Collaboration Issues in Small, Distributed Groups Caroline Haythornthwaite, Graduate School of Library and Information Science, University of Illinois at Urbana Champaigne Reuven Aviv, Department of Computer Science, Open University of Israel Position Paper Prepared For Sloan-C, Victoria BC, July 2005 (June 3, 2005) “ALN is a network of people - an interactive learning community that is not limited by time, place or the constraints of a classroom” (Mayadas, 1997). This paper addresses collaboration attributes in small, distributed groups. The emphasis is on the purposes and enactment of collaboration in online learning settings. Like Garrison (2005), the assumption is that “the goal of the collaboration is to create a community of inquiry where students are fully engaged in collaboratively constructing meaningful and worthwhile knowledge.” However, within that range, we highlight here that there are attributes of collaboration that can affect the expression of the engagement in knowledge creation, and thus the eventual achievement of a community of inquiry. In identifying these attributes, we draw on research and theory about collaborative learning, computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL), knowledge construction, group learning, scientific and interdisciplinary collaboration, and computer-mediated communication. In the appendix, we present a “laundry list” of attributes that affect collaboration, a list we will add to as discussion of this topic progresses. We identify these issues from considering the full context of online learning environments, including learning and knowledge creation, group learning, development and maintenance processes,1 and computer-mediated communication, and the presentation of these issues in online learning environments (e.g., Aviv, 2000; Gunawardena, Low & Anderson, 1997; Haythornthwaite & Kazmer, 2004; Haythornthwaite, Kazmer, Robins & Shoemaker, 2000; Hiltz 1998). For now, we have taken our laundry list and synthesized from it a number of major issues that affect how we launch and maintain collaborative processes. The issues highlight different interpretations and, hence, implementations, of what we mean by collaboration, and what it takes to create, sustain, and evaluate collaboration. They highlight the “invisible work” (Star & Strauss, 1999) of group collaboration that surrounds collaborative learning. The issues identified so far are: •

Understanding the variety of purposes of communication that may exist in online learning environments, and their scope in time and content.

•

Identifying the collaborative behavior model that is desired 1

•

Identifying the model of information and knowledge sharing that is desired

•

Identifying the type of learning scenario that best supports the desired collaboration and learning outcomes

•

Recognizing, evaluating and rewarding collaborative behavior

•

Identifying where responsibility lies for initating and modeling collaborative communication practices and establishing information and communication technology infrastructures

•

Initiating students into collaborative, computer-mediated learning practices, and addressing their concerns about these practices

These major issues are the focus of this paper. The following sections discuss issues related to the (1) reasons for collaboration, (2) meaning(s) of collaboration, (3) models of collaboration, and (4) role and impact computer-mediated communication. A summary is presented in Section 5, and the “laundry list” of attributes of collaboration follows in the Appendix.

1. Collaboration: Why, who, how much and how long? To understand how to address collaboration, we need to consider the reasons we collaborate. Is it because, as social creatures, we gain increased quality of life by engaging in collaborative efforts, or is because we really do gain benefits from collaborative action (Argyle, 1991). If we do gain benefits, what are they? If not, is it reason enough that collaboration will satisfy our craving for crave social interaction? The underlying assumption for why educators want to pursue collaboration among learners is that collaborative learning holds the promise of active construction of knowledge, enhanced problem articulation, and benefits in exploring and sharing information and knowledge gained from peer-to-peer communication (Bruffee, 1993; Dede, 1990; Koschmann, 1996; Harasim, Hiltz, Teles & Turoff, 1995). Collaboration also models what is felt to be the way work unfolds outside classrooms, and thus emulates future workplace practices, including project and group management. Collaboration can also address needs for social interaction; talking and communicating with others can help individuals feel part of a community, and thus provide a set of others to reach out to for social support in times of need (Haythornthwaite, Kazmer, Robins & Shoemaker, 2000). Such interaction can increase feelings of belonging to a class, commitment to group goals, and trust among group members (McGrath, 1984). Thus, in general, collaborative group interaction in educational settings is seen as promoting these positive outcomes: •

active learning (following constructivist learning theory, Jonassen, 1994) 2

•

co-construction of knowledge (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1996)

•

emulation of expected future workplace requirements

•

social interaction and a learning community (Hiltz, 1998; Renninger & Shumar, 2002; Riel & Polin, 2004) These are noble goals indeed, but how what are the limits to collaborative activity?

