Computer-supported collaborative learning: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 03:27, 19 July 2022

Latest revision as of 22:39, 11 July 2025

(19 intermediate revisions by 11 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{Short description|Pedagogical approach}}

'''Computer-supported collaborative learning''' ('''CSCL''') is a [[pedagogical]] approach wherein learning takes place via social interaction using a computer or through the Internet. This kind of learning is characterized by the sharing and [[learning|construction of knowledge]] among participants using technology as their primary means of communication or as a common resource.<ref name="stahl">Stahl, G., Koschmann, T., & Suthers, D. (2006). Computer-supported collaborative learning: An historical perspective. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), [http://gerrystahl.net/cscl/CSCL_English.pdf Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences] (pp. 409-426). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.</ref> CSCL can be implemented in online and classroom learning environments and can take place synchronously or asynchronously.

The study of computer-supported collaborative learning draws on a number of academic disciplines, including [[instructional technology]], [[educational psychology]], [[sociology]], [[cognitive psychology]], and [[social psychology]].<ref>Hmelo-Silver, C.E. (2006). Analyzing collaborative learning: Multiple approaches to understanding processes and outcomes. Proceedings of the 7th international conference on Learning sciences, USA, 1059-1065. {{ISBN|0-8058-6174-2}}</ref> It is related to [[collaborative learning]] and [[computer-supported cooperative work|computerComputer supportedSupported cooperativeCooperative work (CSCW)Work]].

==History==

Interactive computing technology was primarily conceived by academics, but the use of technology in education has historically been defined by contemporary research trends. The earliest instances of software in instruction drilled students using the [[behaviorism|behaviorist]] method that was popular throughout the mid-twentieth century. In the 1970s as [[Cognitivism (psychology)|cognitivism]] gained traction with educators, designers began to envision learning technology that employed artificial intelligence models that could adapt to individual learners.<ref>Koschmann, T. (1996) CSCL: Theory and practice of an emerging paradigm Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.</ref> Computer-supported collaborative learning emerged as a strategy rich with research implications for the growing philosophies of [[Constructivism (learning theory)|constructivism]] and [[social cognitivism]].<ref name="resta">{{cite journal | last1 = Resta | first1 = P. | last2 = Laferrière | first2 = T. | year = 2007 | title = Technology in Support of Collaborative Learning | journal = [[Educational Psychology Review]] | volume = 19 | pages = 65–83 | doi = 10.1007/s10648-007-9042-7 | s2cid = 2328138 }}</ref>

Though studies in collaborative learning and technology took place throughout the 1980s and 90s, the earliest public workshop directly addressing CSCL was "Joint Problem Solving and [[Microcomputers]]" which took place in [[San Diego]] in 1983. Six years later in 1989, the term "computer-supported collaborative learning" was used in a [[NATO]]-sponsored workshop in [[Maratea]], Italy.<ref name="stahl" /><ref name="bannon">Bannon, Liam J. (1989). [http://www.ul.ie/~idc/library/papersreports/LiamBannon/12/LBMarat.html Issues in computer supported collaborative learning.] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110126144330/http://www.ul.ie/~idc/library/papersreports/LiamBannon/12/LBMarat.html |date=2011-01-26 }} Chapter to appear in Proceedings of NATO Advanced Workshop on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (Claire O'Malley, Editor) held in Maratea, Italy, Sept. 1989.</ref> A biannual CSCL conference series began in 1995. At the 2002 and 2003 CSCL conferences, the International Society of the Learning Sciences (ISLS) was established to run the CSCL and ICLS conference series and the ''International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning'' (''ijCSCL'') and JLS journals.<ref>International Society for the Learning Sciences. (2010). [http://www.isls.org/conferences.html Conferences] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110525061618/http://www.isls.org/conferences.html |date=2011-05-25 }}. Retrieved 10/20/2010.</ref>

Line 14:

==Theories==

The field of CSCL draws heavily from a number of learning theories that emphasize that knowledge is the result of learners interacting with each other, sharing knowledge, and building knowledge as a group. Since the field focuses on collaborative activity and collaborative learning, it inherently takes much from constructivist and social cognitivist learning theories.<ref name="resta" />

===Precursor theories===

The roots of collaborative epistemology as related to CSCL can be found in [[Vygotsky]]'s social learning theory. Of particular importance to CSCL is the theory's notion of internalization, or the idea that knowledge is developed by one's interaction with one's surrounding culture and society. The second key element is what Vygotsky called the [[Zone of proximal development]]. This refers to a range of tasks that can be too difficult for a learner to master by themselves but is made possible with the assistance of a more skilled individual or teacher.<ref>Kearsley, G. (13 Oct 10). [http://icebreakerideas.com/learning-theories/ The Theory Into Practice Database].</ref> These ideas feed into a notion central to CSCL: knowledge building is achieved through interaction with others.

