Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning

doi:10.1017/9781108888295.025

20 - Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning

from Part IV - Learning Together

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 14 March 2022

Gerry Stahl ,

Timothy Koschmann and

Daniel Suthers

Edited by

R. Keith Sawyer

Show author details

R. Keith Sawyer: Affiliation:
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

Book contents

Get access

Summary

In its broadest definition, computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) is any learning that involves two or more learners as well as one or more computers. CSCL research studies how collaboration contributes to learning and how computer technology can facilitate collaborative learning. This chapter discusses CSCL in terms of four conceptions: (1) collaborative knowledge building; (2) dialogic interaction; (3) intersubjective meaning making; (4) group cognition. CSCL research demonstrates that collaboration among students – when well-designed to scaffold student interactions – is more effective than teachers delivering information to students through a recorded lecture or a synchronous video meeting. This chapter reviews major themes in CSCL, including: empirical studies of cooperative learning in groups; theoretical explanations of learning as an emergent, collective phenomenon; conceptions of knowledge as interactions between learners, rather than as mental representations in student’s heads; and the use of interaction analysis to study moment-to-moment collaborations.

Keywords

computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL)collaborative learning cooperative learning the Internet online learning discourse group cognition

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences , pp. 406 - 427

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108888295.025 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Bereiter, C. (2002). Education and mind in the knowledge age. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Button, G., Crabtree, A., Rouncefield, M., & Tolmie, P. (2015). Deconstructing ethnography: Towards a social methodology for ubiquitous computing and interactive systems design. New York, NY: Springer.CrossRef Google Scholar

Cakir, M., Xhafa, F., Zhou, N., & Stahl, G. (2005). Thread-based analysis of patterns of collaborative interaction in chat. In Proceedings of the International Conference on AI in Education (AI-Ed 2005). Amsterdam, The Netherlands.Google Scholar

Cuban, L. (1986). Teachers and machines: The classroom use of technology since 1920. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar

David, M. (2016). The correspondence theory of truth. In Zalta, E. N. (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Retrieved September 10, 2019 from https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2016/entries/truth-correspondence Google Scholar

Dewey, J., & Bentley, A. (1991). Knowing and known. In Boydston, J. A. (Ed.), John Dewey: The later works, 1949–1952 (Vol. 16, pp. 1–294). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar

Dillenbourg, P. (1999). What do you mean by “collaborative learning”? In Dillenbourg, P. (Ed.), Collaborative learning: Cognitive and computational approaches (pp. 1–16). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Pergamon, Elsevier Science.Google Scholar

Dillenbourg, P. (2005). Designing biases that augment socio-cognitive interactions. In Bromme, R., Hesse, F., & Spada, H. (Eds.), Barriers and biases in computer-mediated knowledge communication – and how they may be overcome. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar

Dillenbourg, P., Baker, M., Blaye, A., & O’Malley, C. (1996). The evolution of research on collaborative learning. In Reimann, P. & Spada, H. (Eds.), Learning in humans and machines: Towards an interdisciplinary learning science (pp. 189–211). Oxford, England: Elsevier. http://tecfa.unige.ch/tecfa/publicat/dil-papers-2/Dil.7.1.10.pdf Google Scholar

Donmez, P., Rosé, C. P., Stegmann, K., Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2005). Supporting CSCL with automatic corpus analysis technology. In Proceedings of the International Conference of Computer Support for Collaborative Learning (CSCL 2005). Taipei, Taiwan.Google Scholar

Dwyer, N., & Suthers, D. D. (2006). Consistent practices in artifact-mediated collaboration. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(4), 481–511.Google Scholar

Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki, Finland: Orienta-Kosultit Oy.Google Scholar

Fischer, K., & Granoo, N. (1995). Beyond one-dimensional change: Parallel, concurrent, socially distributed processes in learning and development. Human Development, 1995 (38), 302–314.Google Scholar

Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar

Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. New York, NY: Harper & Row.Google Scholar

Hanks, W. (1996). Language and communicative practices. Boulder, CO: Westview.Google Scholar

Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge, England: Polity Press.Google Scholar

Hicks, D. (1996). Contextual inquiries: A discourse-oriented study of classroom learning. In Hicks, D. (Ed.), Discourse, learning and schooling (pp. 104–141). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14–26.Google Scholar

Jonçich, G. (1968). The sane positivist: A biography of Edward L. Thorndike. Middleton, CT: Wesleyan University Press.Google Scholar

Koedinger, K., & Corbett, A. (2006). Cognitive tutors: Technology bringing learning science to the classroom. In Sawyer, R. K. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (1st ed., pp. 61–77). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Koschmann, T. (1996). Paradigm shifts and instructional technology. In Koschmann, T. (Ed.), CSCL: Theory and practice of an emerging paradigm (pp. 1–23). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Koschmann, T. (1997). Logo-as-Latin redux: Review of Papert’s “The children’s machine.” Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6(4), 409–415.Google Scholar

Koschmann, T. (2001). A third metaphor for learning: Toward a Deweyan form of transactional inquiry. In Carver, S. & Klahr, D. (Eds.), Cognition and instruction: 25 years of progress (pp. 119–132). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Koschmann, T. (2002). Dewey’s contribution to the foundations of CSCL research. In Stahl, G. (Ed.), Computer support for collaborative learning: Foundations for a CSCL community: Proceedings of CSCL 2002 (pp. 17–22). Boulder, CO: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Koschmann, T. (2011). Theorizing practice. In Koschmann, T. (Ed.), Theories of learning and studies of instructional practice (pp. 3–17). New York, NY: Springer Science+Business Media.Google Scholar

