Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A development research agenda for online collaborative learning

  • Published:
Educational Technology Research and Development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Although important, traditional basic-to-applied research methods have provided an insufficient basis for advancing the design and implementation of innovative collaborative learning environments. It is proposed that more progress may be accomplished through development research or design research. Development research protocols require intensive and long-term collaboration among researchers and practitioners. In this article, we propose guidelines for implementing development research models more widely, and conclude with a prescription for an online collaborative learning research agenda for the next five to ten years.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2003).Sizing the opportunity: The quality and extent of online education in the United States, 2002 and 2003. Needham, MA: The Sloan Consortium. Report retrieved December 12, 2003 from http://www.sloam-c.org/resources/sizing_opportunity.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, T. (2003). Modes of interaction in distance education: Recent developments and research questions. In M. G. Moore & W. G. Anderson (Eds.),Handbook of distance education (pp. 129–144). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bannan-Ritland, B. (2003). The role of design in research: The integrative learning design framework.Educational Researcher, 32(1), 21–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barab, S. A., Squire, K. D. & Dueber, W. (2000). A coevolutionary model for supporting the emergence of authenticityEducational Technology Research and Development, 48(2), 37–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernard, R. M., Lou, Y., Abrami, P. C., Wozney, L., Borokhovski, E., Wallet, P. A., Wade, A., & Fiset, M. (2003, April).How does distance education compare to classroom instruction? A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. Paper retrieved October 5, 2003 from http://doe.concordia.ca/cslp/.

  • Bonk, C. J., & Dennen, V. (2003). Frameworks for research, design, benchmarks, training, and pedagogy in Web-based distance education. In M. G. Moore & W. G. Anderson (Eds.),Handbook of distance education (pp. 331–348). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boshier, R., Mohapi, M., Moulton, G., Qayyum, A., Sadownik, L., & Wilson, M. (1997). Best and worst dressed Web lessons: Strutting into the 21st century in comfort and style.Distance Education, 18(1), 327–349.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bottge, B. A., & Hasselbring, T. S. (1993). Taking word problems off the page.Educational Leadership, 50(7), 36–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000).How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Book retrieved September 4, 2003 from http://www.nap.edu/catalog/9853.html.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bransford, J. D., Sherwood, R. D., Hasselbring, T. S., Kinzer, C. K., & Williams, S. M. (1990). Anchored instruction: Why we need it and how technology can help. In D. Nix & R. Spiro (Eds.),Cognition, education and multimedia: Exploring ideas in high technology (pp. 115–141). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bransford, J. D., Vye, N., Kinzer, C., & Risko, V. (1990). Teaching thinking and content knowledge: Toward an integrated approach. In B. F. Jones & L. Idol (Eds.),Dimensions of thinking and cognitive instruction (pp. 381–413). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Britto, M. (2002).An exploratory study of the development of a survey instrument to measure the pedagogical dimensions of Web-based instruction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Georgia.

  • Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning.Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cavanaugh, C. S. (2001). The effectiveness of interactive distance education technologies in K-12 learning: A meta-analysis.International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 7(1), 73–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheng, H-C., Lehman, J., Armstrong, P. (1991). Comparison of performance and attitude in traditional and computer conference classes.The American Journal of Distance Education, 5(3), 51–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, R. E. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning with media.Review of Educational Research 53(4), 445–459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1990a). Anchored instruction and its relationship to situated cognition.Educational Researcher, 19(6), 2–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1990b). Technology and the design of generative learning environments.Educational Technology, 31(5), 34–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crook, C. (2002). Learning as cultural practice. In. M. Lea and K. Nicoll (Eds.),Understanding distributed learning (pp. 152–169). London, Routledge Falmer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cuban, L. (2001).Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2003).The landscape of qualitative research: Theories and issues. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Design-Based Research Collective. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry.Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • DiBiase, D. (2000). Is distance teaching more work or less?American Journal of Distance Education, 14(3), 6–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duchastel, P. C. (1997). A Web-based model for university instruction.Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 25(3), 221–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duderstadt, J. J., Atkins, D. E., Van Houweling, D. (2002).Higher education in the digital age: Technology issues and strategies for American colleges and universities. Westport, CT: American Council on Education and Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feuer, M. J., Towne, L., & Shavelson, R. J. (2002). Scientific culture and educational research.Educational Researcher, 31(8), 4–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, R. (1998). Balancing real-world problems with real-world results.Phi Delta Kappan, 79, 390–393.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, K. (2001).Campus computing report 2001, Encino, CA: The Campus Computing Project. Report retrieved December 9, 2003 from http://www.campuscomputing.net/.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hara, N., & Kling, R. (1999). Students' frustrations with a Web-based distance education course.First Monday,4(12). Article retrieved October 10, 2003 from http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue4_12/hara./

