From Collaborative Technology To Collaborative

From Collaborative Technology to Collaborative Use of Technology: Designing Learning Oriented Infrastructures Lasse Lipponen and Jiri Lallimo, Finland Education 10.1080/09523980410001678566 remi41203.sgm 0000-0000 Original Taylor 202004 41 Department LasseLipponen [email protected] 000002004 and Article Media (print)/0000-0000 Francis of Psychology, International Ltd PO (online) Box 9, 00014University of HelsinkiFinland

Abstracts In this paper, we argue that even if empirical studies of collaborative technology and learning represent a diversity of research, the cases that have successfully used collaborative technology share one very crucial thing, namely, instead of focusing intensively only on the technology, a great deal of effort has been put into collaborative use of technology and designing learning oriented infrastructure. We propose that the distinction between collaborative technology and collaborative use of technology is useful for the future development of technology-supported collaborative learning. D’une technologie collaborative à une utilisation collaborative de technologie: Des infrastructures orientées vers un concept de formation Cet exposé démontre que même si les études empiriques de la technologie et formation collaboratives représentent une diversité de recherches, les personnes qui ont utilisé la technologie collaborative avec succès ont une chose très cruciale en commun, c’est-à-dire qu’au lieu de se focusser intensivement sur la technologie, un grand effort est porté sur l’utilisation collaborative de la technologie et sur l’infrastructure orientée vers un concept de formation. Nous pensons que pour le futur développement de la formation collaborative supportée par la technologie il est très utile de distinguer entre la technologie collaborative et l’utilisation collaborative de la technologie. Von Kooperationstechnologie zu ihrer kooperativen Verwendung: Entwicklung lernzielorientierter Infrastrukturen In diesem Papier behaupten wir, dass, obwohl es vielfältige empirische Studien über Kooperationstechnologie und Lernen gibt, die Fälle, in denen diese Techniken erfolgreich genutzt wurden, alle etwas Entscheidendes gemeinsam haben: nämlich statt sich intensiv nur auf die Technik zu konzentrieren, viele sich hauptsächlich bemühen, die kooperative Verwendung der Technik für die Herstellung lernorientierter Infrastruktur zu nutzen. Wir schlagen vor, dass zukünftig zwischen Kooperationstechnologie und kooperativer Verwendung der Technologie bei der Entwicklung technikunterstützten kooperativen 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 promote educational use of collaborative technology and at the same time implement new pedagogical and cognitive practices 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 transformed into widely adopted practices of teachers and students. Furthermore, there is also evidence that this marriage of technology and new theories of learning and instruction 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, especially with regard to knowledge construction; and improvement in the amount and quality of learning-related social interaction among students, and between teachers and students.

Educational Media International ISSN 0952-3987 print/ISSN 1469-5790 online © 2004 International Council for Educational Media http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals DOI: 10.1080/09523980410001678566

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 the achieved results likewise show great variation. In addition, these studies differ from each other in several significant 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 technology, 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 does not, 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, do these successful cases share some fundamental things in common, which, perhaps, could be successfully applied in different learning contexts? In this paper, we argue that even if empirical studies of collaborative technology represent a diversity of research, 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) and Knowledge Building Communities developed by Scardamalia and Bereiter (1994), we show that the researchers’ efforts that matter were not only in designing the technology but also in designing the practices, in designing the collaborative use of technology and learning oriented infrastructure. We propose that this conceptual distinction between collaborative technology and collaborative use of technology is useful for the future development of technology-supported collaborative learning. We first propose two points of clarification: First, rather than offer an exhaustive review of collaborative technology per se, we will be selective and focus on issues of pedagogy and learning. Secondly, despite the differences 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 other applications 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 among people 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 designed for educational purposes or not, could, in some way, be used for collaboration. Collaboration can be supported, 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 on each other’s 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 communications technology.