Where are the caveats in the implemenation of collaboration? First, with all the positive potential outcomes from successful information and knowledge sharing expected from an optimal collaboration, it is easy to forget that such peer-to-peer exchange depends on time, effort, and trust among peers. Sharing may not occur when there is competition for scarce resources, where knowledge is power, or where time is so short that engagement with peers is outside the bounds of possibility. Few consider that there might be too much sharing, and thus too much of a load on individuals placed in a collaborative context. For example in the Graduate School of Library Science LEEP program at the University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign, the required class for the degree program, which is typically taught online in two sections of approximately 35 students, generates around 3500 messages per section, and thus approximately 7000 messages for the instructor and teaching assistants to review (messages average about 1k in size). These numbers do not include chat messages or emails among class members, the count for other classes the students may be taking concurrently, or the assignment submissions. Nor do these numbers indicate attributes of overload associated with the number of threads to follow, the number of other people to keep track of, and the amount of non-course work that students are engaged in. Neither does this consider the load of activities happening to students who are “in class” while simultaneously immersed in non-classroom settings, e.g., at home or at work (see Kazmer & Haythornthwaite, 2001; Salaff, 2002). Sharing may also be too wide ranging, and too encompassing. The reduced cues of the CMC environment leads some to reveal more than they would face-to-face (Betsy Hearne, personal communication). More intimate details may be shared, putting a social and emotional burden on posters and others. Thus, “school” may not always be emotionally neutral. Others may use the forum as a way to gain social contact, and what they are sharing may not be related to the supposed purpose of the class. Added to this is the short-term nature of most collaborations in online learning settings. Individuals are thrown together in groups for short term outcomes such as directing a discussion, or completing an end-of-semester project. While collaborative learning does not require long term interaction to be useful and effective, building trust and an online community that promotes collaboration does. Overall, we may find that for short term attendees, task completion is at odds with the creation of the kind of environment that engenders collaboration (Haythornthwaite, 3

2002a). Thus, we must ask who is involved in the learning collaboration, for what reasons, and for how long?

2. What Do We Mean by Collaboration? Collaboration comes in various forms, from division of labor for completion of tasks, to creation of shared, co-constructed knowledge. When we set the stage for collaborative learning, what outcome do we expect in terms of how students interact? Are we content if they coordinate their activities, creating pieces separately for later assembly, or passing pieces from one person on to another (what Thompson, 1967, named as pooled, and sequential work processes). If so, then the task is to support coordinated activity, including division of labor, packaging of tasks, schedules and individual’s roles, with each contributor’s part identifiable and separable. Or, are we content only if they achieve collaboration, involving joint work on tasks, creation of shared definitions, and emergent outcomes where no single hand is visible in the final product? If so, then the task is to support communication, the sharing of data, and joint writing. This difference between coordinated and collaborative action is an important fundamental difference in goals, and thus also in social and technical support, and the evaluation of products such as assignments, quality of thought, etc. It is related to the purposes of promoting collaboration, i.e., whether we are modeling learning only, whether we are also modeling the commercial workplace where coordination may be more highly prized and rewarded than collaboration, or whether we are modeling some ideal of the academic workplace, where collaboration is the highly-prized, but elusive, goal.

