Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [UNAM Ciudad Universitaria]On: 21 December 2014, At: 11:40Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK
Distance EducationPublication details, including instructions for authorsand subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cdie20
Collaborative online distancelearning: Issues for futurepractice and researchRobert M. Bernard , Beatriz Rojo de Rubalcava & a
E-mail:E-mail:a Concordia University , 1455 de Maisonneuve Blvd. W.,Montreal, PQ H3G 1M8, Canada E-mail:Published online: 17 Feb 2007.
To cite this article: Robert M. Bernard , Beatriz Rojo de Rubalcava & (2000)Collaborative online distance learning: Issues for future practice and research, DistanceEducation, 21:2, 260-277, DOI: 10.1080/0158791000210205
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0158791000210205
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, orsuitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressedin this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not theviews of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content shouldnot be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions,claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilitieswhatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connectionwith, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expresslyforbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UN
AM
Ciu
dad
Uni
vers
itari
a] a
t 11:
40 2
1 D
ecem
ber
2014
Distance Education2000. Vol. 21. No. 2. pp. 260-77© ODLAA Inc.
Collaborative online distance learning: Issues for futurepractice and research
Robert M. Bernard, Beatriz Rojo de Rubalcava and Denise St-Pierre**(Authorship is equally shared by the three authors. Names are
alphabetical.)
This article provides an overview of issues of practice and researchrelating to the use of collaborative online learning in distanceeducation (DE). It begins with an examination of the traditionalproblems of DE. Following that is a discussion of what collaborativeonline learning encompasses and a review of the primary instructionaldesign issues that relate to it. These are: (a) course preparation;(b) creating a good social climate and sense of community; (c)therole of the instructor; (d) encouraging true collaboration; and (e) theeffective use of technology. As well some of the literature relating toproblem-based learning is referenced and its application tocollaborative online learning is discussed. The authors conclude thatusing new technologies in combination with a collaborative onlinelearning approach in DE may prove to be highly effective whenlearner characteristics and the learning context are consideredcarefully. Recommendations for future areas of research are alsoprovided, along with a matrix of variables that may be combined toconceptualise further study in the area.
Introduction
Recent significant technological advances have triggered a staggering risein the popularity of DE in the last few years, primarily as the result of theavailability of a wide array of new computer-based interactivetechnologies (for example, the Internet, computer conferencingsoftwares). Consequently, distance educators and instructional designersare being compelled to reconsider and reinvent the practices traditionallyassociated with the design and delivery of this kind of educationalexperience. Indeed, the general availability of multimedia andcommunication tools, such as email, bulletin boards, conferencingsystems, whiteboards, chat rooms, and videoconferencing, are impactingon educational curricula, learning materials and instructional practices.Even the characteristics of the learner population are changing. Learnersneither belong to one homogenous age or social group nor are theywilling to go on receiving information passively with minimal interaction
260
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UN
AM
Ciu
dad
Uni
vers
itari
a] a
t 11:
40 2
1 D
ecem
ber
2014
Robert M. Bernard, Beatriz Rojo de Rubalcava and Denise St-Pierre
and feedback. Moreover, the workplace has also changed drastically andincreasingly requires a knowledgeable workforce that can workcollaboratively, often with other divisions and/or companies—evenacross continents and oceans. Finally, the Internet has irrevocably alteredhow people access information, and how much information anyone canaccess, while local and wide-area networks release the Internet as alearning resource with software tools that enable communication.
All these factors add up to an appreciable transformation of DE while atthe same time providing many new opportunities and formidablechallenges. There is a need to re-examine how knowledge and skills areacquired, how learning in such contexts actually occurs, and how onlineinstruction can best be facilitated.
Successful online distance education is a process of taking our very bestpractices in the classroom and bringing them into a new arena. In this newarena, however, the practices may not look exactly the same (Palloff &Pratt 1999, p. 6).
The medium obliges us to think in different terms in order to make use ofits learning-enhancing features and pedagogical potential. It also posesthe challenge of recreating the sense of community so crucial to learningin this new cyberspace environment. Recent research points tocollaborative online learning as a method of achieving that objective andappears to work well in computer-mediated settings. Moreover, it is beingrecognised as an effective means of preparing students for the workplace(Brandon & Hollingshead 1999). All of these considerations and manymore have an impact on how instructional programs and materials aredesigned. In this paper, we will explore and examine the issues describedin current literature and make recommendations for practice that bestmeets the needs of today's distant learners. In addition, we will reviewsome of the research in this area and suggest a paradigm forconceptualising future research efforts.
Problems associated with DE
The longstanding literature of DE has documented extensively theproblems associated with its practice. Two which have receivedconsiderable attention in the literature are the high average rates ofdropout (e.g. Bernard & Amundsen 1989), and low quality of learningattainment, such as the attainment of complex conceptual relationshipsand their associated skills (e.g. Abrami & Bures 1996). A variety of'causes' have been attributed to these problems: feelings of isolation(Bullen 1998); procrastination (Garland 1992); lack of two-/three-waycommunication (e.g. Dede 1996); and difficulties associated with the self-regulation of learning brought about, in part, by the autonomy that is
261
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UN
AM
Ciu
dad
Uni
vers
itari
a] a
t 11:
40 2
1 D
ecem
ber
2014
Distance Education Vol. 21 No. 2 2000
inherent in DE learning (Zimmerman 1986). While these 'causes' havetypically been investigated as isolated phenomena, it is likely that all ofthem, acting to various degrees and under different circumstances, haveled to the problems observed in traditional DE practice.
