From Collaborative Technology to Collaborative

8/14/2019 From Collaborative Technology to Collaborative

1/6

Educational Media InternationalISSN 0952-3987 print/ISSN 1469-5790 online 2004 International Council for Educational Media

http://www.tandf.co.uk/journalsDOI: 10.1080/09523980410001678566

From Collaborative Technology to CollaborativeUse of Technology: Designing LearningOriented InfrastructuresLasse Lipponen and Jiri Lallimo,FinlandTaylorandFrancis Ltdremi41203.sgm10.1080/09523980410001678566EducationMediaInternational0000-0000(print)/0000-0000(online)OriginalArticle2004TaylorandFrancis Ltd4120000002004LasseLipponenDepartmentofPsychology,PO Box9, 00014Universityof [email protected]

bstracts

In this paper, we argue that even if empirical studies of collaborative technology and learning represent a diversity ofresearch, the cases that have successfully used collaborative technology share one very crucial thing, namely, instead of focus-ing intensively only on the technology, a great deal of effort has been put into collaborative use of technology and designing learn-ing oriented infrastructure

. We propose that the distinction between collaborative technology and collaborative use oftechnology is useful for the future development of technology-supported collaborative learning.

Dune technologie collaborative une utilisation collaborative de technologie: Des infrastructures orientes vers un conceptde formation

Cet expos dmontre que mme si les tudes empiriques de la technologie et formation collaboratives reprsentent unediversit de recherches, les personnes qui ont utilis la technologie collaborative avec succs ont une chose trs cruciale en

commun, cest--dire quau lieu de se focusser intensivement sur la technologie, un grand effort est port sur lutilisationcollaborative de la technologie et sur linfrastructure oriente vers un concept de formation. Nous pensons que pour le futurdveloppement de la formation collaborative supporte par la technologie il est trs utile de distinguer entre la technologiecollaborative et lutilisation collaborative de la technologie.

Von Kooperationstechnologie zu ihrer kooperativen Verwendung: Entwicklung lernzielorientierter Infrastrukturen

In diesem Papier behaupten wir, dass, obwohl es vielfltige empirische Studien ber Kooperationstechnologie und Lernen

gibt, die Flle, in denen diese Techniken erfolgreich genutzt wurden, alle etwas Entscheidendes gemeinsam haben: nmlichstatt sich intensiv nur auf die Technik zu konzentrieren, viele sich hauptschlich bemhen, die kooperative Verwendungder Technik fr die Herstellung lernorientierter Infrastruktur zu nutzen. Wir schlagen vor, dass zuknftig zwischen Koop-

erationstechnologie und kooperativer Verwendung der Technologie bei der Entwicklung technikuntersttzten koopera-tiven Lernens unterschieden wird.

Introduction

In recent years, there has been a growing research interest in collaborative technology (such as groupware,networked learning environments, knowledge spaces and discussion forums) and new theories of learning(Lehtinen et al., 1999; Dillenbourg et al., 2001; Koschmann et al., 2001; Stahl, 2002). The attempt to promoteeducational use of collaborative technology and at the same time implement new pedagogical and cognitivepractices of learning and instruction, appears to demand the utmost of both teachers and students (Stahl,1999; Lipponen, 2001). Many of the technical, theoretical and pedagogical insights have not been transformedinto widely adopted practices of teachers and students.

Furthermore, there is also evidence that this marriage of technology and new theories of learning and instruc-tion has begun to have an impact on the quality of teaching and learning. Research literature (see Koschmann,1996; Lamon et al., 1996; Hoadley, 1999; Lehtinen et al., 1999) reports positive effects and potentials of working

with collaborative technology: enhanced individual learning outcomes; higher group performance, especiallywith regard to knowledge construction; and improvement in the amount and quality of learning-related socialinteraction among students, and between teachers and students.