From collaborative technology to collaborative use of technology Let us consider the characteristics of some of the successful educational approaches and applications. By ‘success’ 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 following, we will examine two cases that fulfil these criteria of using collaborative technology, namely Scardamalia and Bereiter’s (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 Bereiter’s (1994) studies have indicated that collaborative technology, especially designed for educational purposes, with advanced pedagogical practices has clearly produced some evidence of good learning results. Evaluations comparing CSILE (Computer-Supported Intentional Learning Environment, see Scardamalia et al. (1989)) and non-CSILE classrooms at the primary school level have shown statistically significant advantages for CSILE on standardized achievement tests scores in mathematics problem solving, reading comprehension, vocabulary and spelling, ability to read difficult texts, portfolio commentaries and graphical knowledge representation (Lamon et al., 1996). On the other hand, there are studies that have shown that the advancement in learning and teaching results and practices can be achieved by using standard communication technology such as e-mail, as in the case of Brown et al. (1998). Also, FCL has proven to be successful. Compared to control groups, students participating in FCL achieved higher tests scores in acquisition of knowledge, critical thinking about the content and reading (Brown and Campione, 1994). However, one has to remember that standardized achievement measures cannot be expected to reflect fully the gain in skill, knowledge and motivation intended for those participating

Designing Learning Oriented Infrastructures

113

in KBC and FCL. We are not, however, denying that it is necessary for educational researchers to produce evidence, not just promise or postulate improvement of occult or ‘underlying’ skills. Both Scardamalia and Bereiter’s Knowledge Building Communities and Brown and Campione’s Community of Learners are examples of advanced collaborative use of technology. They have taken seriously the challenge of 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 as important members of a community. Students come to trust one another, have mutual respect and take collective cognitive responsibility for projects (Brown et al., 1993; Scardamalia, 2002). Cognitive risks in learning are allowed, 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 Building Communities developed by Scardamalia and Bereiter (1994), the core learning activity is participation in research-like practices of collaborative inquiry and process of sharing and distributing expertise. Inquiry is extended over a period of months and crosses traditional subject boundaries. The aim is to increase students’ understanding 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 research practice. Members of the community are critically dependent on each other. No one is an island; no one knows it 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 pedagogical model. For instance, KBC rests on the theory of collaborative knowledge building, articulated by Scardamalia and Bereiter (1994) and Bereiter (2002). The theoretical background of the development of knowledge building is in research on the psychology of written composition, expertise and progressive problem solving. In the case of FCL, the work strongly relies on Vygotsky’s (1962) idea of Zone of Proximal Development (ZDP) and on Dewey’s 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 in ongoing learning activities. It is a tool that has genuine additional value for the learners. It is used for supporting reflective discourse (Cohen and Scardamalia, 1998), for building up social structures that encourage learning (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 technology gives new possibilities for sharing information and distributing expertise among students and among students and experts. The development of the whole learning environment is not simply driven by the technology, but instead driven by the needs of the learners and pedagogical ideas. In these advanced pedagogical practices, the use of the technology becomes an integrated part of the whole learning environment and the culture 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 exact character of the activities the learners engage in with the collaborative technology and the kind of tasks and problem-solving situations they address (Brown et al., 1998; Hewitt and Scardamalia, 1998). In both cases, technology deepens the kinds of intellectual and social activity students become involved in, when they interact through the collaborative technology.

Designing learning oriented infrastructure One might say that Scardamalia and Bereiter as well as Brown and Campione have built an appropriate infrastructure for learning. Infrastructure is not just a thing, but refers to a network of relationships and facilities that 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 of the background of their activities and, once invented by a community, it does not have to be reinvented for each 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 technology in educational settings is to build an appropriate social infrastructure around the technology infrastructure. She proposed three levels of social infrastructure important for successful implementation and use of technology. These three include the cultural level (the philosophy and norms established among educators