3. Usage Models and Evaluation of Collaboration What model do we base collaboration on, and, indeed, are there extant models that fit what we now want to achieve? In brief, are we modeling our notions of collaboration on science with its multi-author collaboration, or on humanities where authors generally work alone. Is it a model based on academia, with (supposedly) open sharing of ideas, or on the workplace where proprietary ownership of ideas is more common. Do face-to-face classes provide a model to follow or are we venturing onto some new ground for new ways of teaching and learning? To address this, we may need to consider first what model of knowledge use we have in mind, i.e., are we looking for knowledge to be applied or constructed? Are learners expected to be applying what they know in order to accomplish a task, or does the task itself require coming to a shared and joint understanding, thereby creating knowledge? While the former may depend on good communication and information delivery, the latter requires the creation of a common language, a “third space” perhaps, where shared understanding can be created. As such, the latter adds complexity to the collaboraton process as well as to the technologies that are needed to support this kind of process. 4

The difference between these learning outcomes may be illustrated in what experts in the same field can do together versus novices or groups that cross disciplinary boundaries (Bransford, Brown & Cocking, 1999). Experts speak the same language, know how to break down tasks, and know how others in their field are likely to break down tasks, while novices must learn how and what to learn at the same time as engaging in collaboration. Experts crossing domains must become aware of and learn others language, procedures, and approaches – a process that takes time. Tensions between learning and getting the task done can adversely affect collaboration, as can failing to recognize the complexity and the extra time needed to learn, create common ground, and complete tasks (Haythornthwaite, Lunsford, Bowker & Bruce, forthcoming; Haythornthwaite, 2004). Similarly, stated or unstated differences around the meaning of terms, culture, and language can slow and/or inhibit collaborative activity (Flowers, 2003; Haythornthwaite, Lunsford, Kazmer, Robins & Nazarova, 2003). The issue of the design of the learning scenario also falls in this category. Learning scenarios range from complete flexible learning that is student controlled to highly structured learning that is controlled by the lecturer. There is anecdotal evidence that the latter provides higher levels of cognitive presence in the case of well-defined, collaborative project (Aviv 2003). One can argue, however, that this approach inhibits creativity. Other work has shown that instructor choice of learning scenarios can affect patterns of who talks to whom in classes. Classes that establish semester-long projects can reduce the collaborative network from that of the whole class to only members of the project group (Haythornthwaite, 2002a, 2002b). In large classes this may be a positive strategy for forming collaborative activity, but for smaller classes this may unnecessarily reduce the interaction that might occur. These attributes also have an impact on procedures for evaluating collaboration and reward. In the academic model of knowledge construction rewards are more in academic achievements and name recognition than money. Evaluation can be done by assessing outcomes (papers), content analysis (Gunawradena, 1997; Aviv 2000, 2004), and perceived learning (Wu, 2004; Swan, 2002). In the workplace model of knowledge application reward is in promotion or money rather than individual name recognition. Here the level of cooperation is very important, so evaluation can be done by participation analysis (Saltz 2004), and structural network analysis (Aviv 2005a, 2005b; Haythornthwaite, 2000, 2001, 2002b).

4. The Impacts of Computer-Mediated Communication We now add into collaboration considerations the use of computer media for communication and exchange among collaborators. Much has been written about how the reduced cues of computermediated communication (CMC) have a disinhibiting impact on communication behaviors (e.g.,

