Object1 8

Object 2 9

Object 10

Collaborative learning
Collaborative learning is a situation in which two or more people learn or attempt to learn something together.[1] More specifically, collaborative learning is based on the model that knowledge can be created within a population where members actively interact by sharing experiences and take on asymmetry roles.[2] Put differently, collaborative learning refers to methodologies and environments in which learners engage in a common task where each individual depends on and is accountable to each other. Collaborative learning is heavily rooted in Vygotskys views that there exists an inherent social nature of learning which is shown through his theory of zone of proximal development.[3] Often, collaborative learning is used as an umbrella term for a variety of approaches in education that involve joint intellectual effort by students or students and teachers.[4] Thus, collaborative learning is commonly illustrated when groups of students work together to search for understanding, meaning, or solutions or to create an artifact or product of their learning. Further, collaborative learning redefines traditional student-teacher relationship in the classroom which results in controversy over whether this paradigm is more beneficial than harmful. [5] Collaborative learning activities can include collaborative writing, group projects, joint problem solving, debates, study teams,and other activities. The approach is closely related to cooperative learning.

Object 3

O L i b A

Object 12

Examples of Collaborative Learning

Collaborative Networked Learning is a form of collaborative learning for the self-directed adult learner. Youth directed collaboration, another form of self-directed organizing and learning, relies on a novel, more radical concept of youth voice. Computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) is a relatively new educational paradigm within collaborative learning which uses technology in a learning environment to help mediate and support group interactions in a collaborative learning context.[2] CSCL systems use technology to control and monitor interactions, to regulate tasks, rules, and roles, and to mediate the acquisition of new knowledge.[2] Most recently, one study showed that using robots in the classroom to promote collaborative learning led to an increase in learning effectiveness of the activity and an increase in the students motivation.[2] Researchers and practitioners in several fields, including cognitive sciences, sociology, computer engineering have begun to investigate CSCL, thus, it constitutes a new trans-disciplinary field. Learning Management Systems is a context that gives collaborative learning particular meaning. In this context, collaborative learning refers to a collection of tools which learners can use to assist, or be assisted by others. Such tools include Virtual Classrooms (i.e. geographically distributed classrooms linked by audio-visual network connections), chat, discussion threads, application sharing (e.g. a colleague projects spreadsheet on another colleagues screen across a network link for the purpose of collaboration), among many others. Collaborative Learning Development Enables developers of learning systems to work as a network. Specifically relevant to e-learning where developers can share and build knowledge into courses in a collaborative environment. Knowledge of a single subject can be pulled together from remote locations using software systems. An example of this could be Content point from Atlantic Link Collaborative Learning in Virtual Worlds Virtual Worlds by their nature provide an excellent opportunity for collaborative learning. At first learning in virtual worlds was

H o m e > L i b r a r y > English

restricted to classroom meetings and lectures, similar to their counterparts in real life. Now collaborative learning is evolving as companies starting to take advantage of unique features offered by virtual world spaces - such as ability to record and map the flow of ideas,[6] use 3D models and virtual worlds mind mapping tools. Collaborative learning in thesis circles in higher education is another example of people learning together. In a thesis circle, a number of students work together with at least one professor or lecturer, to collaboratively coach and supervise individual work on final (e.g. undergraduate or MSc) projects. Students switch frequently between their role as cosupervisor of other students and their own thesis work (incl. receiving feedback from other students).

Collaborative Scripts
Collaborative scripts structure collaborative learning by creating roles and mediating interactions while allowing for flexibility in dialogue and activities.[7][8] Collaborative scripts are used in nearly all cases of collaborative learning some of which are more suited for face-to-face collaborative learningusually, more flexibleand others for computer-supported collaborative learningtypically, more constraining.[7][8] Additionally, there are two broad types of scripts: macro-scripts and micro-scripts. Macro-scripts aim at creating situations within which desired interactions will occur. Micro-scripts emphasize activities of individual learners.[7]
Cooperative and Collaborative Learning

Collaborative Learning/Learning with Peers

On this page: Why Collaborate? How to Collaborate Effectively Diagnosing Collaboratively Responding Collaboratively Additional Ideas for Collaborative Learning Evaluating Peer Exercises Using Blackboard to Enhance Collaborative Learning

For the past three decades, educators have recognized the value of learning collaboratively. Studies have shown that students do not learn well when they are isolated "receivers" of knowledge. Indeed, students must overcome isolation in order to learn to write. Collaborative learning exercisessuch as peer review workshops, collaborative research assignments, group presentations, collaborative papers, discussion groups, and so onare important components of our writing classrooms because they encourage active learning, giving students the opportunity to become more deeply engaged with their writing, and with one another.

Why Collaborate?
Consider: Collaboration helps students understand writing as a public, communal act, rather than as a private, isolated one. Many students write papers that make sense to them but that aren't clear or persuasive for others. Peer reviewers help students to understand that they aren't writing for themselves, but for readers. Collaboration therefore helps student writers to develop a sense of audience. Too often

students write only to please their instructors, whose expectations they rarely understand. Knowing that their peers will read their papers gives students a concrete sense of who they are writing to, and why. Collaboration helps students to better understand the conventions of academic discourse. When talking about their papers with their peers, students will learn where their readers stumble. They can also find out why. Often, these conversations lead to a better understanding of the writing conventions that the student writer has neglected or misunderstood. Collaboration helps students realize that academic conventions are not simply arbitrary rules, but in fact reflect readers' expectations. If student writers want to be understood by an academic audience, they must heed the conventions of academic writing. Collaboration gives students practice in analyzing writing. It is easier to see where a classmate's writing is going awry than it is to find flaws in one's own prose. It is also easier to critique student writing than it is to analyze the published writing that instructors often give their students as models. Collaboration encourages students to talk about their writing. In peer review sessions, students have to field questions about their writing. They have to explain and sometimes defend their writing strategies. Collaboration helps students to understand writing as a process, and to increase their sense of mastery of what is often a complex and difficult task. The best way to learn something is to teach it. When instructing their peers, students learn how to improve their own prose.

How to Collaborate Effectively?

