The Potential of Modern Telelearning Tools for Collaborative Learning

Larry Katz (University of Calgary)

Alireza Rezaei (University of Calgary)

Abstract: Recently, a variety of telelearning/teaching tools and Web-based course delivery systems have been developed. Most of these tools are reported to be useful in collaborative learning. However, in this paper it is argued that true collaboration in schools requires not only the technology, but also well-designed learning activities based on sound principles of collaborative learning. In this paper, theoretical foundations and the importance of collaborative learning are discussed, then three sophisticated telelearning tools and their potential for collaborative learning are presented. Finally, in view of the costs and the limitations of these tools, a Collaborative Electronic Learning model based on a three-year study at the University of Calgary is suggested as a more promising and more economic alternative.

Résumé: Récemment, une variété d'outils de téléapprentissage et de systèmes de livraison de cours sur le Web a été développée. La plupart de ces outils, dit-on, sont utiles pour l'apprentissage coopératif. Cet article, toutefois, soutient qu'une véritable collaboration dans les écoles requiert non seulement la technologie, mais aussi des activités d'apprentissage bien conçues qui se fondent sur des principes solides d'apprentissage coopératif. Cet article discute donc du fondement théorique et de l'importance de l'apprentissage coopératif, après quoi il présente trois outils de téléapprentissage sophistiqués et décrit leur potentiel pour l'apprentissage coopératif. Enfin, en vue des cou^ts et limites de ces outils, l'article propose un modèle de Collaborative Electronic Learning (Apprentissage coopératif électronique) basé sur une étude de trois ans menée au University of Calgary; il suggère que cette alternative est plus prometteuse et moins dispendieuse.

Introduction

According to some critics, distance education in the past was based on the assumption that knowledge is a set of facts, skills, and principles waiting to be delivered from the expert's mind to the learner's mind (Bruffe, 1993). This fundamental assumption about knowledge and learning has caused some of the computer-based instruction programs to fail. Presently, the same assumption is threatening telelearning approaches to education, and recently, educators have argued that students should no longer be merely the users of knowledge. By taking advantage of the Internet as an information source, students may develop, create, and enhance their own knowledge and skills, and share it with others.

In modern learning theories, the old assumptions have been modified to incorporate the belief that knowledge is constructed by the learners through collaboration with the teacher and the peer group (Bruffe, 1993). For example, the constructivist view has now become the most powerful driving force in science and mathematics education. According to personal constructivism, meaning cannot be transferred by means of words; it must be abstracted from individual experience (Glasersfeld, 1995). However, according to social constructivism, although students' thoughts and opinions are private, their concepts are public (Matthews, 1994). In contrast with the personal or cognitive constructivism, social constructivism focuses on the individual-in-social interaction.

The theoretical basis for this position is inspired in large measure by the work of Vygotsky (1986). Vygotsky asserted the significance of dialogue as a tool through which individuals collectively, or individually, could negotiate conceptual change. In his experiments, Vygotsky studied the difference between the child's reasoning when working independently and when working with an adult.

According to this view, students are able to try out their own ideas on other students and the instructor. The give-and-take of technical discussion sharpens critical thinking skills and helps students to overcome their misconceptions. Classes in which students participate in discussion force them to go beyond merely plugging numbers into formulas or memorizing terms (National Research Council, 1997).

On the other hand, the networked nature of the Internet allows traditionally isolated distance-education students to be brought into a community of communicating peers through the use of bulletin boards, chat areas, and shared workspaces. Furthermore, when students are encouraged to produce new knowledge and to share that knowledge publicly, they will be compelled to produce their best work.

Research has shown that technology by itself cannot improve instruction (Hestenes, Wells, & Swackhamer, 1992). However, technology can enhance the effectiveness of a good instructional design. Developing educational environments based on sound principles of learning, such as collaborative learning and knowledge building, is a primary concern of the new approaches to distance education.

Until now, there has been little research reported explaining available tools for telelearning and the nature of multisite collaboration. From a social constructive perspective, the central question about the role of computers is how do they fit into, alter, and support the collaboration between teachers and learners that carries the development of understanding in the classroom.

There are dozens of telelearning tools available for teaching and learning (see Appendix A). Therefore, teachers need some information about the effectiveness of these tools (programs) to be able to choose among different tools and methods. In this paper, the value of collaborative learning is discussed; then, three of the most sophisticated of these telelearning tools are evaluated based on their potential for collaboration. In view of the limitations and the costs of these tools, the Collaborative Electronic Learning (CEL) model is introduced as an alternative approach.

The value of collaborative learning

Collaborative learning is an instructional approach in which students work together in small or large groups to accomplish a common learning goal or a well-defined learning task. Although collaborative learning does involve students working in small groups and sharing materials, it is much more than that. It involves face-to-face interaction by all students, heterogeneous teams, structured goal interdependence, individual accountability, and an emphasis on practising social and communicational skills. In her work with a variety of students in small groups at the computer, Anderson (1989, as cited in Sharon, 1994) found that putting children together to work at the computer is not enough. They need to feel a commitment and concern for others in their group. When responsible for their own and each other's learning, they learn to understand each other as well as master academic content. Working together with the emphasis on teamwork makes the experience a positive one.

