Proceedings of the 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2010
Technology Use in CSCL: A Content Meta-Analysis
Heisawn Jeong
Hallym University
heis@hallym.ac.kr
Abstract
This study examined technology use in Computer
Support for Collaborative Learning (CSCL). A
content meta-analysis of empirical CSCL research
was carried out to address three research questions:
(1) What kinds of technologies are being used in
CSCL research, (2) What kinds of collaboration are
supported, and (3) What are the contexts of
technology supports (e.g., learning domains,
educational levels, and pedagogical approaches)?
Empirical CSCL studies were selected from seven
leading journals of the field. Analyses of a random
sample of these studies showed that CSCL
applications typically embedded more than one
technology in their environments with the most
common technology being communication technology.
Perhaps not surprisingly then, distributed
collaboration was more frequently supported than
face-to-face collaboration in CSCL applications.
Analyses also showed that CSCL was carried out
across a range of disciplines in a variety of
pedagogical contexts. Based on the analyses, five
different types of technological supports for
collaborative learning are proposed.
1. Introduction
Collaboration stimulates elaboration of
knowledge, social knowledge construction, and
collective knowledge building [1-3]. During
collaboration, learners can learn from others, pool
their resources toward a common goal, and come up
with a solution that might not have been possible
alone. For these reasons, collaborative learning is
often considered to be one of the most effective
forms of learning [4-8]. Numerous attempts have
been made to implement learning activities in the
context of small group interactions [3, 9-12], and
computers have been actively used in this process
[13-15]. Although computers and other technologies
were initially used to support individual learning [16-
17], the development of networked technologies
contributed to the emergence of Computer-Supported
978-0-7695-3869-3/10 $26.00 © 2010 IEEE
Cindy E. Hmelo-Silver
Rutgers University
cindy.hmelo-silver@gse.rutgers.edu
Collaborative Learning (CSCL). CSCL aims to
provide technological supports for collaborative
learning and has been considered to be one of the
most promising applications of modern information
and communication technology toward the
improvement of teaching and learning [18].
CSCL applications include a wide variety of
applications. For example, interaction technologies
such as e-mails or chat are used widely as they help
learners to interact with distant partners, expanding
the circle of people they can collaborate with. In
addition, technologies that are not necessarily
designed with collaboration in mind are also used
actively in the field [18]. Computer simulations, for
example, provide representational tools for scientific
phenomena that can be difficult to perceive with the
naked eyes. They can be used alone [19], but are also
often used in small groups as students engage in the
manipulation of variables, observe resulting
outcomes, and construct explanations of the
phenomena collaboratively [20-22].
In order to conceptualize different kinds of
technological supports for collaborative learning,
researchers have proposed contrasts such as
collaboration around versus through computers [18]
or technology as a medium versus technology as a
constraint [23]. In the former contrast, the role of
computers as communication device was contrasted
with their role as an object (i.e., contents) of
communication. In the latter, the role of computers as
a communication device was contrasted with their
role to impose constraints on the interactive learning
process. Although these contrasts have been useful in
describing the different ways computers are used to
support collaborative learning, we have reached a
point where a more sophisticated understanding is
needed in order to better guide the efforts of the
designers and instructors in CSCL. Rapid
technological advancement is creating new forms of
interaction daily. In addition, the success of a given
technology is often critically dependent on the
contexts in which they are implemented. The role of
a given technology needs to be examined in the
contexts of its implementation. The goal of this study
is to systematically document different ways that
1
 Proceedings of the 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2010
technologies are used to support collaborative
learning in CSCL. In doing so, we also aim to
understand the contexts of technology support such
as learning domains, educational levels, and
pedagogical approaches implemented in conjunction
with the technology applications.
To achieve these goals, this study carried out a
content meta-analysis. While meta-analysis is
typically associated with verifying statistical power
of empirical results, content meta-analysis focuses on
conceptual aspects of the investigations. Recently,
there have been several content meta-analyses in
research areas related to CSCL [24-26]. For example,
Hrastinski and Keller examined research approaches
in educational technology. They examined 660
papers published in 4 journals in 5 year period (2000-
2004) [24]. They found that the majority of the
papers (68%) were empirical papers and most of
them (87%) had explicit method section. About half
of the empirical papers (51%) used quantitative
methods, while 25% of the papers used qualitative
method and 24% used mixed methodologies.
Hew, Kale, and Kim also conducted similar meta-
analysis in the field of instructional technology with
a focus on empirical articles [25]. They examined
340 articles published in 3 journals during 5 year
period (2000-2004). They analyzed research topics,
research methods, data collection methods and
research settings. They found that the majority of the
articles published in the area were media studies or
psychological studies that examined psychological
processes. Descriptive, correlational, experimental
and quasi-experimental methods were the common
research methods with survey/questionnaires as the
most common data collection method. As for
research setting, higher education was the most
common setting.
In the field of e-learning, Shih, Feng, and Tsai
attempted to identify important research trends and
papers [26]. They used a combination of citation
analysis and content analysis and examined 444
papers published in five journals from 2001 to 2005.
They coded the research topics of these studies and
then identified 16 highly cited papers based on
citation frequency. They found that almost half of the
