Theoretical Frameworks
This section discusses some of the research that forms the basis for our current practice on CMC.
Online conferences can be seen as evolving spaces, living organisms co-constructed by teachers and learners as they move through them (Turner, 2001). Burge (1995) uses the metaphor of 'weaving-loom'. The focus is on the creativity, multiplicity and growth characteristic of constructivist learning theory, which holds that there are many ways to structure the world, and many meanings or perspectives for any event or concept (Duffy and Jonassen: 1992).
In asynchronous CMC, thinking is done 'interactively and iteratively, as in cross-country skiing across the intellectual landscape' (Burge, op. cit. p.155). Mason (1991) suggests that the tutor should play an active role in scaffolding experiences for learners working in the medium by weaving together the main points and suggesting further directions of study. Weaving is thus an open ended and challenging intervention as opposed to the closed and final intervention of summarising.
The claim is that in conferencing, participants may learn as much from one another as from course material or from the tutor, through a process of offering up ideas and having them criticised or expanded. Knowledge construction occurs when participants explore issues, take positions, discuss their positions in an argumentative format and reflect on and re-evaluate their positions. (Jonassen, 1995).
Several models of interaction towards knowledge construction within CMC TBC (text-based conferencing) have been proposed. Gunawardena et al (1997) offer a five phase model of sharing and comparing information; discovery and exploration; negotiation of meaning and co-construction of knowledge; testing and revision of ideas, leading to awareness of newly constructed knowledge.
'If knowledge construction is the task, then the sharing of different perspectives through debate and dialogue is, within a social constructivist framework, a precondition for it but does not simply constitute it. Getting to the point of actually constructing new knowledge (new to individuals and maybe new in the public domain) requires skilled, sustained, purposive and directed analytic and creative conceptual communication practices' (Edwards, 2002).
At issue are the learning interactions afforded between the learner and the content materials, between learner and learner, and between learner and tutor. Interaction between learner(s) and the mediating technology should not be, but often is, a factor for concern. Also important, surely, is conceptual change - interaction 'within the learner' of ideas and understandings as an outcome of what she or he takes into a 'learning encounter'.
What fosters collaborative learning? On or off-line, an environment that supports the construction of 'shared understandings' (Crook 1997) and the development of individual conceptual change through group interaction. Also, I would say, time and space to reflect, to interact and to reflect again. Of key importance is mutual access to essential information and to a common record.
Psychological research in compulsory and post-compulsory education provides us with models of both the character and function of 'productive' communication within learning environments (Howe et al 1992, Howe et al 2000, McAteer et al 2000, 2002).
Socio cognitive conflict
This framework derives from the work of Piaget (1932), Vygotsky (1978) and their followers, since expanded via empirical research on interaction and learning (Azmitia & Perlmutter, 1989; Cazden, 1988; Howe, Tolmie, Duchak-Tanner, & Rattray, 2000) At its core are three basic processes: socio-cognitive conflict, expert guidance and social management.
Example: Piaget proposed that whilst learning was a matter of individual cognitive adaptation to the world, there might be an important role for discussion between peers. In particular, where there was disagreement over expectation or interpretation of some event, this would cause as much conceptual conflict as actually experiencing events that departed from expectation. In both instances, this conflict would provoke a process of reflection and conflict reduction. Children would attempt to find improved conceptualisations that accounted for the apparent discrepancies. In this way, learning would take place.
Subsequent work by Doise and Mugny (1984) suggested that this process of 're-equilibration' might not require post-event reflection. It could occur through joint attempts to construct new conceptualisations at the point of disagreement. More recent work indicates that both processes occur (Howe, Tolmie, Anderson & Mackenzie, 1992a; Howe, Tolmie & Rodgers, 1992b; Williams & Tolmie, 2000). Furthermore, factors such as age, familiarity with subject matter, friendship, etc are significant. Basically, the more familiar participants are with resolving conflict in given circumstances, the more likely they are to negotiate some improved agreement 'on the spot'.
Expert Guidance
According to Piaget, conflict and discussion of this productive kind can only occur among peers. When there is an imbalance of status, the less expert individual simply defers to the person with more expertise. Vygotsky (1978), however, proposed that under these circumstances, a different type of learning dialogue occurs within the zone of proximal development.
Vygotsky theorised that learners could perform at a higher level when working with more expert others who help direct activity. Learning thus occurs via the appropriation and internalisation of the 'moves' initially performed under guidance. Bruner (1985) and Wood (1986) suggest that this might take place through a process of scaffolding or contingent support and recent research confirms the existence and impact of this kind of 'tutor-ly' dialogue (Howe et al, 2000). These behaviours can equally be typical of learners, of course, particularly in adult on-line learning contexts such as those described in this work.
Social management
One further strand of behaviour in co-operative learning contexts, noted as important by socio-cultural, activity, and situated learning theorists (e.g. Crook, 1994; Leont'ev 1981, Engestrom, 1987; Wenger, 1998) relates to what might be called the 'social glue' of interaction. This includes strategies employed in managing and maintaining learning community activity. At the simplest level, this can be reduced to 'chairing' behaviour: interactional turns aimed at specifying what should happen when, and who is responsible for this. At a more sophisticated level, this might involve managing the process of uncovering and resolving conflicts, without provoking outright hostility.
These behaviours have been less researched than those relating to socio-cognitive conflict and expert guidance, but appear to be highly sensitive predictors of learning outcomes. For instance, overmuch routine chairing can lead to negative outcomes (Tolmie et al, 2000). At the more sophisticated level, interactions aimed at generating shared community views of activities, especially at an early stage, appear crucial to the success of collaborative outcomes (Lewis, 1997). There is good evidence to suggest context influences upon the incidence and effectiveness of these sorts of interaction, depending for example on subject discipline, the make-up of the learning community, or the nature of the communication medium in use.