Finally, Kirby and Garrison (1992) raise the controversial issue of qualityof instruction in DE, which emerges repeatedly throughout the literature.They express serious reservations about the possibility of maintaininghigh academic standards in undergraduate and graduate courses deliveredat a distance because of the inherent weaknesses of DE itself. However,since 1992, the rise of the Internet and the availability of interactivecomputer-based communication technologies have profoundly modifiedthis situation and offer new opportunities for enhanced learning. Forinstance, institutions such as the ITESM (Instituto Tecnologico deMonterrey, Monterey, Mexico) now offer complete MA and PhD degreeprograms at a distance using the most advanced technologies. Similarly,Athabasca University in Alberta, Canada offers a complete MA in DEand a highly regarded MBA program entirely online. These are only twoinstances of a global trend towards making advanced degrees (wherepresumably the most sophisticated learning must occur) available at adistance.
The drawbacks raised are not insurmountable, but do call for customisedsolutions which experienced educators will recognise as an electronicallyadapted version of strategies used in the traditional classroom. No longeris it necessary, in many parts of the world, to rely solely on static learningmaterials accompanied by minimal feedback and limited communicationamong learners and instructors. There are clearly many ways oforganising and designing interactive online learning. However, oneapproach that has proved very successful in face-to-face instructionalsettings is referred to as collaborative online learning (referred tosometimes as COL). The rest of this paper is devoted to an examinationof this instructional approach and its adaptation to an online DEenvironment.
COL: A potential solution for DE problems
Collaborative learning, cooperative learning and small-group learning areterms that are often used interchangeably in the literature. However, weconsider it important to differentiate collaborative learning from the othertwo. Collaborative learning differs from cooperative learning in that itsemphasis lies in the mutual engagement of learners in the learningprocess rather than on the sole division of labour to reach a commongroup goal (Bruffee 1993; Abrami & Bures 1996). In cooperativelearning, the result may simply add up to a collection or incorporation of
262
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UN
AM
Ciu
dad
Uni
vers
itari
a] a
t 11:
40 2
1 D
ecem
ber
2014
Robert M. Bernard. Bealriz Rojo de Rubalcava and Denise St-Pierre
each individual's work into the final product. However final productsbased on collaboration should represent a synthesis of the whole. Some ofthe main advantages of collaborative learning, that are often cited, are thatit encourages active and constructive learning and encourages deepprocessing of information, as well as evoking critical thinking, reasoningand goal-based learning (Brown & Palincsar 1989). In addition,collaborative learning requires less teacher-imposed goal structuring thancooperative learning (Abrami et al. 1995).
At a minimum, collaborative learning should include the following:
• sharing the learning task;
• combining expertise, knowledge and skills to improve the quality ofthe learning process;
• building or consolidating a learning community (Slavin 1995).
Slavin recommends using structured protocols to direct student-to-studentinteractions and minimise both off-task and passive behaviour whileproviding more opportunities for all students, regardless of ability level,to give and receive elaborated explanations.
Collaborative online learning is the computer-based variant of theclassroom version, and is coming to be regarded as one of the mostpromising pedagogical approaches for DE (Eklund & Eklund 1997;Harasim 1996; Riel 1990). Some even argue that it should constitute anintegral component of higher education in the new millennium (Dede1996). Inspired by the methods that many businesses and companies havebeen using over the last few years, Dede also claims that collaborativeonline learning will better prepare students for the requirements oftoday's global industries where workers and consultants, involved incommon projects, are geographically separated. Others argue (Abrami &Bures 1996), that the effective use of collaborative online learning willaid in the acquisition of complex and higher-level concepts and skills thathas been claimed as a weakness of traditional non-interactive DE.
In a collaborative learning setting, the emphasis is placed on theinteractions as common understandings are negotiated and developedacross differences of knowledge, skills and attitudes. Indeed,collaborative learning should thrive on these differences. Motivation toparticipate and confidence, together play an equally important role ifbenefits are to emerge from the experience. Moreover, participants needto assume a variety of functional roles as interchanges progress andinvolve question answering and explanations that are open to challengeand justification (Bernard & Lundgren-Cayrol, in press).
In order for collaborative online learning to take place successfully, it iscrucial that the learner feels part of a learning community where his/her
263
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UN
AM
Ciu
dad
Uni
vers
itari
a] a
t 11:
40 2
1 D
ecem
ber
2014
Distance Education Vol. 21 No. 2 2000
contributions add to a common knowledge pool and where a communityspirit is fostered through social interactions. Decades of research oncollaborative learning in traditional classrooms support a belief in itsgeneral effectiveness (Palloff & Pratt 1999; Slavin 1995). However, itseffectiveness in DE contexts has yet to be firmly demonstrated. In thenext section, we will explore the literature that addresses the issues ofcollaborative learning in a virtual DE environment, mostly as it relates tothe instructional design of online learning environments.
COL: Issues for future practice
In the literature, collaborative online learning is most commonly based onthe theoretical and philosophical underpinnings of constructivism(e.g. Tam 2000) such as Vygotsky's (1986) theory of socialconstructivism. If we accept constructivism as a basis for conceptualisingDE online learning environments, certain design issues emerge asimportant. These are summarised in table 1. Dealing with all of theseissues simultaneously, in any single instance will usually not be feasible;however having an awareness of them will undoubtedly lead to bettercourse design in the long run. Intermediate or partial solutions should beconsidered where conditions do not lend themselves to a totalimplementation. It will become apparent that many of the courses ofaction suggested here closely resemble the strategies that are regularlyemployed in face-to-face classrooms.