[[Cooperative learning]], though different in some ways from collaborative learning, also contributes to the success of teams in CSCL environments. The distinction can be stated as: cooperative learning focuses on the effects of group interaction on individual learning whereas collaborative learning is more concerned with the cognitive processes at the group unit of analysis such as shared meaning making and the joint problem space. The five elements for effective cooperative groups identified by the work of Johnson and Johnson are positive interdependence, individual accountability, promotive interaction, [[social skills]], and group processing.<ref>Johnson, D., Johnson, R., & Holubec, E. (2002). Circles of learning: Cooperation in the classroom. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company, p. 95-118, {{ISBN|0-939603-12-8}}.</ref> Because of the inherent relationship between cooperation and collaboration, understanding what encourages successful cooperation is essential to CSCL research.

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, Marlene Scardamalia and Carl Bereiter wrote seminal articles leading to the development of key CSCL concepts: knowledge-building communities and knowledge-building discourse, intentional learning, and expert processes. Their work led to an early collaboration-enabling technology known as the Computer Supported Intentional Learning Environment (CSILE).<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Scardamalia | first1 = M. | last2 = Bereiter | first2 = C. | year = 1994 | title = Computer support for knowledge building communities | journal = The Journal of the Learning Sciences | volume = 3 | issue = 3| pages = 265–283 | doi = 10.1207/s15327809jls0303_3 | citeseerx = 10.1.1.600.463 }}</ref> Characteristically for CSCL, their theories were integrated with the design, deployment, and study of the CSCL technology. CSILE later became Knowledge Forum, which is the most widely used CSCL technology worldwide to date.{{citation needed|date=August 2014}}

Other learning theories that provide a foundation for CSCL include [[distributed cognition]], [[problem-based learning]], [[group cognition]], cognitive apprenticeship, and situated learning. Each of these learning theories focuses on the social aspect of learning and knowledge building, and recognizes that learning and knowledge building involve inter-personal activities including conversation, argument, and negotiation.<ref name="resta" />

===Collaboration theory and group cognition===

Only in the last 15 to 20 years have researchers begun to explore the extent to which computer technology could enhance the collaborative learning process. While researchers, in general, have relied on learning theories developed without consideration of computer-support, some have suggested that the field needs to have a theory tailored and refined for the unique challenges that confront those trying to understand the complex interplay of technology and collaborative learning.<ref name="collab">Stahl, G. (2002). Contributions to a theoretical framework for CSCL. In G. Stahl (Ed.), Computer support for collaborative learning: Foundations for a CSCL community. Proceedings of CSCL 2002 (pp. 62-71). Boulder, CO: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.</ref>

Collaboration theory, suggested as a system of analysis for CSCL by [[Gerry Stahl]] in 2002–2006, postulates that knowledge is constructed in social interactions such as discourse. The theory suggests that learning is not a matter of accepting fixed facts, but is the dynamic, on-going, and evolving result of complex interactions primarily taking place within communities of people. It also emphasizes that collaborative learning is a process of constructing meaning and that meaning creation most often takes place and can be observed at the group unit of analysis.<ref>Stahl, G. (2004). [http://GerryStahl.net/cscl/papers/ch16.pdf Building collaborative knowing: Elements of a social theory of CSCL.] In J.-W. Strijbos, P. Kirschner & R. Martens (Eds.), What we know about CSCL: And implementing it in higher education (pp. 53-86). Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.</ref> The goal of collaboration theory is to develop an understanding of how meaning is collaboratively constructed, preserved, and re-learned through the media of language and artifacts in group interaction. There are four crucial themes in collaboration theory: collaborative knowledge building (which is seen as a more concrete term than "learning"); group and personal perspectives intertwining to create group understanding; mediation by artifacts (or the use of resources which learners can share or imprint meaning on); and interaction analysis using captured examples that can be analyzed as proof that the knowledge building occurred.<ref name="collab" />

Collaboration theory proposes that technology in support of CSCL should provide new types of media that foster the building of collaborative knowing; facilitate the comparison of knowledge built by different types and sizes of groups; and help collaborative groups with the act of negotiating the knowledge they are building. Further, these technologies and designs should strive to remove the teacher as the bottleneck in the communication process to the facilitator of student collaboration. In other words, the teacher should not have to act as the conduit for communication between students or as the avenue by which information is dispensed, but should structure the problem-solving tasks. Finally, collaboration theory-influenced technologies will strive to increase the quantity and quality of learning moments via computer-simulated situations.<ref name="collab" />