5

flaming), and change the way identity is (and can be) constructed and performed online. Much also has been written about whether or not CMC is a sufficiently rich mode of communication to sustain community and engender trust relations (for reviews of the way communication via computer-media differs from face-to-face communication and how this affects group and collaborative behaviors, see Haythornthwaite, Wellman & Garton, 1998; Herring, 2002; Smith, McLaughlin & Osborne, 1996; Spears, Lea & Postmes, 2001; Wellman et al, 1996.). Also important as interest grows in blended learning, with its combinations of on and offline components, is how online and offline communications complement each other, an area in need of more research particularly with respect to learning settings (for discussion of online/offline synergies, see Haythornthwaite & Wellman, 2002). Communication via computer-media, whether better or worse than face-to-face, comes with its own affordances and should be examined for what is different and thus what may enhance or impede collaborative activity in learning settings. A study of online learners, found that three “radicals of presentation” – visibility, speaker-audience relation, and co-presence with others – played out as key factors affecting students’ comfort and willingness to share information and contribute online (Bregman & Haythornthwaite, 2003; Haythornthwaite & Bregman, 2004). Visibility became an issue because students feared exposure of their prose before they had learned how to “talk” online. Their class conversations had become “persistent conversations” (Erickson, 1999; see also work of Susan Herring), making their process of learning to use the technology to communicate both visible and permanent. Students were also concerned about being co-present with other students or the instructor. It is important for many to feel a connection, to experience the immediacy of a chat room or live class, and to engage in interactive communication (for more on interactivity and CMC, see the work by Sheizaf Rafaeli, e.g., Rafaeli & Sudweeks, 1997). Synchronous components had great importance in sustaining individuals’ attention and attachment to group and community (Haythornthwaite, Kazmer, Robins & Shoemaker, 2000). These attributes are not technical, but instead reflect the way technology choices combine with social attitudes to create barriers that have to be overcome by individual students. One point to make here is that there may be no set of communication “rules” to hand to newcomers. Groups may need to develop their own communication styles and practices, coconstructing ways of writing, posting, and conversing online for their particular time and place (in a process of social construction, or “adaptive structuration”; DeSanctis & Poole, 1994). Where this is the case, the responsibility lies with the communicators to establish communication conventions. Students also consider who will see the post, i.e., who is the audience: the whole class, a subset of class members or an individual, friends or strangers. Also important is how well 6

audience members know each other. Their communication practices create different channels of communication for different kinds of interpersonal ties (close friends will use email and chat whispering, and close friends may be the source of different kinds of information than others). The differential use of channels to communicate with class acquaintances versus good friends means that those who do not have a close interpersonal tie must depend on the class-mandated media for all their interaction. In all cases, however they tend to reciprocate their query response relations (Aviv 2005b) which results in question and answer communications with a central responder. Designing an environment that promotes social presence has been shown to lead to group cohesiveness and high level critical thinking (Aviv 2003; Aviv 2005a; Polhemus 2001; Swan 2001). Similarly, Turoff (2004) found that a Delphi like approach is useful in promoting class wide collaboration (Turoff, 2004). It was also found (Aviv 2004, 2005b) that efficiency consideration of students’ hunt for knowledge decreases their tendencies to collaborate via broadcast forums, but strong team design provides peer pressure which can overcome that tendency. These findings indicates the importance of teaching presence: responsibility lies with the organizers of the class to choose the right social and technical connection for effective class interaction and collaboration. Furthermore, the social and technical connection lays the groundwork for “latent ties” – ties that are technically available, yet not activated socially (for more on latent tie theory see Haythornthwaite, 2002a, 2002b).

5. Summary: Major Issues for Collaborative Learning To reiterate, we have identified from research and theory on learning, groups, collaboration, and computer-mediated communication, many kinds of issues that affect the form and purpose of collaborative activity. Overall, we find the major issues for collaboration in small groups seeking to enact the benefits of a community of inquiry to be to determine: •

the purpose of the collaboration and its scope in time and content

•

the collaborative behavior model (e.g., coordinated or pooled)

•

the model of knowledge use (e.g., applied or co-constructed)

•

the type of learning scenario (e.g., defined or open, student or instructor determined)

•

how to recognize, evaluate, and reward collaborative behavior

•

responsibility for collaborative communication practices and technology infrastructures

•

students concerns about media use, and how these vary over the stages of the collaboration