Preparing for collaboration. As with the design and delivery of any formof instruction, the first place to begin with COL is to assess the learners"instructional needs. This can be done by collecting student data throughthe use of questionnaires, pre-tests or even standardised instruments (suchas reading measures, learning style measures) through the mail orelectronically (Bernard & Lundgren-Cayrol 1994). Ideally, and when it isfeasible to do so, developing a profile of the learners' knowledge, skillsand experience, as well as their perceived needs, will help the designertailor the course content and style more effectively. While possessingthese kinds of information will undoubtedly aid in the successful designand implementation of a range of DE materials and experiences, Bernardand Lundgren-Cayrol, however, found that such information does notnecessarily predict student achievement significantly.
When it is possible, traditional classroom settings can be used as a sourceof information about students and as formative testing grounds for DEmaterials and instructional methods. This approach is especially usefulwhen the DE target population and the face-to-face student populationare known to be similar (e.g. the same course taught face-to-face andthrough DE). Further, if the face-to-face course has an online component,
264
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UN
AM
Ciu
dad
Uni
vers
itari
a] a
t 11:
40 2
1 D
ecem
ber
2014
Robert M. Bernard. Beatriz Rojo de Rubalcava and Denise St-Pierre
TABLE 1Summary of issues and design implications for COL
Design Issues
Preparing for collaboration
Creating a social climate and acommunity of learners
Encouraging true collaboration
Applying learningModes/Approaches/Theories of pedagogy
Using technology effectively
Design Implications
• Conduct a learning needs assessment.• Establish learner profiles.• Pre-test DE materials.• Organise informal face-to-face or
online 'getting acquainted' activities.• Teach and model collaborative
behaviour and skills that will beexpected of students.
• Provide faculty and students with alltechnology training required.
• Plan for technical and pedagogicalsupport.
• Provide a social space in theconferencing system.
• Post introductions, homepages orother self revealing items.
• Arrange for at least one live meeting(face-to-face or via video-conferencing).
• Use small groups.• Instructor assumes facilitator role.• Model desired collaborative
behaviour.• Use facilitating techniques, e.g.
'weaving' and 'go around the circle'.• Substitute visual social cues with
verbal cues.• Promote positive interdependence.
• Favour a constructivist approach.• Assign real life and problem-based
tasks.
• Match medium to instructionalobjectives.
• Use technology that is accessible to allparticipants.
• Make use of Internet features, e.g.discussion forums, chat rooms, etc.
• Use a metaphor that relates to learners'experience.
as so many courses have these days, methodologies for collaborativeonline learning can be pilot-tested and adjusted as needed before they areimplemented in a DE context. The advantage with using a face-to-faceaudience first is that the additional direct contact makes it easier tomodify procedures and instructions than when it is done solely online for
265
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UN
AM
Ciu
dad
Uni
vers
itari
a] a
t 11:
40 2
1 D
ecem
ber
2014
Distance Education Vol. 21 No. 2 2000
the first time. This method was used successfully at ConcordiaUniversity, in Montreal (Bernard, Barrington & Roop 1995), to fine-tuneDE materials and methods before the actual DE course equivalent waslaunched. Moreover, this approach yielded the unexpected benefit ofleaving the on-campus student formative evaluators with a feeling ofsatisfaction and empowerment. For a variety of reasons, however, thisapproach is not feasible in a large number of course developmentsituations, but the importance of knowing the target population as well aspossible before designing virtual learning environments remainsparamount (Keirns 1999).
In order for it to succeed, students need to be prepared for a collaborativeonline experience. It is a mistake to assume that learners naturally possessthe prerequisites for skilful collaboration, or for that matter, any form ofonline experience. Keirns argues that the skills and behaviours that areessential for effective collaboration should be identified in advance andsubsequently taught to learners in advance and then reinforced as theprocess proceeds. If at all possible, simple preparatory assignments, suchas conducting interviews with fellow students, should precede morecomplex assignments, both to acquaint the students with their peers andto give them experience with conferencing and, in general, working withothers online.
Motivation to learn in a collaborative environment and to acquire theskills to do so is a major issue in choosing to employ collaborativestrategies. Bures, Abrami and Amundsen (2000) investigated threeaspects of motivation relative to learning via computer conferencing(CC): goal orientation (i.e. reasons for participating); self-efficacy (i.e.beliefs about oneself); and outcome expectations (i.e. beliefs aboutusefulness of CC). These were correlated with two outcome measures: ascale of satisfaction; and frequency of CC use. The results suggest thatlearners who believe that CC will help them learn course material aremore likely to express satisfaction and to be active online. In addition,students who believe that they are capable of learning to use CC are morelikely to be active participants in online discussions. These results, whilesomewhat tentative, suggest that motivational preparation of learners foronline work is desirable, especially when the learners possess lowconfidence and/or skill levels. This would also include adequate levels oftechnical support (Bullen 1998) and the availability, at least initially, ofadequate levels of tutor support (Bernard & Lundgren-Cayrol in press).