Stahl extended his proposals about collaboration theory during the next decade with his research on [[group cognition]] [http://GerryStahl.net/elibrary]. In his book on "Group Cognition",<ref name="GC">Stahl, G. (2006). Group Cognition: Computer support for building collaborative knowledge. Cambridge:MA. MIT Press.</ref> he provided a number of case studies of prototypes of collaboration technology, as well as a sample in-depth interaction analysis and several essays on theoretical issues related to re-conceptualizing cognition at the small-group unit of analysis. He then launched the [[Virtual Math Teams]] project at the Math Forum, which conducted more than 10 years of studies of students exploring mathematical topics collaboratively online. "Studying VMT"<ref name="SVMT">Stahl, G. (2009). Studying Virtual Math Teams. New York:NY. Springer.</ref> documented many issues of design, analysis and theory related to this project. The VMT later focused on supporting dynamic geometry by integrating a multi-user version of GeoGebra. All aspects of this phase of the VMT project were described in "Translating Euclid."<ref name="TE">Stahl, G. (2013). Translating Euclid: Creating a Human-Centered Mathematics. Morgan & Claypool Publishers.</ref> Then, "Constructing Dynamic Triangles Together"<ref name="CT">Stahl, G. (2016). Constructing dynamic triangles together: The development of mathematical group cognition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.</ref> provided a detailed analysis of how a group of four girls learned about dynamic geometry by enacting a series of group practices during an eight-session longitudinal case study. Finally, "Theoretical Investigations: Philosophical Foundations of Group Cognition"<ref name="TI">Stahl, G. (2021). Theoretical Investigations: Philosophical Foundations of Group Cognition. New York: NY. Springer.</ref> collected important articles on the theory of collaborative learning from the CSCL journal and from Stahl's publications. The VMT project generated and analyzed data at the small-group unit of analysis, to substantiate and refine the theory of group cognition and to offer a model of design-based CSCL research.

Line 43:

Group exploration refers to the shared discovery of a place, activity, environment or topic among two or more people. Students do their exploring in an online environment, use technology to better understand a physical area, or reflect on their experiences together through the Internet. [[Virtual worlds]] like [[Second Life]] and [[Whyville]] as well as synchronous communication tools like [[Skype]] may be used for this kind of learning.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Nelson | first1 = B. | last2 = Ketelhut | first2 = D. | year = 2008 | title = Exploring embedded guidance and self-efficacy in educational multi-user virtual environments | journal = International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning | volume = 3 | issue = 4| pages = 413–27 | doi = 10.1007/s11412-008-9049-1 | s2cid = 17154019 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Ioannidou | first1 = A. | last2 = Repenning | first2 = A. | last3 = Webb | first3 = D. | last4 = Keyser | first4 = D. | last5 = Luhn | first5 = L. | last6 = Daetwyler | first6 = C. | year = 2010 | title = Mr. Vetro: A Collective Simulation for teaching health science | journal = International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning | volume = 5 | issue = 2| pages = 141–66 | doi = 10.1007/s11412-010-9082-8 | s2cid = 10889425 }}</ref> Educators may use Orchestration Graphs to define activities and roles that students must adopt during learning, and analyzing afterwards the learning process.<ref>Haklev, S., Faucon, L. P., Hadzilacos, T., & Dillenbourg, P. (2017). [https://infoscience.epfl.ch/record/230014/files/ECTEL%20FROG%20Demo.pdf ''FROG: rapid prototyping of collaborative learning scenarios'']</ref>

Problem-based learning is a popular instructional activity that lends itself well to CSCL because of the social implications of problem solving. Complex problems call for rich group interplay that encourages collaboration and creates movement toward a clear goal.<ref name="lu">{{cite journal | last1 = Lu | first1 = J. | last2 = Lajoie | first2 = S. | last3 = Wiseman | first3 = J. | year = 2010 | title = Scaffolding problem-based learning with CSCL tools | journal = International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning | volume = 5 | issue = 3| pages = 283–98 | doi = 10.1007/s11412-010-9092-6 | s2cid = 2348196 | doi-access = free }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Koschmann | first1 = T. | last2 = Feltovich | first2 = P. | last3 = Myers | first3 = A. | last4 = Barrows | first4 = H. | year = 1992 | title = Implications of CSCL for problem-based learning:Special issue on computer supported collaborative learning | journal = Journal of the LearningACM SciencesSIGCUE Outlook| volume = 21 | issue = 3| pages = 32–35 | doi = 10.1145/130893.130902 | s2cid = 45760984 }}</ref>

[[Project-based learning]] is similar to problem-based learning in that it creates impetus to establish team roles and set goals. The need for collaboration is also essential for any project and encourages team members to build experience and knowledge together. Although there are many advantages to using software that has been specifically developed to support collaborative learning or project-based learning in a particular ___domain, any file sharing or communication tools can be used to facilitate CSCL in problem- or project-based environments.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Blumenfeld | first1 = P. | last2 = Soloway | first2 = E. | last3 = Marx | first3 = R. | last4 = Krajcik | first4 = J. | last5 = Guzdial | first5 = M. | last6 = Palincsar | first6 = A. | year = 1991 | title = Motivating Project-Based Learning: Sustaining the Doing, Supporting the Learning | journal = Educational Psychologist | volume = 26 | issue = 3/4| page = 369 | doi = 10.1080/00461520.1991.9653139 }}</ref>

When [[Web 2.0]] applications (wikies, blogs, RSS feed, collaborative writing, video sharing, social networks, etc.) are used for computer-supported collaborative learning specific strategies should be used for their implementation, especially regarding (1) adoption by teachers and students; (2) usability and quality in use issues; (3) technology maintenance; (4) pedagogy and instructional design; (5) social interaction between students; (6) privacy issues; and (7) information/system security.<ref>Bubas, G., Orehovacki, T., Coric, A. (2011). Strategies for implementation of Web 2.0 tools in academic education [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/307915719_Strategies_for_implementation_of_Web_20_tools_in_academic_education]. 17th European University Information Systems International Congress, EUNIS 2011, Dublin, Ireland.</ref>