Educational research tells us that students who become involved with what they study learn more than do those who passively receive information. There is wide agreement among reviewers of the collaborative learning literature that collaborative methods have a positive effect on student achievement in almost any discipline (Brandt & Ellsworth, 1996; Lee, 1995; Totten, Sills, Digby, & Russ, 1994).

Collaborative learning procedures have proven to be more effective than traditional instructional methods for a student's learning and academic achievement process (Leung & Chung, 1997). Collaborative learning procedures have also been shown to enhance student satisfaction with the learning and classroom experience (Groccia & Miller, 1996). Current research on collaborative learning methods indicates that when designed and used correctly, collaborative learning leads to positive effects in such areas as social-cognitive behaviours, higher order thinking, interdependence, autonomy, and creativity (Mevarech & Light, 1992).

The importance of collaborative learning is rooted in its potential for meaningful learning and social interaction. Various theorists, from Vygotsky (1986), to the situated learning theorists (Lave & Wenger, 1991), to the current social constructive theorists (Geelan, 1997), have stressed the importance of social interaction in learning. Vygotsky proposed that learning occurs in a social or interpsychological context prior to its becoming internalized or individualized within an intrapsychological category (Vygotsky, 1986). Using the work of Vygotsky as a framework, Neil Mercer & Eunice Fisher (1997) suggest that a sociocultural approach to classroom activities enables us to develop an integrated theory of teaching and learning that provides practicing teachers with an applicable theoretical framework. However, Mercer & Fisher mention that the key concepts for the neo-Vygotskian theory are based on the teacher-student relationship, and they realized the need for a sociocultural theory to enhance the understanding of collaborative learning where the interaction is between equals. They introduce three kinds of peer-group discussions: disputational, commutative, and exploratory. Mercer & Fisher's belief is that of the three types of discussion, the exploratory discussion has the highest educational value.

However designing a collaborative environment is not always easy. One of the obstacles of implementing collaborative activities is that students are accustomed to working competitively, not collaboratively. Activities which encourage a true sharing of ideas in order to reach a common goal through peer-group discussions are likely to be a fruitful way to overcome this obstacle. This strategy is discussed later in this paper in more detail through the introduction of Collaborative Electronic Learning (CEL).

Teacher-student talk and student-student talk have quite different characteristics. The student's role in teacher-student talking is often one of mere respondent, where the exercise tends to be more related to "finding out what the teacher wants to hear" than to any pursuit of understanding. It is only through absenting themselves from the discourse entirely that teachers can reduce the influence of their own greater knowledge of most topics which are discussed in school (Fisher, 1997). Student-student talk, on the other hand, is based on an equal status and therefore any idea can be intellectually challenged.

Student-student talk often lacks the eliciting and reformulating features of teacher-student talk, but it has its own distinctive features. When the peer-discussion leads to successful exploratory talk, it is characterized by brainstorming, challenges, hypotheses testing, consensus, and decision-making. When peer-discussion fails to be exploratory, it may be due to a cumulative effect in which ideas are accepted unchallenged and without justification, or because continuous disputation leads to a breakdown of communication within the group. Therefore, the vital role of the teacher in this context is to design a collaborative environment that encourages the exploratory peer-discussion. Later in this paper it is argued that existing telelearning tools can fulfill the required characteristics of collaborative learning.

Issues in telelearning

Although computers have traditionally been viewed as tools for individualized instruction, development of telecommunications technology has changed traditional beliefs. Just as technology can assist the lecture and discussion methods of teaching, it can also be used as a tool to address some of the challenges presented by collaborative activities.

Presently, one of the most common criticisms of distance education is that learners are often denied the same socialization and collaboration opportunities commonly available in the regular classroom. Yet computerized collaborative learning, even in the initial stages of its evolution, has substantial research support. Many researchers have reported that cooperative group learning at the computer is effective and valuable for students (King, 1989). These reports also suggest that group learning with computers encourages and supports students' use of spoken language (Dudley-Marling & Searle, 1989). Other studies on group learning with computers have reported a greater quantity and quality of daily achievement, more successful problem-solving, higher performance on factual recognition, and higher application learning when compared with competitive learning or individualized learning with computers (Johnson, Johnson, & Stanne, 1986).

Effectiveness of computerized collaborative learning depends on many factors including the type of software, interface design, the role of teachers, the composition of groups, and the children's response to working with the computer. However, most of the telelearning tools presently available for collaborative learning do not mention the important role of teachers in collaborative learning.

On the other hand using the Internet as a vehicle for distance education has become increasingly popular in recent years (Bigelow, 1996; Ibrahim & Franklin, 1995; James & Gardner, 1995). Postsecondary institutions, in particular, are harnessing the capabilities inherent in the Internet, creating course materials (and in some cases complete degrees) for delivery on the World Wide Web (Dimitroyannis, 1994).

