Designing for interaction: Six steps to designing computer-supported group-based learning

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2003.10.004Get rights and content

Abstract

At present, the design of computer-supported group-based learning (CSGBL) is often based on subjective decisions regarding tasks, pedagogy and technology, or concepts such as ‘cooperative learning’ and ‘collaborative learning’. Critical review reveals these concepts as insufficiently substantial to serve as a basis for CSGBL design. Furthermore, the relationship between outcome and group interaction is rarely specified a priori. Thus, there is a need for a more systematic approach to designing CSGBL that focuses on the elicitation of expected interaction processes. A framework for such a process-oriented methodology is proposed. Critical elements that affect interaction are identified: learning objectives, task-type, level of pre-structuring, group size and computer support. The proposed process-oriented method aims to stimulate designers to adopt a more systematic approach to CSGBL design according to the interaction expected, while paying attention to critical elements that affect interaction. This approach may bridge the gap between observed quality of interaction and learning outcomes and foster CSGBL design that focuses on the heart of the matter: interaction.

Introduction

Learning in small groups has been intensively researched since the 1970s. Moreover, the rapid development of computer support for communication and collaboration stimulated its use for pedagogical practices. At the same time a new way of thinking about instruction emerged, to a large extent based on constructivism. According to Reiser (2001), the instructional principles associated with this emergence include requiring learners to (a) solve problems, (b) work together, (c) examine problems from multiple perspectives, (d) become responsible for their own learning process; and (e) become aware of their role in the instructional process. During the past decades (computer-supported) group-based learning CSGBL) has become an important aspect of contemporary education, and is also stimulated through learning environments that increasingly resemble authentic working processes (Bastiaens & Martens, 2000). At present, however, there are no clear guidelines to determine how a CSGBL setting (i.e. learning environment) should be designed (Van Berlo, 2000). Developers question what tasks or work methods should be used (Enkenberg, 2001). Many researchers have indicated considerable variations regarding the quality of interaction and learning outcomes (Häkkinen, Järvelä, & Byman, 2001). To a large extent this is caused by differences in group size, technology used, length of the study, research methodology and unit of analysis (Lipponen, 2001).

At present, the design of CSGBL settings often seems based on subjective decisions regarding tasks, pedagogy and technology. So far, research has mainly focused on the quality of collaborative products or individual learning results, but the outcome is mediated by the quality of group processes (Shaw, 1981). Moreover, there is considerable uncertainty about the relationship between interaction and outcome, because the effect of a CSGBL setting on group interaction is rarely specified a priori (Dillenbourg, 1999). However, recent interest in CSGBL from the instructional design domain may stimulate the development of a more systematic approach to CSGBL design (Gros, 2001).

In this article a framework for a process-oriented methodology to design CSGBL settings is proposed, which focuses on the elicitation of the specified expected interaction. This implies that researchers have a clear concept of interaction and how it relates to their CSGBL setting. Hence, before the process-oriented methodology can be discussed, four issues must be addressed: (a) the applicability of a classic instructional design view to CSGBL, (b) the conceptualisation of interaction, (c) the applicability of the terms ‘cooperative learning’ and ‘collaborative learning’ as design principles, and (d) the possibility to identify critical elements in CSGBL settings affecting interaction, and if so, what they are. These issues will be successively elaborated in 2 Instructional design for CSGBL, 3 Conceptualising interaction, 4 Cooperation versus collaboration: design principle for GBL?, 5 Five critical elements for process-oriented CSGBL design. Next, the design methodology is introduced. Finally, the potential applicability and its limitations will be discussed.

Section snippets

Instructional design for CSGBL

Classic instructional design focuses on individual learning outcomes and tries to control instructional variables to create a learning environment that supports the acquisition of a specific skill (person A will acquire skill B through learning method C). With respect to CSGBL, the use of groups complicates this view. The key questions are whether it is (a) possible and (b) feasible to pre-define independent static conditions of learning or instruction for a group setting. Can all relevant

Conceptualising interaction

Collaboration essentially entails interaction. The issue of ‘how students interact’ has gradually received increasing attention in CSGBL research, but the impact of interaction processes on learning is explained in retrospect, i.e. it is determined whether outcomes were affected by the interaction observed. Retrospective examination of interaction can provide indicative evidence regarding a relationship between outcome and interaction, but there is little certainty that it can be reproduced

Cooperation versus collaboration: design principle for GBL?

During the 1970s and 1980s ‘cooperative learning’ dominated CSGBL practices, but since the beginning of the 1990s ‘collaborative learning’ came into fashion. Although many researchers make a distinction between these perspectives on CSGBL, there is no agreement on what the distinction actually entails. Panitz (n.d.) sees collaboration as a personal philosophy of group interaction and cooperation as a (set of) structure(s) of interaction that facilitates group performance. Slavin (1997) states

Five critical elements for process-oriented CSGBL design

Although instructional design researchers argue to develop an explicit and systematic approach to CSGBL design (Gros, 2001), it is not a new issue. Salomon argued in 1992 that “the whole learning environment, not just the computer program or tool, be designed as a well orchestrated whole (…) this includes curriculum, teachers’ behaviours, collaborative tasks, mode of peer collaboration and interaction, tasks, learning goals and the like” (p. 64).