  • Harasim, L. (2002). What makes online learning communities successful: The role of collaborative learning in social and intellectual development. In C. Vrasidas and G. V. Glass (Eds.),Distance education and distributed learning (181–200). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herrington, J., & Herrington, A. (1998). Authentic assessment and multimedia: How university students respond to a model of authentic assessment.Higher Education Research and Development, 17(3), 305–322.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herrington, J., Oliver, R., & Reeves, T. C. (2003). Patterns of engagement in authentic online learning environments.Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 19(1), 59–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herrington, J., Reeves, T. C., Oliver, R., & Woo, Y. (2004). Designing authentic activities in Web-based courses.Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 16(1), 3–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. (1991). Evaluating constructivistic learning.Educational Technology, 31(9), 28–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H., & Reeves, T. C. (1996). Learning with Technology: Using Computers as cognitive tools. In D. H. Jonassen, (Ed.),Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 693–719). New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kearsley, G. (2000).Online education: Learning and teaching in cyberspace. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, A. E. (2003). Research as design.Educational Researcher, 32(1), 3–4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirschner, P. A., & Kreijns K. (2004). The sociability of computer-mediated collaborative learning environments: Pitfalls of social interaction and how to avoid them. In R. Bromme, F. Hesse, & H. Spada (Eds.)Barriers and biases in computer-mediated knowledge communication—And how they may be overcome. Dordrecht, NL: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koory, M. A. (2003). Differences in learning outcomes for the online and F2F versions of “An Introduction to Shakespeare.”Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks,7(2). Article retrieved January 5, 2004 from http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/jaln/v7n2/pdf/v7n2_koory.pdf.

  • Lagemann, E. C. (2000).An elusive science: The troubling history of educational research. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lajoie S. P. (Ed.) (2000).Computers as cognitive tools: No more walls, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lebow, D., & Wager, W. W. (1994). Authentic activity as a model for appropriate learning activity: Implications for emerging instructional technologies.Canadian Journal of Educational Communication, 23(3), 231–244.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lockee, B., Moore, D., & Burton, J. (2004). Foundations of programmed instruction. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.),Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (2nd ed., pp. 545–569). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lumsdaine, A. A. (1963). Instruments and media of instruction. In N. Gage (Ed.),Handbook of research on teaching. Chicago: Rand McNally.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacDonald, M., & Bartlett, J. E. (2000). Comparison of Web-based and traditional delivery methods in a business communications unit.Delta Pi Epsilon Journal 42(2), 90–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Machtmes, K., & Asher, J. W. (2000). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of telecourses in distance education.The American Journal of Distance Education 14(1), 27–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mielke, K. W. (1968). Questioning the questions of ETV research.Educational Broadcasting, 2, 6–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, M. G., & Anderson, W. G. (Eds.). (2003).Handbook of distance education. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Myers, S. (1993). A trial for Dmitri Karamazov.Educational Leadership, 50(7), 71–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Naidu, S. (2003). Designing instruction for e-learning environments. In M. G. Moore & W. G. Anderson (Eds.),Handbook of distance education (pp. 349–365). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (2002).Scientific research in education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Report retrieved August 23, 2003 from http://www.nap.edu/.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noble, D. F. (2001).Digital diploma mills: The automation of higher education. New York: Monthly Review Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norman, D. A. (1988).The psychology of everyday things. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orrill, C. H., Hannafin, M. J., & Glazer, E. M. (2004). Disciplined inquiry and the study of emerging technology. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.),Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (2nd ed., pp. 335–353). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (1999).Building learning communities in cyberspace. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perkins, D. N. (1986).Knowledge as design. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phipps, R., & Merisotis, J. (1999).What's the difference? A review of contemporary research on the effectiveness of distance learning in higher education. Washington, DC: The Institute for Higher Education Policy. Report retrieved October 5, 2003 from http://www.ihep.com/Pubs/PDF/Difference.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pittinsky, M. S. (Ed.) (2003).The wired tower: Perspectives on the impact of the internet on higher education. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall

