The Role of Communication and Facilitation for CSCL@Work

Part of the Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Series book series (CULS, volume 14)


This chapter deals with the role of communication and facilitation for computer-supported collaborative learning in the workplace (CSCL@work). The difficulty of gaining hands-on experience doing group work with distance education makes high quality and organization in technologically mediated communication vital. This chapter examines the role that facilitators can play in raising the quality of communication in CSCL@work. Based on related work on the facilitation of face-to-face and computer-supported communication a model of triadic communication is presented that focuses on the tasks of a facilitator. Triadic communication means communication with three roles (communicator, recipient, and facilitator). For these tasks technical support within a CSCL-system is developed and analyzed in two cases studies: one study dealing with the facilitation of asynchronous computer-supported learning and the other study with the facilitation of synchronous settings. Results of the studies concern technical features as well as facilitation strategies. From the results generic design principles for the facilitation of communication within CSCL at the workplace are derived and integrated on the model of triadic communication.


Collaborative Learning Synchronous Communication Discussion Thread Floor Control Asynchronous Discussion 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Collison, G., Elbaum, B., Haavind, S., & Tinker, R. (2000). Facilitating online learning. Effective strategies for moderators. Madison: Adwood.Google Scholar
  2. Duffy, T. M., & Cunnigham, D. J. (1996). Constructivism: Implications for the design and delivery of instruction. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 170–198). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  3. Friedrich, H. F., Hesse, F. W., Ferber, S., & Heins, J. (1999). Partizipation im virtuellen Seminar in Abhängigkeit von der Moderationsmethode—eine empirische Untersuchung. In C. Bremer & M. Fechter (Eds.), Die virtuelle Konferenz: Neue Möglichkeiten für die politische Kommunikation (pp. 119–140). Essen: Klartext.Google Scholar
  4. Hansen, T., Dirckinck-Holmfeld, L., Lewis, R., & Ruegelj, J. (1999). Using telematics for collaborative knowledge construction. In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Collaborative learning (pp. 169–196). Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  5. Herrmann, T., & Kienle, A. (2008). Context-oriented communication and the design of computer supported discoursive learning. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3, 273–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2002). Collaborative ways of knowing: Issues in facilitation. In G. Stahl (Ed.), Proceedings of CSCL 2002 (pp. 199–208). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  7. Holmer, T., Kienle, A., & Wessner, M. (2006). Explicit referencing in learning chats: Needs and acceptance. In W. Nejdl & K. Tochtermann (Eds.), Innovative approaches for learning and knowledge sharing: First conference on technology enhanced learning (pp. 170–184). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kienle, A. (2006). Integration of knowledge management and collaborative learning by technical supported communication processes. Education and Information Technologies, 11(2), 161–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kienle, A. (2007). The facilitation of synchronous discussions in CSCL-systems. In: P. Isaias, M. B. Nunes, & J. Barroso (Eds.), Proceedings of the IADIS International Conference WWW/Internet (Vol. 1, pp. 11–18). Lisbon: IADIS Press.Google Scholar
  10. Kienle, A. (2009). Intertwining synchronous and asynchronous communication to support collaborative learning: System design and evaluation. Education and Information Technologies, 14(1), 55–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kienle, A., & Ritterskamp, C. (2007). Facilitating asynchronous discussions in learning communities—the impact of moderation strategies. International Journal on Behaviour & Information Technology, 26(1), 73–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Klebert, K., Schrader, E., Straub, W. G. (2000). Winning group results: Techniques for guiding group thought and decision-making processes with the moderation method. Lisbon: WindmühleGoogle Scholar
  13. Koschmann, T. (Ed.). (1996). CSCL: Theory and practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  14. Lokaiczyk, R., Godehardt, E., Faatz, A., Görtz, M., Kienle, A., & Wessner, M. (2007). Exploiting context information for identification of relevant experts in collaborative workplace-embedded E-learning environments. In E. Duval, R. Klamma, & M. Wolpers (Eds.), EC-Tel 2007, LNCS 4753 (pp. 217–231). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  15. Pea, R. D. (1996). Seeing what we build together: Distributed multimedia learning environments for transformative communications. In T. Koschmann (Ed.), CSCL: Theory and practice (pp. 171–186). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  16. Pimentel, M., Fuks, H., & Pereira de Lucena, C. J. (2005). Mediated chat development process: Avoiding chat confusion on educational debates. Proceedings of the CSCL, 2005, 499–504.Google Scholar
  17. Randall, D., & Salembier, P. (2010). From CSCW to Web 2.0: European developments in collaborative design: Selected papers from COOP08. London: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Salmon, G. (2011). E-Moderating. The key to teaching and learning online (revised version). London: Routledge Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
  19. Schmidt, K. (2011). Cooperative work and coordinative practices: Contributions to the conceptual foundations of computer-supported cooperative work (CSCW). London: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Stahl, G. (2002). Contributions to a theoretical framework on CSCL. In G. Stahl (Ed.), Proceedings of CSCL 2002 (pp. 62–71). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  21. Suthers, D. D. (2006). Technology affordances for intersubjective meaning making: A research agenda for CSCL. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(3), 315–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Thirunarayanan, M. O., Ryan, C. A., Perez-Prado, A. (2007). A Pilot Study of Students’ Self-Reported Indirect Evidence for Cognitive Load in a Text-Based Instructional Chat Room. Fourth International Conference in Open and Distance Learning. Athens, Greece, November 23–25, 2007.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of Applied Sciences and ArtsDortmundGermany

Personalised recommendations