2/6

112 EMI 41:2 REFEREED PAPERS AND SELECTED PAPERS FROM THE OSLO CONFERENCE

The studies of collaborative technology and new theories of learning represent a variety of research and theachieved results likewise show great variation. In addition, these studies differ from each other in several signif-icant aspects of research procedure: in instructional design, in length of the study, in students ages and in the

way they are assigned to condition and a great variety in the objective which users seek to achieve with technol-ogy, just to mention a few of the differences. Thus, research on collaborative technology represents a variety

of research that is, at first sight, hard to integrate into a coherent set of evidence for what works and what doesnot, with collaborative technology. It is often unclear on what basis studies could be compared. There are,however, cases that have successfully applied collaborative technology. The interesting question then is, dothese successful cases share some fundamental things in common, which, perhaps, could be successfullyapplied in different learning contexts?

In this paper, we argue that even if empirical studies of collaborative technology represent a diversity ofresearch, the cases that have successfully used collaborative technology generally share one very crucial thing.By analysing two cases, Facilitating Community of Learners, proposed by Brown and Campione (1996) andKnowledge Building Communities developed by Scardamalia and Bereiter (1994), we show that the research-ers efforts that matter were not only in designing the technology but also in designing the practices, in design-ing the collaborative use of technology and learning oriented infrastructure. We propose that this conceptualdistinction between collaborative technology and collaborative use of technology is useful for the future devel-opment of technology-supported collaborative learning.

We first propose two points of clarification: First, rather than offer an exhaustive review of collaborativetechnologyper se, we will be selective and focus on issues of pedagogy and learning. Secondly, despite thedifferences in collaborative technologies, for instance, that some of these applications are, in the first place,designed to support collaborative activities in education (having features such as scaffolding tools) and otherapplications such as standard discussion forums have originally not been created for educational purposes(Roschelle and Pea, 1999), we refer to all those applications that can be involved in collaboration amongpeople learning and working together as collaborative technology. We do not, at this point in the analysis,take account of the differences. This is because almost any technological system, whether especially designedfor educational purposes or not, could, in some way, be used for collaboration. Collaboration can besupported, for instance, with e-mail. In the first place, e-mail was designed for one-to-one communication,but with mailing lists, a larger group of users can exploit e-mail in sharing documents and in commenting oneach others work (Lehtinen et al., 1999). Further, we use the general term collaborative technology,because there is no established way to classify the variety of tools that might be considered as collaborative. It

is hard to make a clear distinction, for instance, between collaborative technology and communicationstechnology.

From collaborative technology to collaborative use of technology

Let us consider the characteristics of some of the successful educational approaches and applications. Bysuccess we mean two things: First, the cases must show evidence of learning outcomes (effects of technology),and secondly, evidence of learning processes (effects with technology) (see, Salomon et al., 1991). In the follow-ing, we will examine two cases that fulfil these criteria of using collaborative technology, namely Scardamaliaand Bereiters (1994) Knowledge Building Communities (KBC) and Facilitating Communities of Learners(FCL) developed by Brown and Campione (1996). We briefly examine the ensuing issues: culture of learning,learning activities and use of technology.

Scardamalia and Bereiters (1994) studies have indicated that collaborative technology, especially designed for

educational purposes, with advanced pedagogical practices has clearly produced some evidence of good learn-ing results. Evaluations comparing CSILE (Computer-Supported Intentional Learning Environment, seeScardamalia et al. (1989)) and non-CSILE classrooms at the primary school level have shown statistically signif-icant advantages for CSILE on standardized achievement tests scores in mathematics problem solving, readingcomprehension, vocabulary and spelling, ability to read difficult texts, portfolio commentaries and graphicalknowledge representation (Lamon et al., 1996).

On the other hand, there are studies that have shown that the advancement in learning and teaching resultsand practices can be achieved by using standard communication technology such as e-mail, as in the case ofBrown et al. (1998). Also, FCL has proven to be successful. Compared to control groups, students participatingin FCL achieved higher tests scores in acquisition of knowledge, critical thinking about the content and read-ing (Brown and Campione, 1994). However, one has to remember that standardized achievement measurescannot be expected to reflect fully the gain in skill, knowledge and motivation intended for those participating


3/6

Designing Learning Oriented Infrastructures 113

in KBC and FCL. We are not, however, denying that it is necessary for educational researchers to produceevidence, not just promise or postulate improvement of occult or underlying skills.

