Conceptualizing Collaboration in the Context of Computer-supported
Collaborative Learning
Aleksandra Lazareva
Department of Global Development and Planning, University of Agder, Gimlemoen, Kristiansand, Norway
Keywords: Collaborative Learning, Computer-supported Collaborative Learning, Interactions, Online Learning
Environments.
Abstract: “Collaborative learning” has become a common expression in a wide range of spheres. We often say that we
learn collaboratively when we perform a task together. However, the term “collaborative learning” has more
complex implications than only doing a task together with peers. Successful collaborative learning is
characterized by meaningful and intense interactions among peers and shared understanding of the concepts.
In computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) learners’ interactions are mediated by technological
artifacts, therefore, the role of technologies becomes highly important from both cognitive and motivational
perspectives. In this paper I discuss the essence of collaborative learning and CSCL as it is viewed in the
field of learning sciences. I seek to demonstrate the complexity of CSCL and underline the idea that CSCL
is a distinct form of learning mediated by technological artifacts, and only certain learning situations taking
place online in groups can be termed as “CSCL”.
1 INTRODUCTION
Nowadays the terms “collaborative learning” and
“CSCL” have become common. However, at times
these words seem to be overused: various types of
online forms of learning are being addressed as
“collaborative”, and certain implications this
concept has are thus being underemphasized.
The concept of CSCL is based on the notion of
“collaborative learning”. It is possible to find
various definitions of collaborative learning in the
research literature. Thus, it may be challenging to try
to agree upon a universal definition. The same
relates to CSCL. The aim of this paper is not to
arrive at a concrete definition. Instead, in this paper I
seek to provide a grasp of key components and
processes constituting CSCL which would
demonstrate the essence of this complex
phenomenon.
I support my argument by reviewing concepts
discussed in the literature on collaborative learning
and CSCL in the field of learning sciences. Later I
suggest to approach some examples of how the
concept of CSCL is viewed in related areas. Namely,
I provide some examples from the research literature
in the field of information systems (IS). Therefore,
this paper has a purely conceptual character and is
aimed at positioning CSCL as a distinct form of
learning mediated by technological artifacts. It is
important to note that this paper focuses on CSCL
where students are located in different physical
environments.
2 CONCEPTUALIZING
COLLABORATION
The concept of CSCL consists of two key
“ingredients” – collaborative learning and
technological support. The key aspect of
collaborative learning is interactions among peers; in
CSCL these interactions need to be promoted and
enhanced by technological tools. Ensuring effective
collaborative interactions in an online environment
is a challenging task for facilitators; however,
misconceptions about the nature of interactions as
well as over-expectations towards technological
tools are not uncommon.
The following sections address the issues
introduced above. First, I discuss collaborative
learning and interactions among peers as its core.
This discussion is a basis for understanding CSCL
and the role of technologies in supporting effective
collaborative interactions, thus promoting successful
438
Lazareva A..
Conceptualizing Collaboration in the Context of Computer-supported Collaborative Learning.
DOI: 10.5220/0005482804380443
In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU-2015), pages 438-443
ISBN: 978-989-758-108-3
Copyright
c
2015 SCITEPRESS (Science and Technology Publications, Lda.)
CSCL. Further, I summarize some of the
misconceptions about CSCL, which helps emphasize
the complexity of the phenomenon. Finally, I
provide examples where CSCL is attributed a wider
interpretation.
2.1 Collaborative Learning
The word “collaborative” has a deeper meaning than
it may seem at first. As Dillenbourg (1999)
discusses, when a word becomes fashionable, it
often starts to be used to denote more than it
originally was supposed to denote. When various
kinds of learning situations are addressed as
“collaborative” it becomes difficult to discuss the
cognitive effects of collaborative learning. In
addition, it becomes challenging to approach
contributions of different authors who use the word
“collaboration” differently (Dillenbourg, 1999).