However, some surveys report that computer technology, especially telelearning tools, are underused in schools (Wegerif & Scrimshaw, 1997). Although Wegerif & Scrimshaw's data is based on observations in British schools, similarly, in North America, Internet technology is often used for communicating on non-task related issues and for browsing without any well-defined educational goals. In the classroom, most teachers are unable to harness the potential inherent in the Internet because of a lack of training and resources. While the Internet can provide hours of entertainment, to be truly effective, students need activities and resources that help them benefit from their investigations.

Using the Internet in a social constructive manner requires careful instructional design; otherwise, the activity can be very isolating. In fact, most use of the Internet is not collaborative at all since it provides plenty of opportunities to look at or read material, but usually not as many opportunities to exchange opinions.

Considerable research has established the positive effects of collaborative learning on academic achievement, but only a little has focused on telecollaboration. For example, Johnson, Maruyama, Johnson, Nelson, & Skon (1981) conducted a meta-analysis of 122 studies investigating collaborative learning. Their conclusion was that co-operation goal structures produce greater achievement than do either competitive or individualistic structures, which do not differ in their effects upon achievement. In addition, collaborative goal structures that do not create intergroup competition produce greater achievement than collaborative structures that do create intergroup competition. This paper explains how group discussion, modern telelearning technology, and network resources can jointly improve learning and instruction. Collaborative telelearning is designed to give the learner such opportunities, but first, it is useful to examine a number of telelearning tools.

Telelearning tools

Features of three distance education development programs (LearnLinc I-Net, WebCT, and TopClass) are discussed in this section. These tools are evaluated based on their potential for collaborative learning.

According to Goldberg, Salari, & Swoboda (1996) developing Web-based courses can be a challenging task for instructors who lack technical expertise. Features such as automated record keeping, testing and tracking, and the ability to video or textually conference are needed to allow the instructor to create an on-line environment that emulates the look and feel of classroom-based instruction. Not all teachers have the required programming background to develop such an on-line environment. Therefore, a number of commercial distance-education course-delivery programs are available for purchase. These programs facilitate the development and delivery of distance education courses. There are disparities among various current distance-education delivery packages, so teachers need some information about the packages in order to choose the one appropriate for their needs. Some programs, such as WebCT, offer features that facilitate development and delivery of course materials. Other packages, such as Virtual-U, require further development in order to provide more functionality for both students and the course creator.

All programs are continually being reworked and upgraded; therefore, features that are described here may already have been updated and enhanced. There are other popular communication and Web-based course delivery programs such as Domino, AMEE, Zebu, and Virtual-U which are used in some telelearning approaches not discussed in this paper.

LearnLinc I-Net

LearnLinc I-Net is the only reviewed distance education package discussed in this paper that truly comes close to a formal classroom setting. Combining videoconferencing capabilities with multimedia courseware delivery, LearnLinc I-Net uses the Internet/Intranet as a vehicle for transmitting information. One of the most powerful features of the software is its ability to synchronize multimedia content for all students taking the course. Students can view the teacher-constructed lesson from their computer desktop. Furthermore, because LearnLinc I-Net provides synchronized Web navigation, created lessons can include resources and materials from the Internet.

LearnLinc I-Net enables the instructor to actively participate with students who are enrolled in the course. Students are provided with the live video of the teacher while she/he is teaching. Using videoconferencing capabilities to communicate key points of the lesson, the instructor is able to conduct the lesson in a fashion that closely resembles traditional classroom instruction.

LearnLinc I-Net gives the course instructor the ability to convey supplementary information through the use of the "Contents Book." The Contents Book contains the multimedia components of the course and can be constructed and modified using third-party software authoring packages such as Toolbook, Authorware, or PowerPoint. The Contents Book can also be used as a shared whiteboard space where supplementary information can be disseminated, or it can be used to launch browser software for synchronously traversing the Internet or Intranet.

Students are given a number of tools that they can access throughout the lesson. For instance, the electronic hand feature allows the student to ask a question of the instructor. The instructor can give the student "floor control" at which time the student can be seen and heard by all class members. Furthermore, students can be given control to access and modify the Content Book when a question or an idea arises (see Figure 1).

The instructor decides who has the floor, when to give the floor to a learner, and when to take back the floor. The instructor can also use "Do Not Disturb" to jump ahead in course content or she/he can use tools without being synchronized with the students. Learners can raise and lower their hands to be recognized by the instructor and address the entire class, just as in a traditional classroom. Open Discussion Floor Control is similar to a roundtable discussion. During an open discussion class, the instructor has no additional authority and any learner can take control of the floor at any time. The open discussion floor control policy allows small groups to collaborate in a manner similar to on-line discussions.

Additional noteworthy features include QNA (Questions and Answers), Glimpse, and Text Chat. QNA is a feature that enables the instructor to monitor the efficacy of the lesson. QNA can be used to poll students, anonymously and selectively, with multiple choice questions. These questions can be quickly pooled and statistically analyzed in the form of percentages. The instructor can also use the QNA feature to poll students for understanding in the form of electronic hands. Students can click the "Do Not Disturb" button if they do not wish to participate in questioning.

