23
This article was downloaded by: [University of Cambridge] On: 17 October 2014, At: 05:34 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Distance Education Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cdie20 Using Web tools, collaborating, and learning online Karen L. Murphy a & Lauren Cifuentes b a College of Education, Texas A & M University, Department of Educational Psychology , College Station E-mail: b College of Education, Texas A & M University, Department of Educational Psychology , College Station E-mail: Published online: 28 Jul 2006. To cite this article: Karen L. Murphy & Lauren Cifuentes (2001) Using Web tools, collaborating, and learning online, Distance Education, 22:2, 285-305, DOI: 10.1080/0158791010220207 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0158791010220207 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

Using Web tools, collaborating, and learning online

  • Upload
    lauren

  • View
    228

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Using Web tools, collaborating, and learning online

This article was downloaded by: [University of Cambridge]On: 17 October 2014, At: 05:34Publisher: 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

Using Web tools, collaborating,and learning onlineKaren L. Murphy a & Lauren Cifuentes ba College of Education, Texas A & M University,Department of Educational Psychology , CollegeStation E-mail:b College of Education, Texas A & M University,Department of Educational Psychology , CollegeStation E-mail:Published online: 28 Jul 2006.

To cite this article: Karen L. Murphy & Lauren Cifuentes (2001) Using Web tools,collaborating, and learning online, Distance Education, 22:2, 285-305, DOI:10.1080/0158791010220207

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0158791010220207

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.

Page 2: Using Web tools, collaborating, and learning online

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 [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

05:

34 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 3: Using Web tools, collaborating, and learning online

Distance Education2001, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 285-305

© ODLAA Inc.

Using Web tools, collaborating, and learning online

Karen L. Murphy and Lauren Cifuentes

This case study reports how graduate students learned in aconstructivist online course in educational telecommunications. Thestudy investigated the ways students learned to use technology andlearned to collaborate in small groups as they learned online. Thestudents used a collaborative workspace and several other Web toolsto conduct independent and collaborative activities. Solutions toproblems of using technology and learning collaboratively onlineincluded getting to know each other, respecting individualdifferences, negotiating meaning with others, and self-regulating. Thestudy contributes to an understanding of key design elements foronline courses: a delicate balance between structure and dialogue intransactional distance, and the development of a sense of community.

Introduction

The proliferation of Web-based and Web-supported courses has createdchallenges for students who do not necessarily know how to use Webtools or collaborate in online groups as they learn in constructivistenvironments. Researchers, practitioners, and policymakers alike haveidentified the need for conducting research on the use of the Web forlearning purposes. This study investigated students' experiences in aWeb-based course designed for constructivist learning. The graduate levelcourse under investigation was offered at a large North Americanresearch university, where students enrol in courses for 14-weeksemesters. The dual mode university offers mostly traditional courses,though a growing number of courses are delivered through distancelearning technologies, both video conferencing and the Web. In Web-based, or online courses such as the one that we investigated, students usethe Web to access course content, communicate, and completeassignments. With the exception of course orientations and finalmeetings, these courses are delivered on the Web.

One of the five actions called for in the final report of the Web-BasedEducation Commission to the President and the Congress of the UnitedStates (2000) was:

... to build a new research framework of how people learn in the Internetage. A vastly expanded, revitalised, and reconfigured educational research,

285

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

05:

34 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 4: Using Web tools, collaborating, and learning online

Distance Education Vol. 22 No. 2 2001

development, and innovation program is imperative. This program shouldbe built on a deeper understanding of how people learn, how new toolssupport and assess learning gains, what kinds of organisational structuressupport these gains, and what is needed to keep the field of learningmoving forward (Web-Based Education Commission 2000, p. iii).

The Institute for Higher Education Policy (1999) similarly reported 'arelative paucity of true, original research dedicated to explaining orpredicting phenomena related to distance learning' (p. 30) and suggestedthat it address other factors such as 'learning tasks, learner characteristics,student motivation, and the instructor' (p. 31).

Our investigation of how people learn in the Internet age draws fromresearch on distance education, with a particular focus on computer-mediated communication research. We begin the review with literaturerelated to distance education, followed by characteristics of successfuldistance learners and of online learners. We then describe the theoreticalframework of the constructivist paradigm, which is the approach thatmost closely approximates Dewey's (1938) call for active learning.Learning in the social constructivist paradigm requires an environment inwhich collaboration situated in authentic or simulated activities takesplace. Finally, we survey literature about computer-mediatedcommunication as supporting collaboration, promoting critical thinkingskills, and fostering communities of practice.

Distance education and distance learners

Many reviews of distance education have criticised both the focus andresearch methods applied because of lack of rigor. Mclsaac andGunawardena (1996) reported that more than 23% of the literature theyreviewed centered on issues related to technology and the role of thedistance educator rather than the role of the learner. Another reviewreported that approximately one-third of the articles were primaryresearch studies, whereas the remaining two-thirds were theoretical andanecdotal (Anglin & Morrison 2000). Similarly, mosttelecommunications research has been presented at a theoretical ratherthan an empirical level (Hill 2001), with anecdotal reports predominatingover analytical research and typically focussing on positive aspects (Hara& Kling 1999). Some researchers have called for more qualitativeresearch (Windschitl 1998). The focus has shifted to telecommunicationsand discussions of interaction (Koble & Bunker 1997) and to onlineteaching and learning (Owston 1997), although a large body of literatureaddresses issues of teaching online and limited research investigateslearning online (Web-Based Education Commission 2000).

The theory of transactional distance (Moore 1993) has impacted bothdistance education and online teaching and learning in its focus on the

286

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

05:

34 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 5: Using Web tools, collaborating, and learning online

Karen L. Murphy and Lauren Cifuentes

psychological and communications space that takes place between thestructure of instructional programs and dialogue among instructor andlearners. This pedagogical distance ranges from high to low: hightransactional distance indicates that the educational setting is highlystructured with limited dialogue; low transactional distance indicateslimited structure with high levels of dialogue. Researchers have alsoreported on the change in role among online instructors from contentexpert to facilitator of learning. With this role reversal comes a changefrom teacher-centered to learner-centered instruction (Gunawardena1992; Harasim, Hiltz, Teles & Turoff 1995).