==Teacher roles==

Line 53:

Though the focus in CSCL is on individuals collaborating with their peers, teachers still have a vital role in facilitating learning. Most obviously, the instructor must introduce the CSCL activity in a thoughtful way that contributes to an overarching design plan for the course. The design should clearly define the learning outcomes and [[Assessment in computer-supported collaborative learning|assessments]] for the activity. In order to assure that learners are aware of these objectives and that they are eventually met, proper administration of both resources and expectations is necessary to avoid learner overload. Once the activity has begun, the teacher is charged with kick-starting and monitoring discussion to facilitate learning. He or she must also be able to mitigate technical issues for the class. Lastly, the instructor must engage in [[Assessment in computer-supported collaborative learning|assessment]], in whatever form the design calls for, in order to ensure objectives have been met for all students.<ref>Shank, P (2008). [http://www.learningpeaks.com/instrcomp.pdf Competencies for online instructors.] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080703164002/http://www.learningpeaks.com/instrcomp.pdf |date=2008-07-03 }} Learning Peaks, Retrieved October 16, 2008.</ref>

Without the proper structure, any CSCL strategy can lose its effectiveness. It is the responsibility of the teacher to make students aware of what their goals are, how they should be interacting, potential technological concerns, and the time-frame for the exercise. This framework should enhance the experience for learners by supporting collaboration and creating opportunities for the construction of knowledge.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Kobbe | first1 = L. | last2 = Weinberger | first2 = A. | last3 = Dillenbourg | first3 = P. | last4 = Harrer | first4 = A. | last5 = Hämäläinen | first5 = R. | last6 = Häkkinen | first6 = P. | last7 = Fischer | first7 = F. | year = 2007 | title = Specifying computer-supported collaboration scripts | url = https://epub.ub.uni-muenchen.de/12938/| journal = International Journal of Computer Supported Learning | volume = 2 | issue = 2–3| pages = 211–224 | doi = 10.1007/s11412-007-9014-4 | s2cid = 8861231 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Schoonenboom | first1 = J | year = 2008 | title = The effect of a script and a structured interface in grounding discussions | journal = International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning | volume = 3 | issue = 3| pages = 327–41 | doi = 10.1007/s11412-008-9042-8 | s2cid = 23828491 | doi-access = free }}</ref> Another important consideration of educators who implement online learning environments is [[affordance]]. Students who are already comfortable with online communication often choose to interact casually. Mediators should pay special attention to make students aware of their expectations for formality online.<ref>Stahl, G. & Hesse, F. (2009). [http://ijcscl.org/?go=contents&article=77#article77 Practice perspectives in CSCL.] International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 4(2), pp. 109-114</ref> While students sometime have frames of reference for online communication, they often do not have all of the skills necessary to solve problems by themselves. Ideally, teachers provide what is called "scaffolding", a platform of knowledge that they can build on. A unique benefit of CSCL is that, given proper teacher facilitation, students can use technology to build learning foundations with their peers. This allows instructors to gauge the difficulty of the tasks presented and make informed decisions about the extent of the scaffolding needed.<ref name="lu" />

==Effects==

Line 69:

Furthermore, instructors find that the time needed to monitor student discourse and review, comment on, and grade student products can be more demanding than what is necessary for traditional face-to-face classrooms. The teacher or professor also has an instructional decision to make regarding the complexity of the problem presented. To warrant collaborative work, the problem must be of sufficient complexity, otherwise teamwork is unnecessary. Also, there is risk in assuming that students instinctively know how to work collaboratively. Though the task may be collaborative by nature, students may still need training on how to work in a truly cooperative process.

Others have noted a concern with the concept of scripting as it pertains to CSCL. There is an issue with possibly over-scripting the CSCL experience and in so doing, creating "fake collaboration". Such over-scripted collaboration may fail to trigger the social, cognitive, and emotional mechanisms that are necessary to true collaborative learning.<ref name="bannon" />

There is also the concern that the mere availability of the technology tools can create problems. Instructors may be tempted to apply technology to a learning activity that can very adequately be handled without the intervention or support of computers. In the process of students and teachers learning how to use the "user-friendly" technology, they never get to the act of collaboration. As a result, computers become an obstacle to collaboration rather than a supporter of it.<ref>Dillenbourg, P. (2002). [http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00190230/fr/ Over-scripting CSCL: The risks of blending collaborative learning with instructional design.]</ref>

Line 76:

=== History ===

The advent of computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) as an instructional strategy for [[second language acquisition]] can be traced back to the 1990s. During that time, the internet was growing rapidly, which was one of the key factors that facilitated the process.<ref name="Computer-Mediated Collaborative Lea">{{cite journal | last1 = Warschauer | first1 = M | year = 1997 | title = Computer-Mediated Collaborative Learning: Theory and Practice | journal = The Modern Language Journal | volume = 81 | issue = 4| pages = 470–481 | doi = 10.1111/j.1540-4781.1997.tb05514.x | hdl = 10125/10585 | hdl-access = free }}</ref> At the time, the first [[wikis]] (such as [[WikiWikiWeb]]) were still undergoing early development,<ref>Ebersbach, Anja (2008), Wiki: Web Collaboration, Springer Science+Business Media, {{ISBN|3-540-35150-7}}</ref> but the use of other tools such as electronic discussion groups allowed for equal participation amongst peers, particularly benefiting those who would normally not participate otherwise during face-to-face interactions.<ref name="Computer-Mediated Collaborative Lea"/>