Creating a good social climate and sense of community. Developing andmaintaining a positive social environment and, ideally, creating acommunity of learners is considered to be essential (Palloff & Pratt1999). Based on extensive practice in the field of collaborative onlinelearning, their recommendations are consistent with the values promotedin much of the COL literature (Fabro & Garrison 1998; Harasim 1996):
266
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UN
AM
Ciu
dad
Uni
vers
itari
a] a
t 11:
40 2
1 D
ecem
ber
2014
Robert M. Bernard. Bealriz Rojo de Rubalcava and Denise St-Pierre
that learning collaboratively is basically a social process that must beencouraged and nurtured. Some of the proposed means of achieving whatis now known as a community of learners include:
• using a conferencing system that allows for easy and free access toother students and the instructor/tutor;
• assigning students to collaborate according to the best research advice(e.g. Bernard & Lundgren-Cayrol in press);
• posting introductions, information folders, administrative folders,homepages, photos of participants, etc.;
• making the environment as democratic as possible to encourage theinvolvement of everyone;
• providing a restricted space (e.g. cafe, pub, etc.) that is unavailable tothe instructor, for students to converse among themselves;
• providing adequate levels of tutor support, initially, that graduallygives way to increased responsibility on the part of students; and
• when it is feasible to do so, arranging for at least one face-to-facegroup encounter for participants to get acquainted or organising avideoconference.
Encouraging true collaborative online learning. The literature of COLcontains a wide variety of strategies and suggestions for promoting trueonline collaboration. However, one specific ingredient is unanimouslyagreed upon. This is using small groups for collaborative online work.According to the literature, collaboration does not work very well in largegroups (e.g. Brandon & Hollingshead 1999). Problems related to thedistribution of information and resources in a context where groupmembers communicate via asynchronous conferencing are increasinglyamplified and complicated as the group size increases. There is no magic'ideal size' for collaborative online groups. An argument can be madethat pairs are less desirable based on the rationale that when thedistribution of work becomes disproportionate (i.e. someone is 'goofingoff), there is no consensus to counteract it. One consideration inselecting group size is the volume of message traffic that is generated asmembership increases. Burge (1994) considers the large volume ofmessages that students (and instructors, for that matter) have to deal within the course of computer conferencing to be a major area of concern indesigning instructional experiences. Having too many messages to dealwith can result in severe information overload and require an inordinateamount of time on the part of all of the parties involved. In the bestinstance, when overload occurs, work may be incomplete or poorly done.In the worse cases, students may drop out of the course or activity,thereby defeating the very purpose of collaboration in the first place.
267
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UN
AM
Ciu
dad
Uni
vers
itari
a] a
t 11:
40 2
1 D
ecem
ber
2014
Distance Education Vol. 21 No. 2 2000
Another issue of frequent concern in the literature relates to the role thatthe instructor should assume in a collaborative online learning context.Many argue that true collaboration can best be realised only wheninstructors view themselves as facilitators and guides rather than lecturersor experts. In addition, they should themselves model the expected onlinebehaviours in order to help learners adopt practices and attitudesconducive to effective collaboration (Bullen 1998). The degree ofinstructor involvement is also an issue. Bernard and Lundgren-Cayrol (inpress) applied an approach to tutor involvement called 'scaffolding',which was first described by Brown and Palinscar (1989). The tutorbegan by providing high levels of support to all groups and all students,but as students started to demonstrate independence and cohesiveness, thetutor support was 'faded', gradually. In the end, all of the groupmanagement work was left in the hands of students. In this experimentaldesign, Bernard and Lundgren-Cayrol found that 'faded support'outperformed 'low support' on measures of individual and groupachievement as well as on a measure of group cohesiveness.Unfortunately, a third treatment group that might have beenoperationalised as 'high tutor support' was not feasible because of thelimitations of sample size.
Brandon and Hollingshead (1999) advise computer-supportedcollaborative learning (CSCL) instructors to use facilitating techniquessuch as 'weaving' to steer discussions and 'go around the circle' to ensuremaximal participation. These are similar to the very same techniques thatinstructors use in face-to-face settings. However, in a virtualenvironment, the instructor must compensate for the lack of visual socialcues by substituting verbal cues.
There is agreement that promoting positive interdependence amongonline team members reinforces collaborative online learning byintroducing a legitimate need to collaborate. Giving collective rewardsand distributing needed resources across group members are twotechniques that are cited in the literature as fostering a healthyinterdependence (Brandon & Hollingshead 1999; Berge 1997). There area number of related cooperative learning methods for establishing andmaintaining positive group interdependence, such as the JigsawTechnique, that can be adapted from the classroom to online use (Abramiet al. 1995).
Learning models/approaches/pedagogy. As mentioned earlier, theconstructivist approach is most often cited as the most appropriate modelof learning to apply in an online collaborative DE environment. DE offersa unique context for the application of constructivist principles since inthis arena learners are expected to be self-motivated, self-directed as wellas collaborative, participative and active constructors of their own
268
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UN
AM
Ciu
dad
Uni
vers
itari
a] a
t 11:
40 2
1 D
ecem
ber
2014
Robert M. Bernard. Beatriz Rojo de Rubalcava and Denise St-Pierre
learning (e.g. Tarn 2000). But what activities and structures work best forCOL? Bernard and Lundgren-Cayrol (in press) used two separateactivities during an online course. The first was a debate among groupmembers and the second was a project - based learning task - thedevelopment of a rationale and proposal for the purchase of multimediamaterials for a fictional school district. When compared on measures ofcohesiveness and online activity (i.e. idea units generated), there were nosignificant differences in these two activities.