Koschmann, T. (2018). Ethnomethodology: Studying the practical achievement of intersubjectivity. In Fischer, F., Hmelo-Silver, C., Goldman, S., & Reimann, P. (Eds.), International handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 465–474). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar

Koschmann, T., Stahl, G., & Zemel, A. (2007). The video analyst’s manifesto (or the implications of Garfinkel’s policies for studying practice within the design-based research). In Goldman, R., Pea, R., Barron, B., & Derry, S. (Eds.), Video research in the learning sciences (pp. 133–143). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Koschmann, T., Zemel, A., Conlee-Stevens, M., Young, N., Robbs, J., & Barnhart, A. (2003). Problematizing the problem: A single case analysis in a DPBL meeting. In Wasson, B., Ludvigsen, S., & Hoppe, U. (Eds.), Designing for change in networked learning environments: Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning (CSCL ‘03) (pp. 37–46). Bergen, Norway: Kluwer Publishers.Google Scholar

Lave, J. (1991). Situating learning in communities of practice. In Resnick, L., Levine, J., & Teasley, S. (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 63–83). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRef Google Scholar

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

LeBaron, C. (2002). Technology does not exist independent of its use. In Koschmann, T., Hall, R., & Miyake, N. (Eds.), CSCL 2: Carrying forward the conversation (pp. 433–439). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Lipponen, L., Hakkarainen, K., & Paavola, S. (2004). Practices and orientations of CSCL. In Strijbos, J.-W., Kirschner, P., & Martens, R. (Eds.), What we know about CSCL: And implementing it in higher education (pp. 31–50). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar

Medina, R., & Stahl, G. (2021). Analysis of group practices. In Cress, U., Rosé, C., Wise, A., & Oshima, J. (Eds.), International handbook of computer-supported collaborative learning (pp. 199–218). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar

Reckwitz, A. (2002). Toward a theory of social practices: A development in culturalist theorizing. European Journal of Social Theory, 5(2), 243–263.CrossRef Google Scholar

Rommetveit, R. (1974). On message structure: A framework for the study of language and communication. New York, NY: Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar

Rorty, R. (1974). Philosophy and the mirror of nature. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Roschelle, J. (1996). Learning by collaborating: Convergent conceptual change. In Koschmann, T. (Ed.), CSCL: Theory and practice of an emerging paradigm (pp. 209–248). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Roschelle, J., & Teasley, S. (1995). The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving. In O’Malley, C. (Ed.), Computer-supported collaborative learning (pp. 69–197). Berlin, Germany: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar

Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on conversation. Oxford, England: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1991). Higher levels of agency in knowledge building: A challenge for the design of new knowledge media. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1(1), 37–68.Google Scholar

Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational Researcher, 27(2), 4–13.Google Scholar

Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1982). Mutual knowledge and relevance of theories of comprehension. In Smith, N. V. (Ed.), Mutual knowledge. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Stahl, G. (2002). Rediscovering CSCL. In Koschmann, T., Hall, R., & Miyake, N. (Eds.), CSCL 2: Carrying forward the conversation (pp. 169–181). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. http://GerryStahl.net/cscl/papers/ch01.pdf Google Scholar

Stahl, G. (2006). Group cognition: Computer support for building collaborative knowledge. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Stahl, G. (2009). Studying virtual math teams. New York, NY: Springer.CrossRef Google Scholar

Stahl, G. (2013). Translating Euclid: Designing a human-centered mathematics. San Rafael, CA: Morgan & Claypool Publishers.Google Scholar

Stahl, G. (2016). Constructing dynamic triangles together: The development of mathematical group cognition. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Stahl, G. (2021). Theoretical investigations: Philosophical foundations of group cognition. New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar

Stahl, G., & Hakkarainen, K. (2021). Theories of CSCL. In Cress, U., Rosé, C., Wise, A., & Oshima, J. (Eds.), International handbook of computer-supported collaborative learning (pp. 23–43). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar

Suthers, D. D. (2006). Technology affordances for intersubjective meaning-making: A research agenda for CSCL. International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(3), 315–337.Google Scholar

Suthers, D. D., Lund, K., Rosé, C. P., Teplovs, C., & Law, N. (Eds.). (2013). Productive multivocality in the analysis of group interactions. New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar

Thorndike, E. L. (1912). Education: A first book. New York, NY: Macmillan Co.Google Scholar

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Wegerif, R. (2006). A dialogic understanding of the relationship between CSCL and teaching thinking skills. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(1), 143–157.CrossRef Google Scholar

Young, J. (2018). The coherence theory of truth. In Zalta, E. N. (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Retrieved September 10, 2019 from https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2018/entries/truth-coherence Google Scholar

Zemel, A., Xhafa, F., & Stahl, G. (2005). Analyzing the organization of collaborative math problem-solving in online chats using statistics and conversation analysis. In Fuks, H., Lukosch, S., & Salgado, A. C. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Groupware: Design, Implementation, and Use: 11th International Workshop, CRIWG 2005. Porto de Galinhas, Brazil (pp. 271–283). http://GerryStahl.net/pub/criwg2005zemel.pdf Google Scholar

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Why this information is here

This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.

Accessibility Information

Accessibility compliance for the HTML of this chapter is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.