We propose here a process-oriented approach that

Designing for interaction: a process-oriented methodology

In the introduction to this article, a need for a more systematic approach to CSGBL design was identified. The proposed process-oriented design methodology implies that a conceptualisation of the expected interaction is made explicit in advance and stresses the identification of critical elements that affect the interaction. Based on a literature review, five critical elements have been identified: learning objectives, task type, level of pre-structuring, group size and technology. We recommend

Discussion

Currently, the design of CSGBL settings is commonly motivated with concepts such as ‘cooperative’ versus ‘collaborative’, or ‘positive interdependence’ and ‘individual accountability’. A critical review reveals that neither are substantial enough to serve as a basis for the design of a CSGBL setting. In addition, research results show large variations regarding the relationship between interaction and learning outcomes, caused by differences in length of study, technology used, group size,

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Paul Kirschner, Frans Prins and Jeroen Van Merriënboer for their comments and suggestions.

References (88)

  • D.P. Brandon et al.

    Collaborative learning and computer-supported groups

    Communication Education

    (1999)
  • T.A. Brush

    Embedding cooperative learning into the design of integrated learning systems: rationale and guidelines

    Educational Technology Research & Development

    (1998)
  • G. Chin et al.

    Articulating collaboration in a learning community

    Behaviour & Information Technology

    (2000)
  • E.G. Cohen

    Restructuring the classroom: conditions for productive small groups

    Review of Educational Research

    (1994)
  • T. De Jong et al.

    Scientific discovery learning with computer simulations of conceptual domains

    Review of Educational Research

    (1998)
  • P. Dillenbourg et al.

    The evolution of research on collaborative learning

  • P. Dillenbourg

    What do you mean by collaborative learning?

  • G. Erkens et al.

    Computer-supported collaboration in argumentative writing

  • D.R. Forsyth

    Group dynamics (2nd ed.)

    (1990)
  • L.S. Fuchs et al.

    Effects of workgroup structure and size on student productivity during collaborative work on complex tasks

    Elementary School Journal

    (2000)
  • S.J. Guastello

    Symbolic dynamic patterns of written exchanges: hierarchical structures in an electronic problem solving group

    Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology, and Life Sciences

    (2000)
  • C.N. Gunawardena et al.

    Analysis of a global online debate and the development of an interaction analysis model for examining social construction of knowledge in computer conferencing

    Journal of Educational Computing Research

    (1997)
  • M. Guzdial et al.

    Effective discussion through a computer-mediated anchored forum

    Journal of the Learning Sciences

    (2000)
  • P. Häkkinen et al.

    Sharing and making perspectives in web-based conferencing

  • C. Haythornthwaite

    Exploring multiplexity: social network structures in a computer-supported distance learning class

    The Information Society

    (2001)
  • N. Hara et al.

    Content analysis of online discussion in an applied educational psychology course

    Instructional Science

    (2000)
  • L. Harasim

    Collaborating in cyberspace: using computer conferences as a group learning environment

    Interactive Learning Environments

    (1993)
  • L. Harasim et al.

    Learning networks: a field guide to teaching and learning online

    (1995)
  • F. Henri

    Computer conferencing and content analysis

  • C. Howell-Richardson et al.

    A methodology for the analysis of patterns of participation within computer mediated courses

    Instructional Science

    (1996)
  • J.R. Illera

    Collaborative environments and task design in the university

    Computers in Human Behaviour

    (2001)
  • A. Inaba et al.

    Design and analysis of learners’ interaction based on collaborative learning ontology

  • Jeong, H., & Chi, M. T .H. (1997, December). Construction of shared knowledge during collaborative learning. Paper...
  • D.W. Johnson

    Student-student interaction: the neglected variable in education

    Educational Research

    (1981)
  • D.W. Johnson et al.

    Advanced cooperative learning

    (1992)
  • D. Jonassen

    Instructional design models for well-structured and ill-structured problem-solving learning outcomes

    Educational Technology Research & Development

    (1997)
  • D.H. Jonassen et al.

    Communication patterns in computer mediated and face-to-face group problem solving

    Educational Technology Research & Development

    (2001)
  • S. Kagan

    Cooperative learning

    (1994)
  • A. King

    Discourse patterns for mediating peer learning

  • Kirschner, P. A. (1999, August). Using integrated electronic environments for collaborative teaching/learning. Keynote...
  • Lamberigts, R. A. J. G. (1988). Cooperatief leren [Cooperative learning]. Onderwijskundig Lexicon, II, C1300-1-...
  • V. Lally et al.

    Cracking the code: learning to collaborate and collaborating to learn in a networked environment [Electronic version]

  • E. Lehtinen et al.

    Case-based learning in CSCL environments

  • Lehtinen, E., Hakkarainen, K., Lipponen, L., Rahikainen, M., & Muukkonen, H. (n.d.). Computer supported collaborative...
  • Cited by (223)

    • More than experience? - On the unique opportunities of virtual reality to afford a holistic experiential learning cycle

      2021, Internet and Higher Education
      Citation Excerpt :

      The affordance concept has been adopted in the field of information systems, studying the design, use and impact of information technology (Dremel, Herterich, Wulf, & Vom Brocke, 2020; Lehrer, Wieneke, Vom Brocke, Jung, & Seidel, 2018; Seidel, Recker, & Vom Brocke, 2013) as well as in education science as a theoretical foundation for the selection and design of e-learning technologies (Antonenko, Dawson, & Sahay, 2017; Bower, 2008; Kirschner, Strijbos, Kreijns, & Beers, 2004). While traditional instructional design approaches assume a causal relationship between technology, instructional methods, and learning outcomes, the affordance concept allows designers to focus on promoting a certain kind of learning behavior (Strijbos, Martens, & Jochems, 2004). For example, Kirschner et al. (2004) suggested that e-learning environments should offer certain educational, social, and technological affordances to enable the emergence of collaborative learning processes.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text