One of the most frequently cited constructivist strategies for engaginglearners in collaborative learning is a curricular framework calledproblem-based learning (PBL). PBL begins with an authentic (Fogarty1997), ill-structured (Spiro et al. 1991) and open-ended problem(Koschmann et al. 1996), like so many that exist in real life, as theimpetus for learning through problem solving. Learners then workcollaboratively in small groups online to develop a solution. The inputs tothe solution can be manifold: negotiating roles, determining requiredresources, collecting data, searching for literature, filtering andsynthesising information, conceptualising multiple solutions, agreeing onthe most effective solution, generating reports or other written documentsand presenting and defending findings and conclusions. An iterative andtotally interactive model of PBL was developed by Barrows andFeltovich (1987) for medical education, which includes the componentsof: problem formulating; self-directed learning; applying knowledge;abstracting; and reflecting (not necessarily in that order). Otherframeworks and PBL methods are provided by Naidu and Oliver (1996)and Glasgow (1997).
The PBL paradigm, while appearing across a wide range of disciplines(e.g. business, sciences - see Boud & Feletti 1997, for a wide variety ofcase studies on PBL) was first developed for and has been usedextensively in medical education for the past 30 to 40 years. Over thatperiod, a large body of research has been amassed concerning its claimsto effectiveness over conventional forms of instruction. According toNorman and Schmidt. (1992), the positive claims for PBL are thefollowing: (a) students are more highly motivated; (b) they may be betterproblem solvers and self-directed learners; (c) they may be better able tolearn and recall information; and (d) they may be better able to integrateacquired knowledge into solutions to new and/or novel problems. Each ofthese claims is strongly suggested and supported by the literature ofcognitive psychology, and, more recently, constructivism. Norman andSchmidt argue that the research evidence neither fully supports nor fullyrefutes these claims. In reviewing each claim separately they found that:
• there is no evidence that PBL results in any improvement in general,content-free problem-solving skills;
269
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UN
AM
Ciu
dad
Uni
vers
itari
a] a
t 11:
40 2
1 D
ecem
ber
2014
Distance Education Vol. 21 No. 2 2000
• learning through PBL may initially reduce levels of learning but mayfoster, over periods up to several years, increased retention ofknowledge;
• PBL may enhance transfer of concepts to new problems;
• PBL enhances intrinsic interest in the subject matter; and
• PBL appears to enhance self-directed learning skills, and thisenhancement may be maintained.
On balance, it appears that PBL does, as the underlying theory predicts,live up to many of the claims made in its favour, at least so far as medicaleducation is concerned.
Colliver (2000) did an effect size assessment of meta-analyses andindividual studies conducted from 1993 to 1998 using Bloom's (1984)suggestion of 2-Σ (i.e. average effect size two standard deviations abovethe control group mean) as the standard against which PBL learning wasjudged. According to these findings, PBL is not as effective as thestandard (average ES = .88) or as effective as one would have expected(compared with traditional methods of instruction), given the enormousmagnitude of resources that must be devoted to it in the medicaleducational context. However, it is unlikely that these results would applyto educational domains in which less rigorous standards of achievementare applied and evaluation is not based on the nationwide norms ofstandardised testing.
Most of the studies of PBL that have been conducted were neither onlinenor in a DE context, so it is difficult to predict what research will indicateabout online problem based learning (OPBL) after a sufficiently long trialperiod. Undoubtedly, the recommendations for its use will depend to alarge extent on the outcomes that are expected of it, the way theseoutcomes are measured and what the OPBL approach is compared with(Nelson 1999). At the very least, it is likely to be judged negatively in thefollowing two ways: (a) done asynchronously, OPBL will takeconsiderably more time than other online approaches or its face-to-facecounterpart; and (b) it will not fit easily into one of the prevailing viewsthat DE is a less expensive alternative to face-to-face instruction. Neitherof these negatives should determine the fate of OPBL, however, becausethe kind of learning that DE has been accused of not providing - complexconcept acquisition and skill development - takes a considerable amountof time and is not cheap in any instructional arena.
Effective use of technology. The benefits of using computer-basedcommunication technology in DE are no longer disputable (Bates 1997).The issue that surfaces most often in the literature is not whether it shouldbe a component of DE, but rather, how it can be used most effectively.The literature is replete with models for the integration of technology intoinstructional design models (e.g. Farr & Shaeffer 1993; Hall 1997).
270
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UN
AM
Ciu
dad
Uni
vers
itari
a] a
t 11:
40 2
1 D
ecem
ber
2014
Robert M. Bernard. Beatriz Rojo de Rubalcava and Denise St-Pierre
Generally speaking, they suggest a pattern, which involves mapping outinstructional objectives, learner characteristics and desirablemethodology before selecting a particular medium - although in practicethis is not always possible. This is then followed by a close considerationof the functions of the various media. Then the instructional designerbegins to match the medium to the instructional objectives.
Accessibility has long been documented and undoubtedly remains one ofthe issues of greatest concern for all involved in DE development anddelivery. The use of technology that is accessible to all participants is notonly highly desirable but also absolutely necessary. Indeed, the inabilityto gain access incontestably constitutes one of the biggest barriers toonline learning, although this barrier is diminishing day-by-day. How areinstitutions that deliver DE addressing this problem? Several institutionshave explored different alternatives to the use of high-end technology.The Technological University of Monterrey in Mexico has opted forproviding students with a well-equipped laptop at the beginning of theschool year. Students benefit from a plan negotiated by the Universitywith a computer firm whereby they can purchase a laptop for less thanfifty percent of its retail value and obtain financing at a preferential rate.The Technological University of Monterrey and many other institutionsof higher education also provide free Internet access to students. In thismanner, the problem of student access to technology is solved creatively,but at some cost to the institution. However, problems still remain forstudents working exclusively from home, but there is considerablepromise that this situation is changing rapidly.