    Google Scholar 

  • Reeves, T. C. (1993). Pseudoscience in computer-based instruction: The case of learner control research.Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 20(2), 39–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reeves, T. C. (2002). Distance education and the professorate: The issue of productivity. In C. Vrasidas and G. V. Glass (Eds.),Distance education and distributed learning (135–156). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reeves, T. C. (2003). Storm clouds on the digital education horizon.Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 15(1), 3–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reeves, T. C., & Okey, J. R. (1996). Alternative assessment for constructivist learning environments. In B. G. Wilson (Ed.),Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional design (pp. 191–202). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reeves, T. C., & Reeves, P. M. (1997). The effective dimensions of interactive learning on the WWW. In B. H. Khan, (Ed.),Web-based instruction (pp. 59–66). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Resnick, L. (1987). Learning in school and out.Educational Researcher, 16(9), 13–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ross, S. M., & Morrison, G. R. (2004). Experimental research methods. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.),Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (2nd ed., pp. 1021–1043). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saettler, P. (1990)The evolution of American educational technology. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sammons, M. (2003). Exploring the new conception of teaching and learning in distance education. In M. G. Moore & W. G. Anderson (Eds.),Handbook of distance education (pp. 387–397) Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schank, R. C. (2002).Designing world-class e- learning. How IBM, GE, Harvard Business School, and Columbia University are succeeding at e-learning. New York: McGraw Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schramm, W. (1977).Big media, little media. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seels, B., Fullerton, K., Berry, L., & Horn, L.J. (2004). Research on learning from television. In D.H. Jonassen (Ed.),Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (2nd ed., pp. 249–334). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shulman, L. (2001). Inventing the future. In P. Hutchings (Ed),Opening lines: Approaches to the scholarship of teaching and learning. Menlo Park, CA: Carnegie Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stokes, D. E. (1997).Pasteur's quadrant: Basic science and technological innovation. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Twigg, C. A. (2003). Quality, cost and access: The case for redesign. In M. S. Pittinsky (Ed.),The wired tower: Perspectives on the impact of the Internet on higher education (pp. 111–143. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • van den Akker, J (1999). Principles and methods of development research. In J. van den Akker, N. Nieveen, R. M. Branch, K. L. Gustafson, & T. Plomp, (Eds.),Design methodology and developmental research in education and training (pp. 1–14). The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vonderwell, S. (2003). An examination of asynchronous communication experiences and perspectives of students in an online course: A case study.Internet and Higher Education, 6, 77–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weigel, V. B. (2002).Deep learning for a digital age: Technology's untapped potential to enrich higher education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, B. G. (Ed.). (1996).Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional design. Engle-wood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winn, W. (1993). Instructional design and situated learning: Paradox or partnership.Educational Technology, 33(3), 16–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, M. F. (1993). Instructional design for situated learning.Educational Technology Research and Development, 41 (1), 43–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young, M. F. (1995). Assessment of situated learning using computer environments.Journal of Science Education and Technology, 4(1), 89–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young, M. F., & McNeese, M. (1993). A situated cognition approach to problem solving with implications for computer-based learning and assessment. In G. Salvendy & M. J. Smith (Eds.),Human-computer interaction: Software and hardware interfaces (pp. 825–830). New York: Elsevier Science Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Education at the University of Wollongong, Australia

    Jan Herrington (Associate Professor)

  2. Edith Cowan University, Australia

    Ron Oliver (Professor of Interactive Multimedia and Associate Dean of Teaching and Learning)

  3. Instructional Technology, The University of Georgia, 604 Aderhold Hall, 30602-7144, Athens, GA

    Thomas C. Reeves (Professor of Instructional Technology)

Authors
  1. Thomas C. Reeves
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jan Herrington
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ron Oliver
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thomas C. Reeves.

Additional information

Our research collaboration has been partially funded by the Australian Research Council, the Australian-American Fulbright Commission, and our respective universities. The authors want to thank the reviewers of this paper, known and unknown, especially Jan Elen and Brent Wilson, as well as the overall initiator of this special issue, Paul Kirschner.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Reeves, T.C., Herrington, J. & Oliver, R. A development research agenda for online collaborative learning. ETR&D 52, 53–65 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504718

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504718

Keywords

Search

Navigation