Researchers have characterised distance learners according to a variety ofvariables: (a) demographic and situational variables such as age, gender,ethnicity, disability, location, and life roles; (b) psychological variablessuch as personality type, learning style, and motivations; and (c) learninggoals (Thompson 1998). For example, Moore (1998) identified distancelearners as extremely diverse, highly motivated, task-oriented, and forcedto study in an environment not necessarily conducive to learning. Olgren(1998) identified three factors that have a major impact on distancelearners: cognitive learning strategies for processing information,metacognitive activities for planning and self-regulation, and goals andmotivations. Studies have characterised successful distance learners assubstantially different from less successful ones. Successful distancelearners exhibit positive self-concept (Gibson 1998) and an ability to self-regulate their learning (Rogers & Swan 2001), and they engage in deeprather than surface learning by attempting to understand main conceptsbefore attempting to solve problems (Dillon, Greene & Crynes 2001).Similarly, successful online learners have highly developedmetacognitive abilities (Hill & Hannafin 1997) as well as high levels ofcourse activity, intellectual inquisitiveness, and internal locus of control(Wang & Newlin 2000). In summary, research reviews indicate a need touse rigor in exploring the learner experience of distance education.Through qualitative analysis, researchers can identify strategies ofsuccessful distance learners to reduce transactional distance.

Constructivism and computer-mediated communication

Challenges in reducing transactional distance arise for students when adistance education course is designed to support constructivist learning.Constructivism, which is the worldview that recognises learning as theprocess of constructing meaning about, or making sense of, ourexperiences (Vygotsky 1978), calls for collaborative, situated, and activelearning. Students' experiences in online courses designed to supportconstructivist values of collaboration, personal autonomy, generativity,

287

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

05:

34 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 6: Using Web tools, collaborating, and learning online

Distance Education Vol. 22 No. 2 2001

reflectivity, active engagement, personal relevance, and pluralism(Lebow 1993) may be different from those of students in face-to-face ormore traditional courses. The course under investigation addressed theconstructivist values above through a combination of independent andcollaborative activities.

Courses designed to address constructivism situate learning in 'coherent,meaningful, and purposeful activities' (Brown, Collins & Duguid 1989,p. 34) such as small-group discussions, simulation games, project-basedwork, and collaborative problem-solving activities. Such activities helplearners develop critical thinking skills by working collaboratively withothers (Romiszowski 1997). The teaching-learning technique applied inthe course under investigation included 'experiential exercises followedby interpersonal interaction in small groups, and with facilitators to guidethe group towards useful conclusions' (Romiszowski, p. 33).

In addition, constructivist courses require cooperative learning groups(Slavin 1994) to accomplish shared goals. In collaborative learningenvironments, teachers teach for the most part indirectly, by reorganisingstudents socially and designing appropriate tasks (Bruffee 1993).Students in our course taught reciprocally through 'distributed expertise',a technique intended to create a community of learners who learn how tolearn and in turn become 'intelligent novices' who teach each other(Brown et al. 1993, p. 190). Communities of learners and practice aresocial organisations in which knowledge, values, identities, and goals areshared (Hung & Chen 2001; Jonassen 1999) and in which membersparticipate fully (Lave & Wenger 1991).

Computer-mediated communication supports constructivist learning byfacilitating collaborative, situated, and active learning (Harasim et al.1995) and fostering a community of practice (Palloff & Pratt 1999)through email, bulletin board services, computer conferencing systems,and the Web. Computer conferencing software provides collaborativeworkspaces that include threaded discussions in icon-based conferences,file attachments, private email, real-time text-based chats, andcollaborative document writing spaces. Using computer-mediatedcommunication, learners can 'examine ideas in a social context ofdifferent perspectives and develop collective ways to understand issues'(Riel 1998, p. xix). Having multiple participants in a computerconference contributes to individuals' social constructions of meaning,their abilities to relate new knowledge structures to those they alreadypossess, and their abilities to explore and create meaning (Garrison 1993).Laurillard (1993) charged that the learning process 'must be constitutedas a dialogue between teacher and students' (p. 94) and have thefollowing characteristics: discursive, adaptive, interactive, and reflective.Moore (1993) defined dialogue as interaction with positive qualities thatare aimed at improving learner understanding.

288

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

05:

34 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 7: Using Web tools, collaborating, and learning online

Karen L. Murphy and Lauren Cifuentes

Through computer-mediated communication in our course, dialogueoccurred as delayed asynchronous interaction occurring at theconvenience of each student (Harasim et al. 1995) as well as in real time,through synchronous electronic chats. Romiszowski and Mason (1996)report that 'conversational education' is evident in computerconferencing when discussion is 'more authentic, situated, interactive,project-oriented, interdisciplinary, [and] learner-centered' than in teacher-centered environments (Berge 1997, p. 13).

The surge in online courses has created a developing body of literature ondesigning for online courses (Harasim et al. 1995; Khan 1997). Gibson(1998) challenged,

If the distance learner is to succeed, we, as faculty, must...truly understand[the] learner and design learning environments that facilitate learning,environments that enhance access to and success in higher education(p. viii).

Researchers have identified various design considerations for onlinelearning. Six design considerations for computer conferencing includetwo administrative design considerations (grading system and grouping),and four instructional design considerations (collaboration, relevance,learner control, and technological preparation) (Cifuentes, Murphy, Segur& Kodali 1997). Principles of situated learning and Vygotskian thoughtthat contribute to a 'vibrant and sustaining' Web-based community aresituatedness, commonality, interdependency, and infrastructure (Hung &Chen 2001).

Constructivist learning in an online environment depends upon bothtechnology and collaboration among group members. Therefore, weacknowledge that until students are able to use technology toolseffectively, they can not proceed in their online learning (Hillman, Willis& Gunawardena 1994). Likewise, collaborative learning, and especiallycollaborative learning online, is not intuitive and must be learned. In thisresearch, we addressed the need for knowledge of how students learn inonline constructivist courses.