Our discussion so far has pointed to why collaboration is useful in our writing classrooms. The question that remains is how collaboration is most effectively used. Can collaborative exercises be whole class events? Or do they work better when the groups are smaller? Should groups have three members? Two? Four? Should collaborative work be done in class, or might it be done outside of class? Should an instructor supply guidelines for collaborating? Should she develop criteria for evaluating peer work, or should she encourage students to develop their own? The beauty of collaborative learning is that it might be practiced in a number of ways. Collaborative exercises can be whole-class events; they might also be done in small groups. Some collaborative exercises work best with pairsin particular, those exercises that require close attention (such as sharing whole essays). Other collaborative exercises work best when student writers receive multiple points of view (for example, when the aim of the exercise is to narrow a topic, sharpen a thesis, and so on). Whatever you decide, it's important to remember that peer exercises should be carefully designed so that they reflect your goals and meet your students' needs. You don't, necessarily, have to design the exercises on your ownsometimes (as in collaborative assessment exercises) you may want to design the exercise with your students. What follows are some ideas for designing collaborative enterprises for your class.

Diagnosing Collaboratively
One very effective use of collaborative learning in the Writing Classroom involves asking students to diagnose and then respond to their peers' written work. To insure that our students are able to comment productively and effectively on their peers' papers, we must first teach them methods of diagnosis and response. We can begin by modeling the reading process for our students, illustrating that there are several ways to read a paper. (For a discussion of how you can use these same methods to sharpen your diagnostic skills, see Diagnosing and Responding to Student Writing.)

Too often when diagnosing their peers' writing, students either 1) try to emulate their instructors, or 2) respond as editors. Neither response is particularly effective: in the first case, students appropriate authority over their classmates' work; in the second, they correct errors rather than facilitate good writing. Accordingly, we offer some ways of reading that will help students avoid these pitfalls: 1. Reading as a common reader. When students read as what Virginia Woolf called "common readers," they take note of their personal responses to a text. Are they bored? Fascinated? Annoyed? Delighted? Typically, a negative response to a paper reflects a problem with the writing. If a reader is bored, the paper is likely unfocused. Perhaps the writer digresses. Perhaps the writer has not learned how to write strong, emphatic sentences. Instructors should ask students to keep track of their experiences of a particular text, as these responses can lead them to a sense of the paper's particular strengths and weaknesses. 2. Reading to know the writer. Buried in our students' papers is an abundance of information regarding who they are and what they believe in. Students should read not only for what is in the paper, but for what isn't in it: sometimes the prejudices and assumptions that are never explicitly stated in the paper are precisely the paper's problem. Students should try to determine what feelings, values, opinions, and assumptions might be undermining a text. They should also try to determine what the writer does (and does not) know about academic writing. For instance, does the writer understand how to craft an effective thesis? Does the writer understand how to effectively use and cite evidence? Noting what the writer knows about writing gives the peer editors a place to begin; noting what the writer does NOT know suggests a strategy for the peer review. 3. Reading to diagnose the problem. If you provide the proper terminology and guidelines, students are generally able to diagnose what is wrong with their classmates' papers. Instructors should devote some class time to explaining what concepts they deem most important to the success of a particular paper: Does it have a persuasive thesis sentence? Focused topic sentences? Coherent paragraphs? Clear and elegant sentences? Students can then check the paper for these particular problems, discussing among themselves what might be going wrong. 4. Reading to improve the paper. Even though students can generally diagnose what is wrong with a paper, they are less skillful at giving advice for improving it. They may have no trouble determining, for example, that a thesis is weak. But how to make it better? Of all the ways of reading we've considered so far, this is the one in which students require the most careful and thorough instruction. Instructors can model this process by transforming a poor thesis (or paragraph, or sentence) into a good one. This modeling should be done collectively, with students offering various suggestions. The instructor can try out suggestions, discovering with students which will yield better sentences and paragraphs, and which will not. Students can then do the same in their work with their peers. Download Ways of Reading instructions for your students here.

Responding Collaboratively
Once students have been taught how to read their classmates' papers, they will require some instruction in how to respond. Students must be taught to respond facilitatively, a method that is more fully outlined in Diagnosing and Responding to Student Papers. In brief, a facilitative response requires a reader to respond in a way that facilitates the writer's goals. This approach asks readers to ask questions rather than to offer directions for improvement, so that the writer can herself determine which revision strategy to take. For instance, instead of saying, "Omit this," ask, "Why is this relevant? What's the connection?" The first comment assumes that a portion of the text needs to be cut when, in fact, the idea may be keenly relevant. In this case, the writer would find a way to make more explicit the relevance of the idea. The paper will then meet the student's original

aim rather than meet the reader's (mistaken) assumptions. The facilitative approach also encourages a writer to understand that good writing is a matter of making good choices. If you respond to a student with a list of directions, she won't think her options through. If you ask questions, the student will have to determine how best to answer them. She will discover that there are several ways to express an idea or develop an argument, and that she must choose the one that best meets her aims. In this way, authority remains with the student author. When interacting with their peers, students will require strategies for crafting good responses to their classmates' work. They might try the following strategies: Summarize the argument. If a reader has trouble summarizing the writer's argument, it's likely that the argument has a gap, or that its logic is unclear. Summarizing can help students to see where and how an argument has gone awry. Predict the argument. After reading only the paper's introduction and thesis, can a reader predict the argument to follow? If not, then perhaps the introduction has failed to frame the argument, or the thesis has failed to make its point. This exercise is fruitful because it helps students to assess the strengths and weaknesses of a paper's introduction and thesis sentence. They will also see the link between a good, clear introduction and the overall structure of an argument. Ask questions. The most important aims of the peer review are to get the student writer to understand how it is that her paper needs to be revised, and to determine strategies for that revision. Questions are a good way to encourage this process. Students can ask questions about parts of the paper that they don't understand; they can ask questions about the writer's process; they can ask questions about a writer's intention; they can ask about the writer's rhetorical strategies. All will get the conversation started and keep it lively. Reflect what the writer is trying to say. If a particular point is unclear, it can be useful to try to reflect that point back to the writer: "What you seem to be saying here is..." The writer will usually see that his point is unclear and can then consider how to communicate the point more effectively to the reader. Label problems. Student writers appreciate it when their peers take the time to find and to name the problems in their papers. Student reviewers can make a list of the problems they find on their peers' papers and can then work together with the writer to correct these problems. In this case, students are teaching good writing to their peers. If students need additional help they can consult a grammar handbook, confer with you, or see an RWIT tutor. Make suggestions. Student writers seek advice. They don't simply want to know what's wrong with their writing; they want to know how to fix it. Their peers should therefore be prepared to make suggestions for improvement. Note that we use the word "suggestions" in the plural: a peer reviewer should not insist on one solution to a problem. Rather, reviewers should offer several strategies for solving the problem, allowing the writer to determine which of these solutions might work best.

