Abstract
CSCL innovations involve dynamic changes taking place at multiple levels within the complex educational ecosystem. Scaling of CSCL innovations needs to pay simultaneous attention to changes along several dimensions, including depth of change, sustainability, spread, and shifts of ownership, as well as evolution of the innovation over time. General models for scaling innovations do not take account of the role that technology may play. This chapter examines the sustainability and scalability of CSCL innovations including the role of technology in fostering sustainable and scalable innovation. We review a range of CSCL innovations that span in- and out-of-school settings to synthesize technology-enabled strategies that address scalability challenges at the classroom and education ecosystem levels. A set of design principles is identified to guide future research and practice to transform education through CSCL innovations.
Keywords
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsReferences
Bang, M., & Vossoughi, S. (2016). Participatory design research and educational justice: Studying learning and relations within social change making. Cognition and Instruction, 34, 173–193.
Barab, S., Dodge, T., Tuzun, H., Job-Sluder, K., Jackson, C., Arici, A., et al. (2007). The Quest Atlantis project: A socially-responsive play space for learning. The educational design and use of simulation computer games, pp. 159–186.
Barron, B., Gomez, K., Martin, C. K., & Pinkard, N. (2014). The digital youth network: Cultivating digital media citizenship in urban communities. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Bereiter, C. (2014). Principled practical knowledge: Not a bridge but a ladder. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 23(1), 4–17.
Bereiter, C., Cress, U., Fischer, F., Hakkarainen, K., Scardamalia, M., & Vogel, F. (2017). Scripted and unscripted aspects of creative work with knowledge. In B. K. Smith, M. Borge, E. Mercier, & K. Y. Lim (Eds.), Making a difference: Prioritizing equity and access in CSCL, 12th International Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL2017) (Vol. 2, pp. 751–757). Philadelphia, PA: International Society of the Learning Sciences.
Booker, A., & Goldman, S. (2016). Participatory design research as a practice for systemic repair: Doing hand-in-hand math research with families. Cognition and Instruction, 34(3), 222–235.
Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1996). Psychological theory and the design of innovative learning environments: On procedures, principles, and systems. In L. Schauble & R. Glaser (Eds.), Innovations in learning: New environments for education (pp. 289–325). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Chan, C. K. K. (2011). Bridging research and practice: Implementing and sustaining knowledge building in Hong Kong classrooms. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6(2), 147–186.
Chen, B., & Zhang, J. (2016). Analytics for knowledge creation: Towards agency and design-mode thinking. Journal of Learning Analytics, 3(2), 139–163.
Clarke, J., & Dede, C. (2009). Design for scalability: A case study of the river city curriculum. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18, 353–365.
Coburn, C. E. (2003). Rethinking scale: Moving beyond numbers to deep and lasting change. Educational Researcher, 32(6), 3–12.
Coburn, C. E., & Penuel, W. R. (2016). Research–practice partnerships in education: Outcomes, dynamics, and open questions. Educational Researcher, 45(1), 48–54.
Cole, M. (2007). Sustaining model systems of educational activity: Designing for the long haul. In J. Campione, K. Metz, & A. S. Palinscar (Eds.), Children’s learning in and out of school: Essays in honor of Ann Brown (pp. 71–89). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
Collins, A., Joseph, D., & Bielaczyc, K. (2004). Design research: Theoretical and methodological issues. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 15–42.
Cremin, L. A. (1961). The transformation of the school: Progressivism in American education (pp. 1876–1957). New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf.
Cuban, L. (1984). How teachers taught: Constancy and change in American classroom (pp. 1890–1980). New York, NY: Longman.
Cuban, L. (1990). Reforming again, again, and again. Educational Researcher, 19(1), 3–13.
Davis, N. (2017). Digital technologies and change in education: The arena framework. New York, NY: Routledge.
Digital Youth Network. (2019). About DYN. Retrieved February 23, 2019, from http://digitalyouthnetwork.org/#about-us.
Dillenbourg, P. (2013). Design for classroom orchestration. Computers & Education, 69, 485–492.
Elmore, R. F., & Associates. (1990). Restructuring schools: The next generation of educational reform. San Francisco, CA: The Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Elmore, R. F., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1988). Steady work. policy, practice, and the reform of American education. Santa Monica, CA: The RAND Corporation.
Engle, R. A., & Conant, F. R. (2002). Guiding principles for fostering productive disciplinary engagement: Explaining an emergent argument in a community of learners classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 20(4), 399–483.
Fields, D. A., & Kafai, Y. B. (2009). A connective ethnography of peer knowledge sharing and diffusion in a tween virtual world. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4(1), 47–68.