Our study was designed to investigate the ways online students learned touse technology and learned to collaborate in small groups in aconstructivist course. The research questions that framed this study wereoriginally posed to students in focus groups and computer conferences:

• How do students learn to use the technology required for an onlineconstructivist course? and

• How do students learn to collaborate in an online constructivistcourse?

289

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

05:

34 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 8: Using Web tools, collaborating, and learning online

Distance Education Vol. 22 No. 2 2001

Methodology

Participants

The participants were graduate students in an educational technologycourse. The course had 13 students (2 males and 11 females, 8 mastersand 5 doctoral students). None of the students had taken an online coursebefore, and their telecommunications skills ranged from one student whohad used email only rarely, to several experienced users.

Course description

'Applications of Telecommunications in Education' was a 15-weekgraduate course focussing on the design and application oftelecommunications systems in education. This online course designedfor constructivist learning was offered at a large research university in thesouthwestern United States. The only face-to-face sessions were threemeetings spaced throughout the semester: training on the Web tools,students' questions and answers, and focus group discussions. Theinstructor posted the syllabus and other course materials on the courseWeb site, and the class communicated via the Web.

The students used three Web tools recommended by students in aprevious course (Murphy 1998) for communication and as a repositoryfor their work - a discussion board, a chat room, and a shared workspace.WWWBoard is a Web discussion board that allows users to engage intext-based threaded asynchronous discussions. The chat tool, Easy WebGroup Interaction Enabler (EWGIE), allows several people at a time tohold text-based synchronous chats. The shared workspace, Basic Supportfor Cooperative Work (BSCW), allows users to use multiple functions:post text entries in threaded discussions; use version control to write andedit documents collaboratively; and share graphics, URLs, and HTMLpages.

Each student participated in two collaborative activities: (a) co-facilitatediscussions about readings using a threaded discussion board, and(b) conduct research in small groups and write chapters along a theme,culminating in an 'Online Reader' subsequently published on the Web.Three to four students comprised each project-based group, an ideaadapted from another Web-based course (Collis 1997). To accomplishtheir tasks, the students used shared workspaces in BSCW and heldscheduled and impromptu real-time discussions in EWGIE. As EWGIEdid not record chats automatically, students usually copied and pastedthem into BSCW for archiving. BSCW workspaces were available to allthe students, who were encouraged to read each other's work.

290

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

05:

34 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 9: Using Web tools, collaborating, and learning online

Karen L. Murphy and Lauren Cifuentes

Data sources

The two data sources were an online discussion and focus groupdiscussions about group dynamics in online courses. At a student'ssuggestion, the class discussed group dynamics to address conflicts andmisunderstandings they had encountered; the topic was 'What makes agroup function well in Web-based course?' At the end of the semester, thestudents discussed four questions about Web-based learning in three face-to-face focus groups. The rationale for dividing the class into three groupswas twofold: to create groups of optimal size for quality discussion(Krueger 1994) and to separate students from classmates with whom theyhad worked in their Online Reader projects and thus facilitate opendiscussion. The questions were related to learning to use technology,learning to collaborate in a virtual group, and learning to be a student in avirtual class.

Data collection and analysis

The investigation relied on case study methods, which are characterisedby rich description of processes (Merriam 1998), to describe the students'activities and reflections on their online learning. We downloaded theelectronic messages in the group dynamics discussion and transcribed thetwo usable focus group discussions from audiocassettes.

We conducted content analyses of the data sources (Emerson, Fretz &Shaw 1995). We coded the data by categorising them according to thetwo research questions, using coloured markers for the initial reading.Focussed coding centered on technology use, collaboration, andconstructivist learning. Using qualitative data analysis software(NUD*IST), we gained consensus on the extent to which the data sourcesrevealed answers to the research questions. The analysis was triangulatedthrough multiple data sources and researchers.

Results

The results centered on strategies that students used to resolve problemsrelated to two themes in online constructivist courses: learning to use thetechnology and learning to collaborate in small groups.

Learning to use technology for online constructivist courses

Students identified the following technology-related problems thatinterfered with online learning: difficulty of access, differing preferencesfor specific software, an overabundance of Web tools that confusedlearners, and inequitable levels of expertise. They used and recommendedseveral strategies to resolve their problems.

291

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

05:

34 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 10: Using Web tools, collaborating, and learning online

Distance Education Vol. 22 No. 2 2001

Problems

Although constructivist teaching allows for tangential and peripherallearning, this approach posed problems for students who felt that theyneeded close guidance and a prescribed structure. For the first time they hadto construct conceptual models of various Web tools in order to navigateand communicate. In contrast, the telecommunications experts in the classbuilt on their prior knowledge. Not surprisingly, the novices took longerthan the experts did to learn technical processes: while the novices werelearning to use the tools, the experts were already using the tools to learncontent. In addition, because many novices relied on the technical expertiseof their classmates, the experts were pulled away from their more desirablefocus on learning content. This unequal distribution of expertise alsointerfered with equitable participation in the group projects.

Solutions

Students provided insight into human resources for learning to use thetechnology and their own strategies for learning. Human resourcesincluded training conducted during the first face-to-face class session andhelp from peers, classmates in other classes, and library personnel. Onestudent learned 'mostly by plunging in and doing it' and others attributedtheir learning to a mentor (the instructor or a 'graduate' of the course) or atutor (a student in the course or in another course). They asked questionsof each other and shared technology tips in a dedicated workspace inBSCW. Although many students found the two face-to-face sessions atthe beginning and middle of the semester valuable, some novices felt thatthose sessions lacked sufficient technology training.

Resources for learning the technology also included online softwaremanuals, library resources, and guidelines and tutorials that students in aprevious class had created for the WWWBoard (http://disted.tamu.edu/tools/wwwsumm.htm), EWGIE (http://disted.tamu.edu/tools/ewgie.htm),and BSCW (http://disted.tamu.edu/tools/bscw.htm). Although theresources enabled students to learn at their own pace, many students feltdaunted by the mere number of Web tools used for the course.

All students used more than one strategy to learn the technology. Theylearned by doing, building on prior learning, and following printedguidelines or online tutorials. In summary, students applied a variety oflearning strategies, both independently and collaboratively, in their effortsto overcome the considerable technology problems and learn to use theWeb tools.