One of the biggest assets of new computer-based communicationtechnologies is that they can foster collaborative online learning (Boyd1993). Internet functions such as forums, chat rooms, email, web pagesand help facilities, as well as videoconferencing and computerconferencing, allow for ample interaction and collaboration. ExperiencedDE practitioners and researchers recommend that instructional designersand educators tap into these vast resources to promote collaborativeonline learning (Palloff & Pratt 1999; Berge 1997).
Many educational software packages, comprising sophisticatedcommunications facilities, have been developed to promote collaborativelearning in virtual learning environments. WebCT, Blackboard,First Class, and BSCW (Basic Support for Collaborative Work) are amongthe most widely used. However, though these learning environmentssupport collaborative online learning, each of them suffers to varyingdegrees from having been designed with now outdated architectures.
As for the general appearance of virtual learning environments, it isfrequently recommended that a metaphor that relates to learners'experience be used in the screen display (Palloff & Pratt 1999; Kristof &Satran 1995). The metaphors most commonly found in authoring
271
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UN
AM
Ciu
dad
Uni
vers
itari
a] a
t 11:
40 2
1 D
ecem
ber
2014
Distance Education Vol. 21 No. 2 2000
programs are icon-based, card-based or timeline-based. Icon-basedprograms display icons on a flowchart where the icon flow illustrates thelogical sequence of a program. Examples of icon-based programs includeAimtech's IconAuthor and Macromedia's Authorware. Card-basedprograms are also referred to as page-based or slide-based. They utilise anindex card or book page metaphor for their authoring. An authoringprogram that features this metaphor is Asymetrix's ToolBook II whileGold Disk's Astound and Microsoft's PowerPoint exemplify presentationprograms containing the index card/book page metaphor. In timeline-based programs, the passage of time is used as the controlling metaphorthat evokes the movie editing environment. Macromedia Director is anexample of this type of program. It is crucial that instructional designersbe aware of the metaphor used in each type of learning environment inorder to select the one that best suits the target population (Hall 1997).
COL: Issues for future research
Research methods. While the study by Bernard and Lundgren-Cayrol(1994), represents one way of doing research - experimental research -on collaborative online learning, it is arguable that it is by no means theonly way, nor even the best way. This is especially true under thefollowing conditions, all of which exist in this particular case:
• when a field of study is still in its infancy and little 'strong theory'exists;
• when it is still unclear what independent variables exist and whatoutcome measures are most appropriate, given the form of learningthat is intended;
• when interactions among learners and/or learning units are complexand subtle; and
• when the most interesting and important outcomes of the learningexperience lie within these complex and subtle interactions.
While some might claim that measures of content learning andachievement are the best gauges of the merits of any approach toeducating, this would not be the position of a constructivist researcherwho is concerned about growth across a variety of other dimensions. Thisis one of the reasons for hope regarding the effectiveness outside ofdomains - like medical education - where achievement is such animportant index of success. Our position is that a variety of researchmethodologies: correlational, case study, naturalistic inquiry, actionresearch and evaluation studies need to be implemented in this areabefore enough is known about the processes and outcomes ofcollaborative online learning to proceed with more confirmatory research(i.e. experimentation).
272
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UN
AM
Ciu
dad
Uni
vers
itari
a] a
t 11:
40 2
1 D
ecem
ber
2014
Robert M. Bernard. Beatriz Rqjo de Rubalcava and Denise St-Pierre
Research content. The following is a tentative step in identifying some ofthe processes and outcomes that are available for future research activity.The elements contained in table 2 (adapted from Bernard & Lundgren-Cayrol [in press] and Henri & Lundgren [1997]) represent one way ofconceptualising the various issues that might be applied to investigations ofcollaborative online learning. The table contains two dimensions: Stages ofCollaboration on the vertical axis and Components of Collaborative OnlineLearning on the horizontal axis. Within each cell of the matrix are examplesof the kinds of issues/activities that may help guide future research efforts.This represents simply the beginning of the process of understanding thecomplexities involved in this kind of learning.
TABLE 2
A matrix of components and stages of Collaborative Online Learning
Components of Collaborative Online Learning
Stages ofCollaboration
Exploration
Elaboration
Evaluation
Commitment(Socio-affective
variables)
Getting to know peers• Deciding on
degree ofinvolvement
Socialising with peers• Keeping deadlines
• Participating
• Evaluating groupcohesion
• Evaluating groupproductivity
Coordination(Organizational
issues)
Setting deadlines• Negotiating
frequency ofindividual versusgroup activity
According to need:• Establishing
leadership
• Setting deadlines• Negotiating
frequency ofindividual versusgroup activity
• Sharingresources
• Time spent(efficiency)
• Use of resources
• Level ofcommunication
Communication(Content exchange)
What to share?• Type of
exchange (e.g.informationfeedback)
• Learn tools ofcollaboration
Activities:• Debates
• Problem/Resolution
• Case studies
• Writing projects
Evaluating learningexperience:• Amount of
content learned• Process used for
learning
Note: Adapted from Henri, F. & Lundgren, K. 1997, Apprentissage collaboratif adistance : Téléconférence et télédiscussion, internal report, Centre LICEF, Tele-université, Montréal, P.Q.