Using "Glimpse," the instructor can gain access to students' desktops. This feature is particularly useful when the instructor wishes to work collaboratively with an individual student. Another related communication enhancement tool is the "Text Chat" feature. Students are able to communicate textually and can share ideas, resources, and other information pertaining to the lesson without requiring floor control.

This approach has some limitations. For example, in order to utilize fully the Contents Book, LearnLinc I-Net requires the instructor to have knowledge of authoring tools such as Toolbook or Authorware. Although the instructor could have the contents book authored by a multimedia developer, such a process would be time-consuming and costly.

Because 15 KBS per client bandwidth is required, at least a T1 line should be available to efficiently and effectively move information across the Internet. LearnLinc I-Net is also quite costly to implement and maintain. A server license for 120 students is approximately U.S.$50,000 with mandatory maintenance and technical support costing an additional 20% of the total cost per annum. Furthermore, video capabilities are not included in the server license cost. An additional $500 is charged per student video link.

Generally speaking, LearnLinc I-Net creates a relatively interactive learning environment that can reach students who are auditory, visually, or socially motivated learners. There is a good potential for collaboration between the teacher and student. Despite its resemblance to the traditional teacher-centred instruction, there is no room for real collaboration as defined earlier among students. Students can share an application program, such as a graphic tool, for collaborative learning. However, LearnLinc I-Net is basically teacher-centred in nature. Since the instructional design does not have a collaborative structure, any attempt by students for a peer-discussion or for a mutual collaboration will interrupt the whole process of the instruction. The other limitation of this approach in comparison with other approaches is the difficulty of its implementation in the formal school setting. This approach differs greatly from the existing school settings. It is difficult to gain the support of teachers to implement it into their teaching practice.

WebCT

The World Wide Web Course Tool (WebCT) is a program that can be used by educators, with or without technical expertise, to create courses for delivery over the Internet/Intranet. Similar to a word processor's point and click interface, WebCT requires no knowledge of HTML programming to develop on-line Web courses. Instructors are able to use the World Wide Web browser for development and delivery of course materials. Courses are, therefore, cross-platform and can be accessed from any computer that has browsing capabilities.

It can be difficult for the instructor facilitating an on-line course to maintain contact with each and every student. WebCT allows the instructor to monitor students' progress in the course by following indicators such as time spent on the system (per page and total time), percentage of pages visited, and date of first and last access. All measures can be viewed by a group or individually. These tracking features enable the instructor to flag those students who have begun to falter, and can help to identify those areas of the course that are troublesome or particularly easy for the majority of the students (see Figure 2).

Students can also gain access to some of their personal tracking information. The software shows students what pages have or have not been visited, providing an instant and well-constructed delineation of hits per course area. In addition, WebCT automatically bookmarks the last page before log-out and allows students to resume from the bookmarked page upon next log-on. This is a particularly useful feature that saves course participants from navigating through previously read materials when resuming the learning session.

Figure 2:
A Sample Course Screen Using WebCT

WebCT has a particularly robust quiz creation and dissemination system that enables the course facilitator to create multiple choice, short answer, and essay-type examinations. WebCT also provides the opportunity for synchronous communication with its chat capabilities. Students can enter semi-private or fully private "rooms" where real-time textual conversations can occur.

However, as it was previously mentioned, the content and direction of this "chatting" may not be task related. Therefore, a teacher is needed to keep track of the time and to ensure the task relatedness of the students' communication. E-mail capabilities provide another communication medium for students and the course facilitator. Together, the three separate course communication environments give course participants a number of options that can potentially engender authentic collaboration, consultation, and socialization.

There are other limitations in WebCT that prevent a true collaborative learning environment. For example, when using WebCT, students are not able to share an application program in real time. Sharing an "application" (e.g., a drawing or spreadsheet program) is essential for any real collaboration. This concept is discussed in more detail later in this paper. Otherwise, the communication is used for "reply and revising" rather than "synchronous collaboration." WebCT attempts to compensate for this limitation by providing extensive tools with which to collaborate and conference. A bulletin board feature enables students to post comments, articles, URLs, or simple queries. The bulletin board allows for threaded responses that can be sorted and viewed by date posted. However, because of its very nature, students registered in these courses are framed in an individualized environment.

To compensate for this limitation, it is possible to change the interface and structure of WebCT. For example, students should be encouraged to post their resumes and their field of interest before registering in a course. Then the course administrator could match students for collaborative work. Other technical improvements would still be needed to achieve a real collaborative environment. In this respect, the WebCT developers hope to add real-time audio and video capabilities and shared workspaces for more collaboration opportunities.

Presently, WebCT is free to download, to install, and to create courses. License fees apply only when the courses are made available to students. However, license charges for a server for a group of 50 students is about U.S.$250 per year, per course. WebCT is much cheaper than LearnLinc as a telelearning tool, especially since there is no charge for upgrading.