articles on e-learning were on cognition in e-learning
with the most published topics being (a) interactive
learning (environment), (b) collaborative learning (as
instructional approaches) and (c) perception and
awareness (part of meta-cognition). Interestingly, the
highly cited articles did not necessarily study the
most frequently studied topics. The highly-cited
articles addressed research topics such as
instructional approaches, information processing, and
motivation. These topics may not have been studied
widely, but have had greater impact on subsequent
research.
Similar content meta-analysis was carried out in
this study to address the following research questions:
(1) What kinds of technologies are used in CSCL
research, (2) What kinds of collaboration are
supported, and (3) What are the contexts of
technology applications in terms of learning domains,
educational levels, and pedagogical approaches?
2. Methods
2.1. Journal selection
In preparation for journal selection, we first
surveyed the leaders of the field (i.e., the editorial
board members of International Journal of Computer
Supported Collaborative Learning (ijCSCL) and
CSCL committee of the International Society of
Learning Sciences). We provided a definition of
CSCL to the community leaders and asked them to
provide feedback. The resulting definition of CSCL
based upon the feedback from 16 respondents was:
“Computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL)
is an interdisciplinary research field that includes a
branch of the learning sciences and educational
technology research concerned with studying how
people can learn together with the help of computers
[27]. Research in CSCL focuses on learning as a
cognitive and/or social process and studies learning
designs, learning processes and pedagogic practices
that support technology-mediated coordination,
communication collaborative processes in
communities of [28].”
We also asked the community leaders to nominate
leading journals of the field. In addition to ijCSCL,
the flagship journal of the CSCL community, there
are numerous research journals where CSCL research
has been published. We thus asked the leaders to
name five journals other than ijCSCL and selected
the following seven journals: (1) ijCSCL, (2) Journal
of the Learning Sciences, (3) Learning and
Instruction, (4) Computers and Education, (5) Journal
of Computer Assisted Learning, (6) International
Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, and
(7) Computers in Human Behavior. They are all peer-
reviewed journals published by well-known
publishers with international authorship and
readership.
2.2. Paper selection
From the papers published in the seven journals,
we identified empirical CSCL research to be used for
2
 Proceedings of the 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2010
the content meta-analysis. By empirical, we mean
that the study collects and analyzes empirical data.
Secondary data analysis, simulated results, theoretical
papers and meta-analyses were not included. The
data may have been collected as part of a larger
project, but the analysis and finding had to be new.
Papers that described the design process were
included if they reported on empirical data. The only
exception to this rule was methodology papers that
described development of specific assessment tools
or analysis methods.
By CSCL research, we refer to studies where
students learned collaboratively with the help from
computers or other technology tools. We define
collaboration as small group peer collaboration, that
is, collaboration among learners who are similar in
knowledge and status. This means that studies that
examine student-teacher interaction or whole class
discussions were not included unless they included
small group peer collaboration. Not all phases of
learning needed to be collaborative, but at least parts
of the learning should involve collaboration. The
applied technologies do not necessarily have to be
collaboration technology such as e-mails or
discussion boards, but the technology needs to be
specific. Studies that investigated general technology
use were not included. Interaction with computerized
agents were included if it involved learning, but
interaction involving Intelligent Tutoring Systems
was not included unless the system was used
collaboratively. Studies about motivation or attitudes
were included if they were studied in relation to
learning.
Excluding non-research articles (e.g., editorials,
book reviews, or obituaries), 868 articles published in
the 2005-2007 period were screened, which means
three years of publication (two years of publication in
the case of ijCSCL). Although the final set of
selected papers is subject to change with additional
coding, the total numbers of selected papers is 175 at
the moment. This means that 20% of the papers
published in the seven journals during 2005-2007
were empirical investigations of CSCL.
2.3. Content analysis
A combination of inductive and deductive
approaches was used to develop coding categories.
Codes were initially developed based on a
combination of several top-down schemes (e.g.,
categories drawn from the submission descriptors of
the 2005 CSCL conference), but then later refined
bottom-up through multiple iterations of coding (see
Hew et al., 2007 for a similar approaches for code
development in content meta-analyses). In this paper,
we report on the analyses carried out on a random
sample of the papers (33 papers, 19% of the total
number of CSCL papers; they were marked with * in
the reference). Specific codes for each category are
described below.
2.3.1. Technology. Technology refers to the
technologies used to assist learning. There were 16
categories: (1) E-mails, (2) Discussion boards (e.g.,
Knowledge Forum), (3) Chat, (4) Video-
conferencing, (5) Mobile (e.g., mobile phones,
laptops, or other mobile devices), (6) Multi-media
(e.g., streaming videos), (7) Internet (e.g., websites,
blogs), (8) Wiki, (9) Virtual reality, (10), Multi-user
virtual reality environments (e.g.,
MOO/MUD/MUVE), (11) Game, (12) Simulations,
(13) Representational tools (e.g., concept maps,
diagrams, or visualization tools), (14) Intelligent
System (e.g., simulated agents, Intelligent Tutoring
Systems), (15) Others (e.g., any technology that did
not fit into the prior categories). The Internet was
coded as a separate technology when its contents
(e.g., information on specific websites) were used for
learning, but not when it was used as a medium of
communication (as in e-mails) or as a delivery
system (e.g., online course management software).
Similarly, servers and generic software were not