Additional Ideas for Collaborative Learning

Though peer group work is the most commonly used method for collaborative learning, many instructors employ collaborative assignments in order to reap the benefits of peer learning. Consider, for example: Collaborative Research Assignments The collaborative research assignment allows students to work together to explore a topic relevant to the course, but not necessarily covered in class. Working together, students can cover more

ground than they can on their own. They can also try out different research strategies and then discuss among themselves which strategies are most useful, and why. Sometimes collaborative research leads to some other collaborative assignmenta group paper or presentation, for example. Not all collaborative research assignments involve "big" tasks. In the first-year classroom in particular, instructors look for creative ways to introduce their students to the research process through small assignments. For example, some instructors assign students to research groups, give them a set of questions to answer, and then send them to the library or to the Internet to find the answers together. One instructor sends groups of students on a scholarly scavenger hunt, requiring them to explore different databases and to use different search engines in order to accomplish their research tasks. Others provide students with a topic and ask them to create an annotated bibliography together. The point is to get students working and talking together about what it means to do academic research. Group Presentations Group presentations are common in many Dartmouth classrooms. In these instances, instructors prepare topics or questions for the groups to consider, and then require the groups to prepare a presentation for the class. Sometimes the groups are asked to lead discussion of one of the course's primary texts; sometimes they are asked to come to class with historical or cultural information that can put a particular work in context. Sometimes groups are encouraged to be creative and to use several media when presenting to the class. Some instructors express concern that group presentations allow weaker students to depend on stronger ones for their success in the course. In fact, this concern can be understood as one of the "positives" of group work, in that the stronger students can model the academic process for their less-prepared peers. If you remain concerned about your students' individual performances, you might begin by having groups prepare the first round of class presentations. The next round of presentations might be managed by pairs, and the final round by individuals. Students learn with each round to become more independent in the research and presentation processes. Collaborative Papers Like collaborative research assignments or group presentations, collaborative papers permit instructors to ask students to tackle an idea associated with the course that has not been covered in class. Students are assigned to produce the paper together: they may be asked to write the entire paper together, or they may be permitted to write the paper in sections and then to edit the paper together so that it seems to come from a single author, employing a consistent voice. One instructor allows students to divvy up the bulk of the work but insists that they write the introduction and conclusion together, attending to transitions between sections so that the paper reads seamlessly. One benefit of the group paper is that it requires students to consider the stages of the writing process as they determine how to divide the labor among the group. For example, will the collaborative writing be most efficiently done if the group does its brainstorming together? Should the paper be divided into sections, with each member responsible for a single part? Can one student write effectively about something that has been researched by another student? As the group considers these questions, they are brought to think carefully and critically about the writing process. Finally, collaborative writing makes students more conscious of their own writing processes and styles. As they debate strategies and sentences, students must defend their choices. They also come to see other possible ways of expressing their ideas. For this reason, the group papers will likely not be the best papers that students produce, but they may be the most educational. Discussion Groups Some instructors ask students to meet formally or informally in discussion groups, where they can work together to improve their understanding of difficult texts. Whole-class discussions are greatly

improved when students have met in smaller groups to discuss the course materials among themselves. Instructors can direct these groups by furnishing them with questions to consider, or they might simply ask the group to meet and to return to class with the questions and observations that have arisen.

Evaluating Peer Exercises

Evaluating collaborative work can be problematicparticularly if this work constitutes a considerable part of the course grade. Instructors might simply grade the project and give the same grade to all students. Or they might ask the students to submit a paper that documents their contributions to the presentation. Or they might ask each member of the group to evaluate the work of their group mates. Any strategy is equally good, as long as the standards and processes of evaluation are made clear to students long before collaboration begins. In terms of peer critique: instructors who require peer critiques want some way of insuring that students are giving these exercises their best efforts. One way to evaluate peer critiques is to ask students to do their critiques in writing. Instructors can collect these critiques in class or on Blackboard and evaluate them. Another idea is to ask students to write a brief summary of how the peer review process did (or did not) help them to rethink and rewrite the paper. Whatever the method, the instructor should make sure that students understand that their work in the peer groups is an important element of the course, and in what way it will count towards their final grades.

Using Blackboard to Enhance Collaborative Learning

Many instructors have found that Blackboard is a very useful tool in engaging students in collaborative learning exercises. Especially useful are the Discussion Board and the Wiki tool. The Discussion Board allows instructors to create "threads," where students can post drafts of their papers and receive comments from their peers. The Discussion Board conveniently provides instructors and students with an archive of student work, in its various stages. It also provides instructors with a way to oversee the written critiques that students are doing of their classmates' work. The Wiki tool is designed so that students can write and revise collaboratively. The Wiki keeps track of every draft, noting the changes made and who made them. Instructors use the Wiki in a variety of ways, sometimes asking students to write short Wikipedia-style entries on related course topics, other times asking them to create and maintain a glossary of key terms.

Collaborative Learning Enhances Critical Thinking

Anuradha A. Gokhale The concept of collaborative learning, the grouping and pairing of students for the purpose of achieving an academic goal, has been widely researched and advocated throughout the professional literature. The term "collaborative learning" refers to an instruction method in which students at various performance levels work together in small groups toward a common goal. The students are responsible for one another's learning as well as their own. Thus, the success of one student helps other students to be successful. Proponents of collaborative learning claim that the active exchange of ideas within small groups not only increases interest among the participants but also promotes

critical thinking. According to Johnson and Johnson (1986), there is persuasive evidence that cooperative teams achieve at higher levels of thought and retain information longer than students who work quietly as individuals. The shared learning gives students an opportunity to engage in discussion, take responsibility for their own learning, and thus become critical thinkers (Totten, Sills, Digby, & Russ, 1991). In spite of these advantages, most of the research studies on collaborative learning have been done at the primary and secondary levels. As yet, there is little empirical evidence on its effectiveness at the college level. However, the need for noncompetitive, collaborative group work is emphasized in much of the higher education literature. Also, majority of the research in collaborative learning has been done in non-technical disciplines. The advances in technology and changes in the organizational infrastructure put an increased emphasis on teamwork within the workforce. Workers need to be able to think creatively, solve problems, and make decisions as a team. Therefore, the development and enhancement of critical-thinking skills through collaborative learning is one of the primary goals of technology education. The present research was designed to study the effectiveness of collaborative learning as it relates to learning outcomes at the college level, for students in technology. Purpose of Study This study examined the effectiveness of individual learning versus collaborative learning in enhancing drill-and-practice skills and critical-thinking skills. The subject matter was series and parallel dc circuits. Research Questions The research questions examined in this study were: 1. Will there be a significant difference in achievement on a test comprised of "drill-and practice" items between students learning individually and students learning collaboratively? 2. Will there be a significant difference in achievement on a test comprised of "critical-thinking" items between students learning individually and students learning collaboratively? Definition of Terms Collaborative Learning: An instruction method in which students work in groups toward a common academic goal. Individual Learning: An instruction method in which students work individually at their own level and rate toward an academic goal. Critical-thinking Items: Items that involve analysis, synthesis, and evaluation of the concepts.

