Perceived Support in E-Collaborative Learning: An Exploratory Study Which Make Use of Synchronous and Asynchronous Online-Teaching Approaches

  • Stefanie Andrea Hillen
  • Tero Päivärinta
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7558)


This study compares four different learning environments for e-collaborative learning in two European countries related to the dimension of student’s mutual support. The theoretical baseline is Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development (ZOPD) and the socio-genetic approach of Piaget. The analyzed data are based on questionnaires collected over the time period of an entire semester including four different courses at the master’s level. These courses applied different e-collaborative approaches including a variety of tools for supporting communication. It is assumed that these courses including communication tools e.g. virtual face-to-face meetings enhance the chances for better communication, and finally, for mutual support of students themselves. The objective is to investigate how the different environments have affected the students’ perception related to different e-collaborative learning platforms in the dimensions of social support, information exchange, and task support.


e-collaborative learning mutual support blended learning 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Bortz, J., Döring, N.: Forschungsmethoden und Evaluationen für Human- und Sozialwissenschaftler, 4th edn. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brody, C.M., Davidson, N.: Introduction: Professional development and Cooperative learning. In: Brody, C.M., Davidson, N. (eds.) Professional Development for Cooperative Learning- Issues and Approaches, State University of NY Press, Albany (1998)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bruffee, K.A.: Sharing our toys - Cooperative learning versus collaborative learning. Change, 1–2, 12–18 (1995)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cecez-Kecmanovic, D., Webb, C.: Towards a communicative model of collaborative web-mediated learning. Australian Journal of Educational Technology (1), 73–85 (2000), retrieved June 08, 2011 )
  5. 5.
    Cohen, J.: Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Science, 2nd edn. Lawrence Erlbaum, New Jersey (1988)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Derry, S.J., Levin, J.R., Osana, H.P.: Fostering students’ statistical and scientific thinking: Lessons learned from an innovative college course. American Educational Research Journal 37(3), 747–775 (2000)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dick, W., Cary, L.: The systematic design of instruction, 3rd edn. Harper Collins, New York (2000)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dillenbourg, P., Baker, M., Blaye, A., O’Malley, C.: The evolution of research on collaborative learning. In: Spada, E., Reiman, P. (eds.) Learning in Humans and Machine: Towards an Interdisciplinary Learning Science, pp. 189–211. Elsevier, Oxford (1996)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Döring, N.: Kommunikation im Internet: Neun theoretische Ansätze. In: Batinic, B. (ed.) Internet für Psychologen, 2nd edn., pp. 345–379. Hogrefe, Göttingen (2000)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ertl, B., Kopp, B., Mandl, H.: Supporting Collaborative Learning in Videoconferencing using Collaboration Scripts and Content Schemes (Research report No. 176). Germany: Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Department of Psychology, Institute for Educational Psychology, Munich (2005)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gorghiu, G., Lindfors, E., Gorghiu, L.M., Hämäläinen, T.: Acting as Tutors in the ECSUT On-line Course - How to Promote Interaction in a Computer Supported Collaborative Learning Environment? Procedia Computer Science 3(1), 579–583 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gokhale, A.A.: Collaborative Learning Enhances Critical Thinking. Journal of Technology Education 7(1), 22–31 (1995)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Granovetter, M.S.: The Strength of Weak Ties. American Journal of Sociology 78(6), 1360–1380 (1973)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Haythornthwaite, C.: Online Personal Networks: Size, Composition and Media Use among Learners. New Media Society 2(2), 159–226 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Haythornthwaite, C.: Building social networks via computer networks: Creating and sustaining distributed learning communities. In: Renninger, K.A., Shumar, W. (eds.) Building virtual Communities: Learning and Change in Cyberspace, pp. 159–190. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Haythornthwaite, C.: Supporting distributed relationships: social networks. In: Joinson, A.N., McKenna, K., Postmes, T., Reips, U.D. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Internet Psychology, pp. 121–138. University Press, Oxford (2003)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jonassen, D.H.: What are cognitive Tools? In: Kommers, P.A.M., Jonassen, D.H., Mayes, J.T. (eds.) Cognitive Tools for Learning, pp. 1–6. Springer, Heidelberg (1991)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kopp, B., Matteucci, M.C., Tomasetto, C.: E-tutorial support for collaborative online learning: An explorative study. Computers & Education, 58(1), 12–20, 3270–3273 (2012)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lecher, R.: E-Kollaboratives Lernen im Studium - Eine Pilotstudie. Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz. Unpublished master thesis (2012)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lehtinen, E.: Computer Supported Collaborative Learning: An Approach to Powerful Learning Environments. In: De Coerte, E., Verschaffel, L., Entwistle, N., van Merrienboer, J. (eds.) Powerful Learning Environments: Unravelling Basic Components and Dimensions, pp. 33–55. Elsevier, Oxford (2003)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lojeski, K.: Virtual Distance. A proposed model for the study of virtual work. Stevens Institute of Technology. Dissertation (2006)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lojeski, K.S., Reilly, R.: Uniting the Virtual Workforce: Transforming Leadership and Innovation in the Globally Integrated Enterprise. John Wiley & Sons, New Jersey (2008)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lojeski, K.S., Reilly, R., Dominick, P.: The Role of Virtual Distance in Innovation and Success. System Sciences (35), 25–34 (2006)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lojeski, K.S., London, M., Reilly, R.: The Role of Virtual Distance and Group Learning: A Case Study from Big Pharma and Financial Services (n.d.), (retrieved January 17, 2012)
  25. 25.
  26. 26.
    Piaget, J.: Meine Theorie der geistigen Entwicklung. Beltz, Weinheim/Basel (2003)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Reigeluth, C.M.: Instructional design: What is it and why is it? In: Reigeluth, C.M. (ed.) Instructional Theories and Models: An Overview of Their Current Status, pp. 1–36. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale (1983)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rockwood, R.: Cooperative and collaborative learning. National Teaching and Learning Forum 4(6) (1995) (retrieved June 2011),
  29. 29.
    Roschelle, J., Teasley, S.: The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving. In: O’Malley, C.E. (ed.) Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, pp. 69–97. Springer, Heidelberg (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Säljö, R.: Learning as the use of tools: a sociocultural perspective on the human-technology link. In: Littleton, K., Light, P. (eds.) Learning with Computers: Analysing Productive Interaction, pp. 144–161. Routledge, London (1999)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Salmon, G.: E-moderating, 2nd edn. The key to teaching and learning online. Routhledge Falmer, London (2004)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Soller, A., Goodman, B., Linton, F., Gaimari, R.: Promoting Effective Peer Interaction in an Intelligent Collaborative Learning System. In: Goettl, B.P., Halff, H.M., Redfield, C.L., Shute, V.J. (eds.) ITS 1998. LNCS, vol. 1452, pp. 186–195. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Vygotsky, L.S.: Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard Business Press, Cambridge (1978)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Wellman, B., Wortley, S.: Different Strokes from Different Folks: Community Ties and Social Support. American Journal of Sociology 96(3), 558–588 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stefanie Andrea Hillen
    • 1
  • Tero Päivärinta
    • 2
  1. 1.University of AgderKristiansandNorway
  2. 2.Luleå University of TechnologyLuleåSweden

Personalised recommendations