Learning to collaborate in online constructivist courses

Learning constructively online for the first time was difficult for themajority of the learners, and several acknowledged feeling uncomfortable

292

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

05:

34 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 11: Using Web tools, collaborating, and learning online

Karen L. Murphy and Lauren Cifuentes

with the online environment until mid-semester. Collaborating actively insmall groups to accomplish their tasks demanded that students constructnew conceptions of learning. They encountered varied interpersonalrelationship problems as well as learner differences and preferences, andthey recommended a number of strategies for learning to collaborateonline.

Problems

The students identified an array of interpersonal relationship problemsthat interfered with collaboration and were accentuated by having tocommunicate online. The requirements for collaborative learning led toproblems related to gaining consensus online and misunderstandingclassmates' roles, expectations, and cultures. Working in small groups toplan and write Online Reader chapters without face-to-face contactpresented challenges even to the expert telecommunications users andwas formidable to the novices. Building consensus was difficult whengroup members did not know each other and had not establishedleadership roles, and misunderstandings among group members emergedas a result. The students also encountered several problems related totheir entry characteristics: they each came to the course with differentlevels of knowledge and motivation as well as varied learner preferencesin ways of working and types of learning environments.

Solutions

The students identified several strategies for addressing interpersonalrelations problems. They realised that they needed to 'get to know groupmembers before working on the projects' to collaborate effectivelyonline, because 'everyone is from a different background bringingdifferent sets of views to start with. To [create] a good paper withconsistency throughout, members need to get to know how one anotherthink on certain points'. They suggested that a full-day orientation sessionbe scheduled at the beginning of the semester and that future classesdevelop group-learning contracts. In addition, 'each member [should]provide a 'self-portrait' to better understand the learning styles,personalities, and context' of each other. The students sought informationabout each other's levels of expertise, learning styles, personalities,feelings, and perspectives.

All students required a structure for communication; some students feltthat they needed a more structured course design, and others seemedcomfortable with establishing their own structures. Establishing timelinesfor activity early in the course was advocated as 'one of the prerequisitesfor building relationships and collaboration'. A key to structuringcommunication was that 'groups should not rely on one form of

293

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

05:

34 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 12: Using Web tools, collaborating, and learning online

Distance Education Vol. 22 No. 2 2001

communication. Everyone does not have the same access, or time'.Successful students capitalised on the attributes of each Web tool.Students described how they learned to use the chat function 'any timethere was a need to talk about what we were going to be doing', andrather than sending individual email messages, they began 'writing to theentire group'.

Some students described coming to consensus when making decisionsabout the process and methods of accomplishing tasks duringcollaborative work. In one group,

'S' came up with the outline and we all agreed to it. We split up the outline,and each one took a part and came up with our own section and put ittogether. And we kind of helped each other piece it together'. The studentshad to 'figure out what was wrong with the chapter, and...come to aconsensus of how to change it.

One student described the integral nature of group consensus andindividual responsibility:

The group should decide responsibilities of each member, and discuss whatoutcomes they are to accomplish from their group activity. When everyonein a small group knows their responsibilities and [recognises] that everyoneelse knows what they are responsible for, they will generally follow throughon their responsibilities. When one person does not, then the leader shouldget in touch to see how they can all help to get back on task.

Whether or not groups should select a student leader became a point ofcontention: should groups have leaders, or should adult learners be able tofunction without a designated leader? One student

... had a tough time with the group project because no one took the lead, orat least not at all times.

Another student charged that

... it is vital at the beginning of a semester to have the groups select a leaderor the instructor appoint a leader.

One individual attempted to take over group leadership without consentof the other members. If there is to be a group leader, decisions must bemade as to who will choose the leader, on what basis the leader will bechosen, and the leader's functions. Suggestions were made to assign rolesto the different members of a working group 'so that one person becomesthe moderator, another the recorder, another the technology specialist'.Several students argued that a leader should function as a 'catalyst tosuccessful group activity' or as 'facilitator to guide the group to keepthem on track.. .not be a dictator type'. The role of the leader is

... to keep the project on task, make sure everyone knows when meetingsare, and report to the instructor, if needed.

294

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

05:

34 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 13: Using Web tools, collaborating, and learning online

Karen L. Murphy and Lauren Cifuentes

The strategies the students used and recommended for dealing with theproblems related to individual differences and preferences for learningwere to respect individual differences, learn from others, and self-regulate. Respecting these differences enriched the learning experience.For instance, acceptance of individual grammatical styles can lead tocomfortable self-expression.

There's a certain awkwardness in usage...that can be allowed to stay there.I liked the idea of keeping everybody's voice intact, so that you can hear thedifferent people writing, instead of having all of us sound exactly alike.

Respecting individual differences can lead to learning from others:

I think the ability to compromise and being able to build from the othermembers allows a group to work well together.

Some students took advantage of all BSCW workspaces to learn fromother's mistakes and good habits. Students made suggestions for turningunequal strengths and weaknesses into assets.

The group has two choices. First, the person who is strong in an area doesthat section. This method doesn't teach the others, though. So, the secondoption is to let someone who is weak in an area work on it, but be in closecontact with the stronger one.

Requiring differing levels of contributions of novices and experts wasalso suggested:

The work should challenge all members, so if members have differentlevels of knowledge or experience, then contribution will probably bedifferent. The effort for a novice to produce 10% of the work may be thesame as the effort for an expert to produce 60% of the work.

Such 'differences in amounts of input by individual team members andassessment of the members must be understood by all team members',and 'knowledge of strengths and weaknesses should be made clear'.However, students do not always exert equal effort in their group projects.One student suggested that

... if a group member is not contributing to a group, then the groupmembers should discuss this issue in a special chat or computerconference. Groups have to have trust, cohesion, and hard workers in orderto be successful. Everyone has to pull their weight in areas that arecomfortable with their gifts and capabilities.

One student summed it up:

Honesty and respect for the team [members] should be the main policy.

Self-regulated learning, which accounts for a learner's activeparticipation in goal setting and control of learning strategies andprocesses while involved with learning tasks (Corno 1994), becomesdoubly important in an online constructivist environment.