In the most general sense collaborative learning
is believed to be happening when more than one
person is working on a task and attempting to learn
together (Roschelle and Teasley, 1995; Dillenbourg
1999). Even this broadest definition of collaborative
learning can be interpreted in multiple ways. Group
size can vary greatly, as well as the length of the
learning situation. Communication can be happening
face-to-face or be computer-mediated (synchronous
or asynchronous) (Dillenbourg, 1999).
There has been a long discussion concerning
differences and similarities between collaborative
and cooperative learning (Roschelle and Teasley,
1995; Dillenbourg, Baker, Blaye, and O’Malley,
1996; Dillenbourg, 1999; Kirschner, 2001; Kreijns,
Kirschner, and Jochems, 2003; Stahl, Koschmann,
and Suthers, 2006; Resta and Laferrière, 2007). For
example, Roschelle and Teasley (1995) characterize
cooperative work as an activity where labor is
divided among participants, while collaboration is
associated with mutual engagement of group
members in an attempt to reach a solution together.
Similarly, Dillenbourg (1999) argues that in
cooperation work is split among the partners, and
after individuals have solved sub-tasks, the results
are assembled to the final outcome. However, it is
also possible that partners split the work in
collaborative learning situations. What is important
is that the division of labor is different. In
collaboration, tasks can be split in different layers
but still be highly interwoven (partners are
monitoring each other), while in cooperation sub-
tasks are independent. Moreover, in collaboration
this division of labor is not very stable – for
example, roles may change quite often (Dillenbourg,
1999). As Resta and Laferrière (2007) note, there are
no universally accepted definitions of “cooperative”
versus “collaborative” learning. Although there are
differences, these two concepts also share a number
of common assumptions. For example, both in
collaborative and cooperative learning students work
in groups, teaching and learning go side by side,
learning is active, the teacher becomes a facilitator,
and students develop social and teamwork skills
(Kirschner, 2001).
There are some necessary components of
collaborative learning: there is always some physical
setting, instructions to subjects, and institutional
constraints. Therefore, collaborative learning can be
described as a kind of social contract specifying
some of the conditions under which certain
interactions may occur. Thus, “the words
“collaborative learning” describe a situation in
which particular forms of interaction among people
are expected to occur, which would trigger learning
mechanisms, but there is no guarantee that the
expected interactions will actually occur”
(Dillenbourg, 1999, p. 5).
2.2 Interactions as the Key Aspect in
Effective Collaborative Learning
In collaborative learning, interactions among peers
represent the most important aspect (importantly,
without excluding other factors such as interactions
with teachers and learning materials) (Kreijns et al.,
2003; Dillenbourg, Järvelä, and Fischer, 2009). In
their interactions students manage social relations
and perform cognitive and metacognitive aspects of
the task (Dillenbourg et al., 1996). The extent to
which learners engage in the collaborative process
has a direct impact on the quality of collaboration;
learners must make a continued effort to coordinate
their learning (Roschelle and Teasley, 1995;
Dillenbourg et al., 2009). There are three main
categories of interactions that have been found to
support learning: explanation, argumentation/
negotiation, and mutual regulation (Dillenbourg et
al., 2009). Negotiation is a process when students try
to arrive at agreement on some aspects of the task. It
can be also negotiation of meaning. Arriving at a
shared understanding of meanings is a necessary
component of collaborative learning, as it is not
possible to collaborate if someone does not fully
understand what they are collaborating on
(Dillenbourg et al., 1996). The concept of shared
understanding should not be treated simplistically; it
depends a lot on students’ efforts and intensity of
interactions (Dillenbourg et al., 2009). Having a
ConceptualizingCollaborationintheContextofComputer-supportedCollaborativeLearning
439
shared understanding enables transactivity – one of
the central challenges in collaborative learning – i.e.,
students' ability to relate to each other’s statements,
build upon them and modify them, as well as
integrate them into their own line of reasoning
(Weinberger, 2011). Weinberger, Stegmann and
Fischer (2007) discuss collaborative learning in
terms of knowledge convergence – a group-level
phenomenon addressing the way how two or more
individuals become similar with respect to their
knowledge through social interactions.