coded unless they were directly used to support
learning or collaboration. When researchers differ in
their usage of terms, we followed the more
conventional description used by majority of the
researchers. For example, discussion boards were
sometimes described as conferencing technology [29-
30], but are considered more widely as a discussion
board and were thus coded as such.
A paper could be assigned multiple technology
codes when the study compared the effect of different
technologies (e.g., shared wireless laptop vs. shared
workspace) [31] or when several different
technologies were used together (e.g., mobile device
with representational tools such as concept maps or
simultaneous use of chat and blogging) [32-33]. In a
few cases, individual technologies were collapsed
into one when they constituted a package (e.g., a
tutorial containing visualization and simulations of
the learning materials) [34] or an integrated
environment (e.g., WISE; Web-based Inquiry
Science Environment) [35] that were examined as a
whole without a specific research focus.
2.3.2. Collaboration. Collaboration refers to the
types of interaction that occurred among learners.
There were four types of collaboration: (1) Face-to-
face, (2) Distributed: Synchronous, (3) Distributed:
3
 Proceedings of the 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2010
Asynchronous and (4) Other. Face-to-face
collaboration refers to co-located and synchronous
interaction. Distributed collaboration refers to
collaboration among distributed learners and can be
either synchronous or asynchronous. While face-to-
face, synchronous, and asynchronous interaction refer
to verbal interaction between specific human learners,
other category refers to miscellaneous interaction
types such as (a) non-verbal interaction (e.g.,
interaction through argumentation map), (b)
interaction with computer agents, or (c) indirect
interaction (e.g., collaborative filtering or data
sharing).
Multiple coding was allowed when students
engaged in more than one type of collaboration. For
example, one study compared different versions of a
course that was implemented in face-to-face,
synchronous, and asynchronous learning [36]. In
another study, there were two layers of collaboration
so that within-group collaboration was carried out
face-to-face, while between-group collaboration was
carried out over distance, both synchronously and
asynchronously [37].
2.3.3. Learning domains. The domain of the study
refers to academic disciplines, that is, the knowledge
or skills of the domain that learners were trying to
acquire. Domains were coded into five categories: (1)
Science and math (e.g., physics, statistics), (2)
Literacy and history, (3) Social sciences (e.g.,
psychology, instructional science), (4) Professional
(e.g., nursing, engineering, teacher education, etc.),
and (5) Other (e.g., workplace learning, learning of
social skills). These categories typically refer to
academic disciplines in higher education, but they
were also used to code related subject areas taught in
secondary schools. They were also used to code
laboratory tasks if experiments were carried out. In
some cases, the learning domain was cross-
disciplinary (e.g., science communications,
information technology in education). These domains
were coded to one of the domains that would best
characterize the subject area or tasks, but if it was
unclear, it was coded as other. In addition to cross-
disciplinary domains, other domains included hard-
to-categorize domains and unclear cases (e.g.,
university orientation). Multiple coding was allowed
when more than one domain were studied.
2.3.4. Educational levels. Since most of the research
papers studied students, the following three
educational levels were used: (1) K-12 for primary
and secondary education settings, (2) Higher
education (i.e., undergraduate and graduates), and (3)
Other (e.g., professionals). Multiple coding was
allowed when more than one level was studied.
2.3.5. Pedagogical approaches. Pedagogical
approaches refer to the instructional strategies used
by teachers. They reflect teachers’ beliefs about how
learning occurs and how to best promote learning.
Pedagogical approaches were coded into the
following categories: (1) Traditional instructions (e.g.,
lectures), (2) Distance learning (e.g., learning in
online courses), (3) Case-based instruction, (4)
Problem solving, (5) Problem- or Project-based
learning, (6) Design-based learning, (7) Discovery
learning, (8) Hands-on/active learning, (9) Inquiry,
(10), Game, (11) Discussion, (12) Script/roles, (13)
Argumentation, (14) Scaffolding, (15) Miscellaneous
collaboration, (16) Other approaches. Space does not
permit us to describe these pedagogical approaches in
detail, but they often emphasize different
instructional activities. For example, in case-based
instruction, learning takes place around analyzing
case examples. Examples are selected to highlight
prototypical features and/or contrast important
dimensions [38]. In problem-based learning, students
learn through solving problems collaboratively and
reflecting on their experiences. We distinguish
problem- or project-based learning from problem
solving as a pedagogical approach because in the
former, problems are used as a context where
students figure out what they need to know as they
solve the problems (e.g., learning of human
physiology in the context of diagnosing disease) [31,
39-40]; in the latter, problems are used as a context of
applying and practicing what they have learned
previously (e.g., exercise in mathematical word
problems) [41]. In design-based learning, students’
activities are structured around designing artifacts
(e.g., car) [42-43]. In discovery learning, students
explore and experiment with the materials in an
unguided manner and are encouraged to discover
important principles of domain by themselves
without being taught. In hands on/active learning,
students engage in active hands-on activities such as
manipulating a tool and making artifacts [4]. In
inquiry learning, the emphasis is on learning the
process of inquiry, so that students can think and
reason as scientists themselves [35, 44].
In discussion pedagogy, students are asked to
engage in discussions of the learning materials.
While students’ interaction is rather unstructured in
this case, in script/roles, students are asked to follow
certain scripts and/or roles that specify which
activities need to occur, in what order, and by whom
[10, 37, 45-46]. In argumentation, students are asked
to argue their beliefs against another student or
4
 Proceedings of the 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2010