Both Scardamalia and Bereiters Knowledge Building Communities and Brown and Campiones Communityof Learners are examples of advanced collaborative use of technology. They have taken seriously the challengeof creating a fruitful culture of learning. The culture of learning is built on respect; students cognitive diversity

is seen as a valuable resource for learning and for distributing expertise; other students see all students asimportant members of a community. Students come to trust one another, have mutual respect and take collec-tive cognitive responsibility for projects (Brown et al., 1993; Scardamalia, 2002). Cognitive risks in learning areallowed, that is errors and misconceptions are seen as possibilities for development, not as something to avoid(Brown and Campione, 1996).

In Facilitating Community of Learners, as proposed by Brown and Campione (1996), and in Knowledge Build-ing Communities developed by Scardamalia and Bereiter (1994), the core learning activityis participation inresearch-like practices of collaborative inquiry and process of sharing and distributing expertise. Inquiry isextended over a period of months and crosses traditional subject boundaries. The aim is to increase studentsunderstanding and working with deep knowledge, not only on an individual, but also on a collective level(Brown and Campione, 1996; Lamon et al., 1996). Collaboration among students is not only seen as a good

way to learn or as an extra resource, but is viewed more as a norm of working. This intent is well stated by Brown(1994, p. 10): Learning and teaching depend on creating, sustaining, and expanding a community of researchpractice. Members of the community are critically dependent on each other. No one is an island; no one knowsit all; collaborative learning is not just nice, it is necessary for survival.

The design of learning activities is explicitly grounded on some particular learning theory or pedagogicalmodel. For instance, KBC rests on the theory of collaborative knowledge building, articulated by Scardamaliaand Bereiter (1994) and Bereiter (2002). The theoretical background of the development of knowledge build-ing is in research on the psychology of written composition, expertise and progressive problem solving. In thecase of FCL, the work strongly relies on Vygotskys (1962) idea of Zone of Proximal Development (ZDP) andon Deweys idea of discovery learning (expanded by Brown and Campione (1996) as guided discovery).

In both cases, collaborative technology is an integrated part of the whole learning culture and embedded inongoing learning activities. It is a tool that has genuine additional value for the learners. It is used for support-ing reflective discourse (Cohen and Scardamalia, 1998), for building up social structures that encourage learn-ing (Brown and Campione, 1996) and for helping students and teachers build knowledge and deepen their

understanding on subject domains (Brown and Campione, 1996; Scardamalia and Bereiter, 1996). The tech-nology gives new possibilities for sharing information and distributing expertise among students and amongstudents and experts. The development of the whole learning environment is not simply driven by the tech-nology, but instead driven by the needs of the learners and pedagogical ideas. In these advanced pedagogicalpractices, the use of the technology becomes an integrated part of the whole learning environment and theculture of learning (Scardamalia and Bereiter, 1994; Brown et al., 1998).

In summary, both cases demonstrate that learning depends critically on the culture of learning, the exactcharacter of the activities the learners engage in with the collaborative technology and the kind of tasks andproblem-solving situations they address (Brown et al., 1998; Hewitt and Scardamalia, 1998). In both cases, tech-nology deepens the kinds of intellectual and social activity students become involved in, when they interactthrough the collaborative technology.

Designing learning oriented infrastructureOne might say that Scardamalia and Bereiter as well as Brown and Campione have built an appropriate infra-structure for learning. Infrastructure is not just a thing, but refers to a network of relationships and facilitiesthat are developed to support specific work tasks and practices as part of human organization (Star, 1999;Hanseth and Lundberg, 2001). In many cases, the infrastructure is invisible for the actors, existing as a part ofthe background of their activities and, once invented by a community, it does not have to be reinvented foreach task (Star, 1999).

