Introduction: Toward a Theory of Computer Support for Collaborative Learning

Author(s): T. D. Koschmann
Source: The Journal of the Learning Sciences, Vol. 3, No. 3, Computer Support for
Collaborative Learning (1993 - 1994), pp. 219-225
Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1466820
Accessed: 28/11/2010 18:45

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=taylorfrancis.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of
the Learning Sciences.

http://www.jstor.org
THEJOURNALOF THELEARNINGSCIENCES,1994,3(3), 219-225
Copyright? 1994,LawrenceErlbaumAssociates,Inc.

Toward a Theory of Computer

Support for Collaborative Learning
T. D. Koschmann
Southern Illinois University

Things change. For decades teachers have adhered to the familiar and the
routine, teaching largely as they themselves were taught (Cuban, 1993). But
there are signs of change in today's classroom. Teachers are beginning to
seek new theories and approaches to learning. One currently prominent
theme of change is the movement away from the traditional, teacher-cen-
tered approach to instruction toward more collaborative approaches such as
cooperative learning (Slavin et al., 1985), project-based learning
(Blumenfeld et al., 1991), problem-based learning (Barrows & Tamblyn,
1980), and reciprocal instruction (Palincsar & Brown, 1984) in which peer-
to-peer interaction is highly valued.
One interesting question, with respect to these newly emerging forms of
instruction, is how can they be supported and enhanced by technology? The
dominant paradigm for past work in the use of computers (both in instruction
and in other settings) has involved designing software for the solitary user.
Recently, however, researchers have begun to investigate the practices and
shared artifacts by which groups coordinate their work with an eye toward
the development of new facilitating technologies (Bodker & Pederson,
1991). This emerging area of study, known as computer support for cooper-
ative work (CSCW), is founded on the notion that computers can be used to
facilitate, augment, and even redefine interactions among members of a
work group (Galegher & Kraut, 1990). The term groupware has been coined
for software that is meant to be used by groups rather than single individuals
(Stefik & Brown, 1989). Research in this area has stimulated interest in the
educational possibilities engendered by CSCW, and the acronym CSCL is
often used for computer support of collaborative learning, the more focused
study of the use of collaboration technology in instruction.

Requestsforreprintsshouldbe sentto T. D. Koschmann,SouthernIllinoisUniversity,School

of Medicine,P.O. Box 19230,CognitiveScienceDivision, Springfield,IL 62794.
220 KOSCHMANN

WHATIS IN AN ACRONYM?(OR WHATIS THE

SECOND "C"IN CSCL?)

There has been some controversy surrounding what the letters CSCL repre-
sent. When we organized our first workshop on CSCL in 1991 (Koschmann,
1992), we billed it as the Workshop on Computer Support for Cooperative
Learning-simply substituting learning for work and drawing on the per-
ceived connection to prior research in CSCW. Trent Batson sent me a note at
the time observing that cooperative learning has a special meaning in the
education world (cf., Slavin et al., 1985) and encouraging me to consider
collaborative learning as an alternative. Although the term collaborative
learning was also not new (e.g., Greeno, 1986), it had yet to denote any
specific set of educational methods. We, therefore, decided to change the
name of our workshop to the Workshop on Computer Support for Collabora-
tive Learning.' In this issue, Roy Pea argues that collaborative learning is
often not descriptive of what we find happening in the classroom and sug-
gests that collective learning may be a more apt term. I think the term
coordinated learning may also apply (in the sense in which the term coordi-
nated activity is used by social constructivists (Blumer, 1969; Heritage,
1984; Suchman, 1987) to describe the mutually constitutive interactions of
individuals in social settings. At this point, however, the best policy might be
to simply use the acronym, allowing individual interpretation of what the
letters might actually represent.
CSCL applications can be categorized by a number of dimensions
(O'Malley & Koschmann, 1993). Three important ones are the locus of use,
how the use is coordinated in time, and the intended instructional role of the
application. CSCL applications have been designed to be used in a variety of
settings-applications for use in the classroom (intra-classroom applica-
tions), applications that connect users across classrooms (inter-classroom
applications), and applications that are used outside the classroom (extra-
classroom applications). Many CSCL applications involve groups of learners
working on different (but connected) processors. Depending on the applica-
tion, their interaction can be coordinated synchronously or asynchronously.2
The instructional role of the application may also be quite variable. Technol-
ogy, for example, can be used to present or simulate a problem for study,
helping to situate it in a real-world context (e.g., Jason Woodbury Math
Series; Bransford & The Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt,
1992). Alternatively, computers can be used to mediate communication

