This study explored how asynchronous discussion supported by a Web-based learning system facilitated collaborative learning. The participants in this study consisted of the instructor, facilitators, and the students in a master's level course at a university in the south. Different sources of evidence were used in the study (individual/group interviews, and discussion board transcripts), and various methods were used to analyze the data (inductive analysis and discourse analysis). Three main categories with multiple themes emerged from the data as important for facilitating collaborative learning in online environments: context (i.e., structural support, active participation), community (i.e., a formation of membership, generation of social dialogue), and cognition (i.e., a social process of learning, communal facilitation). Implications for research and practice are described at the conclusion of the article.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlaviM., & DuftnerD. (2005). Technology-mediated collaborative learning: A research perspective. In HiltzS. R. & GoldmanR. (Eds.), Learning together online: Research on asynchronous learning networks (pp. 191–213). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
2.
ArbaughJ. B. (2001). How instructor immediacy behaviors affect student satisfaction and learning in web-based courses. Business Communication Quarterly, 64(4), 42–54.
3.
BarabS. A., & KirschnerD. (2001). Guest editor's introduction: Rethinking methodology in the learning sciences. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10 (1 & 2), 5–15.
4.
BarkhiR.JacobV. S., & PirkulH. (1999). An experimental analysis of face-to-face versus computer mediated communication channels. Group Decision and Negotiation, 8, 325–347.
5.
BereiterC. (2002). Education and mind in the knowledge age.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
6.
BonkC. J., & DennenV. (2003). Frameworks for research, design, benchmarks, training, and pedagogy in Web-based distance education. In. MooreM. G. & AndersonW. G. (Eds.). Handbook of distance education (pp. 331–348). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
7.
BransfordJ. D.BrownA. L., & CockingR. R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learning: Brain, mind, experience, and school.Washington, DC: National Academy.
8.
BrownA. M., & PalinscarA. S. (1989). Guided, cooperative learning and individual knowledge acquisition. In ResnickL. B. (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 393–451). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
9.
BrownJ. S.CollinsA., & DuguidS. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.
10.
BruffeeK. A. (1999). Collaborative learning: Higher education, interdependence, and the authority of knowledge (2nd ed.). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University.
CrantonP. (1996). Types of group learning. In ImelS. (Ed.), Learning in groups: Exploring fundamental principles, new uses, and emerging opportunities (Vol. 17, pp. 52–32). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
de JongF.Veldhuis-DiermanseE., & LutgensG. (2002). Computer-supported collaborative learning in university and vocational education. In KoschmannT.HallR., & MiyakeN. (Eds.) CSCL2: Carrying forward the conversation (pp. 111–128). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
15.
FahyP. J. (2001). Addressing some common problems in transcript analysis. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning. [On-line]. Available: http://www.irrodl.org/content/v1.2/research.html
16.
FisherM. M. (2000). Implementation considerations for instructional design of Web-based learning environments. In AbbeyB. (Ed.), Instructional and cognitive impacts of Web-based education (pp. 78–101). Hershey, PA: Idea Group.
17.
GarrisonD. R. (1992). Critical thinking and self-directed learning in adult education: An analysis of responsibility and control issues. Adult Education Quarterly, 42(3), 136–148.
18.
GarrisonD. R.AndersonT., & ArcherW. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment; Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2–3), 87–105.
19.
GeeJ. P. (1997). Thinking, learning, and reading: The situated sociocultural mind. In KirshnerD. & WhitsonJ. A. (Eds.), Situated cognition: Social, semiotic, and psychological perspectives (pp. 235–280). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
20.
GeeJ. P. (1999). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method.London: Routledge.
21.
GillR. (2000). Discourse analysis. In. BauerM. W. & GaskellG. (Eds.), Qualitative researching with text, image and sound:A practical handbook (pp. 172–190). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
22.
GlaserB. G., & StraussA. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory.Chicago, IL: Aldine.
23.
GoetzJ. P., & LeCompteM. D. (1984). Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research.New York: Academic Press.
24.
