online)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kirschner, P.A., Kreijns, K., Phielix, C., Fransen, J.: Awareness of cognitive and social behaviour in a CSCL environment. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 31(1), 59–77 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Krämer, N.C., Winter, S.: Impression management 2.0: the relationship of self-esteem, extraversion, self-efficacy, and self-presentation within social networking sites. J. Media Psychol. 20(3), 106–116 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kreijns, K.: Sociable CSCL environments: social affordances, sociability, and social presence. Unpublished PhD dissertation. Open Universiteit Nederland, Heerlen (2004)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kreijns, K., Weidlich, J., Rajagopal, K.: The psychometric properties of a preliminary social presence measure using Rasch analysis. In: V. Pammer-Schindler et al. (Eds.): EC-TEL 2018, LNCS 11082, pp. X–XY. Springer, AG (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P.A., Vermeulen, M.: Social aspects of CSCL environments: a research framework. Educ. Psychol. 48(4), 229–242 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P.A., Jochems, W.: Identifying the pitfalls for social interaction in computer-supported collaborative learning environments: a review of the research. Comput. Hum. Behav. 19(3), 335–353 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P. A., Jochems, W.: Supporting social interaction for group dynamics through social affordances in CSCL: group awareness widgets. Paper presented at the 10th European Conference for Research on Learning and Instruction (EARLI). Padova, Italy (2003)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P.A., Jochems, W.: The sociability of computer-supported collaborative learning environments. J. Educ. Technol. Soc. 5(1), 8–22 (2002)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P.A., Jochems, W., van Buuren, H.: Measuring perceived sociability of computer-supported collaborative learning environments. Comput. Educ. 49(2), 176–192 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P.A., Jochems, W., van Buuren, H.: Measuring perceived quality of social space in distributed learning groups. Comput. Hum. Behav. 20(5), 607–632 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Landers, R.N., Armstrong, M.B.: Enhancing instructional outcomes with gamification: an empirical test of the technology-enhanced training effectiveness model. Comput. Hum. Behav. 71, 499–507 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Lowenthal, P.R., Snelson, C.: In search of a better understanding of social presence: an investigation into how researchers define social presence. Distance Educ. 38(2), 1–19 (2017)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    McQuail, D.: Mass communication theory: An introduction. Sage, London (1994)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Moore, M.G.: Theory of transactional distance. In: Keegan, D. (ed.) Theoretical principles of distance education, pp. 22–38. Routledge, Abingdon (1993)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Morrison, B., Collins, A.: Epistemic fluency and constructivist learning environments. In: Wilson, B. (ed.) constructivist learning environments, pp. 107–119. Educational Technology Press, Englewood Cliffs (1996)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Nielsen, J.: Usability engineering. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Francisco (1994)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    OECD: PISA 2015 Results (Volume V): Collaborative Problem Solving. PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris (2017)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Ohlsson, S.: Learning to do and learning to understand: a lesson and a challenge for cognitive modeling. In: Reimann, P., Spada, H. (eds.) Learning in humans and machines, pp. 37–62. Pergamon, Oxford (1996)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Richardson, J.C., Maeda, Y., Lv, J., Caskurlu, S.: Social presence in relation to students’ satisfaction and learning in the online environment: a meta-analysis. Comput. Hum. Behav. 71, 402–417 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Rourke, L., Anderson, T.: Exploring social communication in asynchronous, text-based computer conferences. J. Interact. Learn. Res. 13(3), 259–275 (2002)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Preece, J.: Online communities: designing usability, supporting sociability. Wiley, New York (2000)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C.: Knowledge building: theory, pedagogy, and technology. In: Sawyer, K. (ed.) Cambridge Handbook of the learning sciences, pp. 97–118. Cambridge University Press, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Siemens, G.: Learning and Academic Analytics (2011). Accessed 17 Jun 2018
  48. 48.
    Short, J., Williams, E., Christie, B.: The social psychology of telecommunications. Wiley, London (1976)Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Smith, M., Kollock, P. (eds.): Communities in cyberspace. Routledge, London (1998)Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Sproull, L., Kiesler, S.: Connections: New ways of working in the networked organization. MIT Press, Cambridge (1991)Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Suh, A., Wagner, C.: How gamification of an enterprise collaboration system increases knowledge contribution: an affordance approach. J. Knowl. Manag. 21(2), 416–431 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Sweller, J., Ayres, P., Kalyuga, S. (eds.): Cognitive load theory. Springer, New York (2011)Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Von Krogh, G., Nonaka, I., Ichijo, K.: Enabling knowledge creation. Oxford University Press, New York (2000)Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Walther, J.B.: Impression development in computer-mediated interaction. W. J. Commun. 57, 381–398 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Walther, J.B.: Computer-mediated communication: impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Commun. Res. 23(1), 3–43 (1996)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Walther, J.B.: Visual cues and computer-mediated communication: don’t look before you leap. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association. San Francisco (1999)Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Weidlich, J.B., Bastiaens, T.: Explaining social presence and the quality of online learning with the SIPS model. Comput. Hum. Behav. 72, 479–487 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Weinberger, A.: Scripts for computer-supported collaborative learning: effects of social and epistemic scripts on collaborative knowledge construction. Unpublished PhD dissertation. Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, München (2003)Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Weinberger, A., Fischer, F.: A framework to analyze argumentative knowledge construction in computer-supported collaborative learning. Comput. Educ. 46(1), 71–95 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Wiener, M., Mehrabian, A.: Language within language: immediacy, a channel in verbal communication. Apple-Century-Crofts, New York (1968)Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Zhao, H., Sullivan, K.P.H., Mellenius, I.: Participation, interaction and social presence: an exploratory study of collaboration in online peer review groups. Br. J. Edu. Technol. 45(5), 807–819 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Open Universiteit NederlandHeerlenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.University of OuluOuluFinland

Personalised recommendations