TopClass

TopClass is another course management tool that enables instructors to create Web-based courses delivered over the Internet/Intranet. Using a standard Web browser, students can access course material on any connected computer. Like other featured course creation packages, TopClass allows the instructor to create courses for Web delivery without having to program in HTML. The integrated development tool acts like a word processing program providing the user with a point and click interface (see Figure 3).

In TopClass the announcement area provides the instructor with a centrally accessible place to post course addendum, notes, and other useful information for students. Although the conferencing system could be used to deliver the same materials, it is much more effective to have a place where students know that they can find instructor-only messages/announcements.

TopClass also provides capabilities for students to post pictures of themselves if they wish. When making extensive use of conference capabilities, the on-line picture can add another dimension to the distance education experience (Parker, 1997). The use of pictures is in contrast with the belief that the students' anonymity should be kept to protect against communicational biases. One alternative (currently being used in the CEL project) is to have students post their logos instead of their pictures. Although viewing the picture is not as powerful as the LearnLinc videoconferencing capabilities, it is a feature that could be used for asynchronous collaboration.

TopClass has developed the integrated quiz feature to serve primarily as a student study guide. Students can take on-line quizzes at any time and then move to a secondary area where answers are given for each question as well as a summary score. There is an option for instructors to program question-by-question feedback for correct and incorrect responses and an option for communication between the teacher and just one student at a time. However, research shows that what is essential in meaningful learning is the peer instruction or peer collaboration. When a student asks a question and others try to answer, the words and the scientific terms have a similar meaning to all whereas a teacher may ask or answer a question using language that is not understood by all the students.

Figure 3:
A Student's View of TopClass Features

Presently, TopClass includes a conferencing system that enables users to post threads to messages, add URLs or links to messages, and select from topics folders. To be more effective, TopClass should also provide capabilities for students to conduct semi-private or private conferences in a synchronous environment, and to share application programs. A chat room would give students who are doing group-work, or wishing to socialize with a small group of others in the class, the privacy that is not offered by the publicly accessible message board.

In comparison with LearnLinc and WebCT, the potential for collaboration and social construction of the knowledge is even more limited in TopClass. However, by integrating it with other telelearning tools such as Net-Meeting and audio conferencing, TopClass has the potential to be used in a collaborative setting, but not by itself.

Customizing the instruction

A common criticism by critics of distance education (in any form) is that materials developed for delivery do not account for the students' individual needs as learners (James & Gardner, 1995; Sadiq, 1996). Different students have different needs and abilities as learners (Brusilovsky, 1996; Graziadei, Gallagher, Brown, & Sasiadek, 1996; James & Gardner, 1995). Therefore, telelearning tools such as TopClass enable instructors to easily modify a student's coursework without affecting the content that other class members' view. The instructor can click on the "modify student coursework" feature and subsequently stipulate materials/content of particular importance to the individual (Brusilovsky, 1996).

However, it should be noted that in classroom peer-group learning, pupils do not generally work without the support of a teacher, even though the teacher may not be actively involved. As Mercer & Fisher (1997) argue, where pupils work effectively to develop new skills, it is likely that the teacher will have defined the task in such a way that it is at a proper level of difficulty for students.

Wegerif & Scrimshaw (1997) argue that highly structured software can sometimes support children's exploratory talk and that when this occurs it leads to the educationally valuable combination of directive teaching software with children's active peer learning. However, Fisher (1997) reported that more open-ended software was accompanied by more varied and wider ranging talk, which did not fit the traditional model and in which pupils, rather than computers, took the initiating role. Considering the highly structured nature of most of these telelearning tools, the potential for collaborative learning may be limited.

In view of the limitations of these telelearning tools to provide true multisite collaborative learning, the authors have developed the Collaborative Electronic Learning model as an alternative.

Collaborative Electronic Learning (CEL)

Collaborative Electronic Learning is a three-year research study involving over 200 students ranging in age from 9 to 14 years.¹ The study looks at a new model of learning in the classroom and the preliminary analysis of results has been very encouraging.

The purpose of the Collaborative Electronic Learning project is to enhance the effectiveness of a productive collaboration by building multisite, interactive, learning environments through electronic communication. Although the telelearning tools introduced earlier have some potential for collaborative learning, collaborative learning is a matter of choice by students or the teacher, not the essence of the learning experience. With the Collaborative Electronic Learning model, in contrast, collaboration is the basic and dominant way of learning, not a subsidiary, minor activity. It would appear that completion rates for self-paced distance instruction are often low, even when supplemented by e-mail or other interventions. The synchronous interaction found in the CEL environment should result in higher completion rates and higher-order learning.

Two forms of communication are used in the CEL project: synchronous and asynchronous. Synchronous communication is where students use audioconferencing or in-person discussions. It allows students to create an immediate dialogue of comment and response. Asynchronous communication includes e-mail and electronic bulletin board systems. Comments or questions are "mailed off" and then students must wait until the recipient reads and responds to the message.