7

References Argote, L. Gruenfeld, D. & Naquin, C. (2001). Group learning in organizations. In M.E.Turner, Groups at work: Theory and research (pp. 369-411). Lawrence Erlbaum: Mahwah, N.J. Argyle, M. (1991). Cooperation in working groups. In Cooperation: The basis of sociability (pp. 115-131) London: Rutledge. Aviv, R. (2000). Educational performance of ALN via content analysis. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 4(2), 53-72. Aviv, R., Erlich, Z. & Ravid G. (forthcoming, 2005a). Response neighborhoods in online learning networks: A quantitative analysis, Educational Technology & Society, 8(4). Aviv, R., Erlich, Z. & Ravid, G. (2004) Mechanisms and architectures of online learning communities. In Kinshuk, L.C., Sutinen, E., Sampson, D., Aedo, I., Uden, L., & Kahekonen E. (Eds.), The 4th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT) (pp. 400-404), IEEE: Joensuu, Finland. Aviv, R., Erlich, Z. & Ravid, G. (forthcoming, 2005b). Reciprocity analysis of online learning networks. In J.C. Moore (Ed.), Elements of quality online education: Engaging communities, wisdom from the sloan consortium (Vol. 2 in the Wisdom Series). Needham, MA: Sloan-C. Aviv, R., Erlich, Z., Ravid, G., & Geva, A. (2003). Network analysis of knowledge construction in asynchronous learning networks. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7 (3), 1-23 Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L. & Cocking, R. R. (1999) (Eds.). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. National Academy Press: Washington, DC. Available online at: http://www.nap.edu/html/howpeople1/ Bregman, A. & Haythornthwaite, C. (2003). Radicals of presentation: Visibility, relation, and copresence in persistent conversation. New Media and Society, 5(1), 117-140. Bruffee, K. A. (1993). Collaborative Learning: Higher Education, Interdependence, and the Authority of Knowledge. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press. Chidambaram, L. & Bostrom, R. P. (1997). Group development (I): A review and synthesis of developmental models. Group Decision and Negotiation, 6 (2), 159-187. Cook, S.D.N, & Brown, J.S. (1999). Bridging epistemologies: The generative dance between organizational knowledge and organizational knowing. Organization Science, 10(4), 381400. Dede, C. J. (1990). The evolution of distance learning: Technology-Mediated interactive learning. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 22(3), 247-264. DeSanctis, G. and Poole, M.S. (1994). Capturing the complexity in advanced technology use: Adaptive structuration theory. Organization Science, 5(2), 121-47. Erickson, T. (1999). Persistent conversation: An introduction. JCMC, 4(4). available at: http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol4/issue4/ericksonintro.html 8

Flowers, L. (2003). Talking across difference: Intercultural rhetoric and the search for situated knowledge. College Composition and Communication, 55(1), 38-68. Garrison, D. R., (2005). Learning Collaboration Principles. Sloan-C Summer Workshop, Victoria, BC, Canada. Gunawardena, C. N. & Zittle, F., (1997). Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within a computer mediated conferencing environment. American Journal of Distance Education, 11, 8-26. Gunawardena, C. N., Low, C. A. & Anderson, T. A. (1997). Analysis of global online debate and the development of an interaction analysis model for examining social construction of knowledge in computer conferencing. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 17(4), 397-431. Harasim, L., Hiltz, S. R., Teles, L., & Turoff, M. (1995). Learning networks: A Field guide to teaching and learning online. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Haythornthwaite, C. (2000). Online personal networks: Size, composition and media use among distance learners. New Media and Society, 2(2), 195-226. Haythornthwaite, C. (2001). Exploring multiplexity: Social network structures in a computersupported distance learning class. The Information Society, 17(3), 211-226. Haythornthwaite, C. (2002a). Building social networks via computer networks: Creating and sustaining distributed learning communities. In K.A. Renninger & W. Shumar, Building virtual communities: Learning and change in cyberspace (pp.159-190). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Haythornthwaite, C. (2002b). Strong, weak and latent ties and the impact of new media. The Information Society, 18(5), 385 - 401. Haythornthwaite, C. (May 2004). Communicating knowledge: Articulating divides in distributed knowledge practice. International Communication Assoc., New Orleans, LA. Haythornthwaite, C. & Bregman, A. (May, 2001). Getting new users active in shared spaces, or, the unintended writing consequences of Internet-based distance learning. Presented at the Computers and Writing Conference, Muncie, IN. Haythornthwaite, C., Kazmer, M.M., Robins, J. & Shoemaker, S. (2000). Community development among distance learners: Temporal and technological dimensions. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 6(1). http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol6/issue1/haythornthwaite.html Haythornthwaite, C., Lunsford, K.J., Bowker, G. C., & Bruce, B. (forthcoming). Challenges for research and practice in distributed, interdisciplinary, collaboration. To appear in C. Hine, (Ed.), New infrastructures for science knowledge production. Hershey, PA: Idea Group. [Working paper available http://www.lis.uiuc.edu/~haythorn/hay_challenges.html] 9