groups and construct a sophisticated understanding in 51-52], shared workspaces [42, 53], and learning
the process. In scaffolding, another learner assumes environment such as the WISE (Web Integrated
the role of helping students’ learning by monitoring Science Environment) that were specifically designed
their progress and providing feedback [47-48]. for CSCL [35].
Miscellaneous collaboration pedagogy includes other
collaborative pedagogy such as jigsaw method where
50%
students each carry out different portions of a task
and later combine their individual work [33]. These 40%
five approaches are called collaborative pedagogy in 30%
this study. Although other pedagogical approaches
can incorporate and emphasize collaboration, their 20%
focus on collaboration is mostly secondary. On the 10%
other hand, these five collaborative approaches
0%
specifically focus on collaboration with emphases on

Simulations
Mobile
Multi-media
Video-conferencing
E-mails

Game
Wiki
Virtual reality
Chat

Muti-user virtual reality

Intelligent Systems
Others
Discussion Boards

Represention tools
Internet/Web
different ways of collaboration.
Pedagogical approaches were coded only when
some kinds of instructions occurred. Studies that did
not include instruction (e.g., technology use at
professional conferences) were thus excluded from
this coding. Typically, bits and pieces of different
pedagogical approaches are incorporated together in
a given CSCL application or environment. For
example, distance learning courses were often Figure 1. Technology
implemented with regular online conferences or topic
discussions [29-30, 36]. Problem-based learning was A single study often implemented multiple
also implemented with script/role assignments [41]. technologies. The mean number of technologies
Instead of coding one overarching pedagogical implemented in a study was 1.82. Note that the actual
approach, we thus coded salient instructional number of individual technologies in CSCL research
strategies used in the study. can be larger because we occasionally collapsed
different technologies into one. About half of the
papers (52%) studied a single technology such as
3. Results simulation or chat, and about one third (30%) of the
papers studied two technologies. The rest of the
3.1. Technology studies used more than two technologies.

The frequencies of technology use are shown in 3.2. Collaboration

Figure 1. Of the coded technologies, the most
commonly used technologies for CSCL were
discussion boards (33%) and chat (30%). The next
most frequently used technologies were mobile
technologies (12%), representational tools (15%), and
intelligent systems (12%). Several technologies did
not appear in our sample (e.g., wiki, virtual reality),
but this may be due to the small sample size. The
result that the other technology had the highest
frequency was unexpected, but reveals the diversity
of technology applications in CSCL. A closer
examination of the other category showed that about
half of them were stand-alone, often commercial,
applications. For example, the SPSS, statistical
software, was used in collaborative statistical
problem solving in one study [49]. A word processor
was used to compose messages before writing a chat
message in another study [50]. Also included in the
other technology were peer assessment systems [47,
Frequencies for the collaboration codes are
presented in Figure 2. The results showed that
learners in CSCL environments engaged in
distributed asynchronous collaboration most
frequently (48% of the studies), followed by face-to-
face (39%) and distributed synchronous collaboration
(36%). The other interaction type included indirect
collaboration through peer assessment systems [51],
collaborative filtering [54], or resource sharing [31].
Learners also engaged in more than one type of
collaboration in a single study [32, 55-58], but the
majority of the studies (70%) used one type of
collaboration.
Face-to-face collaboration was supported by a
diverse range of technologies such as tutorials,
statistical software applications, and handheld
computers. Students typically shared the technology
and interacted around it, but in some cases had their

5
 Proceedings of the 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2010
own devices or applications. For example, in one
study students engaged in face-to-face collaboration
each with their own handheld device [41]. The task
was divided so that each student carried out a
different portion of the task and the changes that
individual students made with his or her handhelds
were propagated to other members’ handhelds. In this
case, the handhelds allowed learners to work on
different parts of the problem simultaneously and yet
be in synch with other members’ progress. In case of
synchronous collaboration, it was mostly supported
via chat (83%) and then by video-conferencing (17%).
Asynchronous collaboration was supported by
diverse technologies. Although discussion boards
(62%) were used most frequently, other technologies
such as e-mails (12%), peer assessment systems
(12%), blog or virtual post-its (6% each) were also
used as tools of asynchronous collaborations.
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Figure 2. Collaboration
3.3. Learning domains
CSCL technologies were used in a range of
domains, as shown in Figure 3. Of the coded domains,
science/math and professional (24% each) were most
frequently used as learning contexts. Literacy/history
(15%) and social sciences (12%) were next most
frequently used learning domains. The emphasis on
science/math may reflect the funding pattern for
CSCL research, most notably in the United States,
coming from the National Science Foundation. Many
applications of CSCL research were carried out in
other domains (27%), which included cross-
discipline domains and hard-to-categorize or unclear
domains. Although most CSCL research dealt with
learning academic domains, there were a few
application of CSCL in non-academic contexts. One
study, for example, used an orientation task for a
university rally that was designed to help event
participants (e.g., parents, visitors to the university)
to get to know the university. In this study,
participants engaged in problem solving activities as
they roam different parts of the university with
mobile devices.
Although the sample size was too small to
definitively determine whether specific technology or
collaboration types were associated with specific
domains, we selected the two most widely used
technologies (i.e., discussion board and chat) and
examined whether they are used differently across
learning domains. The two tools were used most
frequently in social sciences (75%) and
literature/history (60%), then in professional (50%)
and science/math (37%). This differential technology
use across domains seems to be related to the kinds
of collaboration supported by technology in each
domain. Technology supported face-to-face
interaction mostly frequently in science/math (62%),
followed by social science (50%), literature/history
(40%), and professional domains (37%). More
analyses needs to be done, but it seems that
technologies are used to support face-to-face
collaboration around computers in science/math more
so than in other domains. This may be due to the
complexities of learning complex scientific
phenomena and concepts collaboratively over
distance.
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Figure 3. Learning domains
3.4. Educational levels
Educational levels used in CSCL research is
presented in Figure 4. The majority of the learners
was in higher education (58%), followed by K-12
(36%) and other (6%). Learners in K-12 and higher
education seemed to be differentially supported by
technology. In K-12, technology supported face-to-
face collaboration (50%) more frequently than
distributed synchronous (17%) or asynchronous
collaboration (25%). On the other hand, in higher
education, technology supported distributed
collaboration (42% for synchronous and 58% for
asynchronous) more frequently than face-to-face
collaboration. The use of face-to-face CSCL in K-12
educational is not surprising as learners are in the
6
 Proceedings of the 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2010