2.3 Computer-supported Collaborative
Learning
Knowledge about collaborative learning can help us
better understand CSCL (Resta and Laferrière,
2007). The central focus of CSCL is on practices of
joint meaning-making mediated through
technological artifacts (Stahl et al., 2006), thus, it is
emphasized that knowledge is an interactional
achievement here as well (Stahl, 2006). CSCL is
believed to be beneficial for educational practice due
to both technological advancements in digital
learning and better opportunities for students’ active
knowledge construction (Weinberger, 2011). Among
emerging benefits of CSCL are better academic
achievement, development of higher order thinking
skills, student satisfaction with learning experience
and enhanced productivity (Resta and Laferrière,
2007).
In CSCL learners are usually expected to work
on complex phenomena with little interference from
teachers (Weinberger, 2011). Stahl (2006)
introduces the group cognition theory in the context
of CSCL. It implies such a view of cognition where
a small group collaborates so tightly that the process
of building shared knowledge cannot be attributed to
only one particular group member, and not even
divided into a sequence of contributions from
individual group members (Stahl, 2012).
In CSCL learners often have to communicate in
text-based environments, where it is not always easy
to see the quality of metacognitive processes
(Hurme, Merenluoto, and Järvelä, 2009).
Collaboration scripts have been a topical research
area recently, looking into how it is possible to
trigger productive interactions among peers
(Dillenbourg et al., 2009) by, for example,
describing a step-by-step procedure of performing a
task and distributing roles of individual learners in a
CSCL group (Weinberger, 2011).
2.4 Role of Technologies in
Computer-supported
Collaborative Learning
While CSCL can be characterized by multiple
opportunities which would not be available for
students in a traditional classroom setting, many
learners experience significant challenges when they
are simply assigned to groups and left with devices.
CSCL environments often turn out to be
motivationally and cognitively much more
demanding (Weinberger, 2011). Taking it for
granted that interactions will occur simply because
technology makes it possible can be said to be one
of the major pitfalls happening in the context of
CSCL (Kreijns et al., 2003). Students who do not
have sufficient prior experiences with collaborative
practices may not have adequate knowledge that
would guide them in collaboration setting (Fischer,
Kollar, Stegmann, and Wecker, 2013). It is crucial
that online students are aware of the learning
opportunities offered by collaborative technologies
in order to engage in learning actively (Dabbagh,
2007). Moreover, it is extremely important to
consider the psychological dimension in the social
interaction, and the socio-emotional issues of group
formation and dynamics, i.e., such processes as
getting to know each other, developing trust and
building the feeling of online community (Kreijns et
al., 2003).
Technologies play a crucial role in CSCL: the
design of a computer system which is mediating
collaboration has a great impact on collaborative
process (Dillenbourg et al., 1996). Since in CSCL
focus is on learning through interactions with peers
rather than directly from the teacher, the role of
technological tools shifts from providing instructions
to supporting collaboration by offering media for
productive communication (Stahl et al., 2006). The
aim of a CSCL environment is not only to make
collaboration at distance possible, but to provide
such conditions which would support and promote
effective group interactions (Dillenbourg et al.,
2009; Stahl, 2006). Computer-mediated
communication can often be characterized as
impersonal and task-oriented; therefore, it is
important to design sociable CSCL environments.
Such environments would provide students with
non-task contexts and allow them to socialize also
off-task (Kreijns et al., 2003).
CSCL environments can have a great impact on
student motivation. When taking a CSCL course, a
student is required to spend a lot of time in the
online learning environment. Environmental
CSEDU2015-7thInternationalConferenceonComputerSupportedEducation
440
structuring has been identified as one of the
motivational regulation strategies (Wolters, 2003).
This strategy means that a learner should be able to
organize his or her own work environment in such a
way that it would ensure comfortable conditions for
studying. A learner should be comfortable at the
learning desk, have enough light, have books and
notes organized in a suitable way, be in silence or
listen to music. In the online environment it can
work exactly the same way – an individual learner
should have the opportunity to personalize his or her
own environment and make it appealing. For that
reason, learning management systems (LMSs) may
not be that suitable as a platform for a CSCL course.