Drill-and-Practice Items: Items that pertain to factual knowledge and comprehension of the concepts. Methodology The independent variable in this study was method of instruction, a variable with two categories: individual learning and collaborative learning. The dependent variable was the posttest score. The posttest was made up of "drill-and- practice" items and "criticalthinking" items. Subjects The population for this study consisted of undergraduate students in industrial technology, enrolled at Western Illinois University, Macomb, Illinois. The sample was made up of students enrolled in the 271 Basic Electronics course during Spring 1993. There were two sections of the 271 class. Each section had 24 students in it. Thus, a total of forty-eight students participated in this study. Treatment The treatment comprised of two parts: lecture and worksheet. Initially, the author delivered a common lecture to both treatment groups. The lecture occurred simultaneously to both groups to prevent the effect of any extraneous variables such as time of day, day of week, lighting of room, and others. The lecture was 50 minutes in length. It was based on series dc circuits and parallel dc circuits. Next, one section was randomly assigned to the "individual learning group" while the other section was assigned to the "collaborative learning group". The two sections worked in separate classrooms. The same worksheet was given to both treatment groups. It was comprised of both drilland- practice items and critical- thinking items. The full range of cognitive operations were called into play in that single worksheet. It began with factual questions asking for the units of electrical quantities. Next, the questions involved simple applications of Ohm's law and Watt's law or power formula. The factual questions and the simple application questions were analogous to the drill- and- practice items on the posttest. The questions that followed required analysis of the information, synthesis of concepts, and evaluation of the solution. These questions were analogous to the critical- thinking items on the posttest. When designing the critical- thinking items it was ensured that they would require extensive thinking. Both sections had the same treatment time. Individual Learning In individual learning, the academic task was first explained to the students. The students then worked on the worksheet by themselves at their own level and rate. They were given 30 minutes to work on it. At the end of 30 minutes, the students were given a sheet with answers to the questions on the worksheet. In case of problems, the solution sheet showed how the problem was solved. The students were given 15 minutes to compare their own answers with those on the solution sheet and understand how the problems were to be solved. The participants were then given a posttest that comprised of both drill- and- practice items and critical- thinking items. Collaborative Learning When implementing collaborative learning, the first step was to clearly specify the academic task. Next, the collaborative learning structure was explained to the students. An instruction sheet that pointed out the key elements of the collaborative process was

distributed. As part of the instructions, students were encouraged to discuss "why" they thought as they did regarding solutions to the problems. They were also instructed to listen carefully to comments of each member of the group and be willing to reconsider their own judgments and opinions. As experience reveals, group decision- making can easily be dominated by the loudest voice or by the student who talks the longest. Hence, it was insisted that every group member must be given an opportunity to contribute his or her ideas. After that the group will arrive at a solution. Group Selection and Size Groups can be formed using self- selection, random assignment, or criterion- based selection. This study used self- selection, where students chose their own group members. The choice of group size involves difficult trade- offs. According to Rau and Heyl (1990), smaller groups (of three) contain less diversity; and may lack divergent thinking styles and varied expertise that help to animate collective decision making. Conversely, in larger groups it is difficult to ensure that all members participate. This study used a group size of four. There were 24 students in the collaborative learning treatment group. Thus, there were six groups of four students each. Grading Procedure According to Slavin (1989), for effective collaborative learning, there must be "group goals" and "individual accountability". When the group's task is to ensure that every group member has learned something, it is in the interest of every group member to spend time explaining concepts to groupmates. Research has consistently found that students who gain most from cooperative work are those who give and receive elaborated explanations (Webb, 1985). Therefore, this study incorporated both "group goals" and "individual accountability". The posttest grade was made up of two parts. Fifty percent of the test grade was based on how that particular group performed on the test. The test points of all group members were pooled together and fifty percent of each student's individual grade was based on the average score. The remaining fifty percent of each student's grade was individual. This was explained to the students before they started working collaboratively. After the task was explained, group members pulled chairs into close circles and started working on the worksheet. They were given 30 minutes to discuss the solutions within the group and come to a consensus. At the end of 30 minutes, the solution sheet was distributed. The participants discussed their answers within the respective groups for 15 minutes. Finally, the students were tested over the material they had studied. Instruments The instruments used in this study were developed by the author. The pretest and posttest were designed to measure student understanding of series and parallel dc circuits and hence belonged to the cognitive domain. Bloom's taxonomy (1956) was used as a guide to develop a blueprint for the pretest and the posttest. On analyzing the pilot study data, the Cronbach Reliability Coefficients for the pretest and the posttest were found to be 0.91 and 0.87 respectively. The posttest was a paper- and- pencil test consisting of 15 "drill- and- practice" items and 15 "critical- thinking" items. The items that belonged to the "knowledge," "comprehension," and "application" classifications of Bloom's Taxonomy were categorized as "drill- and- practice" items. These items pertained to units and symbols of electrical quantities, total resistance in series and parallel, and simple applications of Ohm's Law. The items that belonged to "synthesis," "analysis," and "evaluation"