During the establishment of wikis in the 2000s, global research began to emerge regarding their effectiveness in promoting second language acquisition. Some of this research focused on more specific areas such as [[systemic-functional linguistics]], [[humanistic education]], [[experiental learning]], and [[psycholinguistics]]. For example, in 2009 Yu-Ching Chen performed a study to determine the overall effectiveness of wikis in an English as a second language class in Taiwan.<ref>Chen, Y. (2009). The effect of applying wikis in an English as a foreign language (EFL) class in Taiwan. Dissertation Abstracts International, A: The Humanities and Social Sciences, 69(11), 4300.</ref> Another example is a 2009 study by Greg Kessler in which pre-service, non-native English speaker teachers in a Mexican university were given the task to collaborate on a wiki, which served as the final product for one of their courses. In this study, emphasis was placed on the level of grammatical accuracy achieved by the students throughout the course of the task.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Kessler | first1 = G | year = 2009 | title = Student-Initiated Attention to Form in Wiki-Based Collaborative Writing | journal = Language Learning & Technology | volume = 13 | issue = 1| pages = 79–95 }}</ref>

Line 84:

=== Effectiveness and perception ===

Studies in the field of [[computer-assisted language learning]] (CALL) have shown that computers provide material and valuable feedback for language learners and that computers can be a positive tool for both individual and collaborative language learning. CALL programs offer the potential for interactions between the language learners and the computer.<ref>Chapelle, C. A. (2003). English language learning and technology. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.</ref> Additionally, students' [[autonomous language learning]] and [[self-assessment]] can be made widely available through the web.<ref>Chapelle, C. A. (2001). Computer applications in second language acquisition: Foundations for teaching, testing and research. Cambridge University Press.</ref> In CSCL, the computer is not only seen as a potential language tutor by providing assessment for students' responses,<ref>Levy, M. (1997). CALL: Context and conceptualisation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.</ref> but also as a tool to give language learners the opportunity to learn from the computer and also via collaboration with other language learners. Juan<ref>Juan, A. A., 1972. (2010). Monitoring and assessment in online collaborative environments: Emergent computational technologies for e-learning support. Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.</ref> focuses on new models and systems that perform efficient evaluation of student activity in online-based education. Their findings indicate that CSCL environments organized by teachers are useful for students to develop their language skills. Additionally, CSCL increases students' confidence and encourages them to maintain active learning, reducing the passive reliance on teachers' feedback. Using CSCL as a tool in the second language learning classroom has also shown to reduce [[learner anxiety]].<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Hurd | first1 = S | year = 2007 | title = Anxiety and non-anxiety in a distance language learning environment: The distance factors as a modifying influence | url = http://oro.open.ac.uk/6866/4/FLAnxiety-SYS_809-Uncorrectedproofs-5Oct2007.pdf| journal = System | volume = 35 | issue = 4| pages = 487–508 | doi = 10.1016/j.system.2007.05.001 | s2cid = 221031219 }}</ref>

Various case studies and projects had been conducted in order to measure the effectiveness and perception of CSCL in a language learning classroom. After a collaborative internet-based project, language learners indicated that their confidence in using the language had increased and that they felt more motivated to learn and use the target language. After analyzing student questionnaires, discussion board entries, final project reports, and student journals, Dooly<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Dooly | first1 = M | year = 2007 | title = Joining forces: Promoting metalinguistic awareness through computer-supported collaborative learning | journal = Language Awareness | volume = 16 | issue = 1| pages = 57–74 | doi = 10.2167/la413.0 | s2cid = 144080827 }}</ref> suggests that during computer supported collaborative language learning, students have an increased awareness of different aspects of the target language and pay increased attention to their own language learning process. Since the participants of her project were language teacher trainees, she adds that they felt prepared and willing to incorporate online interaction in their own teaching in the future.

Line 90:

=== Cultural considerations ===

[[Culture]] may be thought of as composed of "beliefs, norms, assumptions, knowledge, values, or sets of practice that are shared and form a system".<ref>Rapport, N. (2014). Social and cultural anthropology: The key concepts. Routledge.</ref> [[Learning communities]] focused in whole or part on second language acquisition may often be distinctly multicultural in composition, and as the cultural background of individual learners affects their collaborative norms and practices, this can significantly impact their ability to learn in a CSCL environment.<ref name="doi.org">{{cite journal | last1 = Economides | first1 = Anastasios A. | year = 2008 | title = Culture‐awareCulture-aware collaborative learning. | journal = Multicultural Education & Technology Journal | volume = 2 | issue = 4| pages = 243–267 | doi = 10.1108/17504970810911052 }}</ref>