In an educational context, the infrastructure that supports learning has been called social infrastructure(Bielaczyc, 2001). According to Bielczyc (2001), one of the key factors in successful implementation of tech-nology in educational settings is to build an appropriate social infrastructure around the technology infrastruc-ture. She proposed three levels of social infrastructure important for successful implementation and use oftechnology. These three include the cultural level (the philosophy and norms established among educators


4/6


and students), activity level (practices) and tool level (technology). Thus, instead of focusing extensively onlyon the technology, one should turn towards thinking about the social settings that support the implementationand use of technology. This way of thinking reflects an important transformation from a technology-centredto a human-centred approach in the context of collaborative technology.

We acknowledge Bielaczycs idea concerning social infrastructure, although she has been arguing that the

social infrastructure should be built around the tool, thus implicitly considering the technology infrastructureas primary to the social infrastructure. On the basis of our analysis, we see it the other way around. We proposethat culture of learning, learning activities (practices) and use of technology must be seen as inseparable partsof a complex infrastructure. This is why we call this infrastructure as learning oriented infrastructure. This notionis not only proven to be effective in the school context, as the cases of KBC and FCL show, but also useful in

working life context (Hanseth and Lundberg, 2001; Kelly and Jones, 2001; Qureshi and Zigurs, 2001).

If one considers learning oriented infrastructure important, one might offer two suggestions for research.First, one could investigate the already existing innovative pedagogical practices (or needs) as well as learningphilosophy and norms of the community that aims to put technology in use. While these practices and activitiesare found, appropriate technology could be brought into use to support and extend these practices. A moreadvanced idea would be to find the zone of proximal development of the particular community and to bringinto use collaborative technology that has the potential to help transform the community towards moreadvanced learning practices. In both cases, the learning oriented infrastructure is primary to the technologyinfrastructure and the idea is that of collaborative use of technology, not simply collaborative technology itself.

We see this line of thinking taking place, especially in the case of Community of Learners developed by Brownand Campione.

Secondly, one could take the idea of co-evolution of learning oriented and technology infrastructure as astarting point for thinking about new forms of learning activities and the use of collaborative technology.Bruce and Peytons notion of a realization of a technological innovation offers a good way of conceptualiz-ing this process of co-evolution. The idea of realization was proposed by Rubin and Bruce (1990) andexpanded by Bruce and Peyton (1990, 1993). They presented two views of the implementation of an educa-tional innovation. In the conventional view, the technological innovation is implemented as a well-definedplan of action, often accompanied by associated objects, such as teacher guides, student texts, and new tech-nologies (Bruce and Peyton 1990, p. 172). This approach represents the idea of reproduction of the ideali-zation of the technology. One would say that this still is the prevailing model of implementing technology. Inthe alternative view, innovation is re-created by the teachers and students who actually use it (Bruce andPeyton, 1990, p. 171). This approach is very much pedagogy- and activity-driven. It implies that the design oftechnology should be very flexible and tailorable. The co-evolution model is evidently applicable to the wayScardamalia and Bereiter have developed their idea about knowledge building and their collaborativetechnology.

Summmary

Educators have been fascinated by the new collaborative technology; it has been tempting to think that tech-nology will solve the problems of learning. Although technology, in some cases, may serve as a catalyst foradvancement, it seems that the evidence to date does not entitle us to conclude that technology itself hasproduced any deep changes in learning activities. Many researchers (e.g., Owston, 1997; Salomon, 1997;Roschelle and Pea, 1999) have concluded that no medium be it television or Internet or any other by itselfimproves teaching and learning.

In this paper we proposed that, even if empirical studies of collaborative technology represent a rich variety ofresearch, the cases that have successfully used collaborative technology share one very crucial thing; instead offocusing intensively only on the technology, a great deal of effort has been put into collaborative use of tech-nology. This approach analysing the collaborative use of technology takes on great importance in collabo-rative technology studies. If educators, researchers and software developers are going to implement and usecollaborative technology on a large scale, they definitely need broad information about collaborative use oftechnology.