295

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

05:

34 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 14: Using Web tools, collaborating, and learning online

Distance Education Vol. 22 No. 2 2001

Many students procrastinated initially and later learned to self-regulate:

I had to learn not to procrastinate and sluff [sic] off. I have had trouble withthat; especially not meeting class every week or seeing the professorsaying, 'This is due, and this is due'.

Some students wanted 'somebody to set deadlines, schedule, reminders,class meetings, feedback F2F at beginning, midterm, and end'. Anotherstudent observed,

I believe this little bit of early structuring would improve the experiencefor everyone. Perhaps some cohesive guidelines might develop from theonline discussion and the discussion itself would serve as an object lessonin emerging leadership roles and telecom problem solving.

Prior to taking this online course, some students thought that learningonline would be easier than in traditional courses. Later, they offeredwarnings to new online students:

Don't be fooled by that 'three class meetings', thinking this is going to beless work', 'be prepared to make sacrifices', and 'develop a mindset formore work than in traditional courses.

When asked how long it took to become appropriately self-directed,several students agreed with one student who offered that it was

... just about midterm. Before that I was doing two or three weeks' worth ofwork in just one day.

One student described self-regulation as

... learning to sit down each day and check email, check BSCW for anythingnew, and pick a day during the week just to do my journal to make sure that Idid it then, because if I didn't do it then it would all just build up.

Through their experiences, these first-time online learners identifiedstrategies for self-regulation. They agreed that ongoing communicationand the ability to ask questions of others were integral to success in anonline course. They also acknowledged the importance of intrinsicmotivation, coupled with confidence, persistence, and a sense of humour.

In summary, as students learned to collaborate in online groups, theyidentified varied interpersonal relationship problems as well asdifferences in levels of knowledge and motivation and in learnerpreferences. The strategies they used and recommended for learning tocollaborate online were getting to know each other, structuringcommunication, establishing leadership roles, respecting individualdifferences, learning from others, and self-regulating.

Conclusions

Learners applied a diversity of strategies for dealing with problemsassociated with technology and collaboration while learning in an online

296

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

05:

34 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 15: Using Web tools, collaborating, and learning online

Karen L. Murphy and Lauren Cifuentes

constructivist course. They used print-based, technological, and humanresources to learn the assigned Web tools. They learned by applying thoseWeb tools and by helping each other online. They emphasised that tolearn collaboratively, they needed to get to know each other first.Suggestions for facilitating knowledge of classmates included creatingonline self-portraits and having a full day, face-to-face orientation. Theysuggested that the instructor as well as peers structure communication byestablishing goals and objectives for activities, organising and assigningtasks and roles early in group work, creating and following timelines, andattaining group consensus. They used chats, email, computer conferences,collaborative documents, and occasional face-to-face meetings to sustaintheir collaboration.

Based on our findings, we respond to the call for a new researchframework (Web-Based Education Commission 2000) in an attempt toshed light on how people learn in the Internet age. In the online courseunder study, people learned by discussing problems and collaborating insmall groups to solve problems using the new Web tools. As adultlearners, students assessed their own learning gains through peer andinstructor feedback using those tools. Students experienced bothsatisfaction and frustration, depending on how well the organisationalstructures, such as the technology infrastructure and human resources,worked for them. In the interest of moving the 'field of learning' (p. iii)forward, we make recommendations for the design of online courses.

Recommendations for online course design

'Fruitful learning experiences don't happen by chance' (Kimball 1995);instead, they are thoughtfully designed, based on learning theory,instructional theory, and research. This study contributes to anunderstanding of two key design elements for online courses: establishinga delicate balance between structure and dialogue in transactionaldistance, and developing a sense of community.

Establish balance between structure and dialogue

The interplay that occurs among structure, dialogue, and learnerautonomy determines the amount of transactional distance found in adistance education setting (Moore 1993). This distance, which often leadsto a communications gap and psychological space between instructorsand learners, is dynamic, changing over time as a course progresses. Saba(2001) ascribed fluctuation in transactional distance to the instructor'sneed for structure and learners' needs for control or dialogue. Structuralcommunication 'engages the learner in a dialogue that encourages deeperanalysis of the information' through different viewpoints (Slee & Pusch1997).

297

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

05:

34 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 16: Using Web tools, collaborating, and learning online

Distance Education Vol. 22 No. 2 2001

The instructor plays a key role in maintaining the balance betweenstructure and dialogue to minimise transactional distance for students,who may find the online learning community to be the 'ultimatedisorienting dilemma' (Gibson 2000). As dialogue is at the center ofteaching and learning (Laurillard 1993; Moore 1993), the onlineinstructor's most important responsibility is to ensure 'a high degree ofinteractivity and participation' (Kearsley 2000, p.78). Several of ourstudents experienced learner disorientation, due to the requirements forcollaboration and the plethora of new Web tools used for communication.Although confusion associated with using several Web tools would not belikely today, due to the development of such integrated online software asWebCT and Blackboard, user disorientation resulted from software thatwas new to the learners already familiar with other systems (Stratfold2000) or that overwhelmed them with too many choices (Kearsley, ascited in Harvey & Lee 2001, p. 37). Low system knowledge, or priorknowledge of and experience with a particular information system, inconjunction with weak metacognitive knowledge, have been linked todisorientation and use of ineffective learning strategies (Hill &Hannafin 1997).

To ease frustration in complex learning environments, students need'increased instructional support, or scaffolding, to help them reflect onand articulate their ongoing understanding' (Land & Greene 2000, p. 65).According to Perkins (1992), coaching based on the cognitiveapprenticeship model (Collins, Brown & Newman 1989) should be usedto guide learners with task management skills. Online learners often needassistance in establishing strategies for managing their time (Hill 2001),particularly in constructivist environments, which require learners to betheir own task managers (Vrasidas & Mclsaac 1999). In response to theirdisorientation, our students suggested a full-day course orientation thatwould include extensive technology training. At this orientation, theinstructor should help learners feel comfortable with course tools (Hill2001; Hillman et al. 1994) by arranging for group activities, which,according to one student, would include a sequence of a fun face-to-faceactivity, a fun technology-based one, and a content-related technology-based one.