114

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

and students), activity level (practices) and tool level (technology). Thus, instead of focusing extensively only on the technology, one should turn towards thinking about the social settings that support the implementation and use of technology. This way of thinking reflects an important transformation from a technology-centred to a human-centred approach in the context of collaborative technology. We acknowledge Bielaczyc’s idea concerning social infrastructure, although she has been arguing that the social infrastructure should be built around the tool, thus implicitly considering the technology infrastructure as primary to the social infrastructure. On the basis of our analysis, we see it the other way around. We propose that culture of learning, learning activities (practices) and use of technology must be seen as inseparable parts of a complex infrastructure. This is why we call this infrastructure as learning oriented infrastructure. This notion is 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 learning philosophy and norms of the community that aims to put technology in use. While these practices and activities are found, appropriate technology could be brought into use to support and extend these practices. A more advanced idea would be to find the zone of proximal development of the particular community and to bring into use collaborative technology that has the potential to help transform the community towards more advanced learning practices. In both cases, the learning oriented infrastructure is primary to the technology infrastructure 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 Brown and Campione. Secondly, one could take the idea of co-evolution of learning oriented and technology infrastructure as a starting point for thinking about new forms of learning activities and the use of collaborative technology. Bruce and Peyton’s notion of a ‘realization’ of a technological innovation offers a good way of conceptualizing this process of co-evolution. The idea of realization was proposed by Rubin and Bruce (1990) and expanded by Bruce and Peyton (1990, 1993). They presented two views of the implementation of an educational innovation. In the conventional view, the technological innovation is implemented ‘as a well-defined plan of action, often accompanied by associated objects, such as teacher guides, student texts, and new technologies’ (Bruce and Peyton 1990, p. 172). This approach represents the idea of reproduction of the idealization of the technology. One would say that this still is the prevailing model of implementing technology. In the alternative view, innovation is re-created by the teachers and students who actually use it (Bruce and Peyton, 1990, p. 171). This approach is very much pedagogy- and activity-driven. It implies that the design of technology should be very flexible and tailorable. The co-evolution model is evidently applicable to the way Scardamalia and Bereiter have developed their idea about knowledge building and their collaborative technology.

Summmary Educators have been fascinated by the new collaborative technology; it has been tempting to think that technology will solve the problems of learning. Although technology, in some cases, may serve as a catalyst for advancement, it seems that the evidence to date does not entitle us to conclude that technology itself has produced 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 itself improves teaching and learning. In this paper we proposed that, even if empirical studies of collaborative technology represent a rich variety of research, the cases that have successfully used collaborative technology share one very crucial thing; instead of focusing intensively only on the technology, a great deal of effort has been put into collaborative use of technology. This approach – analysing the collaborative use of technology – takes on great importance in collaborative technology studies. If educators, researchers and software developers are going to implement and use collaborative technology on a large scale, they definitely need broad information about collaborative use of technology. By analysing two cases, Facilitating Community of Learners, proposed by Brown and Campione (1996), and Knowledge Building Communities, developed by Scardamalia and Bereiter (1994), we showed that, in these cases, the researchers’ efforts that matter were not only in designing the technology but also in designing the practices, in designing the social infrastructure for learning.