Fishman, B., Marx, R. W., Blumenfeld, P., Krajcik, J., & Soloway, E. (2004). Creating a framework for research on systemic technology innovations. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 43–76.
Fishman, B. J., Penuel, W. R., Allen, A. R., Cheng, B. H., & Sabelli, N. (2013). Design-based implementation research: An emerging model for transforming the relationship of research and practice. National Society for the Study of Education, 112(2), 136–156.
Forte, A., & Bruckman, A. (2006). From Wikipedia to the classroom: Exploring online publication and learning. In Proceedings of the 7th international conference on learning sciences (pp. 182–188). New York: International Society of the Learning Sciences.
Geels, F. W. (2005). The dynamics of transitions in socio-technical systems: A multi-level analysis of the transition pathway from horse-drawn carriages to automobiles (1860–1930). Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 17(4), 445–476.
Goldman, S. R. (2005). Designing for scalable educational improvement: Processes of inquiry in practice.
Greenhow, C., Gibbins, T., & Menzer, M. M. (2015). Re-thinking scientific literacy out-of-school: Arguing science issues in a niche Facebook application. Computers in Human Behavior, 53, 593–604.
Hakkarainen, K. (2009). A knowledge-practice perspective on technology-mediated learning. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4(2), 213–231.
Hive NYC. (2019). About. Retrieved February 23, 2019, from http://hivenyc.org/about-hive-nyc/
Hong, H.-Y., Scardamalia, M., & Zhang, J. (2010). Knowledge society network: Toward a dynamic, sustained network for building knowledge. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 36, 1. Retrieved from http://www.cjlt.ca.
Hong Kong Education Bureau. (2015). Report on the fourth strategy on information technology in education. Hong Kong: Education Bureau. Retrieved from https://www.edb.gov.hk/attachment/en/edu-system/primary-secondary/applicable-to-primary-secondary/it-in-edu/ITE4_report_ENG.pdf.
Hui, A., Schatzki, T., & Shove, E. (Eds.). (2016). The nexus of practices: Connections, constellations, practitioners. Milton Park: Taylor & Francis.
Järvelä, S., Kirschner, P. A., Hadwin, A., Järvenoja, H., Malmberg, J., Miller, M., & Laru, J. (2016). Socially shared regulation of learning in CSCL: Understanding and prompting individual-and group-level shared regulatory activities. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 11(3), 263–280.
Kafai, Y. B., Peppler, K., & Chapman, R. (Eds.). (2009). The computer clubhouse: Creativity and constructionism in youth communities. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Kampylis, P., Law, N., & Punie, Y. (Eds.). (2013). ICT-enabled innovation for learning in Europe and Asia: Exploring conditions for sustainability, scalability and impact at system level. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
Kampylis, P., & Punie, Y. (2013). Case report 1: eTwinning—The community for schools in Europe. In P. Kampylis, N. Law, & Y. Punie (Eds.), ICT-enabled innovation for learning in Europe and Asia: Exploring conditions for sustainability, scalability and impact at system level (pp. 21–35). Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
Kirschner, P. A., & Erkens, G. (2013). Toward a framework for CSCL research. Educational Psychologist, 48, 1–8.
Kollar, I., Fischer, F., & Slotta, J. D. (2007). Internal and external scripts in computer-supported collaborative inquiry learning. Learning and Instruction, 17, 708–721.
Kolodner, J. L., Camp, P. J., Crismond, D., Fasse, B., Gray, J., Holbrook, J., et al. (2003). Problem-based learning meets case-based reasoning in the middle-school science classroom: Putting learning by design (tm) into practice. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(4), 495–547.
Laferrière, T., Allaire, S., Breuleux, A., Hamel, C., Law, N., Montané, M., et al. (2015). The knowledge building international project (KBIP): Scaling up professional development using collaborative technology. In C. K. Looi & L. W. Teh (Eds.), Scaling educational innovations (pp. 255–276). Singapore: Springer.
Law, N., Kankaanranta, M., & Chow, A. (2005). Technology-supported educational innovations in Finland and Hong Kong: A tale of two systems. Human Technology, 1(2), 176–201.
Law, N., & Liang, L. (2019). Sociotechnical coevolution of an elearning innovation network. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(3), 1340–1353.
Law, N., Niederhauser, D. S., Christensen, R., & Shear, L. (2016). A multilevel system of quality technology-enhanced learning and teaching indicators. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 19(3), 72–83.