273
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UN
AM
Ciu
dad
Uni
vers
itari
a] a
t 11:
40 2
1 D
ecem
ber
2014
Distance Education Vol. 21 No. 2 2000
Conclusion
Technological advances have the potential to alleviate some of theproblems traditionally associated with DE. They are also a prime meansof achieving collaborative learning in DE environments. Using theInternet, with its expanded communications facilities, educators nowhave the ability to break the isolation long experienced by distantlearners. Moreover, as Internet access becomes more and more affordablefor a greater number of learners, and its functions come to include greateropportunity for exchange of information and interactivity, the issue ofpreservation of initial motivation will undoubtedly dwindle. Learners canengage in the ambience of 'face-to-face learning' in a stimulating virtuallearning environment. The once questionable quality of instruction in DEhas not been regarded as important an issue in the last few years. Indeed,authoring software now attain high levels of sophistication and allow forgreater pedagogical support. Consequently, DE now enjoys a betterreputation as a respectable method of delivering instruction.
Thus, the communication facility associated with computer-basedcommunication technologies brings the promise of great benefits to DE.If instructional designers and educators learn to use it to its potential,learners will reap the maximum pedagogical support this powerfulmedium has to offer. Incorporating collaborative learning strategies intothe DE model allows learners to take advantage of a wider range oftechnologically supported learning opportunities. Moreover, theobliteration of time and space barriers among distant learners andinstructors that new technologies enable, combined with the multi-directional interaction of the Web, virtually recreate the environment of aclassroom to an extent never until now achieved. The stage is now set forenhanced learning to occur, providing instructional designers andeducators know the target population well and design and teach with theirlearners' needs in mind. Though it has yet to be fully and irreconcilablydemonstrated through research that the collaborative learning approach isas effective as other online teaching practices, it is through preparationand careful implementation that its worth will eventually be firmlyestablished.
References
Abrami, P.C. & Bures, E.M. 1996, 'Computer-supported collaborative learningand distance education', American Journal of Distance Education, vol. 10,no. 2. pp. 37-42.
Abrami, P.C, Chambers, B., Poulsen, C, De Simone, C, d'Apollonia, S. &Howden, J. 1995, Classroom Connections: Understanding and UsingCooperative Learning, Harcourt-Brace, Toronto.
274
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UN
AM
Ciu
dad
Uni
vers
itari
a] a
t 11:
40 2
1 D
ecem
ber
2014
Robert M. Bernard. Beatriz Rojo de Rubalcava and Denise St-Pierre
Barrows, H.S. & Feltovich, P.J. 1987, 'The clinical reasoning process', Journalof Medical Education, no. 21, pp. 86-91.
Bates, A.W. 1997, 'The impact of technological change on open and distancelearning', Distance Education, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 93-109.
Berge, O. 1997, Making Distance Learning Collaborative Through Internet -Transcending the Traditions of Distance Education and CollaborativeLearning, <http://priv.infostream.no/~ola/docs/thesis/dynamix.html>
Bernard, R. M. & Amundsen, C. L. 1989, 'Antecedents to dropout in distanceeducation: Does one model fit all?', Journal of Distance Education, vol.4,no. 2, pp. 25-46.
Bernard, R.M,. Barrington, J. & Roop, F. 1995, 'Designing distance educationfrom the inside out: An educational technology course development project,Aspects of Educational Technology, Kogan Page, London.
Bernard, R. & Lundgren, K. 1994, 'Learner assessment and text design strategiesfor distance education', Canadian Journal of Educational Communication,vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 133-52.
Bernard, R.M. & Lundgren-Cayrol, K. (in press), 'Computer conferencing: Anenvironment for collaborative project work in distance education', Researchand Evaluation in Education.
Bloom B.S. 1984, 'The two sigma problem: The search for methods of groupinstruction as effective as one-to-one tutoring', Educational Researcher, vol.13, no. 4, pp. 4-16.
Boud, D. & Feletti, G.I. 1997, The Challenge of Problem-Based Learning, 2ndedn, Kogan Page, London.
Boyd, G. 1993, 'A theory of distance education for the cyberspace era', inTheoretical Principles of Distance Education, ed. D. Keegan, Routledge,London & New York, pp. 234-53.
Brandon, D.P. & Hollingshead, A.B. 1999, 'Collaborative learning andcomputer-supported groups', Communication Education, vol.48, no. 2,pp. 109-26.
Brown, A.L. & Palincsar, A. S. 1989, 'Guided, cooperative learning andindividual knowledge acquisition", in Knowing, Learning And Instruction,ed. L.B. Resinick, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 393-451.
Bruffee, K.A. 1993, Collaborative Learning: Higher Education,Interdependence, and the Authority of Knowledge, The John HopkinsPress Ltd, Baltimore, MD.
Bullen, M. 1998, 'Participation and critical thinking in online university distanceeducation', Journal of Distance Education/Revue de l'éducation à distance,vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 1-32.
Bures, E., Abrami, P.C. & Amundsen, C. 2000, 'Student motivation to learn viacomputer conferencing', Research in Higher Education, vol.41, no. 5,pp. 593-621.
Burge, E.J. 1994, 'Learning in computer conferenced contexts: The learners'perspective", Journal of Distance Education/Revue de [{Education distance,vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 593-621.