CSCL environments are generally valued for the potential to promote collaboration in cross-cultural learning communities. Based on [[social constructivist]] views of learning,<ref>Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes.</ref> many CSCL environments fundamentally emphasize learning as the co-construction of knowledge through the computer-mediated interaction of multivoiced community members. Computer-mediation of the learning process has been found to afford consideration of alternative viewpoints in multicultural/multilingual learning communities.<ref>Atsumi, T., Misumi, J., Smith, P., Peter, B., Peterson, M., Tayeb, M., … Tanzer, N. (1989). Groups, leadership and social influence. Recent Advances in Social Psychology: An International Perspective, 369–428.</ref> When compared to traditional face-to-face environments, computer-mediated learning environments have been shown to result in more equal levels of participation for ESL students in courses with native English speakers.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Warschauer | first1 = M | year = 2005 | title = Comparing face-to-face and electronic discussion in the second language classroom | journal = CALICO Journal | volume = 13 | issue = 2–3| pages = 7–26 | doi = 10.1558/cj.v13i2-3.7-26 | s2cid = 143109767 }}</ref> Language barriers for non-native speakers tend to detract from equal participation in general,<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Gunawardena | first1 = C. N. | last2 = Nolla | first2 = A. C. | last3 = Wilson | first3 = P. L. | last4 = Lopez-Islas | first4 = J. R. | last5 = Ramirez-Angel | first5 = N. | last6 = Megchun-Alpizar | first6 = R. M. | year = 2001 | title = A cross‐culturalcross-cultural study of group process and development in online conferences | journal = Distance Education | volume = 22 | issue = 1| pages = 85–121 | doi = 10.1080/0158791010220106 | s2cid = 144342720 }}</ref> and this can be alleviated to some extent through the use of technologies which support asynchronous modes of written communication.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Ku | first1 = H.-Y. | last2 = Lohr | first2 = L. L. | year = 2003 | title = A case study of Chinese student's attitudes toward their first online learning experience | journal = Educational Technology Research and Development | volume = 51 | issue = 3| pages = 95–102 | doi = 10.1007/bf02504557 | s2cid = 27659143 }}</ref><ref>{{Citation |last1=Kalitvianski |first1=Ruslan |title=Multilingual Access to Educational Material Through Contributive Post-editing of MT Pre-translations by Foreign Students |date=2015 |url=http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-319-25515-6_10 |work=Advances in Web-Based Learning -- ICWL 2015 |volume=9412 |pages=109–118 |editor-last=Li |editor-first=Frederick W.B. |place=Cham |publisher=Springer International Publishing |doi=10.1007/978-3-319-25515-6_10 |isbn=978-3-319-25514-9 |access-date=2022-08-13 |last2=Bellynck |first2=Valérie |last3=Boitet |first3=Christian |series=Lecture Notes in Computer Science |editor2-last=Klamma |editor2-first=Ralf |editor3-last=Laanpere |editor3-first=Mart |editor4-last=Zhang |editor4-first=Jun}}</ref>

Online learning environments however tend to reflect the cultural, [[epistemological]], and [[pedagogical]] goals and assumptions of their designers.<ref>McLoughlin, C., & Oliver, R. (2000). Designing learning environments for cultural inclusivity: A case study of indigenous online learning at tertiary level. ''Australasian Journal of Educational Technology'', 16(1). Retrieved from http://ascilite.org.au/ajet/submission/index.php/AJET/article/view/1822</ref> In computer-supported collaborative learning environments, there is evidence that cultural background may impact learner motivation, attitude towards learning and e-learning, learning preference (style), computer usage, learning behavior and strategies, academic achievement, communication, participation, knowledge transfer, sharing and collaborative learning.<ref name="doi.org"/> Studies variously comparing Asian, American and Danish and Finnish learners have suggested that learners from different cultures exhibit different interaction patterns with their peers and teachers in online.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Kim | first1 = K.-J. | last2 = Bonk | first2 = C. J. | year = 2002 | title = Cross-cultural Comparisons of Online Collaboration | journal = Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication | volume = 8 | issue = 1| doi = 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2002.tb00163.x }}</ref> A number of studies have shown that difference in Eastern and Western educational cultures, for instance, which are found in traditional environments are also present in online environments.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Liang | first1 = A. | last2 = McQueen | first2 = R. J. | year = 1999 | title = Computer assisted adult interactive learning in a multi-cultural environment | journal = Adult Learning | volume = 11 | issue = 1| pages = 26–29 | doi = 10.1177/104515959901100108 | s2cid = 142608355 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Thompson | first1 = L. | last2 = Ku | first2 = H. | year = 2005 | title = Chinese graduate students' experiences and attitudes toward online learning | journal = Educational Media International | volume = 42 | issue = 1| pages = 33–47 | doi = 10.1080/09523980500116878 | s2cid = 143262443 }}</ref> Zhang<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Zhang | first1 = J | year = 2007 | title = A cultural look at information and communication technologies in Eastern education | journal = Educational Technology Research and Development | volume = 55 | issue = 3| pages = 301–314 | doi = 10.1007/s11423-007-9040-y | s2cid = 15096178 }}</ref> has described Eastern education as more group-based, teacher-dominated, centrally organized, and examination-oriented than Western approaches. Students who have learned to learn in an Eastern context emphasizing teacher authority and standardized examinations may perform differently in a CSCL environment characterized by [[peer critique]] and co-construction of [[educational artifacts]] as the primary mode of assessment.