same building on similar time schedules. In contrast, showed that CSCL environments typically embed
in higher education settings, learners may be in more than one technology, probably in reflection of
different locations and have a variety of scheduling the realization that adoption of a single technology is
constraints. often insufficient to the desired outcomes.
Communication technologies such as discussion
boards and chats were most commonly used, but a
70%
diverse set of non-communication technologies is
60% also used in CSCL. Technologies supported
50% distributed collaboration more frequently than face-
40% to-face collaboration. Distributed synchronous
30% collaboration was supported mainly by
20% communication tools such as chat or video-
10% conferencing, whereas face-to-face and asynchronous
0%
collaboration were supported by more diverse tools
such as discussion boards, simulations, intelligent
K-12 Higher E Other
systems, or blogs. CSCL supported learning across a
range of disciplines, but is more likely to be studied
Figure 4. Educational levels
in higher education than in primary or secondary
educational contexts. A number of interesting
3.5. Pedagogical approaches interactions between technology, collaboration, and
learning contexts also emerged from the analyses.
The pedagogical approaches in CSCL research The analyses of this study expanded and
are summarized in Figure 5. Perhaps not surprisingly, elaborated our understanding about the kinds and
collaborative pedagogy was implemented most nature of supports technologies provide for
frequently (45%), followed by distance education collaborative learning in CSCL. Building upon earlier
(21%), problem/project-based learning (15%), and conceptualizations [18, 23], we propose five ways
problem solving (12%). Except in one study, distance technology supports collaborative learning. First,
education was always complemented by one of the technologies can support collaborative learning by
collaborative pedagogies [29], suggesting that CSCL providing a focal point of interaction around which
is often used to remedy some of the shortcomings of learners discuss, argue, and explain [18].
distance education where students typically have Technologies such as simulations, the Internet,
little chance to interact with each other. applications that scaffold learners with explanation
and meta-cognitive prompts are all frequently used
collaboratively [31, 59-60].
30%
Second, technologies can support collaborative
learning by facilitating communication and
20% interaction. Technologies such as chat and
conferencing tools make distributed collaboration
10% possible as partners in remote locations can interact
synchronously with the help from these tools [56, 61-
0% 64]. Technologies such as discussion boards or e-
mails also allow learners to interact whenever and
Traditional instruction

Scaffolding
Discussion
Distance L

Active/hands on L
Discovery

Inquiry L
Problem solving
PBL/project-based
Design-based
Case-based instruction

Argumentation

Other
Game

Misc collaboration
Scripts and roles

wherever they want [36, 56]. These types of

Figure 5. Pedagogical approaches
4. Discussion
This study investigated technology use in CSCL.
A content meta-analysis of empirical CSCL research
technologies are necessary in certain contexts such as
in distance learning, but are extensively used in other
contexts as well.
Third, technologies can be used to support
collaborative learning by imposing structures and
constraints on the interaction process [23].
Researchers have reported that learners do not always
engage in activities associated with the outcomes of
collaborative learning [13-14, 45, 65]. Technologies
can be used to guide learners toward task-specific
interactions. For example, mandatory sentence
openers or prescribed message categories in