275
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UN
AM
Ciu
dad
Uni
vers
itari
a] a
t 11:
40 2
1 D
ecem
ber
2014
Distance Education Vol. 21 No. 2 2000
Colliver, J. 2000, 'Effectiveness of problem-based learning curricula: Researchand theory'. Academic Medicine, no. 75, pp. 259-66.
Dede, C. 1996, 'The evolution of distance education: Emerging technologies anddistributed learning", The American Journal of Distance Education, vol. 10,no. 2, pp. 4—36.
Eklund, J. & Eklund, P. 1997, 'Collaboration and networked technology: A casestudy in teaching educational computing", Journal of Educational Computingin Teacher Education, no. 13, pp. 14—19.
Fabro, K.G. & Garrison, D.R. 1998, 'Computer conferencing and higher-orderlearning", Indian Journal of Open Learning, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 41-53.
Farr, C.W. & Shaeffer, J.M. 1993, 'Matching media, methods, and objectives indistance education". Educational Technology, no. 7, pp. 52-5.
Fogarty, R. 1997, Problem-Based Learning and Other Curriculum Models forthe Multiple Intelligences Classrooms Skylight, Arlington Heights, IL.
Garland, M.R. 1992, 'Students' perceptions of the situational, institutional,dispositional and epistemological barriers to persistence", DistanceEducation, no. 14, pp. 181-98.
Glasgow, N. 1997, New Curriculum for New Times: A Guide to Student-Centered, Problem-Based Learning, Thousand Oaks, Sage, CA.
Hall, B. 1997, Web-Based Training, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.. New York.
Harasim, L. 1996, Effectively Using Electronic Conferencing.<http://www.indiana.edu/~ecpots.html>
Henri, F. & Lundgren, K. 1997, Apprentissage collaboratif a distance:Teleconference et telediscussion, internal report, Centre LICEF, Tele-universite, Montreal, PQ.
Keirns, J.L. 1999, Designs for Self-Instruction. Principles, Processes, and Issues inDeveloping Self-Directed Learning, Needham Heights, Allyn and Bacon, MA.
Kirby, L. & Garrison, K. 1992, 'Graduate education: A study of the aims anddelivery systems', Annual conference proceedings of the CanadianAssociation for the Study of Adult Education, Saint Laurence College ofSaint-Laurent. Cornwall, Ontario, pp. 74-184.
Koschmann, T., Kelson, A.C., Feltovich, P.C. & Barrows, H.S. 1996, 'Computer-supported problem-based learning: A principled approach to the use ofcomputers in collaborative learning", in CSCL: Theory and Practice of anEmerging Paradigm, ed. T. Koschmann, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,Mahwah, NJ, pp. 83-124.
Kristof, R. & Satran, A. 1995, Interactivity by Design: Creating andCommunicating with New Media, Adobe Press, Mountain View, CA.
Naidu, S. & Oliver, M. 1996, 'Computer-supported collaborative problem-basedlearning: An instructional design architecture for virtual learning in nursingeducation, Distance Education, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 1-22.
Nelson, L. M. 1999, 'Collaborative problem solving", in Instructional-DesignTheories and Models: A New Paradigm of Instructional Theory, ed. CM.Reigeluth, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
276
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UN
AM
Ciu
dad
Uni
vers
itari
a] a
t 11:
40 2
1 D
ecem
ber
2014
Robert M. Bernard. Beatriz Rojo de Rubalcava and Denise Si-Pierre
Norman, G. & Schmidt, H. 1992, 'The psychological basis of problem-basedlearning: A review of the evidence", Academic Medicine, no. 67, pp. 557-65.
Palloff, R.M., & Pratt, K. 1999, Building Learning Communities in Cyberspace:Effective Strategies for the Online Classroom, Jossey Bass, San Francisco.
Riel, M. 1990, 'Cooperative learning across classrooms in electronic learningcircles", Instructional Science, no. 19, pp. 445-66.
Slavin, R. E. 1995, Cooperative Learning, 2nd edn, Allyn and Bacon, Boston,MA.
Spiro, R.J., Feltovich, P.J., Jacobson, M. & Coulson, R.L. 1991, 'Cognitiveflexibility, constructivism and hypertext: Advanced knowledge acquisition inill-structured domains', Educational Technology, vol. 31, no. 5, pp. 24-33.
Tam, M. 2000, 'Constructivism, instructional design, and technology:Implications for transforming distance learning", Educational Technology &Society, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 50-60.
Vygotsky, L.S. 1986, Language and Thought, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Zimmerman, B. 1986, 'Becoming a self-regulated learner: Which are the key subprocesses?', Contemporary Educational Psychology, no. 11, pp. 307-13.
Robert M. Bernard is a Professor of Education (Educational Technology) and amember of the Centre for the Study of Learning and Performance (CSLP), aUniversity Research Centre at Concordia University.<bernard@ education.concordia.ca>
Beatriz Rojo de Rubalcava and Denise St-Pierre are both graduating M.A.students in the Educational Technology Programme at Concordia University.<[email protected][email protected]>
This paper was written and edited collaboratively and in an online environment.Address: Concordia University, 1455 de Maisonneuve Blvd. W., Montreal, PQH3G 1M8, Canada.
277
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UN
AM
Ciu
dad
Uni
vers
itari
a] a
t 11:
40 2
1 D
ecem
ber
2014