By analysing two cases, Facilitating Community of Learners, proposed by Brown and Campione (1996), andKnowledge Building Communities, developed by Scardamalia and Bereiter (1994), we showed that, in thesecases, the researchers efforts that matter were not only in designing the technology but also in designing thepractices, in designing the social infrastructure for learning.


5/6

Designing Learning Oriented Infrastructures 115

Conclusions

Technology itself does not do the work of teaching or learning. Perhaps too often, the failures of using collab-orative technology are still taken as pure design challenges of technology. We have not been arguing that thedesign of technology is unimportant; far cry from that. It is very important that the technology developed forstudents and teachers be of high quality and theoretically and empirically tested.

As far as we can see, the collaborative use of technology and learning oriented infrastructure approach has thepotential to help one to think about the problems of using (as well as implementing) technology and shouldbe carefully studied and expanded in the future. In fact, there are hardly any studies examining the learningoriented infrastructures. We (researchers and practioners) do not yet know how to design learning orientedinfrastructures effectively in different contexts, how technology and practices should be converged andaligned or how these structures evolve over time. Too often these issues are neglected in collaborative technol-ogy studies. Thus, further research is clearly needed to establish the idea of learning oriented infrastructureand collaborative use of technology, both conceptually and empirically. In that way, one may examine thefruits of what promise to be some of the most exciting innovations in technologically advanced communitiesof learning.

References

Bereiter, B (2002)Education and mind in the knowledge age, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.Bielaczyc, K (2001) Designing social infrastructure: the challenge of building computer-supported learning

communities. In Dillenbourg P, Eurelings, A and Hakkarainen, K (eds)European Perspectives on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning. The proceedings of the First European Conference on Computer-Supported Collabora-tive Learning, University of Maastrich, Maastricht, pp. 106114.

Brown, AL (1994) The advancement of learning,Educational Researcher, 23, 412.Brown, AL and Campione, JC (1994) Guided discovery in a community of learners. In McGilly, K (ed.)Class-

room lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press, pp. 229270.Brown, A and Campione, JC (1996) Psychological theory and the design of innovative learning environments:

on procedures, principles, and systems. In Scauble, L and Glaser, R (eds)Innovations in learning. New envi-ronments for education, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 289325.

Brown, AL, Ash, D, Rutherford, M, Nakagawa, K, Gordon, A and Campione, J (1993) Distributed expertise inthe classroom. In Salomon, G (ed.) Distributed Cognitions. Psychological and Educational Considerations,Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 118228.Brown, AL, Ellery, S and Campione, JC (1998) Creating zones of proximal development electronically. InGreeno, JG and Goldman, SV (eds) Thinking Practices in Mathematics and Science Learning, LawrenceErlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, 341367.

Bruce, B and Peyton, JK (1990) A new writing environment and an old culture: a situated evaluation ofcomputer networking to teach writing,Interactive Learning Environments, 1, 171191.

Bruce, B and Peyton, JK (1993) A situated evaluation of ENFI. In Bruce, B, Peyton, J and Batson, T (eds)Networked-Based Classrooms: Promises and Realities, Cambridge University Press, New York, pp. 3349.

Cohen, A and Scardamalia, M (1998) Discourse about ideas: monitoring and regulating in face-to-face andcomputer-mediated environments,Interactive Learning Environments, 6, 93113.

Dillenbourg, P, Eurelings, A and Hakkarainen, K. (eds) (2001) European Perspectives on Computer-SupportedCollaborative Learning. The Proceedings of the First European Conference on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learn-ing, University of Maastricht, Maastricht.

Hanseth, O and Lundberg, N (2001) Designing work oriented infrastructures,Computer Supported CooperativeWork, 10, 347372.

Hewitt, J and Scardamalia, M (1998) Design principles for the support of distributed processes,EducationalPsychology Review, 10, 7595.