1Aworkshopwith the same namehad been organizeda yearearlierin Maratea,Italy,under

the auspicesof the NATOSpecialProgrammeon AdvancedEducationalTechnology(O'Malley,
in press).TimO'Shea (personalcommunication)informedmethatthe termcomputer-supported
collaborativelearningwas alreadyin use in Europeas earlyas 2 yearspriorto thatmeeting.
2A telephonecall is a paradigmaticexampleof a synchronizedinteraction;correspondence
throughthe mail is an exampleof asynchronouscommunication.
 TOWARD A THEORY OF CSCL 221

within (Bruce & Peyton, 1991) and across classrooms (e.g., Learning Circles
on the AT&TLearning Network; Riel, 1992) and to introduce new resources
into the classroom (Pea, 1993). Computers can provide archival storage for
the products of group work, thereby supporting "knowledge building"
(Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1991) and "communities of learning" (Campione,
Brown, & Jay, 1992). Finally, computers can support the creation of repre-
sentational formalisms that enable learners to model their shared understand-
ing of new concepts (e.g., the Envisioning Machine; Roschelle, 1992).

OVERVIEWOF THIS SPECIALISSUE

The articles that appear in this issue were first presented in 1992 at an
American Educational Research Association Symposium entitled "Theories
Underlying the Use of Networked Computers in the Classroom."3 This spe-
cial issue was put together to allow the presenters to further refine their ideas
and present them in a more coherent form.
The first article describes work being undertaken at the Southern Illinois
University School of Medicine. We begin by enumerating our own commit-
ments with respect to teaching and learning in the form of a list of principles.
We then describe how these principles are served by a particular approach to
collaborative instruction, known as problem-based learning (PBL). Finally,
we discuss several ways that technology could be used to support and
enhance PBL. The applications described are largely designed for intra-
classroom use, though support for extra-classroom activities is also planned.
They include using computers to present clinical problems for study, to
mediate communication in face-to-face meetings, and to provide archival
storage of the group's deliberations.
The article by Scardamalia and Bereiter describes the theories of learning
and instruction underlying the Computer-Supported Intentional Learning
Environments (CSILE) project (Scardamalia et al., 1992) at the Ontario
Institute for Studies in Education. The CSILE provides a framework in the
form of a hypertext journal for creating, editing, storing, annotating, and
retrieving materials generated by a team of students working on a common
project. An importantfeature of the CSILEproject is that material gathered by
one team of students can be used as a resource for future groups. Scardamalia
and Bereiterview this kind of "knowledge-building"activity as similar in many
ways to the activities that occur in academic research communities. As de-
scribed, the CSILE programis an example of anotherintra-classroom applica-
tion, althoughthe emphasis on knowledge building imparts an inter-classroom
flavor (i.e., for classrooms separatedby time rather than space).

3A fourth paper (by Denis Newman) was also presented at that symposium but was, regretta-
bly, not available for inclusion in this issue.
222 KOSCHMANN

In the third article, Roy Pea argues for a transformative view of commu-
nication by which both teachers and students are transformed through the
process of communication. He asserts that educators have traditionally em-
braced a transmissive view of communication and as a consequence have
failed to recognize the social and material embeddedness of interaction in
the classroom. Pea then describes the Dynagrams project as an example of a
research project inspired by a transformative perspective. This project was
undertaken to investigate ways in which technology could be used to aug-
ment student sense-making in the context of solving optics problems in a
high-school physics course. The Dynagrams project is another example of an
intra-classroom CSCL application, in this case one in which a specially
designed microworld provided a representational formalism to support a
desired form of conversation among student problem solvers. Pea's more
recent work has moved in the direction of inter-classroom and extra-class-
room applications. The Collaborative Visualization (CoVis) project (Pea,
1993) focuses on the use of high-speed telecommunications gear to provide
similar kinds of representational support for dispersed groups of students.