The CEL project has been operating for three years supported by a grant from Shaw Communications Inc. In the first phase, three groups from three elementary schools in Calgary collaborated in their science course. The goal was to do a collaborative research project in environmental science and report the results in a synchronous conference. Students from each school were divided into 10 groups comprised of two or three students from each school. There were six to nine students per team to work on specific environmental science experiments (e.g., measuring acid rain in three different locations, evaluating the recycling system in their school). Students collaborated through synchronous and asynchronous communication with teammates from other schools. In this way, 10 groups of six to nine students were formed to work on each topic. On-site observations, hypotheses related to environmental issues, materials garnered through Internet searches, and communications were shared. On-site data collected through interviews and surveys were incorporated into a collaborative report that examined each issue identified by student groups. Students' collaboration was accomplished through the use of a variety of tools including audioconferencing, NetMeeting©, Netscape©, FirstClass©, and SmartBoard©. Fibre cable modems were also used to increase the speed of the communications provided.

FirstClass is an electronic communication software program that allows its users to send e-mail, to chat, and to participate in on-line conferences. Students use FirstClass to create a "Cyber Identity" (alias, logo, resume) to post their research proposals, choose the research projects in which they want to participate, and communicate with other group members.

Voice communication is supported through a telephone bridge. The current technology of NetMeeting cannot support multisite verbal communication; therefore, speakerphones and a telephone bridge are used in CEL to allow all students of each team to contribute to the conferences simultaneously. The three schools had speakerphones in their computer labs.

The SMARTboard is a (36" x 48") touch-sensitive (interactive) whiteboard that provides a natural interface for students. With it, one can save notes to a computer and control applications directly from the Board's large, touch-sensitive surface. The metaphor is the blackboard found in a typical classroom except that the touch of the hand on the white board controls the computer. This feature is particularly important to motivate students to participate more actively in collaboration processes. There are two kinds of SMARTboards: front projection and rear projection. While the front projection system is significantly less expensive, using it requires the students to stand to one side so as not to interfere with the projection beam. The rear projection model provides a more natural interface. In the CEL project, front projection systems were used because of the cost factor.

A video projector beams the image of a computer screen onto the surface of the whiteboard, which can then be calibrated by touching cross-hairs projected on the screen. Once calibrated, the SMARTboard acts as a touch-screen input device with the hand emulating the mouse to provide a more natural interface. The SMARTboard facilitates collaboration within a virtual classroom. The large screen enables groups of students to view, discuss, and alter data on the same computer screen. Notes are captured by the computer, which recognizes the colour of the pen being used (each student uses a different colour). The metaphor continues with a blackboard eraser. Any changes made can be saved for future conferences or they can be printed. NetMeeting and the SMARTboard are used simultaneously with the audioconferencing to produce a powerful synchronous conference. Students keep notes and use spreadsheets, graphics programs, and digital cameras to collect and analyze the data and create images of their work. They then use graphics presentation tools such as PowerPoint to prepare their virtual presentations. These applications are frequently shared through NetMeeting as part of a synchronous conference.

In phase two, students worked on a module called "Designing the Urban Community of the Future" using the same tools as in the first phase plus a software program called "SimCity." The students worked through an elaborate process to collaboratively design innovative urban communities. The emphasis in the CEL project is on collaboration, communication, social construction of knowledge, daily life experience, and building self-confidence. Technological literacy is a by-product of the process.

Groups are not randomly selected or formed by the instructor. Students select their partners by sending e-mail and introducing themselves to others, or through selecting projects of mutual interest. Students use aliases instead of their real names and are told to state their interests, skills, and future plans, but to avoid mentioning their gender, grade, or age in their posted resumes.

This team-building approach is used to encourage communications. For example, students are asked to make personal logos and to post them and their resume to the FirstClass electronic bulletin board system. The underlying rationale for these team-building activities is to create a social and emotional climate conducive to the development of strong relationships among the group's members in order to facilitate communication during the collaborative tasks.

The key assumption is that the potential cognitive benefits of small-group learning are more likely to be realized in a social context characterized by group cohesiveness, mutual trust, and emotional security. Such explicit attention to the social and emotional aspects of small-group dynamics is instrumental in fostering social support and emotional ties among peers--factors known to have a significant impact on student learning.

In this project, student subgroups are encouraged to meet approximately once a week. This allows for a continuous social and cognitive interaction among students. It is also intended that the CEL project should create a feeling of group identity among students. Each subgroup creates a group name, group objectives, and ultimately a final product that represents a concrete manifestation of the group's collaborative effort. Working toward a clearly defined, common goal is essential for keeping individual students on task.

At the same time, a sense of individual responsibility to the group is increased when each group member has a specific and essential role to play in achieving the group's final goal or product. For instance, in the Environmental Science project all team members were involved in designing the project and collecting the data, but then individuals within the group were assigned to specific tasks such as writing the introduction, analyzing the data, and writing the conclusion. All students participated in putting the report together and presenting the results to a panel of experts in the virtual synchronous conference.

Developing communication skills such as active listening, constructive disagreement, conflict resolution, consensus building, and social construction of knowledge are major goals of CEL. To facilitate these objectives, students are provided with some basic guidelines for group decision-making.