GoldmanR.CrosbyM.SwanK., & SheaP. (2005). Qualitative and quisitive research methods for describing online learning. In HiltzS. R. & GoldmanR. (Eds.), Learning together online: Research on asynchronous learning networks (pp. 103–120). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
25.
GunawardenaC. N.LoweC. A., & AndersonT. (1997). Analysis of global online debate the development of an interaction analysis model for examining social construction of knowledge in computer conferencing. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 17(4), 397–431.
26.
HanS., & HillJ. R. (2005). Language that shared, situated, and distributed: Examining interaction patterns and types of discourse in asynchronous discussion. Unpublished manuscript, University of Georgia at Athens.
27.
HanS., & HillJ. R. (2006). Revisiting the meaning of collaboration, communication, and learning in virtual community. In DasguptaS. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of virtual communities and technologies (pp.29–35). Hershey, PA: Idea Group.
28.
HarasimL. (1990). Online education: An environment for collaboration and intellectual amplification. In. HarasimL. (Ed.), Online education: Perspectives on a new environment (pp. 39–66). New York: Praeger.
29.
HarasimL. (2002). What makes online learning communities successful?: The role of collaborative learning in social and intellectual development. In VrasidasC. & GlassG. V. (Eds.), Distance education and distributed learning (pp. 181–200). Greenwich, CO: Information Age.
30.
HenriF. (1992). Computer conferencing and content analysis. In KayeA. (Ed.), Collaborative learning through computer conferencing: The Najaden Papers (pp. 117–136). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
31.
HillJ. R.WileyD.NelsonL. M., & HanS. (2004). Exploring research on Internet-based learning: From infrastructure to interactions. In JonassenD. H. (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology (2nd ed., pp. 433–460). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
32.
HmeloC. E.GuzdialM., & TurnsJ. (1998). Computer-support for collaborative learning to support student engagement. Journal of Learning Research, 9(2), 107–120.
33.
IngramA. L., & HathornL. G. (2004). Methods for analyzing collaboration in online communications. In. RobertsT. S. (Ed.). Online collaborative learning: Theory and practice (pp. 215–241). Hershey, PA: Information Science.
34.
IslasJ. R. L. (2004). Collaborative learning at Monterrey Tech-Virtual University. In DuffyT. & KirkleyJ. R. (Eds.), Learner-centered theory and practice in distance education: Cases from higher education (pp. 297–319). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
35.
JenlinkP., & CarrA. A. (1996). Conversation as a medium for change in education. Educational Technology, 36(1), 31–38.
36.
JonassenD. H., & KwonH. I. (2001). Communication patterns in computer-mediated versus face-to-face group problem solving. ETR&D, 49(1), 35–51.
37.
KanukaH. (2002). A principled approach to facilitating distance education: The Internet, higher education, and higher levels of learning. Journal of Distance Education, 17(2), 70–86.
38.
KanukaH., & AndersonT. (1998). Online social interchange, discord, and knowledge construction. Journal of Distance Education, 13(1). [On-line]. Available: http://cade.athabascau.ca/vol13.1/kanuka.html
39.
KemeryE. R. (2000). Developing on-line collaboration. In AggarwalA. (Ed.), Web-based learning and teaching technologies: Opportunities and challenges (pp. 227–245). Hershey, PA: Idea Group.
KlobasJ. E., & HaddowG. (2000). International computer-supported collaborative teamwork in business education: A case study and evaluation. International Journal of Educational Technology, 2(1). [On-line]. Available: http://www.outreach.uiuc.edu/ijet/v2n1/klobas/index.html
42.
KreftingL. (1991). Rigor in qualitative research: The assessment of trustworthiness. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 45(3), 214–222.
43.
KvaleS. (1996). InterViews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
44.
LaveJ. (1997). The culture of acquisition and the practice of understanding. In KirshnerD. & WhitsonJ. A. (Eds.), Situated cognition: Social, semiotic, and psychological perspectives (pp. 17–36). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
45.
LipponenL.HakkarainenK., & PaavolaS. (2004). Practices and orientations of CSCL. In StrijbosJ-W.KirschnerP. A., & MartensR. L. (Eds.), What we know about CSCL: An implementing it in higher education (pp. 31–50). Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic.