Line 106:

The [[Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990]] (ADA) established that all students with disabilities must be included in all state and districtwide assessments of student progress. The ADA also guarantees equal accommodation for disabled people in, "employment, public accommodations, state and local government services, transportation, and telecommunications."<ref name="Woodfine 2006"/>

In recent years, tools such as WebHelpDyslexia and other capabilities of web applications have increased the availability of tools to provide coping skills for students with dyslexia.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Avelar | first1 = L. O. | last2 = Rezende | first2 = G. C. | last3 = Friere | first3 = A. P. | year = 2015 | title = WebHelpDyslexia: a browser extension to adapt web content for people with dyslexia | journal = Procedia Computer Science | volume = 67 | pages = 150–159 | doi = 10.1016/j.procs.2015.09.259 | doi-access = free }}</ref>

=== Research on Dyslexia in E-Learning Environments ===

In 2006, Woodfine argued that dyslexia can impact the ability of a student to participate in synchronous e-learning environments, especially if activities being completed are text-based. During experimental qualitative research, Woodfine found that data suggested "learners with dyslexia might suffer from embarrassment, shame and even guilt about their ability to interact with other learners when in a synchronous environment."<ref name="Woodfine 2006"/>

In a study by Fichten et al., it was found that assistive technology can be beneficial in aiding students with the progression of their reading and writing skills. Tools such as spell check or text-to-speech can be helpful to learners with dyslexia by allowing them to focus more on self-expression and less on errors.<ref name="Alsobhi, A. 2015">{{cite journal | last1 = Alsobhi | first1 = A. | last2 = Khan | first2 = N. | last3 = Rahanu | first3 = H. | year = 2015 | title = Personalised learning materials based on dyslexia types: ontological approach | journal = Procedia Computer Science | volume = 60 | pages = 113–121 | doi = 10.1016/j.procs.2015.08.110 | s2cid = 17029282 | doi-access = free }}</ref>

=== Design implications ===

Line 118:

The [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877050915012673 Dyslexia Adaptive E-Learning] (DAEL) is a suggested a framework that proposes four dimensions that cover 26 attributes. The proposed framework asks educators to make decisions based on perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness, and system adaptability:

*perceived ease of use: This refers to the degree to which a student believes that using the technology is free of effort.<ref name="ReferenceA">{{cite journal | last1 = Alsobhi | first1 = A. | last2 = Khan | first2 = N. | last3 = Rahanu | first3 = H. | year = 2015 | title = DAEL framework: a new adaptive e-learning framework for students with dyslexia | journal = Procedia Computer Science | volume = 51 | pages = 1947–1956 | doi = 10.1016/j.procs.2015.05.459 | doi-access = free }}</ref> One technique to increase the perceived ease of use includes utilizing technology in which self-descriptiveness is present. This, coupled with clarity and logical flow of functions, makes the learning process easier and the interaction between the user and machine more convenient.<ref name="ReferenceA"/>

*perceived usefulness: Defined as how a student's performance, or learning performance, can be enhanced by a system. Studies show the impact of perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness and their role in a users' decision on whether to use a system again. Scaffolding as well as accommodations to the student's learning style will help overcome limitations of system operations, as will feedback geared toward system improvements.<ref name="ReferenceA"/>

*system adaptability: Refers to the user experiences and the way in which students are given control over a system to increase confidence and comfort in their learning. In addition to implications for the system, the flow of content should be logical and the tone (attitude) of content should be encouraging.<ref name="ReferenceA"/>

=== 508 Compliance & the implications for Educators ===

Educators that choose to use the CSCL environment must be aware of [https://www.section508.gov/content/learn 508 compliance] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180409182129/https://www.section508.gov/content/learn |date=2018-04-09 }} and its legal implications. "In the U.S., the criteria for designing Web pages accessibly are provided by two major sets: the W3C's [[Web Content Accessibility Guidelines|Web Accessibility Guidelines]] (WCAG) and the design standards issued under U.S. federal law, [[Section 508 Amendment to the Rehabilitation Act of 1973|Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act]], as amended in 1998.1 Features of accessible design include, among others, the provision of ALT tags for nontextual elements, such as images, animations and image map hot spots; meaningful link text; logical and persistent page organization, and the inclusion of skip navigation links."<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Schmetzke | first1 = Axel | last2 = Comeaux | first2 = David | year = 2009 | title = Accessibility Trends among Academic Library and Library School Web Sites in the USA and Canada | journal = Journal of Access Services | volume = 6 | issue = 1–2| pages = 137–152 | doi = 10.1080/15367960802286286 | s2cid = 143698667 }}</ref>

Unfortunately, not all educators are exposed to these guidelines, especially if their collegiate programs do not provide exposure to the use of computers, aspects of web design or technology in education. In some cases, it may be advantageous for the educator to collaborate with an instructional technologist or web designer to ensure 508 guidelines are addressed in the desired learning environment for the CSCL.