7
 Proceedings of the 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2010
communication interface can help learners to engage
in more task-specific interactions [66-67]. CSCL has
also implemented scripts and/or roles so that critical
collaborative learning activities can be facilitated
[68].
Fourth, technologies can be used to support
collaborative learning by providing tools and
resources to manage and regulate interaction
processes. Representational tools such as whiteboards
and graphic tools complement communication
processes by providing deictic cues and also make
the interactive process explicit [33, 56, 69]. They
become the basis of negotiating shared meaning and
common grounds during interaction. The resulting
artifacts, be they argumentation maps or diagrams, or
Wikipedia pages, serve as a basis of shared
knowledge and collective memory. Technology also
makes it possible for members to share resources
more easily [31].
Fifth, technologies can be used to support
collaborative learning by creating new forms of
interaction. Traditionally, interaction meant direct
person-to-person interaction. In the past, such
communication happened via face-to-face
interactions or through mail exchanges.
Communication technologies make it possible to
interact through e-mails or chat, but they still mediate
direct person-to-person interaction. New forms of
interaction are possible with technologies so that
learners can now interact indirectly through
Wikipedia pages, social navigational support [31, 51,
54], or peer feedback system [51-52]. Interaction
with non-human agents is also used as a way to
monitor and support human learning [64].
Because the sample size of the current study was
quite small, the conclusions are tentative until
additional analyses can be conducted. However, our
study highlighted important characteristics of
technological support for collaborative learning in
CSCL. There are many ways that technologies are
used in learning contexts, but not all of them
necessarily support learning. Calculators may help
student to calculate faster, but they do not necessarily
help students to learn calculation faster or better. The
argument for learning technology is not about making
students do things faster, but rather about helping
them learn better. In this sense, CSCL technologies
need to do more than merely making interaction
easier or faster. They need to enhance and facilitate
the core processes of collaborative learning [23]. In
order to evaluate how CSCL as a field accomplishes
this goal, we need to go beyond understanding
technical features of CSCL technologies. We need to
understand nature of their support for collaborative
learning and the contexts of their implementations.
Understanding the recurring perhaps more
prototypical combinations of technology supports for
collaborative learning across a range of learning
domains and educational contexts can also help
designers and instructors decide how they can take
advantage of new technological tools for enhancing
collaborative learning. Research syntheses, as in the
present study, are important in helping us understand
critical aspects of technological supports for
collaborative learning in their full complexity.
Understanding how CSCL applications have been
used will enable us to both learn from the past, and
more importantly, design for the future.
5. Acknowledgement
This research was in part funded by the National
Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) (Grant No.
2009-0068919) awarded to the first author and a
Rutgers University Faculty Research Council grant to
the second author.
5. References
[1] M. Scardamalia, "Collective cognitive responsibility for
the advancement of knowledge," in Liberal education in a
knowledge society, B. Smith, Ed. Chicago: Open Court,
2002, pp. 67-98.
[2] C. Van Boxtel, Jos van der Linden, and G. Kanselaar,
"Collaborative learning tasks and the elaboration of
conceptual knowledge," Learning and Instruction, vol. 10,
pp. 311-330, 2000.
[3] B. Barron, "Problem solving in video-based
microworlds: Collaborative and individual outcomes of
high-achieving sixth-grade students," Journal of
Educational Psychology, vol. 92, pp. 391-398, 2000.
[4] M. T. H. Chi, "Active-constructive-interactive: A
conceptual framework for differentiating learning
activities," Topics in Cognitive Science, vol. 1, pp. 73-105,
2009.
[5] E. G. Cohen, "Restructuring the classroom: Conditions
for productive small groups.," Review of Educational
Research, vol. 64, pp. 1-35, 1994.
[6] D. W. Johnson, G. Maruyama, R. Johnson, D. Nelson,
and L. Skon, "Effects of cooperative, competitive, and
individualistic goal structures on achievement: A meta-
analysis," Psychological Bulletin, vol. 89, pp. 47-62, 1981.
[7] B. Rogoff, "Cognition as a collaborative process," in
Handbook of Child Psychology, W. Damon, Ed. New York:
Wiley, 1998, pp. 679-744.
[8] N. M. Webb and A. S. Palincsar, "Group processes in
the classroom," in Handbook of Educational Psychology, D.
C. Berliner and R. C. Calfee, Eds. New York: Simon
Schuster Macmillan, 1996.
[9] A. King, "Enhancing peer interaction and learning in
the classroom through reciprocal questioning," American
Educational Research Journal, vol. Winter, 27, pp. 664-
687, 1990.
8
 Proceedings of the 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2010
[10] A. S. Palincsar and A. L. Brown, "Reciprocal teaching
of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring
activities.," Cognition and Instruction, vol. 1, pp. 117-175,
1984.
[11] A. H. Schoenfeld, "Ideas in the air: Speculations on
small group learning, environmental and cultural influences
on cognition and epistemology.," International Journal of
Education, vol. 13, pp. 71-88, 1989.