A delicate balance between course structure and dialogue of the instructorand learners is critical for online learner success, based on the threefactors that Olgren (1998) identified as having a major impact onlearning: cognitive learning strategies, metacognitive activities, andlearner goals and motivations. To maintain this balance and thus reducetransactional distance, course design should include an explicit structureto foster self-direction, sequenced technology training, and authenticactivities requiring a high level of dialogue.

298

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

05:

34 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 17: Using Web tools, collaborating, and learning online

Karen L. Murphy and Lauren Cifuentes

Develop a sense of community

The other key design element for online courses is development ofcommunity, which exists when members of a group experience a sense ofbelonging or personal relatedness (Osterman 2000). Community building,which occurs through purposeful design of activities that are self-directed, reflect real-life experiences, and provide for collaboration andbonding, can lead to communities of practice (Lave & Wenger 1991) inonline environments (Hung & Chen 2001; Paloff & Pratt 1999).

To build an online community, groups must share who they are 'aspeople...to build that container of trust' (Palloff & Pratt 1999, p. 78),'define norms and a clear code of conduct' (p. 24), and developcommonality or identity (Hung & Chen 2001). Like students who foundthat an intensive meeting at the beginning of their online course initiateda bonding experience that prevailed throughout the course(Haythornthwaite, Kazmer, Robins & Shoemaker 2000), our studentsdetermined that online learners should get to know each other beforebeginning small group work. They extended this notion to include agroup-learning contract based on a script to determine common behaviourguidelines, establish interaction and communication protocols, identifymember roles, and develop contingency plans (Murphy, Mahoney &Harvell 2000).

For a group to develop into a community that is stronger than theindividuals who comprise it, members must hold a 'shared objective ofcontinually advancing the collective knowledge and skills' and have'mechanisms for sharing what is learned' (Bielaczyc & Collins 1999,p. 272). In our study, the shared workspaces in BSCW provided thestudents with 'boundaries around a protected space, with the members ofthe group sharing a common experience' (Palloff & Pratt 1999, p. 61).The shared objectives and common workspaces encouraged high qualitywork and stretching of capabilities, a finding consistent with research ondistributed learning communities (Brown et al. 1993).

Individual success or failure in an online course may depend upon theextent to which students are able to 'cross a threshold from feeling likeoutsiders to feeling like insiders' (Wegerif 1998). Instructors who act as acoach (Jonassen, 1999) may facilitate students in crossing this thresholdby providing maximum structure and support at the beginning of thecourse and gradually allowing for more learner control by the end of thecourse (Murphy, Cifuentes, & Bonham 1996; Wegerif 1998). Suchcoaching helped our students move from being legitimate peripheralparticipants to becoming more central members of the community (Lave& Wenger 1991).

299

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

05:

34 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 18: Using Web tools, collaborating, and learning online

Distance Education Vol. 22 No. 2 2001

Online course design that fosters such constructivist values ascollaboration, active engagement, learner control, relevance, situatedness,interdependency, and commonality (Cifuentes et al. 1997; Hung & Chen2001; Jonassen 1999; Lebow 1993) can foster communities of practice(Lave & Wenger 1991) as advocated by Dewey (1958) and Vygotsky(1978). Our students recommended that the instructor and learners sharethe responsibility to dialogue to get to know each other; assign and clarifyroles based on individuals' interests, purposes, and jobs; address eachother's strengths and weaknesses; set timelines; and provide substantialguidance. The instructor and students collaboratively establishedfacilitative structures for learning online, thereby increasinginterdependency. 'Without interdependence, there can be nocollaboration, and ultimately no community' (Palloff & Pratt 1999,p. 125).

In university teaching we must 'give attention to the provision ofadequate infrastructure, and the skilled humans to support it, as well assupporting thoroughly collaborative efforts in developing the newpedagogies to employ these technologies for conversational purposes'(Evans & Nation 2000, p. 172). Our research addressed the question ofhow people learn in the Internet age (Institute for Higher EducationPolicy 1999; Web-Based Education Commission 2000).

Recommendations for future research

This study reported on a hands-on online constructivist course designedfor students to learn to apply telecommunications tools to educationalsettings. We used content analysis to identify students' strategies foraddressing problems related to technology and collaboration in theircourse. Future studies could employ mixed methods for deeperunderstanding of the specific phenomena associated with learning inonline courses. In addition, further investigations could exploreeducational technology courses emphasising either theoreticalfoundations or production, to identify online processes that facilitatesuccessful technology applications and collaborative activity in onlinecourses. Investigations should also be conducted in online courses acrossvarious content areas such as mathematics and science to identifyfacilitative online learning processes for deep learning of content. Finally,findings of this study were based on a course in higher education and areunlikely to describe processes of younger, less sophisticated learners.Similar studies could be conducted to identify online processes oflearners at various developmental levels.

300

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

05:

34 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 19: Using Web tools, collaborating, and learning online

Karen L. Murphy and Lauren Cifuentes

References

Anglin, G.J. & Morrison, G.R. 2000, 'An analysis of distance education research:Implications for the instructional technologist', Quarterly Review of DistanceEducation, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 189-94.

Berge, Z.L. 1997, 'Computer conferencing and the on-line classroom',International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, vol. 3, no. 1,pp. 3-21.

Bielaczyc, K. & Collins, A., 1999, 'Learning communities in classrooms:A reconceptualisation of educational practice', in Instructional DesignTheories and Models: A New Paradigm of Instructional Theory (Vol. II),ed. C.M. Reigeluth, Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 188-228.

Brown, A.L., Ash, D., Rutherford, M., Nakagawa, K., Gordon, A. &Campione, J.C. 1993, 'Distributed expertise in the classroom', in DistributedCognitions: Psychological and Educational Considerations, CambridgeUniversity, Cambridge, UK, pp. 32-42.

Brown, J.S., Collins, A. & Duguid, P. 1989, 'Situated cognition and the cultureof learning', Educational Researcher, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 32-42.

Bruffee, K.A. 1993, Collaborative Learning: Higher Education,Interdependence, and the Authority of Knowledge, The Johns HopkinsUniversity, Baltimore, MD.