Line 145:

==== Non-immersive and Immersive 3D Virtual Environments ====

Through the use of [[3D game graphics|3D gaming]], users can simulate lives of others while providing their knowledge throughout the 3D environment as an [[avatar (computing)|avatar]]. These 3D environments also foster [[simulation]] and scenario building<ref name=":2" /> for places where users would otherwise not have access. The 3D environments facilitate online knowledge building communities.<ref name=":3">{{Cite journal|title=Web 3.0 in education {{!}} Editură acreditată CNCSIS, Editura Universitară|journal=Editura Universitara|url=http://www.editurauniversitara.ro/carte/education/web_30_in_education/10419|doi=10.5682/2066-026x-12-073|year=2012|last1=Ana-Maria|first1=Chisega-Negrila|doi-broken-date=11 July 2025 }}</ref> Non-immersive environments are environments in which not all five senses are used but still allows users to interact in virtual worlds.<ref name=":4">{{Cite book|last1=Jackson|first1=Randolph L.|last2=Fagan|first2=Eileen|date=2000|title=Collaboration and Learning Within Immersive Virtual Reality|journal=Proceedings of the Thirdthird Internationalinternational Conferenceconference on Collaborative Virtualvirtual environments Environments|serieschapter=CVECollaboration '00and learning within immersive virtual reality |date=2000|___location=New York, NY, USA|publisher=ACM|pages=83–92|doi=10.1145/351006.351018|isbn=978-1581133035|citeseerx=10.1.1.578.7524|s2cid=4621785}}</ref> [[Virtual reality headset|Virtual Reality (VR) headsets]] are sometimes used to give users a full immersion experience, into these 3D virtual worlds. This allows users to interact with each other in real time and simulate different learning situations with other users. These learning experiences and environments vary between fields and learning goals.<ref name=":3" /> Certain virtual reality headsets allow users to communicate with each other while being in different physical locations.<ref name=":4" />

== Multimodal literacy development in CSCL ==

Line 177:

=== Applications for ELLs ===

Multimodal literacy can facilitate English learners' literacy learning. It has provided opportunities for English learners to expand the interpretation of texts. (Ajayi, 2009) Specifically, English language learners can increase their language ability through computer-collaborative learning.

The multimodality platforms provide students, especially ELLs with an anxiety-free zone to collaborate with their peers in a virtual world in order to make meanings together. Technology [[self-efficacy]] increases ELLs' level of independence and reduces their level of anxiety. (Mellati, Zangoei & Khademi, 2015) ELLs will have more motivation and self-confident while participating in online group projects to make contributions and share knowledge with their peers. As a result of collaborative learning, ELLs would expand their vocabulary, gain advanced and more academic grammars.

== CSCL in Post-Secondary Education ==

Line 185:

====Research on CSCL in post-secondary education settings====

The applications of CSCL in post-secondary education demonstrate positive impacts on students' learning such as promoting learner interaction, motivation and understanding.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Yang, N., Ghislandi, P., & Dellantonio, S|date=2018|title=Online collaboration in a large university class supports quality teaching|journal=Education Tech Research Dev|volume=66|issue=3|pages=671–69|doi=10.1007/s11423-017-9564-8|hdl=11572/191651 |s2cid=67477303|hdl-access=free}}</ref> As collaborative learning is grounded in social constructivism, the interaction and collaboration during learning is valued.

==== Developing Professional Skills ====

Line 231:

1. An idea group size is around 3 to 4 people.

2. A duration between 1 and 4 weeks demonstrate better effects. The criticisms version indicate in the case of short term course the interactions networks not consolidate.<ref>{{cite journal|doi=10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e03287|title=Interaction through mobile technology in short-term university courses|year=2020|last1=Mena-Guacas|first1=Andrés F.|last2=Velandia r|first2=Camilo A.|journal=Heliyon|volume=6|issue=2|pages=e03287|doi-access=free |pmid=32055731|pmc=7005450|bibcode=2020Heliy...603287M }}</ref>

=== Professional Teaching Community ===

Professional teacher communities are positively related to student learning, teacher learning, teacher practice and school culture. Teacher collaboration is a significant element of these communities. Reflection‐oriented tasks (such as reflection on teaching performance in individual writing, peer feedback, and collective writing) stimulated participation, and in combination with task structure also interaction in these communities.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Ditte Lockhorst, Wilfried Admiraal & Albert Pilot|date=2010|title=CSCL in teacher training: what learning tasks lead to collaboration?|journal=Technology, Pedagogy and Education|volume=19:|issue=1 |pages=63–78|doi=10.1080/14759390903579190 |s2cid=62725728 }}</ref> Furthermore, structured tasks(such as crossword puzzles, the path to come to a solution is unambiguous and answers can be immediately checked) which required critical reflection on personal experiences and perspectives triggered task‐related communication and a deep level of information exchange.

=== Distance Learning ===