Often such systems do not offer much opportunity
for customization; instead, they are often impersonal
and have a formal and standard interface. An LMS
may serve as a resource of content for students,
however, students’ activities in an LMS are
restricted (Dabbagh and Kitsantas, 2012).
2.5 Misconceptions about
Computer-supported
Collaborative Learning
CSCL is a complex phenomenon requiring a lot of
planning, coordination and commitment. However,
quite often it is associated with a belief that
classroom content can be delivered in electronic
form to large numbers of students without much
teacher involvement, at the same time reducing other
costs. This view has a number of critical points. First
of all, providing students with content does not equal
teaching or instruction. Second, online teaching
usually increases the teacher effort. The teacher does
not only prepare materials and distribute them by
means of technologies. The teacher is also the one to
motivate and guide each individual student. Third,
interactions among students are a central aspect in
CSCL, which means that students are expected to
express questions, follow each other’s learning and
teach and regulate each other. Thus, careful planning
is necessary to ensure the effectiveness of a CSCL
environment which would stimulate productive
collaborative interactions (Stahl et al., 2006).
There are also a number of misconceptions
regarding technological artifacts and their role in
CSCL. Thus, one common myth in CSCL is media
effectiveness. When a new medium appears in the
educational field, it often raises over-expectations
regarding its effects on learning. Within CSCL
various tools have demonstrated controversial
results; however, this myth seems to never die and
occurs again along with the appearance of new
technological artifacts (Dillenbourg et al., 2009).
2.6 Different Interpretations of
“Collaborative”
In this section I suggest to have a look at the concept
of CSCL from the point of view of related areas
such as IS. The understanding of CSCL discussed
above can be found to be reflected in the IS field.
For example, in research works by Alavi (1994),
Leidner and Fuller (1997), and Neufeld and
Haggerty (2001) it is underlined that collaborative
learning implies active knowledge construction
where students are engaged in acquiring, generating
and analyzing information through exchange of
multiple ideas and feedback on them.
At the same time, it is also possible to come
across different interpretations of collaborative
learning in the IS research literature. For example,
Gupta and Bostrom (2004) discuss the shift of
interest from individual e-learning to group-oriented
e-learning; and that is where the word
“collaborative” comes in. In their study they
describe technologies supporting four types of tasks
where students work in groups. The four types are
based on four fundamental schools of thought
(behaviorist, instructivist, cognitive, and
constructivist). Although the framework provides a
clear outline for identifying environments supporting
different types of tasks, it seems to approach the
notion of collaborative learning from a broader
perspective. Thus, when describing technologies
corresponding to the tasks designed with behaviorist
strategy aimed at achieving a certain skill, Gupta and
Bostrom (2004, p. 3036) write: “all the participants
of the group need is being able to access and
communicate this solution scheme, requiring
minimal communication support”. This seems to be
controversial to the essence of collaborative learning
discussed above. Drill exercises and factual learning
tasks do not seem to be a sufficient ground for
collaborative activity; moreover, interaction and
communication is the core of collaborative learning.
Effective CSCL environments are supposed to
always provide enough opportunities for
communication and promote interactions among
peers. Therefore, the concept of collaborative
learning acquires a different and more general
meaning in the context of this work; various types of
online learning in groups are being addressed as
“collaborative”.
Another example is a paper by Arancibia and
Rusu (2014) focusing on u-Learning, where “u”
ConceptualizingCollaborationintheContextofComputer-supportedCollaborativeLearning
441
stands for “ubiquitous”. A ubiquitous learning
environment is such an environment which allows
students to access learning materials from any
location and at any point of time. The u-CSCL
model is proposed, where CSCL is approached as a
part of learning sciences focusing on people learning
together with the help of computers. This model
seeks to integrate collaborative learning and
ubiquitous systems, and includes five main
components: (1) teachers, (2) study materials, (3)
technology platform, (4) access services, and (5)
students. From the following elaboration on the
components it can be read that collaborative learning
techniques are defined as such where students “work
together to solve the assigned tasks” (Arancibia and
Rusu, 2014, p. 596). However, it is not explicit
whether these processes imply tight and transactive
communication, thus making it possible to interpret
“collaborative learning” differently and in a broader
sense as well.