[12] N. Webb, J. D. Troper, and R. Fall, "Constructive
activity and learning in collaborative small groups,"
Journal of Eductional Psychology, vol. 87, pp. 406-423,
1995.
[13] M. Guzdial and J. Turns, "Effective discussion through
a computer-mediated anchored forum," The Journal of the
Learning Sciences, vol. 9, pp. 437-469, 2000.
[14] M. Baker and K. Lund, "Promoting reflective
interactions in a computer-supported collaborative learning
environment," Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, vol.
13, pp. 175-193, 1997.
[15] P. Dillenbourg and D. Traum, "Sharing solutions:
Persistence and grounding in multimodal collaborative
problem solving," The Journal of the Learning Sciences,
vol. 15, pp. 121-151, 2006.
[16] S. P. Lajoie, "Computers as cognitive tools: No more
walls." Mahwah, NJ: Earlbaum, 2000.
[17] R. A. Reiser, "A history of instructional design and
technology: Part II: A history of instructional design,"
Educational Technology Research and Development, vol.
49, pp. 57-67, 2001.
[18] E. Lehtinen, K. Hakkarainen, L. Lipponen, M.
Rahikainen, and H. Muukkonen, "Computer-supported
collaborative learning: A review," 1999.
[19] J. D. Slotta and M. T. H. Chi, "Helping students
understand challenging topics in science through ontology
training," Cognition and Instruction, vol. 24, pp. 261-289,
2006.
[20] S. Gray, C. E. Hmelo-Silver, L. Liu, R. Jordan, H.
Jeong, R. Schwartz, H. Finkelstein, D. Wolsten, M.
Demeter, and S. Sinha, "Learning with ecosystem models:
A tale of two classrooms," presented at International
conferences on the learning sciences, 2008.
[21] J. Roschelle, "Learning by collaborating: Convergent
conceptual change," The Journal of the Learning Sciences,
vol. 2, pp. 235-276, 1992.
[22] W. A. Sandoval, "Conceptual and epistemic aspects of
students' scientific explanations," The Journal of the
Leaning Sciences, vol. 12, pp. 5-51, 2003.
[23] D. D. Suthers, "Technology affordances for
intersubjective meaning making: A research agenda for
CSCL," Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, vol.
1, pp. 315-337, 2006.
[24] S. Hrastinski and C. Keller, "An examination of
research approaches that underlie research on educational
technology: A review from 2000 to 2004," Journal of
Educational Computing Research, vol. 36, pp. 175-190,
2007.
[25] K. F. Hew, U. Kale, and N. Kim, "Past research in
instructional technology: Results of a content analysis of
empirical studies published in three prominent instructional
technology journals from the year 2000 through 2004,"
Journal of Educational Computing Research, vol. 36, pp.
269-300, 2007.
[26] M. Shih, J. Feng, and C.-C. Tsai, "Research and trends
in the field of e-learning from 2001 to 2005: A content
analysis of cognitive studies in selected journals,"
Computers and Education, vol. 51, pp. 955-967, 2008.
[27] G. Stahl, T. Koschmann, and D. D. Suthers,
"Computer-supported collaborative learning: A historical
perspective," in Cambridge handbook oh the learning
sciences, R. K. Sawyer, Ed. New York: Cambridge
University Press, 2006.
[28] N. Miyake, "Computer supported collaborative
learning," in Sage handbook of e-learning research, R.
Andrew and C. Haythornwaite, Eds. London, UK: Sage,
2006.
[29] J. Hewitt and C. Brett, "The relationship between class
size and online activity patterns in asynchronous computer
conferencing environments," Computers and Education,
vol. 49, pp. 1258-1271, 2007.*
[30] R. Holliman and E. Scanlon, "Investigating
cooperation and collaboration in near synchronous
computer mediated conference," Computers and Education,
vol. 46, pp. 322-335, 2006.*
[31] D. J. Nicol and I. A. MacLeod, "Using a shared
workplace and wireless laptops to improve collaborative
project learning in an engineering design class," Computers
and Education, vol. 44, pp. 459-475, 2005.*
[32] N. Jacobs and A. McFarlane, "Conferences as learning
communities: some early lessons in using 'back-channel'
technologies at an academic conference-distributed
intelligence or divided attention?," Journal of Computer
Assisted Learning, vol. 21, pp. 317-329, 2005.*
[33] C.-Y. Lai and C.-C. Wu, "Using handhelds in a jigsaw
cooperative learning environment," Journal of Computer
Assisted Learning, vol. 22, pp. 284-297, 2006.*
[34] C. P. Lim and S. Barnes, "A collective case study of
the use of ICT in economics courses: A sociocultural
approach," The Journal of the Learning Sciences, vol. 14,
pp. 489-526, 2005.*
[35] C. Wecker, C. Kohnle, and F. Fischer, "Computer
literacy and inquiry learning: when geeks learn less,"
Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, vol. 23, pp. 133-
144, 2007*.
[36] A. Kitsantas and A. Chow, "College students'
perceived threat and preference for seeking help in
traditional, distributed, and distance learning
environments," Computers and Education, vol. 48, pp. 383-
395, 2007.*
[37] G. Schwabe and C. Goth, "Mobile learning with a
mobile game: design and motivational effects," Journal of
Computer Assisted Learning, vol. 21, pp. 204-216, 2005.*
[38] P. Hakkinen and S. Jarvela, "Sharing and constructing
perspectives in web-based conferencing," Computers and
Education, vol. 47, pp. 433-447, 2006.*
[39] R. M. Wallace, Jeff Kupperman, J. Krajcik, and E.
Soloway, "Science on the Web: Students online in a sixth-
grade classroom," The Journal of the Leaning Sciences, vol.
9, pp. 75-104, 2000.
[40] H. G. Schmidt, S. M. M. Loyens, T. van Gog, and F.
Paas, "Problem-based learning is compatible with human
cognitive architecture: Commentary on Kirschner, Sweller,
9
 Proceedings of the 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2010
and Clark (2006)," Educational Psychologist, vol. 42, pp.
91-97, 2007.
[41] T. White, "Code talk: Student discourse and
participation with networked handhelds," International
Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning,
vol. 1, pp. 359-382, 2006.*
[42] M. A. Redondo, C. Bravo, M. Ortega, and M. F.
Verdejo, "Providing adaptation and guidance for design
learning by problem solving: The design planning approach
in DomoSim-TPC environment," Computers and
Education, vol. 48, pp. 642-657, 2007.*
[43] H. Cho, G. Gay, B. Davidson, and A. Ingraffea,
"Social networks, communication styles, and learning
performance in a CSCL community," Computers and
Education, vol. 49, pp. 309-329, 2007.*
[44] C. E. Hmelo-Silver, R. G. Duncan, and C. A. Chinn,
"Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and
inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and
Clark (2006)," Educational Pschologist, vol. 42, pp. 99-107,
2007.
[45] A. M. O'Donnell, "Structuring dyadic interaction
through scripted cooperation," in Cognitive perspectives on
peer learning, A. M. O'Donnell and A. King, Eds. Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum, 1999, pp. 179-196.
[46] T. Schellens, H. Van Keer, B. De Wever, and M.
Valcke, "Scripting by assigning roles: Does it improve
knowledge construction in asynchronous discussion
groups?," International Journal of Computer-Supported
Collaborative Learning, vol. 2, pp. 225-246, 2007.*
[47] K. Cho and C. Schunn, "Scaffolded writing and
rewriting in the discipline: A web-based reciprocal peer
review system," Computers and Education, vol. 48, pp.
409-426, 2007.*
[48] Z.-H. Chen, C.-Y. Chou, Y.-C. Deng, and T.-W. Chan,
"Active open learner models as animal companions:
Motivating children to learn through interacting with My-
Pet and Our-Pet," International Journal of Artificial
Intelligence in Education, vol. 17, pp. 145-167, 2007.*
[49] J. Mercier and C. H. Frederiksen, "Individual
differences in graduate students' help-seeking process in
using a computer coach in problem-based learning,"
Learning and Instruction, vol. 17, pp. 184-203, 2007.*
[50] C.-H. Wang, "Questioning skills facilitate online
synchronous discussion," Journal of Computer Assisted
Learning, vol. 21, pp. 303-313, 2005.*
[51] Y.-T. Sung, K.-E. Chang, S.-K. Chiou, and H.-T. Hou,
"The design and application of a web-based self- and peer-
assessment system," Computers and Education, vol. 45, pp.
187-202, 2005.*
[52] S.-C. Tseng and C.-C. Tsai, "On-line peer assessment
and the role of the peer feedback: A study of high school
computer course," Computers and Education, vol. 49, pp.
1161-1174, 2007.*
[53] U. Cress, "Ambivalent effect of member portraits in
virtual groups," Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,
vol. 21, pp. 281-191, 2005.*
[54] Y.-J. Lee, "VisSearch: A collaborative Web searching
environment," Computers and Education, vol. 44, pp. 423-
439, 2005.*
[55] V. Veermans and D. Cesareni, "The nature of the
discourse in web-based collaborative learning
environments: Case studies from four different countries,"
Computers and Education, vol. 45, pp. 316-336, 2005.*
[56] Z. Yang and Q. Liu, "Research and development of
web-based virtual online classroom," Computers and
Education, vol. 48, pp. 171-184, 2007.*
[57] O. Berge and A. Fjuk, "Understanding the roles of
online meetings in a net-based course," Journal of
Computer Assisted Learning, vol. 22, pp. 13-23, 2006.*
[58] R. A. Ellis, P. Goodyear, M. Prosser, and A. O'Hara,
"How and what university students learn through online
and face-to-face discussion: conceptions, intentions, and
approaches," Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, vol.
22, pp. 244-256, 2006.*
[59] S. C. Li, N. Law, and K. F. A. Lui, "Cognitive
perturbation through dynamic modelling: a pedagogical
approach to conceptual change in science," Journal of
Computer Assisted Learning, vol. 22, pp. 405-422, 2006.*
[60] J. L. Hoffman, H.-K. Wu, J. S. Krajcik, and E.
Soloway, "The nature of middle school learners' science
content understandings with the use of on-line resources,"
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, vol. 40, pp. 323-
346, 2003.
[61] H. Fuks, M. Pimentel, and C. J. P. de Lucena, "R-U-
Typing-2-Me? Evolving a chat tool to increase
understanding in learning activities," International Journal
of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, vol. 1, pp.
117-142, 2006.*
[62] G. Lopez-Morteo and G. Lopez, "Computer support
for learning mathematics: A learning environment based on
recreational learning objects," Computers and Education,
vol. 48, pp. 618-641, 2007.*
[63] J. Janssen, G. Erkens, G. Kanselaar, and J. Jaspers,
"Visualization of participation: does it contribute to
successful computer-supported collaborative learning?,"
Computers and Education, vol. 49, pp. 1037-1065, 2007.*
[64] A. Vizcaino, "A simulated student can improve
collaborative learning," International Journal of Artificial
Intelligence in Education, vol. 15, pp. 3-40, 2005.*
[65] B. Barron, "When smart groups fail," The Journal of
the Learning Sciences, vol. 12, pp. 307-359, 2003.
[66] N. B. Songer, "Exploring learning opportunities in
coordinated network-enhanced classrooms: A case of Kids
as Global Scientists," The Journal of The Learning
Sciences, vol. 5, pp. 297-327, 1996.
[67] A. Jeong and S. Joung, "Scaffolding collaborative
argumentation in asynchronous discussions with message
constraints and message labels," Computers and Education,
vol. 48, pp. 427-445, 2007.
[68] A. Weinberger, B. Ertl, F. Fischer, and H. Mandl,
"Epistemic and social scripts in computer-supported
collaborative learning," Instructional Science, vol. 33, pp.
1-30, 2005.
[69] W.-Y. Hwang, N.-S. Chen, and R.-L. Hsu,
"Development and evaluation of multimedia whiteboard
system for improving mathematical problem solving,"
Computers and Education, vol. 46, pp. 105-121, 2006.*.
* indicates papers included in the meta-analysis.
10