As discussed earlier, there are three kinds of discussions: disputational, commutative, and explorative. Observations to date suggest that students in the CEL project employ all three of these methods. Students use two types of group decision-making: consensus and voting. Voting requires students to choose which plan or suggestion they prefer and then accept the idea that receives the most votes. While voting is likely to cause negative feelings and stress within the group, consensus requires students to listen to one another's ideas with open minds and be willing to make compromises for the benefit of the whole group. Consensus generally appears to take more time than voting, but avoids generating feelings of hostility, resentment, or exclusion. In the CEL project, students are encouraged to use a consensus model for decision-making whenever possible. It is hypothesized that consensus encourages more involvement by group members and increases the number of ideas generated. It may also increase the level of commitment to the group's goals and the general feeling of responsibility to the group. This is especially important when the time comes to create action plans.

In CEL, teachers are encouraged to facilitate, not to direct. It is suggested that they not participate directly in the students' discussions and decisions; otherwise, students may think that they are not being trusted. As noted by Bruffe (1993), closely monitoring students' small-group discussion is self-defeating. In practice, once students feel more comfortable with creating their own knowledge and learning experience, teachers can gradually minimize direct involvement. Effective interpersonal behaviour displayed by students within groups is explicitly noted and verbally reinforced by the instructor, then shared with the entire class.

The main role of the teacher is to prepare the instructional design, to organize students' communications, and to keep the time. As well, the teacher compares the class's consensus with the current consensus in the scientific community. The amount of time students spend on the project depends on the importance they ascribe to the task and on the students' level of confidence in working with technology. Since the software interface is relatively easy to use, teachers and students should not require a high level of technology literacy, but they will need to be comfortable with the technology. Moreover, access to technical support is critical for the success of these types of projects.

As part of the research, students' verbal communications are audiotaped or videotaped, and their electronic communications are saved in a database for analysis.

Summary and conclusion

As suggested by Bruffe (1993), telelearning tools and Web-based course delivery systems could be programmed for collaborative learning if instructors design:

• assignments to be undertaken collaboratively and directed toward achieving consensus;
• programs that help students learn the social conventions of working successfully in small, semi-autonomous groups; and
• programs that supply the information, assumptions, tasks, and evaluative criteria that guide collaborative work constructively and help people learn from each other.

The appropriate use of any educational technology requires giving up foundational assumptions and integrating technology within social relationships. Technology can fulfill its educational promise only if its potential as a mediator of intellectually constructive, educationally productive social relations is exploited (i.e., collaborative learning). However, teachers are evaluated on the performance of their students on curriculum-based tests, particularly in Alberta. As a result, new programs that cannot be integrated into the curriculum are less likely to be adopted by the classroom teacher. In CEL, the authors have worked with teachers to ensure that the material can be integrated appropriately into the curriculum.

The results of three years of observation on student activities and the qualitative evaluation of their videotaped final reports indicate a major improvement in self-confidence, communication skills, computer literacy, mutual trust, scientific knowledge, and scientific research skills.

A major research objective was to analyze discourse in both synchronous and asynchronous communications. Since students only meet in cyberspace, using e-mail, voice communications, and interactive tools to share documents and applications, the nature and effectiveness of the discourse is important for reaching shared goals. In order to work productively, students must learn to interact effectively. Sharing, which includes taking, keeping, and passing control, is critically important, particularly in synchronous communications where NetMeeting would "hang up" the computer if two students attempted to control the mouse at the same time on a shared application. Preliminary results suggest that students become quite adept at taking and passing control and do so with unprompted politeness. Another discourse issue being studied is the nature and amount of social interaction (e.g., task versus social interaction, and positive versus negative dialogue).

Throughout the project, a prominent theme has been developing the "Cyber Self." The creation of the Cyber Self begins with the alias, resume, and logo, and focuses on building strong self-confidence through communication. It was hypothesized that a positive self-image leads to effective team building and successful, virtual collaboration.

Computer-mediated communications provided students with a different social context that may have influenced the quality of their face-to-face communication. Observations suggest that students developed more mature viewpoints as they negotiated activities, which may be due in part to the public and virtual nature of the interactions. Certainly, the whole concept of a "Cyber Culture" is worthy of further investigation.

Appendix A Telecollaboration Tools

a Copied from Hall, Vaisey, Shirmohammadi, & Georganas (1998) with permission.

Acknowledgment

This project was funded by a research grant from Shaw Communications Inc.

Notes

1

A detailed manual on CEL has been developed for teachers, and a World Wide Web site has been established for those who need more information about the project or who wish to embark on similar initiatives (URL: http://www.kin.ucalgary.ca/cel/).

References

Anderson, M. (1989). Parentship: Teambuilding at the computer. Arlington, VA: Ma-Jo Press.

Bigelow, J. D. (1996). Developing an Internet section of a management course: Transporting learning premises across media. Proceedings of the 1996 World Conference of the Web Society (pp. 13-20). San Francisco, CA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).

Brandt, F. J., & Ellsworth, N. J. (1996). Effects of cooperative learning on the academic achievement and self-esteem of urban adolescents with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 7(1), 9-13.

