Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Context-oriented communication and the design of computer-supported discursive learning

  • Published:
International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Computer-supported discursive learning (CSDL) systems for the support of asynchronous discursive learning need to fulfil specific socio-technical conditions. To understand these conditions, we employed design experiments combining aspects of communication theory, empirical findings, and continuous improvement of the investigated prototypes. Our theoretical perspective starts with a context-oriented model of communication which is—as a result of the experiments—extended by including the role of a third-party such as a facilitator. The theory-driven initial design requirements lead to the CSCL-prototype, KOLUMBUS, emphasizing the role of annotations. In KOLUMBUS, annotations can be immediately embedded in their context of learning material. Practical experience with the prototype in five cases reveals possibilities for implementing improvements and observing their impact. On this basis, we provide guidelines for the design of CSDL systems that focus on the support of asynchronous discursive learning.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

Notes

  1. The modelling notation which is used in Fig. 1 and in the other diagrams in this paper is explained in (Herrmann 2006). The white semi-circles in Fig. 1 indicate that an activity may include more sub-activities than are depicted in the diagram.

  2. By this distinction between communicative and extra-communicative we disagree with Watzlawick et al. (1967) who take as an axiom that one could not non-communicate. This might be helpful to explain pathological behavior where people cannot differentiate between whether an act of behavior is meant as communication or not. However, it is not helpful for the design of collaborative learning environments in which participants usually have to decide—and are able to do so—whether a contribution is meant as an act of communication (such as an email message) or is mainly an interaction with the system which contributes to collaborative task completion (e.g., the act of adding an attachment to an email).

  3. KOLUMBUS has gone through several cycles of improvement—further information can be found under http://www.imtm-iaw.rub.de/projekte/k2/index.html.

References

  • Ackerman, M. S., & Halverson, C. (2004). Sharing expertise: The next step for knowledge management. In V. Wulf, & M. Huysman (Eds.), Social capital and information technology (pp. 273–304). Cambridge: MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, T. (2004). Towards a theory of online learning. In T. Anderson, T. Elloumi, F. (Eds.), Theory and practice of online learning (pp. 33–60). Retrieved February 12, 2008, from http://auspace.athabascau.ca:8080/dspace/handle/2149/757.

  • Armitt, G., Slack, F., Green, S., & Beer, M. (2002). The development of deep learning during a synchronous collaborative on-line course. In G. Stahl (Ed.), Computer support for collaborative learning: Foundations for a CSCL community. Proceedings of CSCL 2002. Boulder, CO, USA. (pp. 151–159). Mahwah, NJ: LEA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arnseth, H. C., & Ludvigsen, S. (2006). Approaching institutional contexts: Systemic versus dialogic research in CSCL. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(2), 167–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barab, S. A., & Squire, K. (2004). Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernheim Brush, A. J., Bargeron, D., Grudin, J., Borning, A., & Gupta, A. (2002). Supporting interactions outside of class: Anchored discussions vs. discussion boards. In G. Stahl (Ed.), Computer support for collaborative learning: Foundations for a CSCL community. Proceedings of CSCL 2002. Boulder, CO, USA. (pp. 425–434). Mahwah, NJ: LEA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2, 137–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, H. H., & Brennan, S. E. (1991). Grounding in Communication. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 127–149). Washington, DC.: American Psychological Association.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Management Science, 32(5), 554–571.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, J., & Huttenlocher, D. (1995). Shared annotation for cooperative learning. In J. L. Schnase & E. L. Cunnius (Eds.), Proceedings of the first international conference on computer support for collaborative learning. Proceedings of CSCL 1995. Bloomington, IN, USA. (pp. 84–88). Mahwah, NJ: LEA.

  • Dennis, A. R., & Valacich, J. S. (1999). Rethinking media richness: Towards a theory of media synchronicity. In: Proceedings of the 32nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

  • Dourish, P., & Belotti, V. (1992). Awareness and coordination in shared workspaces. New York, NY, USA: ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ducrot, O., & Todorov, T. (1987). Encyclopedic dictionary of the sciences of language. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • El-Shinnawy, M., & Markus, M. L. (1997). The poverty of media richness theory: Explaining people’s choice of electronic mail vs. voice mail. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies, 46(4), 443–467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Enyedy, N., & Hoadley, C. M. (2006). From dialogue to monologue and back: Middle spaces in computer-mediated learning. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(4), 413–439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerson, E. M., & Star, S. L. (1986). Analyzing due process in the workplace. ACM Transactions on Office Information Systems, 4(3), 255–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guzdial, M., & Turns, J. (2000). Effective discussion through a computer-mediated anchored forum. Journal of the Learning Science, 9(4), 437–470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herrmann, T. (1993). Loss of situative context and its relevance for computer mediated communication and cooperation. In A. Clement, et al. (Ed.), NetWORKing: Connecting workers in and between organizations (pp. 87–96). Amsterdam: North Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herrmann, T. (2003). Learning and teaching in Socio-technical environments. In T. J. Van Wert, & R. K. Munro (Eds.), Informatics and the digital society. Social, ethical and cognitive issues (pp. 59–72). Boston: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herrmann, T. (2006). SeeMe in a nutshell. Retrieved from http://www.imtm-iaw.rub.de/imperia/md/content/seeme/seeme_in_a_nutshell.pdf.

  • Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2002). Collaborative ways of knowing: Issues in facilitation. In G. Stahl (Ed.), Computer support for collaborative learning: Foundations for a CSCL community. Proceedings of CSCL 2002. Boulder, CO, USA. (pp. 199–208). Mahwah, NJ: LEA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kienle, A. (2006). Integration of knowledge management and collaborative learning by technical supported communication processes. Education and Information Technologies, 11(2), 161–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kienle, A. (2007). Designing asynchronous communication support for collaborative learning. In P. Isaias, M. B. Nunes, & J. Barroso (Eds.), Proceedings of the IADIS International Conference WWW/Internet vol. 2 (pp. 44–49). Spain: IADIS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kienle, A., & Herrmann, Th. (2004). Collaborative learning at the workplace by technical support of communication and negotiation. In: H. H. Adelsberger et al. (Eds.), Multikonferenz Wirtschaftsinformatik (MKWI) 2004, Band 1. Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 43–57.

  • Kienle, A., & Ritterskamp, C. (2007). Facilitating asynchronous discussions in learning communities—The impact of moderation strategies. International Journal on Behavior and Information Technology, 26(1), 73–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kobbe, L., Weinberger, A., Dillenbourg, P., Harrer, A., Hämäläinen, R., Häkkinen, P., et al. (2007). Specifying computer-supported collaboration scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(2–3), 211–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lakalla, M., Ilomäki, L., Lallimo, J., & Hakkarainen, K. (2002). Virtual communication in middle students’ and teachers’ inquiry. In G. Stahl (Ed.), Computer support for collaborative learning: Foundations for a CSCL community. Proceedings of CSCL 2002. Boulder, CO, USA. (pp. 443–452). Mahwah, NJ: LEA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Littlejohn, S. (1999). Theories of human communication (6th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ludvigsen, S., & Morch, A. (2003). Categorisation in knowledge building. In B. Wasson, S. Ludvigsen, & U. Hoppe (Eds.), Designing for change in networked learning environments. Proceedings of the CSCL 2003 (pp. 67–76). Amsterdam: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann, N. (1995). Social systems. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maturana, H., & Varela, F. (1998). The tree of knowledge. The biological roots of human understanding. Boston: Shambhala Revised edition.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy, J. C., & Monk, A. F. (1994). Channels, conversation, cooperation and relevance: all you wanted to know about communication but were afraid to ask. In: Collaborative Computing I ( pp. 35–60). London: Chapman & Hall.

  • Mercer, N., & Wegerif, R. (1999). Is ‘exploratory talk’ productive talk? In K. Littleton, & P. Light (Eds.), Learning with computers. Analysing productive interaction (pp. 79–101). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., & Lamon, M. (1994). The CSILE project: Trying to bring the classroom into world 3. In: McGilly, K. (Ed.) Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice. Cambridge: MIT Press (pp. 201–228).

  • Shannon, C. E., & Weaver, W. (1949). The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana, IL: The University of Illinois.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stahl, G. (2000). Collaborative information environments to support knowledge construction by communities. AI & Society, 14(1), 71–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stahl, G. (2002). Contributions to a theoretical framework on CSCL. In G. Stahl (Ed.), Computer support for collaborative learning: Foundations for a CSCL community. Proceedings of CSCL 2002. Boulder, CO, USA. (pp. 62–71). Mahwah, NJ: LEA.

  • Stahl, G., Herrmann, T. (1999). Intertwining perspectives and negotiation. In Proceedings of the International ACM SIGGROUP Conference on Supporting Group Work (Group ‘99: November 14–17, 1999) Phoenix, Arizona, USA. New York: ACM Press, pp. 316–325.

  • Suthers, D. D. (2006). Technology affordances for intersubjective meaning making: A research agenda for CSCL. International Journal on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(3), 315–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ungeheuer, G. (1982). Vor-Urteile über Sprechen, Mitteilen, Verstehen. In G. Ungeheuer (Ed.), KommunikationstheoretischeSchriften1. (pp. 229–338). Aachen, Germany: Rader.

  • van der Pol, J., Admiraal, W., & Simons, P. R. J. (2006). The affordance of anchored discussion for the collaborative processing of academic texts. International Journal on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning(1), 339–357.

  • von Glasersfeld, E. (1995). Radical constructivism: A way of knowing and learning. London: Falmer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J. H., & Jackson, D. D. (1967). Pragmatics of human communication: Study of interactional patterns, pathologies and paradoxes. New York: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, B. (1999). The dangers of theory-based design. ITFORUM, Paper #31. Retrieved February 12, 2008, from http://it.coe.uga.edu/itforum/paper31/paper31.html.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Applied Work Science, Ruhr University of Bochum, Universitätsstraße 150, 44780, Bochum, Germany

    Thomas Herrmann

  2. Fraunhofer IPSI, Julius-Reiber Straße-15 a, 64293, Darmstadt, Germany

    Andrea Kienle

Authors
  1. Thomas Herrmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Andrea Kienle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrea Kienle.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Herrmann, T., Kienle, A. Context-oriented communication and the design of computer-supported discursive learning. Computer Supported Learning 3, 273–299 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-008-9045-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-008-9045-5

Keywords