3 DISCUSSION
Discussion of the concept of collaborative learning
in the field of learning sciences suggests that
successful collaboration among two or more people
includes the following key aspects:
Such types of interactions as explanation,
argumentation/negotiation, and mutual
regulation;
Engagement of the members of the group and
continuous effort to coordinate learning;
Shared understanding;
Transactivity.
In CSCL, technologies play a highly significant
role as interactions among peers are happening in an
online environment. Therefore, from the point of
view of technological tools for collaboration, it is
important to take into account the following:
The main function of technologies is not to
provide instructions, but to support productive
collaborative interactions;
CSCL environments should be sociable,
allowing students to communicate also off-
task;
CSCL environments should be adaptive for
different learners.
The role of a collaborative task and teacher
support should not be underestimated either.
Problem-solving and inquiry-based tasks can be a
good basis for collaborative activities, as they ensure
space for negotiation (Dillenbourg 1999). Learners
should be active in searching for meaning; the
learning (not teaching) process should be
constructive (Kirschner, 2001). The teacher does not
simply provide students with learning materials, but
monitors and coordinates learners in the online
environment.
Thus, CSCL is a distinct form of educational
practice. Only particular forms of learning activities
carried out in groups by means of technological
tools can be addressed as truly collaborative.
However, there is some evidence that the concept of
collaborative learning and CSCL can be interpreted
differently in related areas. Thus, I provided some
illustration from the IS field where various types of
online learning situations are being addressed as
“CSCL”, while some of the implications of the
concept of collaboration seem to be
underemphasized.
4 CONCLUSIONS
Learning by means of collaboration does not happen
whenever learners come together. Learners must be
committed to continuous negotiation, monitoring of
progress and construction of shared understanding.
This is a demanding task from both cognitive and
motivational aspects (Dillenbourg et al., 2009).
In this paper I have attempted to summarize the
key aspects of collaborative learning from the point
of view of research in learning sciences,
emphasizing the importance of interactions among
peers. I have also discussed the role of technologies
in promoting effective collaborative interactions in
CSCL. Through this discussion I have sought to
underline that CSCL is a complex phenomenon, and
not every form of learning in groups mediated by
technological artifacts can be addressed as “CSCL”.
I have provided examples where the term
“collaborative” in the context of online forms of
learning may have been interpreted differently. I do
not seek to undermine the contributions of the
authors. Learning happening at distance by means of
technologies does not necessarily have to be CSCL;
and other forms of online learning definitely deserve
equal attention. However, I intend to draw attention
to the essence of collaborative learning and careful
use of this term to communicate research findings. I
believe that in some cases a different term could be
more suitable, such as “technology-mediated
learning”, where learners’ interactions with learning
materials, peers and facilitators are mediated through
information technologies (Alavi and Leidner, 2001).
CSCL then could be regarded as one of the types of
CSEDU2015-7thInternationalConferenceonComputerSupportedEducation
442
technology-mediated learning methods, emphasizing
the idea of co-discovery resulting in deeper-level
thinking (Alavi and Leidner, 2001). In addition, I
believe researchers should be more explicit about
what is meant by “collaborative learning” in the
context of their work when they do use this
particular term, as only this way other researchers
can be sure that they have shared understanding of
the phenomenon.
REFERENCES
Alavi, M., 1994. Computer-mediated collaborative
learning: An empirical evaluation. MIS Quarterly,
18(2), 159–174.
Alavi, M. and Leidner, D. E., 2001. Research
commentary: Technology-mediated learning – A call
for greater depth and breadth of research. Information
Systems Research, 12(1), 1–10.
Arancibia, J. D. and Rusu, C., 2014. Ubiquitous computer-
supported collaborative learning. 11th International
Conference on Information Technology: New
Generations, 593–598. Las Vegas, Nevada, USA.
Dabbagh, N., 2007. The online learner: Characteristics and
pedagogical implications. Contemporary Issues in
Technology and Teacher Education, 7(3), 217–226.