Hoadley, C. (ed.) (1999) Proceedings of CSCL 99: The Third International Conference on Computer Support forCollaborative Learning, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.

Kelly, S and Jones, M (2001) Groupware and the social infrastructure of communication,Communications ofthe ACM, 44, 8588.

Koschmann, T, Hall, R and Miyake, N (eds) (2001) CSCL2: Carrying Forward the Conversation, LawrenceErlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.

Lamon, M, Secules, T, Petrosino, A, Hackett, R, Bransford, J and Goldman, S (1996) Schools for thought:overview of the project and lessons learned from one of the sites. In Schauble, L and Glaser, R (eds)Inno-vations in Learning. New Environments for Education, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 243288.


6/6


Lehtinen, E, Hakkarainen, K, Lipponen, L, Rahikainen, M and Muukkonen, H (1999) Computer-SupportedCollaborative Learning: A Review of Research and Development, The J.H.G.I Giesbers Reports on Education, 10,Netherlands, University of Nijmegen, Department of Educational Sciences.

Lipponen, L (2001) Computer-supported collaborative learning: from promises to reality, Doctoral disserta-tion, University of Turku, series B, Humaniora, 245.

Qureshi, S and Zigurs, I (2001) Paradoxes and prerogatives in global virtual collaboration,Communications ofthe ACM, 44, 8588.

Owston, RD (1997) The World Wide Web: a technology to enhance teaching and learning? EducationalResearcher, 26, 2733.

Roschelle, J and Pea, R (1999) Trajectories from todays WWW to a powerful educational infrastructure,Educational Researcher, 43, 2225.

Rubin, A and Bruce, B (1990) Alternate realization of purpose in computer-supported writing,Theory intoPractice, 29, 256263.

Salomon, G (1997) Novel constructivist learning environments and novel technologies: some issues to beconcerned with,An Invited Keynote Address Presented at the 8thConference of the European Association for Researchon Learning and Instruction, Athens, August 1997.

Salomon, G, Perkins, D and Globerson, T (1991) Partners in cognition: extending human intelligence withintelligent technologies,Educational Researcher, 20, 920.

Scardamalia, M (2002) Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of knowledge. In Smith, B(ed.)Liberal Education in the Knowledge Society, Open Court, Chicago, pp. 6798.

Scardamalia, M and Bereiter, C (1994) Computer support for knowledge-building communities,

The Journalof the Learning Sciences, 3, 265283.

Scardamalia, M and Bereiter, C (1996) Adaptation and understanding: a case for new cultures of schooling.In Vosniadou, S, DeCorte, E, Glaser, R and Mand, H (eds)International Perspectives on the Design of Technology-Supported Learning Environments, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 149163.

Scardamalia, M, Bereiter, C, McLean, RS, Swallow, J and Woodruff, E (1989) Computer supported inten-tional learning environments,Journal of Educational Computing Research, 5, 5168.

Stahl, G (1999) Reflections on WebGuide. Seven issues for the next generation of collaborative knowledge-building environments. In Hoadley, C (ed.)Proceedings of CSCL 99: The Third International Conference onComputer Support for Collaborative Learning, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 600610.

Stahl, G (ed.) (2002) Proceedings of CSCL 02: The International Conference on Computer Support for CollaborativeLearning, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.

Star, SL (1999) The etnography of infrastructure,American Behavioral Scienctist, 43, 377391.Vygotsky, LS (1962) Thought and language. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Biographical notes

Lasse Lipponen and Jiri Lallimo are researchers of the Centre for Research on Networked Learning andKnowledge Building at the Department of Psychology, University of Helsinki. They have conducted researchprojects on information and communication technology and learning in schools and workplaces.

Address for correspondence

Lasse Lipponen, Department of Psychology, PO Box 9, 00014 University of Helsinki, Finland; e-mail:[email protected], http://www.helsinki.fi/science/networkedlearning/eng/

Documents

From Collaborative Technology to Collaborative