Law, N., Toh, Y., Laferriere, T., Hung, D., Lee, Y., Hamel, C., et al. (2018). Refining design principles for scalable innovation networks through international comparative analysis of innovation learning architectures. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the American Educational Research Association, New York.
Law, N., Yuen, A., & Fox, B. (2011). Educational innovations beyond technology: Nurturing leadership and establishing learning organizations. New York: Springer.
Lemke, J., & Sabelli, N. (2008). Complex systems and educational change: Towards a new research agenda. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 40(1), 118–129.
Lewis, L., Black, R., & Tomlinson, B. (2009). Let everyone play: An educational perspective on why fan fiction is, or should be, legal. International Journal of Learning and Media, 1, 1.
Linn, M. C. (2006). The knowledge integration perspective on learning and instruction. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 243–264). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Linn, M. C., Clark, D., & Slotta, J. D. (2003). WISE design for knowledge integration. Science Education, 87(4), 517–538.
Looi, C. K. (2013). Case report 6: Singapore’s third Masterplan for ICT in education (mp3). In P. Kampylis, N. Law, & Y. Punie (Eds.), ICT-enabled innovation for learning in Europe and Asia: Exploring conditions for sustainability, scalability and impact at system level (pp. 91–102). Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
Maloney, J., Peppler, K., Kafai, Y. B., Resnick, M. & Rusk, N. (2008). Programming by choice: Urban youth learning programming with Scratch. Published in the proceedings by the ACM Special Interest Group on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE) conference, Portland, OR.
McKenney, S. (2018). How can the learning sciences (Better) impact policy and practice? Journal of the Learning Sciences, 27(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2017.1404404.
McLaughlin, M. W., & Talbert, J. E. (1993, March). Contexts that matter for teaching and learning: Strategic opportunities meeting the nation’s educational goals. Stanford, CA: Center for Research on the Context of Secondary School Teaching. Stanford University.
Means, B., & Penuel, W. R. (2005). Scaling up technology-based educational innovations. Scaling up success: Lessons learned from technology-based educational improvement, 2005.
Mor, Y., Ferguson, R., & Wasson, B. (2015). Editorial: Learning design, teacher inquiry into student learning and learning analytics: A call for action. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(2), 221–229.
Penuel, W. R. (2019). Infrastructuring as a practice of design-based research for supporting and studying equitable implementation and sustainability of innovations. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 28(4–5), 659–677.
Peppler, K., & Kafai, Y. B. (2009). Making games, art, and animations with Scratch. In Y. B. Kafai, K. Peppler, & R. Chapman (Eds.), The computer clubhouse: Creativity and constructionism in youth communities (pp. 47–57). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Resendes, M., Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., Chen, B., & Halewood, C. (2015). Group-level formative feedback and metadiscourse. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 10, 309–336.
Resnick, M. (2017). Lifelong Kindergarten: Cultivating creativity through projects, passion, peers, and play. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Resnick, M., Maloney, J., Monroy-Hernández, A., Rusk, N., Eastmond, E., Brennan, K., et al. (2009). Scratch: Programming for all. Communications of the ACM, 52(11), 60–67.
Rogers, E. M. (1962). Diffusion of innovations (1st ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.
Salen, K., & Zimmerman, E. (2004). Rules of play: Game design fundamentals. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Scardamalia, M. (2002). Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of knowledge. In B. Smith (Ed.), Liberal Education in a Knowledge Society (pp. 67–98). Chicago: Open Court.
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2014). Knowledge building and knowledge creation: Theory, pedagogy, and technology. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (2nd ed., pp. 397–417). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., McLean, R. S., Swallow, J., & Woodruff, E. (1989). Computer-supported intentional learning environments. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 5(1), 51–68.
Slotta, J. D. (2004). The web-based inquiry science environment (WISE) scaffolding knowledge integration in the science classroom. In M. C. Linn, E. A. Davis, & P. Bell (Eds.), Internet environments for science education (pp. 203–232). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Spillane, J. P., Parise, L. M., & Sherer, J. Z. (2011). Organizational routines as coupling mechanisms policy, school administration, and the technical core. American Educational Research Journal, 48(3), 586–619.
Stahl, G. (2006). Group cognition: Computer support for building collaborative knowledge. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Stahl, G. (2009). Studying virtual math teams. New York, NY: Springer. 626 pages.
Stein, M. K., & Coburn, C. E. (2008). Architectures for learning: A comparative analysis of two urban school districts. American Journal of Education, 114(4), 583–626.
Tabak, I. (2004). Synergy: A complement to emerging patterns of distributed scaffolding. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 305–335.