INSTRUCTION?
WHY COLLABORATIVE

On the surface, the applications described in this issue may appear to have
little in common-some are used in the classroom, but some are not; some
involve networks, but some reside on a single machine; some are used in real
time, but some are used asynchronously. What they do hold in common,
however, is a concern for the importance of supporting collaboration in
instruction.
Each of the articles presents a slightly different argument for why we need
collaborative instruction in the first place. The article by Koschmann,
Myers, Feltovich, and Barrows, for example, presents collaborative learning
as one way of addressing some of the known failures of traditional methods
of instruction (e.g., low rates of retention, failure to transfer learning, inabil-
ity of learners to apply knowledge flexibly). Learning in groups provides
opportunities for exposure to multiple perspectives and interpretations. It
also provides participants with opportunities to articulate their newly ac-
quired knowledge. For Scardamalia and Bereiter, the idea of knowledge
building in CSILE is to allow learners to make the fruits of their research
apparent to and usable by their peers. This, they hope, will enhance the
intentional character of their learning. The argument is largely a motiva-
tional one. Pea's article argues for a new model of communication in the
classroom, one that acknowledges its transformative character. If classroom
discussions are viewed as transformative activities, they can be understood
in a different way, leading, we hope, to the development of new and better
forms of instruction. He privileges a particular type of conversation-the
 TOWARDA THEORYOF CSCL 223

sense-making conversation that leads to the social construction of under-

standing and individual conceptual change. What characterizes collaborative
learning is a model of instruction that honors other types of communication
(i.e., peer-to-peer, student-to-teacher) in addition to the traditional one-way
communication of teacher to student. A theory of communication is central,
therefore, to a theory of collaborative learning.

SOME OTHEREMERGENTTHEMES

Two other important themes present themselves in these articles-a view of

the learner as an active participant in the learning process and the need for
new forms of communication in the classroom.
All three articles maintain a view of learning as an active process. This is
taken up in the article by Koschmann et al. as one of the six principles of
effective learning and instruction (i.e., the Principle of Activeness). The
notion of intentional learning developed by Scardamalia and Bereiter in this
issue and elsewhere (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1989, 1991) implicitly as-
sumes a model in which learning is a constructive process. They suggest in
their article that one of the central problems of education today is that
schools are too much like factories in which the workers have little or no
input into the design of the product. Finally, Pea writes "Students are not
blank slates, written upon with curricular lessons. They are active [italics
added] learners ..." (p. 290).
As mentioned earlier, what distinguishes collaborative forms of instruction
from more conventional methods of teaching is a shift in the types of communi-
cation that are sanctioned. It is not surprising, therefore, that all three articles
directly address issues of classroom discourse and call for new forms of conver-
sational activities to support instruction. This is the central message of Pea's
article, but it emerges as an importanttheme in the other two articles as well. For
example, Scardamaliaand Bereiter state, "Knowledge-building discourse is at
the heart of the superioreducation that we have in mind" (p. 266). These new
patterns of discourse may introduce new instructional challenges, however.
Koschmann et al.'s and Scardamaliaand Bereiter's articles both observe that
because of the natureof group dynamics, simple discussion may not be the most
efficacious way of achieving group sense making. Both articles express hope,
however, that these limitationsof groupdiscussion can be addressed throughthe
introductionof new technologies.
This special issue was conceived to serve at least two objectives: first, to
provide a representative sample of ongoing work in CSCL; second, to eluci-
date some of the underlying theories that currently inform design in the area.
I believe that it succeeds on both counts. My greatest hope is that it will
initiate a wider discussion of the importantissues pertaining to the introduc-
tion of technologies into collaborative learning settings.
224 KOSCHMANN