Haythornthwaite, C., Lunsford, K.J., Kazmer, M.M., Robins, J. & Nazarova, M. (2003). The generative dance in pursuit of generative knowledge. Proceedings of the 36th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society. Haythornthwaite, C. & Wellman, B. (2002). Introduction: Internet in everyday life. In B. Wellman & C. Haythornthwaite (Eds.), The Internet in everyday life (pp. 3-44). Oxford, UK: Blackwells. Haythornthwaite, C., Wellman, B., & Garton, L. (1998). Work and community via computermediated communication. In J. Gackenbach (Ed.). Psychology and the Internet (pp.199-226). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Herring, S. C. (2002). Computer-mediated communication on the Internet. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 36, 109-168. Hiltz, S. R. (Nov., 1998). Collaborative learning in asynchronous learning networks: Building learning communities. “Web98” Orlando: Florida. Available online at: http://web.njit.edu/~hiltz/collaborative_learning_in_asynch.htm Jonassen, D. H., (1994). Thinking technology: Toward a constructivist design model. Educational Technology. 34(4), 34-37. Kazmer, M. M. & Haythornthwaite, C. (2001). Juggling multiple social worlds: Distance students on and offline. American Behavioral Scientist, 45(3), 510-529. Kazmer, M.M. (forthcoming). Beyond C U L8R: Disengaging from online social worlds. New Media and Society. Koschmann, T. (Ed.)(1996) CSCL: Theory and Practice of an Emerging Paradigm. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Mayadas, A. F. (1997). Asynchronous learning networks: A Sloan foundation perspective. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 1 (1). Available online at: http://www.sloanc.org/publications/jaln/v1n1/v1n1_mayadas.asp McGrath, J.E. (1984). Groups, interaction and performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall. McGrath, J.E. (1990) Time Matters in Groups. In J. Galegher, R.E. Kraut & C. Egido (Eds.), Intellectual Teamwork: Social and Technological Foundations of Cooperative Work (pp.2361). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Monge, P. R. & Contractor, N. S. (2003). Theories of communication networks. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Polhemous, L., Shih, L. F. and Swan, K., (2001). Virtual interactivity: The representation of social presence in an online discussion. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association.

10

Rafaeli, S. & Sudweeks, F. (1997). Networked interactivity. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 2(4). Available online at: http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol2/issue4/rafaeli.sudweeks.html Renninger, A. & Shumar, W. (Eds.) (2002). Building virtual communities: Learning and change in cyberspace. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Riel, M. & Polin, L. (2004). Online learning communities: Common ground and critical differences in designing technical environments. In S.A. Barab, R. Kling, & J.H. Gray (Eds.). Designing for virtual communities in the service of learning (pp. 16-50). Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press. Salaff, J. (2002).Where home is the office: The new form of flexible work. In B. Wellman & C. Haythornthwaite (Eds.), The Internet in everyday life (pp. 464-495). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Saltz, J.S., Hiltz, S.R., Turoff, M. & Passerini, K. (2004). Measuring student participation in a web-based environment: A framework for developing new tools. Proceedings of AMCIS, 2004. Scardamalia, M. & Bereiter, C. (1996). Computer support for knowledge-building communities. In T. Koschmann (Ed.) CSCL: Theory and practice of an emerging paradigm (pp.249-268). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Smith, C.B., McLaughlin, M.L., Osborne, K.K. (1996). From terminal ineptitude to virtual sociopathy: Conduct control on Usenet. JCMC, 2(4). Available at: http:/www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol2/issue4/smith.html. Spears, R., Lea, M., & Postmes, T. (2001). Social psychological theories of computer-mediated communication: Social pain or social gain? In W. P. Robinson & H. Giles (eds.) New handbook of language and social psychology (pp 601-623). Chichester: Wiley. Star, S.L. & Strauss, A. (1999). Layers of silence, arenas of voice: The ecology of visible and invisible work. CSCW, 8 (1-2), 9-30. Swan, K. (2001). Virtual interactivity: design factors affecting student satisfaction and perceived learning in asynchronous online courses. Distance Education 22, 306-331 Swan, K. (2002). Building Learning Communities in Online Courses: The importance of Interaction. Education, Communication and Information, 2 (1), 23-49. Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organizations in action. NY: McGraw-Hill Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63, 384-399. Tuckman, B. W., & Jensen, M. A. C. (1977). Stages of small-group development revisited. Group and Organizational Studies, 2, 419-427.