Bruffe, K. A. (1993). Collaborative learning: Higher education, interdependence, and the authority of knowledge. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Brusilovsky, P. (1996). A tool for developing electronic textbooks on the WWW. Proceedings of the 1996 World Conference of the Web Society (pp. 64-69). San Francisco, CA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).

Dimitroyannis, D. (1994, May). Virtual classroom: A case study. Paper presented at first International Conference on the World Wide Web, Geneva, Switzerland.

Dudley-Marling, C., & Searle, D. (1989). Computers and language learning: Misguided assumptions. British Journal of Educational Technology, 20(1), 41-46.

Fisher, E. (1997). Educationally important types of children's talk. In P. Wegerif & P. Scrimshaw (Eds.), Computers and talk in the primary classroom (pp. 22-37). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Geelan, D. R. (1997). Epistemological analysis of the many forms of Constructivisim. Science and Education, 6, 15-28.

Glasersfeld, E. V. (1995). A constructivist approach to teaching. In L. Steffe & J. Gale (Eds.), Constructivism in education (pp. 3-16). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Goldberg, M. W., Salari, S., & Swoboda, P. (1996). World Wide Web course tool: An environment for building WWW-based courses. Computer Networks and ISDN Systems, 28, 313-317.

Graziadei, W. D., Gallagher, S., Brown, R., & Sasiadek, J. (1996). Building asynchronous and synchronous teaching-learning environments: Exploring a course/classroom management system solution. URL: http://horizon.unc.edu/projects/monograph/CD/TechnologicalTools/Graziadei.asp (Visited May 3, 1999)

Groccia, J. E., & Miller, J. E. (1996). Collegiality in the classroom: The use of peer learning assistants in cooperative learning in introductory biology. Innovative Higher Education, 21(2), 87-100.

Hall, G., Vaisey, J., Shirmohammadi S., & Georganas, N. (1998). A survey of Web-based telecollaboration tools. TeleLearning NCE-Project 3.1. URL: http://www.ensc.sfu.ca/people/faculty/vaisey/research/telelearning/telecollaboration.html (Visited May 4, 1999)

Hestenes, D., Wells, M., & Swackhamer, G. (1992). Force concept inventory. The Physics Teacher, 30, 141-158.

Ibrahim, B., & Franklin, S. (1995). Advanced educational uses of the world-wide web. Computer Networks and ISDN Systems, 27, 871-877.

James, W. B., & Gardner, D. L. (1995). Learning styles: Implications for distance learning. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 67, 19-31.

Johnson, D. W., Maruyama, G., Johnson, R., Nelson, D., & Skon, L. (1981). Effects of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic goal structures on achievement: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 89, 47-62.

Johnson, R. T., Johnson, D. W., & Stanne, M. B. (1986). Comparison of computer-assisted cooperative, competitive and individualistic learning. American Educational Research Journal, 23(3), 382-392.

King, A. (1989). Verbal interaction and problem solving within computer aided learning groups. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 5, 1-15.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Lee, L. (1995). Learning strategy instructions as a key to success in second language learning. Northeast Conference Newsletter; 37, 11-13.

Leung, C. D., & Chung, C. (1997). Student achievement in an educational technology course as enhanced by cooperative learning. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 6, 337-343.

Matthews, M. R. (1994). Science teaching: The role of history and philosophy of science. New York: Routledge.

Mercer, N., & Fisher, E. (1997). The importance of talk. In P. Wegerif & P. Scrimshaw (Eds.), Computers and talk in the primary classroom (pp. 13-21). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Mevarech, Z. R., & Light, P. H. (1992). Cooperative learning with computers. Learning and Instruction, 2(3), 155-285.

National Research Council. (1997). Science teaching reconsidered: A handbook. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Parker, A. (1997, Autumn-Winter). A distance education how-to manual: Recommendations from the field. Educational Technology Review, 8, 7-10.

Sadiq, K. (1996). Controversy in the new paradigm. URL: http://cmns-web.comm.sfu.ca/cmns253/96-2/projects/papers.html (Visited March 29, 1999)

Sharon, S. (1994). Handbook of cooperative learning methods. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Totten, S., Sills, T., Digby, A., & Russ, P. (1994). Cooperative learning: A guide to research. New York: Garland Publishing.

Vygotsky, L. (1986). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (Originally published in 1978)

Wegerif, P., & Scrimshaw, P. (1997). Computers and talk in the primary classroom. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Web sites for programs evaluated

CEL. URL: http://www.kin.ucalgary.ca/cel/

FirstClass. URL: http://www.softarc.com

LearnLinc I-Net. URL: http://www.ilinc.com/

NetMeeting. URL: http://www.ctdepot.com/NetMeeting3.htm

SMARTboard. URL: http://www.smarttech.com/

TopClass. URL: http://137.142.42.95/WEST/TopClass/TopClass.html

World wide web course tools (WebCT). URL: http://homebrew1.cs.ubc.ca/webct/

(All sites visited March 29, 1999)