classifications of Bloom's Taxonomy were categorized as "critical- thinking" items. These items required students to clarify information, combine the component parts into a coherent whole, and then judge the solution against the laws of electric circuits. The pretest consisted of 12 items, two items belonging to each classification of Bloom's Taxonomy. Research Design A nonequivalent control group design was used in this study. The level of significance (alpha) was set at 0.05. A pretest was administered to all subjects prior to the treatment. The pretest was helpful in assessing students' prior knowledge of dc circuits and also in testing initial equivalence among groups. A posttest was administered to measure treatment effects. The total treatment lasted for 95 minutes. In order to avoid the problem of the students becoming "test- wise", the pretest and posttest were not parallel forms of the same test. Findings A total of 48 subjects participated in this study. A nine item questionnaire was developed to collect descriptive data on the participants. Results of the questionnaire revealed that the average age of the participants was 22.55 years with a range of 19 to 35. The mean grade point average was 2.89 on a 4- point scale, with a range of 2.02 to 3.67. The questionnaire also revealed that eight participants were females and 40 were males. Nineteen students were currently classified as sophomores and 29 were juniors. Fortyfive participants reported that they had no formal education or work experience in dc circuits either in high school or in college. Three students stated that they had some work experience in electronics but no formal education. The pretest and posttest were not parallel forms of the same test. Hence, the difference between the pretest and posttest score was not meaningful. The posttest score was used as the criterion variable. At first, a t- test was conducted on pretest scores for the two treatment groups. The mean of the pretest scores for the participants in the group that studied collaboratively (3.4) was not significantly different than the group that studied individually (3.1). The ttest yielded a value (t=1.62, p>0.05) which was not statistically significant. Hence, it was concluded that pretest differences among treatment groups were not significant. The posttest scores were then analyzed to determine the treatment effects using the ttest groups procedure which is appropriate for this research design. In addition, an analysis of covariance procedure was used to reduce the error variance by an amount proportional to the correlation between the pre and posttests. The correlation between the pretest and the posttest was significant (r=0.21, p<0.05). In this approach, the pretest was used as a single covariate in a simple ANCOVA analysis. Research Question I Will there be a significant difference in achievement on a test comprised of "drill- andpractice" items between students learning individually and students learning collaboratively? The mean of the posttest scores for the participants in the group that studied collaboratively (13.56) was slightly higher than the group that studied individually

(11.89). A t- test on the data did not show a significant difference between the two groups. The result is given in Table 1. An analysis of covariance procedure yielded a Fvalue that was not statistically significant (F=1.91, p>0.05). Research Question II Will there be a significant difference in achievement on a test comprised of "criticalthinking" items between students learning individually and students learning collaboratively? The mean of the posttest scores for the participants in the group that studied collaboratively (12.21) was higher than the group that studied individually (8.63). A ttest on the data showed that this difference was significant at the 0.001 alpha level. This result is presented in Table 1. An analysis of covariance yielded a F-value that was significant at the same alpha level (F=3.69, p<0.001). Table 1 Results of t-Test ItemClassification Method of Teaching Individual Drill-and-Practice Collaborative 24 13.56 2.01 Individual Critical-thinking 24 8.63 3.53 .001*** N Mean SD 24 11.89 2.62 1.73 .09 t p

Collaborative 24 12.21 2.52 Discussion of the Findings After conducting a statistical analysis on the test scores, it was found that students who participated in collaborative learning had performed significantly better on the criticalthinking test than students who studied individually. It was also found that both groups did equally well on the drill- and- practice test. This result is in agreement with the learning theories proposed by proponents of collaborative learning. According to Vygotsky (1978), students are capable of performing at higher intellectual levels when asked to work in collaborative situations than when asked to work individually. Group diversity in terms of knowledge and experience contributes positively to the learning process. Bruner (1985) contends that cooperative learning methods improve problem- solving strategies because the students are confronted with different interpretations of the given situation. The peer support system makes it possible for the learner to internalize both external knowledge and critical thinking skills and to convert them into tools for intellectual functioning. In the present study, the collaborative learning medium provided students with opportunities to analyze, synthesize, and evaluate ideas cooperatively. The informal setting facilitated discussion and interaction. This group interaction helped students to learn from each other's scholarship, skills, and experiences. The students had to go beyond mere statements of opinion by giving reasons for their judgments and reflecting upon the criteria employed in making these judgments. Thus, each opinion was subject to careful scrutiny. The ability to admit that one's initial opinion may have been

incorrect or partially flawed was valued. The collaborative learning group participants were asked for written comments on their learning experience. In order to analyze the open- ended informal responses, they were divided into three categories: 1. Benefits focusing on the process of collaborative learning, 2. Benefits focusing on social and emotional aspects, and 3. Negative aspects of collaborative learning. Most of the participants felt that groupwork helped them to better understand the material and stimulated their thinking process. In addition, the shared responsibility reduced the anxiety associated with problem- solving. The participants commented that humor too played a vital role in reducing anxiety. A couple of participants mentioned that they wasted a lot of time explaining the material to other group members. The comments along with the number of participants who made those comments are described in Table 2. Table 2 Categorical Description of Students' Open-Ended Responses Regarding Collaborative Learning A. Benefits Focusing on the Process of Collaborative Learning Comments (# of responses): Helped understanding (21) Pooled knowledge and experience (17) Got helpful feedback (14) Stimulated thinking (12) Got new perspectives (9) B. Benefits Focusing on Social and Emotional Aspects Comments (# of responses) More relaxed atmosphere makes problem- solving easy (15) It was fun (12) Greater responsibility- for myself and the group (4) Made new friends (3) C. Negative Aspects of Collaborative Learning Comments (# of responses) Wasted time explaining the material to others (2) Implications for Instruction From this research study, it can be concluded that collaborative learning fosters the development of critical thinking through discussion, clarification of ideas, and evaluation of others' ideas. However, both methods of instruction were found to be equally effective in gaining factual knowledge. Therefore, if the purpose of instruction is to enhance critical- thinking and problem- solving skills, then collaborative learning is more beneficial. For collaborative learning to be effective, the instructor must view teaching as a process of developing and enhancing students' ability to learn. The instructor's role is not to transmit information, but to serve as a facilitator for learning. This involves creating and

managing meaningful learning experiences and stimulating students' thinking through real world problems. Future research studies need to investigate the effect of different variables in the collaborative learning process. Group composition: Heterogeneous versus homogeneous, group selection and size, structure of collaborative learning, amount of teacher intervention in the group learning process, differences in preference for collaborative learning associated with gender and ethnicity, and differences in preference and possibly effectiveness due to different learning styles, all merit investigation. Also, a psycho- analysis of the group discussions will reveal useful information. References Bruner, J. (1985). Vygotsky: An historical and conceptual perspective. Culture, communication, and cognition: Vygotskian perspectives, 21-34. London: Cambridge University Press. Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, handbook 1: Cognitive domain. New York: Longmans Green. Johnson, R. T., & Johnson, D. W. (1986). Action research: Cooperative learning in the science classroom. Science and Children, 24, 31-32. Rau, W. & Heyl, B. S. (1990). Humanizing the college classroom: Collaborative learning and social organization among students. Teaching Sociology, 18, 141-155. Slavin, R. E. (1989). Research on cooperative learning: An international perspective. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 33(4), 231-243. Totten, S., Sills, T., Digby, A., & Russ, P. (1991). Cooperative learning: A guide to research. New York: Garland. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Webb, N. (1985). Student interaction and learning in small groups: A research summary. Learning to Cooperate, Cooperating to Learn, 148-172.