46.
MacLureM. (2003). Discourse in educational and social research.Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.
47.
McKenzieW., & MurphyD. (2000). “I hope this goes somewhere”: Evaluation of an online discussion group. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 16(3), 239–257. [On-line]. Available: http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet16/mckenzie.html
48.
OliverR.OmariA., & HerringtonJ. (1998). Exploring student interactions in collaborative World Wide Web computer-based learning environments. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 7(2&3), 263–287.
49.
PalloffR. M., & PrattK. (1999). Building learning communities in cyberspace: Effective strategies for the online classroom.San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
50.
PattonM. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
51.
PeaR. D. (1993). Practices of distributed intelligence and designs for education. In SalomonG. (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 47–87). New York: Cambridge University Press.
52.
ReismanS.FloresJ. G., & EdgeD. (Eds.). (2004). Electronic learning communities: Current issues and best practices.Greenwich, CO: Information Age.
53.
RenningerK. A., & ShumarW. (Eds). (2002). Building virtual communities: Learning and change in cyberspace.New York: Cambridge University Press.
54.
ResnickL. M.PontecorvoC., & SäljöR. (1997). Discourse, tools, and reasoning: Essays on situated cognition. In ResnickL. B.SäljöR.PontecorvoC., & BurgeB. (Eds.), Discourse, tools, and reasoning: Essays on situated cognition (pp. 1–20). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
RoschelleJ. (1996). Learning by collaborating: Convergent conceptual change. In KoschmannT. (Ed.), CSCL: Theory and practice of an emerging paradigm (pp. 209–248). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
57.
SalomonG. (1993). No distribution without individuals' cognition. In SalomonG. (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 111–138). New York: Cambridge University Press.
58.
SilvermanD. (1998). Harvey Sacks: Social science and conversation analysis.Cambridge, UK: Polity.
59.
SilvermanD. (2001). Interpreting qualitative data: methods for analyzing talk, text, and interaction (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
60.
StrijbosJ. W.KirschnerP. A., & MartensR. L. (2004). What we know about CSCL: And what we do not (but need to) know about CSCL. In StrijbosJ. W.KirschnerP. A., & MartensR. L. (Eds.), What we know about CSCL: And implementing it in higher education (pp. 254–259). Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic.
61.
SuttonL. A. (2001). The principles of vicarious interaction in computer-mediated communications. International Journal of Educational Telecommunication, 7(3), 223–242.
62.
SwanK., & SheaP. (2005). The development of virtual learning communities. In HiltzS. R. & GoldmanR. (Eds.), Learning together online: Research on asynchronous learning networks (pp. 239–260). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
63.
VrasidasC., & GlassG. V. (2002). A conceptual framework for studying distance education. In VrasidasC. & GlassG. V. (Eds.), Distance education and distributed learning (pp. 31–56). Greenwich, CO: Information age.
64.
VrasidasC., & McIssacM. S. (1999). Factors influencing interaction in an online course. The American Journal of Distance Education, 13(3), 22–36.
65.
WegnerS. B.HollowayK. C., & GartonE. M. (1999). The effects of Internet based instruction on student learning. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 3(2). [On-line]. Available: http://www.aln.org/alnweb/journal/Vol13_issue2/Wegner.htm
66.
WengerE. (1998). Communities of practices: Learning, meaning, and identity.New York: Cambridge University Press.
67.
WerryC. C. (1996). Linguistic and interactional features of Internet Relay Chat. In HerringS. C. (Ed.), Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, social and cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 47–64). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
68.
WilsonB. C., & MyersK. M. (2000). Situated cognition in theoretical and practical context. In JonassenD. H. & LandS. M. (Eds.), Theoretical foundations of learning environments (pp. 57–88). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
69.
WoodA. F., & SmithM. J. (2001). Online communication: Linking technology, identity, & culture.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
70.
WoodL. A., & KrogerR. O. (2000). Doing discourse analysis: Methods for studying action in talk text.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
71.
WorthamS. (2004). The interdependence of social identification and learning. American Educational Research Journal, 41(3), 715–750.