Teo, C. L. (2017, June). Symmetrical advancement: Teachers and students sustaining idea-centered collaborative practices.Invited keynote at the International Conference of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL 2017). Philadelphia, United States.
van Aalst, J., & Chan, C. K. K. (2007). Student-directed assessment of knowledge building using electronic portfolios in Knowledge Forum. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16, 175–220.
Winne, P., Hadwin, A., & Perry, N. (2013). Metacognition and computer-supported collaborative learning. In C. E. Hmelo-Silver, C. A. Chinn, C. K. K. Chan, & A. O’Donnell (Eds.), International handbook of collaborative learning (pp. 462–479). New York, NY: Routledge.
Wise, A. F. (2019). Learning analytics: Using data-informed decision-making to improve teaching and learning. In O. Adesope & A. G. Rudd (Eds.), Contemporary technologies in education: Maximizing student engagement, motivation, and learning (pp. 119–143). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Wise, A. F., Knight, S., & Buckingham Shum, S. (this volume). Collaborative learning analytics. In U. Cress, C. Rosé, A. F. Wise, & J. Oshima (Eds.), International handbook of computer-supported collaborative learning. Cham: Springer.
Wise, A. F., & Schwarz, B. B. (2017). Visions of CSCL: Eight provocations for the future of the field. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 12(4), 423–467.
Yuan, G., & Zhang, J. (2019). Connecting knowledge spaces: Enabling cross-community knowledge building through boundary objects. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(5), 2144–2161.
Zhang, J. (2010). Technology-supported learning innovation in cultural contexts. Educational Technology Research & Development, 58(2), 229–243.
Zhang, J., & Chen, M.-H. (2019). Idea Thread Mapper: Designs for sustaining student-driven knowledge building across classrooms. In K. Lund, G. Niccolai, E. Lavoué, C. Hmelo-Silver, G. Gweon, & M. Baker(Eds.), A Wide Lens: Combining Embodied, Enactive, Extended, and Embedded Learning in Collaborative Settings, Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL 2019),Volume 1, pp. 144-151. Lyon, France: International Society of the Learning Sciences.
Zhang, J., Hong, H.-Y., Scardamalia, M., Toe, C., & Morley, E. (2011). Sustaining knowledge building as a principle-based innovation at an elementary school. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20(2), 262–307.
Zhang, J., Tao, D., Chen, M., Sun, Y., Judson, D., & Naqvi, S. (2018). Co-organizing the collective journey of inquiry with Idea Thread Mapper. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 27(3), 390–430.
Further Readings
Chan, C. K. K. (2011). Bridging research and practice: Implementing and sustaining knowledge building in Hong Kong classrooms. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6(2), 147–186. This is a case study of scaling and sustaining Knowledge Building in Hong Kong classrooms. The analysis documents efforts and changes at different levels, including educational policies reform, the knowledge-building teacher network, and knowledge building design and practice in classrooms.
Clarke, J., & Dede, C. (2009). Design for scalability: A case study of the river city curriculum. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18, 353–365. This article builds on Coburn’s (2003) framework to examine the multiple dimensions of scale: depth, sustainability, spread, shift in ownership, and introduces “evolution” as an additional dimension. This framework is applied to guide the scalability design of the River City project.
Coburn, C. E., Russell, J. L., Kaufman, J. H., & Stein, M. K. (2012). Supporting sustainability: Teachers’ advice networks and ambitious instructional reform. American Journal of Education, 119(1), 137–182. This study uses qualitative social network analysis and qualitative comparative analysis to study the relationship between sustainability and teachers’ social networks when resources and supports were removed in year 3 of an innovative mathematics curriculum across a district.
Kampylis, P., Law, N., & Punie, Y. (Eds.). (2013). ICT-enabled innovation for learning in Europe and Asia: Exploring conditions for sustainability, scalability, and impact at system level. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. This in-depth 153-page report presents seven cases of ICT-enabled innovations for learning from Europe and Asia, describing scale, learning objectives, the role of technology, and implementation strategies. The report also presents relevant lessons learned and conditions for scalability, impact, and sustainability.
Looi, C. K., & Teh, L. W. (Eds.). (2015). Scaling educational innovations. Singapore: Springer. This is an edited volume comprising a collection of theoretical and empirical studies on scaling educational innovations that have a strong pedagogical focus. Some of the empirical studies are directly related to CSCL innovations.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Law, N., Zhang, J., Peppler, K. (2021). Sustainability and Scalability of CSCL Innovations. In: Cress, U., Rosé, C., Wise, A.F., Oshima, J. (eds) International Handbook of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Series, vol 19. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-65291-3_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-65291-3_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-65290-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-65291-3
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)