Anuradha A. Gokhale is an Associate Professor at Western Illinois University in the Department of Industrial Education and Technology, and is currently a Visiting Associate Professor at Illinois State University.

MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching Vol. 4, No. 1, March 2008

109 Collaborative Online Learning: A Constructivist Example

Donna Ashcraft Professor of Psychology Clarion University of Pennsylvania Clarion, PA USA ashcraft@clarion.edu Thomas Treadwell Professor of Psychology West Chester University of Pennsylvania West Chester, PA USA ttreadwell@wcupa.edu V. Krishna Kumar Professor of Psychology West Chester University of Pennsylvania West Chester, PA USA vkumar@wcupa.edu Abstract While many other disciplines have implemented constructivist pedagogical changes, psychology has been slower to implement similar educational reform. In this article we describe a constructivist method to teach group processes. Pretest/Posttest data indicate this type of learning experience results in significant increases in students content knowledge in four targeted areas (American Psychological Association writing style, group processes, social psychology, and research methodology) from the beginning to the end of the semester. Student perception data indicate students learned content" as well as "process" information in the online collaborative course. Keywords: OnLine Collaborative Learning, Electronic Group Development , Social Constructiveness, VideoConferencing, Webboard, Chat Rooms, File Manager, Course Content Evaluation, Student Perceptions, Project Guides (peer mentors), CORAL Pedagogy, Social Psychological. Introduction Constructivism is a decadesold philosophy that suggests that learners develop (or construct) their own knowledge through examination of their experiences, i.e., by making meaning of their own world (e.g., Dewey, 1938 Piaget, 1970 Vygotsky, 1978). While other fields have embraced this type of learning as more effective than traditional objectivist methods, such as lecturing, and have implemented educational reform to reflect this perspective, psychology, and other social sciences, have been much slower to accept and utilize this form of learning (U. S. Department of Education, 2004). In fact, discovery learning, which is sometimes misinterpreted as a constructivist method, has been criticized as an instructional method of the past in a recent article in the American Psychologist (Mayer, 2004), one that did not meet the expectations it promised. While some interpret constructivism as pure discovery learning, such assumptions are based on fundamental misunderstandings of constructivist pedagogy. Constructivism is not the same as unguided discovery learning, i.e., as group work with little or no guidance from the instructor. This erroneous MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching Vol. 4, No. 1, March 2008

110
assumption that the two concepts are equivalent implies that students must develop their own knowledge without the aid of instructordesigned activities that lead students to understand course concepts. Nothing could be further from the truth. Constructivist teachers do not assume that

students must reinvent science. Instead, they utilize activities and discussion to draw knowledge out of their students. As Vrasidas (2000) notes, learners should be provided with the tools, resources, and support necessary to manage their own learning and assigned tasks (p. 9). These two teaching methods (activities and discussion) illustrate two basic schools of thought within the constructivist paradigm: personal and social constructivism. In personal constructivism, knowledge is developed through cognitive activity that interprets and organizes, or reorganizes, experiences. In social constructivism, knowledge is developed through cognitive activity that occurs during the discussion of experiences with other people. The social interaction is necessary for the cognitive interpretation, organization, or reorganization to occur. However, it must be noted that some, but not all, group work is constructivist. For example, cooperative learning, whereby students divide up parts of assignments and complete those parts on their own, is not (social) constructivist in nature because students do not interact together in ways to encourage cognitive reorganization. Collaborative learning, on the other hand, whereby students interact and build on each others ideas, is constructivist in nature. Similarly, not all learning activities are constructivist. Mayer (2004) distinguishes between activities that are cognitive and those that are behavioral, and rightly so. It is important to note that not all learning activities are constructivist in nature. Constructivism, by definition, involves cognitive activity that allows for an understanding of our world. Student participation in activities that lack cognitive engagement is not considered constructivist in nature. Given the large quantity of supportive research on constructivist methods, coupled with the endorsement of these teaching methods by the Department of Education and the National Research Council (e.g., National Research Council, NRC, 2000) one can assume that constructivist teaching methods are effective, not only in other disciplines such as the natural sciences, but in social sciences as well, as long as appropriate group and individual activities are provided. In this study we present evidence supporting constructivist teaching in an online social psychology laboratory course and describe a constructivist teaching method for the study of social psychological and group processes, one that provides guidance to the students developing their knowledge. An assessment of this method is also addressed using instruments that evaluate content knowledge gained by students and that evaluate whether students have gained any "process" skills, i.e., whether students developed any new procedures or skills that can assist their learning. Collaborative Online Research and Learning (CORAL) Course Design In particular, we describe our Collaborative Online Research and Learning (CORAL) method whereby students from two universities, enrolled in two different courses, form groups who work together on semesterlong projects designed to help them learn about group processes. Teams comprised of students from both universities complete a research proposal on a topic pertaining to both course topics.