Cifuentes, L., Murphy, K.L., Segur, R. & Kodali, S. 1997, 'Designconsiderations for computer conferences', Journal of Research on Computingin Education, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 172-95.

Collins, A., Brown, J.S. & Newman, S.E. 1989, 'Cognitive apprenticeship:Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics', in Knowing,Learning, and Instruction: Essay in Honor of Robert Glaser, ed. L. Resnick,Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 453-94.

Collis, B. 1997, 'Supporting project-based collaborative learning via a WorldWide Web environment', in Web-based Instruction, ed. B. Khan, EducationalTechnology, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, pp. 213-19.

Corno, L. 1994, 'Student volition and education: Outcomes, influences, andpractice', in Self-Regulation of Learning and Performance: Issues andEducational Applications, eds D.H. Schunk & B.J. Zimmerman, Erlbaum,Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 229-54.

Dewey, J. 1958, Experience and Education, Macmillan, New York.

Dillon, C, Greene, B. & Crynes, B. April 2001, Technology-based distributedlearning in post-secondary education: learner differences in strategy use andachievement, paper presented at the Annual Convention of the AmericanEducational Research Association, Seattle.

Emerson, R.M., Fretz, R.I. & Shaw, L.L. 1995, Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes,University of Chicago, Chicago.

Evans, T. & Nation, D. 2000, 'Understanding changes to university teaching', inChanging University Teaching: Reflections on Creating EducationalTechnologies, ed. T. Evans & D. Nation, Kogan Page, London, pp. 160-75.

301

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

05:

34 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 20: Using Web tools, collaborating, and learning online

Distance Education Vol. 22 No. 2 2001

Garrison, D.R. 1993, 'A cognitive constructivist view of distance education: Ananalysis of teaching-learning assumptions', Distance Education, vol. 14,no. 2, pp. 199-211.

Gibson, C.C. 1998, 'The distance learner in context', in Distance Learners inHigher Education: Institutional Responses for Quality Outcomes,ed. C.C. Gibson, Atwood, Madison, WI, pp. 113-25.

_____2000, 'The ultimate disorienting dilemma: The online learning community', inChanging University Teaching: Reflections on Creating EducationalTechnologies, eds T. Evans & D. Nation, Kogan Page, London, pp. 133-6.

Gunawardena, C.N. 1992, 'Changing faculty roles for audiographics and onlineteaching', The American Journal of Distance Education, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 58-71.

Hara, N. & Kling, R. 1999, 'Students' frustrations with a Web-based distanceeducation course', First Monday, vol. 4, no. 12 [Online]. Available:<http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue4_12/hara/index.html> 1999 (Accessed1 May 1999).

Harasim L., Hiltz, S.R., Teles, L. & Turoff, M. 1995, Learning Networks: A FieldGuide to Teaching and Learning Online, Massachusetts Institute ofTechnology, Cambridge.

Harvey, D.M. & Lee, J. 2001, 'The impact of inherent instructional design inonline courseware', Quarterly Review of Distance Education, vol. 2, no. 1,pp. 35-48.

Haythornthwaite, C, Kazmer, M.M., Robins, J. & Shoemaker, S. 2000,'Community development among distance learners: Temporal andtechnological dimensions', Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication,vol. 6, no. 1 [Online]. Available: <http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol6/issuel/haythornthwaite.html> (Accessed 30 June 2001).

Hill, J.R 2001, 'Building community in Web-based learning environments:Strategies and techniques', paper presented at AusWebOl Seventh AustralianWorld Wide Web Conference, Southern Cross University, Lismore, Australia[Online]. Available: <http://ausweb.scu.edu.au/aw01/papers/refereed/hill/paper.html> (Accessed 15 June 2001).

Hill, J.R. & Hannafin, M.J. 1997, 'Cognitive strategies and learning from theWorld Wide Web', Educational Technology Research and Development,vol. 45, no. 4, pp. 37-64.

Hillman, D.C.A., Willis, D.J. & Gunawardena, C.N. 1994, 'Learner-interfaceinteraction in distance education: An extension of contemporary models andstrategies for practitioners', The American Journal of Distance Education,vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 30-12.

Hiltz, S.R. 1994, The Virtual Classroom: Learning Without Limits via ComputerNetworks, Ablex, Norwood, NJ.

Hung, D.W.L. & Chen, D.T. 2001, 'Situated cognition, Vygotskian thought andlearning from the communities of practice perspective: Implications for thedesign of Web-based e-learning', Educational Media International, vol. 38,no. 1, pp. 3-12.

302

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

05:

34 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 21: Using Web tools, collaborating, and learning online

Karen L. Murphy and Lauren Cifuentes

Institute for Higher Education Policy, 'What's The Difference? A Review ofContemporary Research on the Effectiveness of Distance Learning in HigherEducation, Report commissioned by the American Federation of Teachers andthe National Education Association, Washington, DC [Online]. Available:<http://www.ihep.com> April 1999 (Accessed 7 May 2001).

Jonassen, D. 1999, 'Designing constructivist learning environments', inInstructional Design Theories and Models: A New Paradigm of InstructionalTheory (Vol. II), (ed.) C.M. Reigeluth, Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 215-39.

Kearsley, G. 2000, Online Education: Learning and Teaching in Cyberspace,Wadsworth/Thomson Learning, Belmont, CA.

Khan, B. (ed.) 1997, Web-based Instruction, Educational Technology,Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Kimball, L. 1995, 'Ten ways to make online learning groups work', EducationalLeadership, vol. 53, no. 2 [Online]. Available: <http://www.tmn.com/~lisa/10ways.html> (Accessed 9 August 2000).

Koble, M.A. & Bunker, E.L. 1997, 'Trends in research and practice: Anexamination of The American Journal of Distance Education 1987 to 1995',The American Journal of Distance Education, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 19-38.

Krueger, R.A. 1994, Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research,2nd edn, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Land, S.M. & Greene, B.A. 2000, 'Project-based learning with the World WideWeb: A qualitative study of resource integration', Educational TechnologyResearch and Development, vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 45-68.

Laurillard, D. 1993, Rethinking University Teaching: A Framework for theEffective Use of Educational Technology, Routledge, London.