Dabbagh, N. and Kitsantas, A., 2012. Personal learning
environments, social media, and self-regulated
learning: A natural formula for connecting formal and
informal learning. The Internet and Higher Education,
15(1), 3–8.
Dillenbourg, P., 1999. What do you mean by collaborative
learning? In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Collaborative-
learning: Cognitive and computational approaches
(pp. 1–19). Oxford: Elsevier.
Dillenbourg, P., Baker, M., Blaye, A., and O’Malley, C.,
1996. The evolution of research on collaborative
learning. In E. Spada and P. Reiman (Eds.), Learning
in humans and machine: Towards an interdisciplinary
learning science (pp. 189–211). Oxford: Elsevier.
Dillenbourg, P., Järvelä, S., and Fischer, F., 2009. The
evolution of research on computer-supported
collaborative learning: From design to orchestration.
In N. Balacheff, S. Ludvigsen, T. de Jong, A.
Lazonder and S. Barnes (Eds.), Technology-enhanced
learning. Principles and products (pp. 3–19).
Dordrecht: Springer.
Fischer, F., Kollar, I., Stegmann, K., and Wecker, C.,
2013. Toward a script theory of guidance in computer-
supported collaborative learning. Educational
Psychologist, 48(1), 56–66.
Gupta, S. and Bostrom, R. P., 2004. Collaborative e-
learning: Information systems research directions.
Proceedings of the Tenth Americas Conference on
Information Systems, 3031–3039. New York, USA.
Hurme, T-R., Merenluoto, K., and Järvelä, S., 2009.
Socially shared metacognition of pre-service primary
teachers in a computer-supported mathematics course
and their feelings of task difficulty: A case study.
Educational Research and Evaluation, 15(5), 503–
524.
Kirschner, P. A., 2001. Using integrated electronic
environments for collaborative teaching/learning.
Research Dialogue in Learning and Instruction, 2, 1–
9.
Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P. A., and Jochems, W., 2003.
Identifying the pitfalls for social interaction in
computer-supported collaborative learning
environments: A review of the research. Computers in
Human Behavior, 19, 335–353.
Leidner, D. E. and Fuller, M., 1997. Improving student
learning of conceptual information: GSS supported
collaborative learning vs. individual constructive
learning. Decision Support Systems, 20, 149–163.
Neufeld, D. J. and Haggerty, N., 2001. Collaborative team
learning in information systems: A pedagogy for
developing team skills and high performance. Journal
of Computer Information Systems, 42(1), 37–44.
Resta, P. and Laferrière, T., 2007. Technology in support
of collaborative learning. Educational Psychology
Review, 19, 65–83.
Roschelle, J. and Teasley, S. D., 1995. The construction of
shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving. In
Computer supported collaborative learning (pp. 69–
97). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
Stahl, G., 2006. Group cognition: Computer support for
building collaborative knowledge. Cambridge: MIT
Press.
Stahl, G., 2012. Theorien des CSCL. In Haake, J.,
Schwabe, G. and Wessner, M. (Eds.), CSCL-
kompendium 2.0 (pp. 16–30). Frankfurt: Oldenburg.
Available in English from: <http://gerrystahl.net/
pub/theories.pdf>. [22 March 2015]
Stahl, G., Koschmann, T., and Suthers, D., 2006.
Computer-supported collaborative learning: An
historical perspective. In Sawyer, R. K. (Ed.),
Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp.
409–426). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Weinberger, A., 2011. Principles of transactive computer-
supported collaboration scripts. Nordic Journal of
Digital Literacy, 6(3), 189–202.
Weinberger, A., Stegmann, K., and Fischer, F., 2007.
Knowledge convergence in collaborative learning:
Concepts and assessment. Learning and Instruction,
17, 416–426.
Wolters, C. A., 2003. Regulation of motivation:
Evaluating an underemphasized aspect of self-
regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 38, 189–
205.
ConceptualizingCollaborationintheContextofComputer-supportedCollaborativeLearning
443