While engaged in the completion of the proposal, team members observe their group's behaviors. Throughout the semester, student teams complete collaborative analyses that are designed to help students learn social psychological concepts. For example, students study Tuckmans (1965) stages of group development, group roles, communication patterns, group norms, persuasion, social loafing, social influence, ingroups and outgroups, homogeneity bias, the selfserving bias, and superordinate goals. Students read several relevant articles on the topics, complete activities designed to illustrate concepts by using their own group's behaviors as examples, and report their team's group processes in a collaboratively written paper. (The actual assignment descriptions can be found at http://coral.wcupa.edu .) Students use a variety of technological tools to communicate across, and within sites, to complete assignments. This includes discussion boards, video conferencing, file managers, online calendars, and chat rooms. (For a more detailed description of the CORAL course design, see Treadwell & Ashcraft, 2005.) MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching Vol. 4, No. 1, March 2008

111
How is CORAL constructivist? The CORAL model can be described as constructivist for a number of reasons. First, there is no lecturing in the CORAL courses. Instead, students use both their inclass time and outofclass time to read assigned articles, understand assignments, interact with their fellow teammates, and complete assignments as teams. Thus, there is a movement away from the objectivist (lecturing), and teachercentered mode of teaching to one that is more constructivist, and learnercentered, i.e., an approach that allows students to develop their own knowledge. As Vrasidas (2000) notes, In a constructivist course, the learners have a lot of control over their own learning and are given the opportunity to negotiate content, assignments, procedures, and deadlines. (p. 9). This is certainly true of our CORAL courses. Students determine research proposal topics and design as long as topics are relevant to course subject matter. This means that not all students in a CORAL course will learn the same thing because different teams will choose different topics for their research proposal. This is also characteristic of a constructivist teaching pedagogy: Constructivist teachers do not assume that all students need to learn the same material (Vrasidas, 2000). Student teams also have much to say about their teams deadlines for papers and decide how best to complete assignments. For example, teams determine whether they should discuss matters over chat rooms, discussion boards, or video conferencing. This too is constructivist. Vrasidas (2000) notes learners should be provided with the tools needed to manage their own learning and to complete assignments, and instructors essentially become facilitators, helping students to develop their own knowledge. CORAL does this: students are given assignment guidelines, resources, and tools

such as discussion boards, chat rooms, file managers, and video conferencing so that they can learn. CORAL professors are present to answer questions and make suggestions that assist students in their learning. Student assignments are designed specifically with the objective of helping students understand course concepts by examining their own experiences in a team setting, applying social psychological concepts from their readings, along with applying social psychological terminology to team organization and development. As a result students embrace constructivist teaching/learning in a simulated real life team setting. Finally, our approach is social constructivist in nature as a result of assignments being completed collaboratively. To meet this standard, students learn that interaction is essential to complete assignments successfully and that social interaction is the hallmark of social constructivism. Learning takes place, according to this approach, because students discuss material and assignments collaboratively, thus bringing about cognitive changes (i.e., learning). Additionally, we employ the use of project guides. These are students who have previously taken a CORAL course and who serve as peer mentors to those students who are currently enrolled in the CORAL course (Treadwell, Ashcraft, Teeter & Ritchie, 2006). These project guides help students to understand course assignments, the collaborative process, group processes, and technology. They serve as a buffer between the students and the professors and gradually socialize students to understand that learning is based on social interaction in task completion. They also serve to move students away from the teachercentered model to a collaborative learning studentcentered model. This does not come easily to most students but the influence peer mentors (project guides) have on their peers should not be underestimated. A project guide structures the learning experience just enough to make sure that students get clear guidance and parameters within which to achieve the learning objectives, yet the learning experience should be open and free enough to allow for the learners to discover, enjoy, interact, and arrive at their own socially verified version of truth. The interactions students have with project guides are social constructivist in nature as is the idea of the professor being a facilitator rather than a lecturer. Thus, the course is studentoriented, rather than teacheroriented. Method Participants Participants consisted of 181 students enrolled in a 200 level social psychology laboratory course, a 300 level social psychology course, or a 400 level social psychology seminar. The same instructors offered MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching Vol. 4, No. 1, March 2008

112
the courses and data were collected over eight semesters (four years). Participation was voluntary inasmuch as the students were free to enroll in other sections offered in their departments using more traditional methods. Students signed a consent form to participate in the research completed

during the course. Instruments Course Content Preand Posttests. To assess students learning of subject matter, four tenquestion, multiple choice tests assessing knowledge of topics covered during the courses were administered at the beginning and end of each semester. The four topics covered in the tests related to development of (a) research proposals, (b) American Psychological Association (APA) writing style, (c) group processes (e.g., group norms, communication patterns, group roles, Tuckmans, 1965, stages), and (d) social psychological concepts (e.g., ingroups and outgroups, social loafing, superordinate goals, attributions, persuasion, social influence). Students Perceptions. Students also selfreported their perceptions of knowledge gained in the four targeted areas of (a) research methodology, (b) APA writing style, (c) group processes, and (d) social psychology and in their development of "process" skills (skills that were involved in the learning process, such as interpersonal, time management, and negotiation skills). This was measured using a sevenpoint Likert scale ranging from "very much disagree" to "very much agree" that was administered at the end of the semester. Students indicated how much they agreed or disagreed on the topics (see Student Perception Scale in Appendix). Results Preand Posttest Learning Questionnaires Dependent samples ttests were used to see if posttest scores were higher than the pretest scores in the four content areas. The results of the ttests were significant in all areas (p <.001). Results are summarized in Table 1. Table 2 compares the preand posttest means for the four content areas, (APA writing style, research methodology, social psychology, and group processes). Table 1. Ttest Results for PrePosttest Learning Content Area df t p < Research Proposal 179 8.744 0.001 APA Style 180 5.419 0.001 Group Processes 167 13.645 0.001 Social Psychology 158 14.298 0.001 Students Perceptions of Learning Students also selfreported their perceptions of knowledge gained during the course of the semester in the four targeted areas using a sevenpoint Likert scale administered at the end of the semester, (see Appendix). Results are listed in Table 3 and indicate that students believed that they learned a lot in

the four content areas. Results also indicated that students perceived that they improved on a number of "process" skills. For example, students believed they improved their social skills and time management skills, skills that can assist them in other collaborative learning environments. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching Vol. 4, No. 1, March 2008