11

Turoff, M., Hiltz, S. R., Li, Z., Wang, Y., Cho, H., Yao, X. (2004). Online Collaborative learning enhancement through the delphi method. Proceedings of the OZCHI 2004 Conference, November 22-24, University of Wollongong, Australia. Wegner, D. (1987). Transactive memory: A contemporary analysis of the group mind. In B. Mullen & G. Goethals (Eds.), Theories of group behavior (pp. 185-208). New York: Springer-Verlag. Wellman, B., Salaff, J., Dimitrova, D., Garton, L., Gulia, M., & Haythornthwaite, C. (1996). Computer networks as social networks: Collaborative work, telework, and virtual community. Annual Review of Sociology, 22, 213-238. Wu, D. & Hiltz, S. R. (2004). Predicting learning from asynchronous online discussions. Journal Asynchronous Learning Networks, 8(2), 139- 152.

12

Appendix: A partial list of attributes impinging on collaboration in small, distributed groups Goals:

•

purpose - personal and group motivations for collaborating;

•

shared goals - are individual’s motivations aligned? Are goals and motivations known to others?

Static Group Attributes:

•

composition - educational or work based, hierarchical or egalitarian, homogeneous or heterogeneous membership, existing or created roles and hierarchy, single or multidisciplinary, single or multiple ethnicity;

•

setting - formal education, corporate learning, or lifelong learning.

Group Development Attributes:

•

bootstrapping online activity (Haythornthwaite & Bregman, 2001) – procedures of learning about group members, including transactive memory (aka “who knows what”; Monge & Contractor, 2003; Wegner, 1987; see also the work of Michael Moore in education, and the work of Moreland, Levine, Engestrom, Hutchins, Heath, Luff, and others re socially shared and distributed cognition)

•

time-span - time-limited versus ongoing, continuing activity

•

group development stages - forming, storming, norming, and adjourning (Tuckman, 1965; Tuckman & Jensen, 1977; see also Chidambaram & Bostrom, 1997; McGrath, 1984, 1990); members attachment - joining, maintaining presence, disengaging (Haythornthwaite, Kazmer, Robins & Shoemaker, 2000; Kazmer, forthcoming)

•

learning in and by groups (Argote, Gruenfeld & Naquin, 2001)

•

trust development – assumed or developed during learning

Models of Collaborative Behavior:

•

task design – structured or non structured

•

work development – according to established patterns and expectations or unknown (Haythornthwaite, 2004; Haythornthwaite, Lunsford, Bowker & Bruce, forthcoming) ; pooled or coordinated action (e.g., Thompson, 1967); work group or community formation and maintenance.

•

knowledge sharing needs - knowledge utilization or knowledge co-construction

Tools and Technologies:

•

communication – broadcast or email, synchronous or asynchronous, single or multichannel; public or private 13

•

instrumentation – surveys or automatic data collection

•

data sharing - reports, content; shared writing, notes, etc.

1

For more on group learning, see the review by Argote, Gruenfeld & Naquin, 2001; for group collaboration, see Argyle, 1991; for group development processes see the review by Chidambaram & Bostrom, 1997; for issues of group maintenance, see McGrath, 1984, 1990.

14