Designing Learning Oriented Infrastructures

115

Conclusions Technology itself does not do the work of teaching or learning. Perhaps too often, the failures of using collaborative technology are still taken as pure design challenges of technology. We have not been arguing that the design of technology is unimportant; far cry from that. It is very important that the technology developed for students 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 the potential to help one to think about the problems of using (as well as implementing) technology and should be carefully studied and expanded in the future. In fact, there are hardly any studies examining the learning oriented infrastructures. We (researchers and practioners) do not yet know how to design learning oriented infrastructures effectively in different contexts, how technology and practices should be converged and aligned or how these structures evolve over time. Too often these issues are neglected in collaborative technology studies. Thus, further research is clearly needed to establish the idea of learning oriented infrastructure and collaborative use of technology, both conceptually and empirically. In that way, one may examine the fruits of what promise to be some of the most exciting innovations in technologically advanced communities of 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 ComputerSupported Collaborative Learning. The proceedings of the First European Conference on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, University of Maastrich, Maastricht, pp. 106–114. Brown, AL (1994) The advancement of learning, Educational Researcher, 23, 4–12. Brown, AL and Campione, JC (1994) Guided discovery in a community of learners. In McGilly, K (ed.) Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press, pp. 229–270. 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 environments for education, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 289–325. Brown, AL, Ash, D, Rutherford, M, Nakagawa, K, Gordon, A and Campione, J (1993) Distributed expertise in the classroom. In Salomon, G (ed.) Distributed Cognitions. Psychological and Educational Considerations, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 118–228. Brown, AL, Ellery, S and Campione, JC (1998) Creating zones of proximal development electronically. In Greeno, JG and Goldman, SV (eds) Thinking Practices in Mathematics and Science Learning, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, 341–367. Bruce, B and Peyton, JK (1990) A new writing environment and an old culture: a situated evaluation of computer networking to teach writing, Interactive Learning Environments, 1, 171–191. 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. 33–49. Cohen, A and Scardamalia, M (1998) Discourse about ideas: monitoring and regulating in face-to-face and computer-mediated environments, Interactive Learning Environments, 6, 93–113. Dillenbourg, P, Eurelings, A and Hakkarainen, K. (eds) (2001) European Perspectives on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning. The Proceedings of the First European Conference on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, University of Maastricht, Maastricht. Hanseth, O and Lundberg, N (2001) Designing work oriented infrastructures, Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 10, 347–372. Hewitt, J and Scardamalia, M (1998) Design principles for the support of distributed processes, Educational Psychology Review, 10, 75–95. Hoadley, C. (ed.) (1999) Proceedings of CSCL ’99: The Third International Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ. Kelly, S and Jones, M (2001) Groupware and the social infrastructure of communication, Communications of the ACM, 44, 85–88. Koschmann, T, Hall, R and Miyake, N (eds) (2001) CSCL2: Carrying Forward the Conversation, Lawrence Erlbaum 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) Innovations in Learning. New Environments for Education, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 243–288.

116

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

Lehtinen, E, Hakkarainen, K, Lipponen, L, Rahikainen, M and Muukkonen, H (1999) Computer-Supported Collaborative 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 dissertation, University of Turku, series B, Humaniora, 245. Qureshi, S and Zigurs, I (2001) Paradoxes and prerogatives in global virtual collaboration, Communications of the ACM, 44, 85–88. Owston, RD (1997) The World Wide Web: a technology to enhance teaching and learning? Educational Researcher, 26, 27–33. Roschelle, J and Pea, R (1999) Trajectories from today’s WWW to a powerful educational infrastructure, Educational Researcher, 43, 22–25. Rubin, A and Bruce, B (1990) Alternate realization of purpose in computer-supported writing, Theory into Practice, 29, 256–263. Salomon, G (1997) Novel constructivist learning environments and novel technologies: some issues to be concerned with, An Invited Keynote Address Presented at the 8th Conference of the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction, Athens, August 1997. Salomon, G, Perkins, D and Globerson, T (1991) Partners in cognition: extending human intelligence with intelligent technologies, Educational Researcher, 20, 9–20. 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. 67–98. Scardamalia, M and Bereiter, C (1994) Computer support for knowledge-building communities, The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3, 265–283. 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 TechnologySupported Learning Environments, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 149–163. Scardamalia, M, Bereiter, C, McLean, RS, Swallow, J and Woodruff, E (1989) Computer supported intentional learning environments, Journal of Educational Computing Research, 5, 51–68. Stahl, G (1999) Reflections on WebGuide. Seven issues for the next generation of collaborative knowledgebuilding environments. In Hoadley, C (ed.) Proceedings of CSCL ’99: The Third International Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 600–610. Stahl, G (ed.) (2002) Proceedings of CSCL ’02: The International Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ. Star, SL (1999) The etnography of infrastructure, American Behavioral Scienctist, 43, 377–391. 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 and Knowledge Building at the Department of Psychology, University of Helsinki. They have conducted research projects 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/