Lave, J. & Wenger, E. 1991, Situated Learning: Legitimate PeripheralParticipation, Cambridge University, Cambridge, UK.

Lebow, D. 1993, 'Constructivist values for instructional systems design: Fiveprinciples toward a new mindset', Educational Technology Research andDevelopment, vol. 41, no. 3, pp. 4-16.

Mclssac, M.S. & Gunawardena, C.N. 1996, 'Distance education', in Handbookof Research for Educational Communications and Technology,ed. D. Johnassen, Macmillan, New York, pp. 403-37.

Merriam, S.B. 1998, Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications inEducation, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.

Moore, M. 1993, 'Theory of transactional distance', in Theoretical Principles ofDistance Education, ed. D. Keegan, Routledge, New York, pp. 22-3.

Moore, M.G. 1998, 'Introduction', in Distance Learners in Higher Education:Institutional Responses for Quality Outcomes, ed. C.C. Gibson, Atwood,Madison, WI, pp. 1-7.

Murphy, K.L., Cifuentes, L. & Bonham, L.A. 1998, 'Balancing teacher-learnercontrol in computer conferencing' in Wired Together: The Online Classroomin K-12, Vol. III: Teacher Education and Professional Development, eds.Z.L. Berge & M.P. Collins, Hampton, Cresskill, NJ, pp. 61-9.

303

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

05:

34 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 22: Using Web tools, collaborating, and learning online

Distance Education Vol. 22 No. 2 2001

Murphy, K.L., Mahoney, S.E. & Harvell, T.J. July 2000, 'Role of contracts inenhancing community building in Web courses', Educational Technology &Society, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 409-21 [Online]. Available: <http://ifets.ieee.org/periodical/vol_3_2000/e03.html> (Accessed 1 August 2000).

Olgren, C.H. 1998, 'Improving learner outcomes: The effects of learningstrategies and motivation', in Distance Learners in Higher Education:Institutional Responses for Quality Outcomes, ed. C.C. Gibson, Atwood,Madison, WI, pp. 77-95.

Osterman, K.F. 2000, 'Students' need for belonging in the school community',Review of Educational Research, vol. 7, no.3, pp. 323-67.

Owston, R.D. 1997, 'The World Wide Web: A technology to enhance teachingand learning?', Educational Researcher, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 27-33.

Palloff, R. & Pratt, K. 1999, Building Learning Communities in Cyberspace:Effective Strategies for the Online Classroom, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.

Perkins, D.N. 1992, 'What constructivism demands of the learner', inConstructivism and the Technology of Instruction eds. T.M. Duffy & D.H.Jonassen, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 161-66.

Riel, M. 1998, 'Foreword: Conceptual order and collaborative tools -- Creatingintellectual identity', in Electronic Collaborators: Learner-CenteredTechnologies for Literacy, Apprenticeship, and Discourse, eds. C.J. Bonk &K.S. King, Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp. xvii-xx.

Rogers, D. & Swan, K. 2001, 'An investigation of components in Corno andMandinach's self-regulated learning model applied to Internet navigation',paper presented at the Annual Convention of the American EducationalResearch Association, Seattle.

Romiszowski, A.J. 1997, 'Web-based distance learning and teaching:Revolutionary invention or reaction to necessity?', in Web-based Instruction,ed. B.H. Khan, Educational Technology, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, pp. 25-37.

Romiszowski, A.J. & Mason, R. 1996, 'Computer-mediated communication', inThe Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology,ed. D.H. Jonassen, Simon & Schuster Macmillan, New York, pp. 438-56.

Saba, E, Dichotomies in distance education, Distance-Educator.com [Online].Available: <http://www.distance-educator.com/de_ezine/article.php?sid=102>2001 (Accessed 8 July 2001).

Slavin, R E. 1994, Cooperative Learning: Theory, Research and Practice, Allyn& Bacon, Boston.

Slee, E.J., & Pusch, R.S. 1997, 'Structural communication: A tactical paradigmfor implementing principles from constructivism and cognitive theory', inInstructional Design Theories and Models: A New Paradigm of InstructionalTheory (Vol. II), ed. C.M. Reigeluth, Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 633-48.

Stratfold, M. 2000, 'Promoting learner dialogues on the Web', in The KnowledgeWeb: Learning and Collaborating on the Net, eds M. Eisenstadt & T. Vincent,Kogan Page, London, pp. 119-34.

304

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

05:

34 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 23: Using Web tools, collaborating, and learning online

Karen L. Murphy and Lauren Cifuentes

Thompson, M.M. 1998, 'Distance learners in higher education', in DistanceLearners in Higher Education: Institutional Responses for Quality Outcomes,ed. C.C. Gibson, Atwood, Madison, WI, pp. 9-24.

Vrasidas, C. & Mclsaac, M.S. 1999, 'Factors influencing interaction in an onlinecourse', The American Journal of Distance Education, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 22-36.

Vygotsky, L.S. 1978, Mind in Society: The Development of Higher PsychologicalProcesses, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.

Wang, A.Y. & Newlin, M.H. 2000, 'Characteristics of students who enroll andsucceed in psychology web-based classes', Journal of EducationalPsychology, vol. 92, no. 1, pp. 137-43.

Web-Based Education Commission, 'The power of the Internet for learning:Moving from promise to practice', Report of the Web-Based EducationCommission to the President and the Congress of the United States,Washington, DC [Online]. Available: <http://www.ed.gov/offices/ACAVBEC/FinalReport/>, December 2000 (Accessed 2 May 2001).

Wegerif, R. 1998, 'The social dimension of asynchronous learning networks',Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, vol. 2, no. 1 [Online].Available: <http://www.aln.org/alnweb/journal/vol2_issuel/wegerif.htm>(Accessed 1 July 1999).

Windschitl, M. 1998, 'The WWW and classroom research: What path should wetake?', Educational Researcher, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 28-33.

Karen L. Murphy is Associate Professor. Address: Department of EducationalPsychology, College of Education, Texas A & M University, College Station.<kmurphy @ tamu.edu>

Lauren Cifuentes is Assistant Professor. Address: Department of EducationalPsychology, College of Education, Texas A & M University, College Station.<laurenc@ tamu.edu >

305

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

05:

34 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014