REFERENCES

Barrows, H. S., & Tamblyn, R. (1980). Problem-based learning: An approach to medical

education. New York: Springer.
Blumenfeld, P., Soloway, E., Marx, R., Krajcik, J., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A. (1991).
Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational
Psychologist, 26, 369-398.
Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bodker, K., & Pederson, J. (1991). Workplace cultures: Looking at artifacts, symbols and
practices. In J. Greenbaum & M. Kyng (Eds.), Design at work: Cooperative design of
computer systems (pp. 121-136). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Bransford, J. D., & The Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1992). The Jasper
experiment series as an example of anchored instruction: Theory, program description, and
assessment data. Educational Psychologist, 27, 291-315.
Bruce, B., & Peyton, J. K. (1991). A new writing environment and an old culture: A situated
evaluation of computer networking to teach writing. Interactive Learning Environments, 1,
171-191.
Campione, J., Brown, A., & Jay, M. (1992). Computers in a community of users. In E. DeCorte,
M. C. Linn, H. Mandl, & L. Verschaffel (Eds.), Computer-based learning environments and
problem solving (NATO ASI Series F: Computer and Systems Sciences, Vol. 84; pp. 163-
188). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the craft of
reading, writing and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning and instruction:
Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453-494). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associ-
ates, Inc.
Cuban, L. (1993). How teachers taught: Constancy and change in American classrooms (1890-
1990) (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.
Galegher, J., & Kraut, R. E. (1990). Technology for intellectual teamwork: Perspectives on
research and design. In J. Galegher, R. Kraut, & C. Egido (Eds.), Intellectual teamwork:
Social and technological foundations of cooperative work (pp. 1-20). Hillsdale, NJ: Law-
rence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Greeno, J. (1986). Collaborative teaching and making sense of symbols: Comment on Lampert's
"Knowing, doing, and teaching multiplication." Cognition and Instruction, 3, 343-347.
Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge, England: Polity.
Koschmann, T. D. (Ed.). (1992). Computer support for collaborative learning: Experience,
theory and design [Special issue]. ACM SIGCUE Outlook, 21(3).
O'Malley, C. (Ed.). (in press). Computer supported collaborative learning (NATO Advanced
Science Series F: Computer and Systems Sciences, Special Programme on Advanced Educa-
tional Technology). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
O'Malley, C., & Koschmann, T. D. (1993). Tutorial on using computers to support collaborative
learning. Presented at InterCHI '93, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and
comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117-175.
Pea, R. (1993). The collaborative visualization project. Communications of the ACM, 36(5),
60-63.
Riel, M. (1992). A functional analysis of educational telecomputing: A case study of learning
circles. Interactive Learning Environments, 2, 15-30.
Roschelle, J. (1992). Learning by collaboration: Convergent conceptual change. The Journal of
the Learning Sciences, 2, 235-276.
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1989). Intentional learning as a goal of instruction. In L. B.
Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp.
361-392). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
 TOWARDA THEORYOF CSCL 225

Scardamalia,M., & Bereiter,C. (1991). Higherlevels of agency for childrenin knowledge

building:A challengefor the design of new knowledgemedia. TheJournalof the Learning
Sciences, 1, 37-67.
Scardamalia,M., Bereiter,C., Brett, C., Burtis, P., Calhoun,C., & Smith Lea, N. (1992).
Educationalapplicationsof a networkedcommunaldatabase.InteractiveLearningEnviron-
ments, 2, 45-71.
Slavin,R., Sharan,S., Kagan,S., Lazarowitz,R. H., Webb,C., & Schmuck,R. (1985). Learning
to cooperate, cooperating to learn. New York: Plenum.
Stefik, M., & Brown,J. S. (1989). Towardportableideas. In M. Olson (Ed.), Technological
support for work group collaboration (pp. 147-165). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates,Inc.
Suchman, L. (1987). Plans and situated actions: The problem of human/machine communica-
tion. Cambridge,England:CambridgeUniversityPress.