113
Table 2. Preand Posttest Means and Standard Deviations for the Four Content Areas Content Area N Mean Standard Deviation Research Proposal Pre 180 6.944 2.04 Research Proposal Post 180 8.222 1.73 APA Style Pre 181 5.144 1.98 APA Style Post 181 6.099 2.28 Group Processes Pre 168 5.779 1.78 Group Processes Post 168 7.893 1.76 Social Psychology Pre 159 5.566 1.82 Social Psychology Post 159 7.824 1.81 Table 3. Means and Standard Deviations for Students Perceptions of Learning Item N Mean* Standard Deviation I learned a lot about: Tuckman's stages 63 6.29 0.71 Group Roles 63 6.16 0.79 Group Processes 63 5.76 0.91 Social Psychology 63 5.40 1.23 Ingroups and outgroups 63 5.84 1.11 Superordinate Goals 63 5.70 1.16 Attributions 63 5.43 1.27 APA style 63 5.35 1.08 How to write a research proposal 63 5.59 1.28 Research methodology 63 5.38 1.26 How to collaborate 63 6.38 0.73 How to use technology 63 5.92 1.29 I improved my: Interpersonal skills 63 5.89 0.72 Communication skills 63 6.10 0.61 Negotiation skills 63 5.75 0.78 Timemanagement skills 63 5.76 1.25 Writing skills 63 5.38 1.16 This course was beneficial to my 63 6.00 1.03 professional development. I was responsible for my own 63 5.59 1.10 learning in this course. I learned a lot in this course. 63 6.08 0.89 * Based on a 7 point scale 1 = I strongly disagree 7 = I strongly agree MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching Vol. 4, No. 1, March 2008

115
Discussion Results of the study indicate that CORALs social constructivist teaching method is an effective strategy for student learning. The pre/posttests of student content knowledge indicated a statistically significant increase in knowledge of course content in all four of the targeted areas, i.e., students learned about APA writing style, research methods, group processes, and social psychological concepts, with the use of the CORAL pedagogy. Their test scores on these topics increased from the beginning of the semester to the end of the semester. In fact, the greatest gains in student knowledge were in the areas

of group processes and social psychology. The two areas represent a simulated view of the workplace where students have to rely on each other to complete assigned tasks. Thus, through their collaborative energy and observations of how their team worked, they learned how the constructivist model works.Furthermore, students agreed through selfreport that they learned a significant amount of course material through their participation in the CORAL courses. For example, students indicated that they learned a lot about Tuckmans (1965) stages, superordinate goals, ingroups and outgroups, etc. In other words, students were able to develop their own knowledge about group processes through interactions with team members, examination of their own behaviors, and discussion of their own team's processes. In summary, results indicate that social psychological topics can be taught successfully in a social constructivist manner, provided that appropriate levels of guidance are supplied to students, as is the case in CORAL. Experiencing social psychological phenomena firsthand and allowing students to construct their own knowledge through metacognitive processes not only permits students to learn course content, but also encourages the development of life skills, including for example, timemanagement, critical thinking, negotiation and communication skills. Constructivist learning has been assessed as preferable to other traditional forms of teaching and learning and this study supports the former findings. We are also convinced that broadening the constructivist teaching methodology to other social science courses would be beneficial for students. The learning environment should also be designed to support and challenge the learner's thinking by providing appropriate guidance, i.e., learning activities. We advocate giving team members ownership of the assignments (tasks) so they can create solutions allowing them to move forward in answering problems they encounter and become increasingly responsible for their own learning. The critical goal is for project guides and facilitators to support the learner in becoming an effective thinker. This is achieved by assuming multiple roles, such as consultant, tutor, and coach. A constructivist learning environment is thus an intervention where activities (tasks) are used to provide team members (learners) with an opportunity to discover and collaboratively construct meaning as the intervention(s) unfolds. Team members are respected as unique individuals, project guides serve as peer mentor(s), and instructors take on the role of facilitator(s). References Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: CollierMacmillan. Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a threestrikes rule against pure discovery learning? The case for guided methods of instruction. American Psychologist, 59(1), 1419. National Research Council. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Piaget, J. (1970). Genetic epistemology. New York: Columbia University Press. Treadwell, T., & Ashcraft, D. (2005). Pedagogy for Collaborative Online Research and Learning:

The CORAL model. National Society for Experiential Education Quarterly, 30(1), 10 17. Treadwell, T., Ashcraft, D., Teeter, T, & Ritchie, K. (2006) Peer mentor roles in a collaborative online research and learning (CORAL) course. Compass: A Magazine for Peer Assistance, Mentorship, and Coaching. 18(1), 3949. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching Vol. 4, No. 1, March 2008

116
Tuckman, B.W. (1965). Developmental sequences in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 6396, 384399. U. S. Department of Education. (2004). The comprehensive program for the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education for fiscal year 2005. Vrasidas, C. (2000). Constructivism versus objectivism: Implications for interaction, course design, and evaluation in distance education. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 6(4), 339362. Retrieved November 30, 2005 from http://www.cait.org/vrasidas/continuum.pdf Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.

APPENDIX
Student Perception Scale Name (first & last):__________________________________ Date:_____________ On a scale of 1 to 7 indicate how much you agree/disagree with the following statements. 1234567 Very Much Disagree Very much Agree I learned a lot about: 1. Tuckman's stages. 2. Group Roles. 3. Group Processes. 4. Social Psychology. 5. InGroups and Out Groups. 6. Superordinate Goals. 7. Attributions. 8. APA Style. 9. How to Write a Research Proposal. 10. Research Methodology. 11. How to Collaborate. 12. How to use Technology. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching Vol. 4, No. 1, March 2008

117
I improved my: 1234567 Very Much Disagree Very much Agree 13. Interpersonal Skills. 14. Communication Skills. 15. Negotiation Skills. 16. TimeManagement Skills. 17. Writing Skills. 18. This course was beneficial to my professional development. 19. I was responsible for my own learning in this course. 20. I learned a lot in this course.
Manuscript received 19 Sep 2007 revision received 20 Feb 2008.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons AttributionNonCommercialShareAlike 2.5 License

Technology and Collaborative Learning The positive impact of technology on students work in collaborative groups is also evident by looking at research findings. Holliday (2001) studied middle school students working in groups in a computer lab. He reported that the students working in groups develop better oral skills, are more helpful to each other, and participate more. An review of research also indicates that when using computer technology small group learning had significantly more positive effects than individual learning on student individual achievement, group task performance and several other process and affective outcomes (Lou, Abrami, & dApollionia, 2001, 1). Brush (1997) found that in a mathematics classroom using computer-based lessons, students working in groups performed better than individual students and had better attitudes toward the technology use and group activities in general. Another study cited Johnson & Johnsons (1996) findings that use of computer technology in a group learning environment results in higher quality and quantity of student achievement, greater ability to apply ones knowledge in problem-solving and greater success in problem-solving questions (Bracewell, et al., 1998). Collaborative learning with technology in the science classroom also has a positive

influence on learning. Kafai & Ching (2001) examined project-based collaborative science instruction. The authors reported that students engaged in more science-based discourse when working on a technology based activity.