Internet and Higher Education 9 (2006) 267–276

A flexible framework for online collaborative learning

Petrea Redmond a,⁎, Jennifer V. Lock b,1

a University of Southern Queensland, Faculty of Education, West Street, Toowoomba, Qld, 4350, Australiab University of Calgary, Faculty of Education, 2500 University Drive, NW, Calgary, AB, Canada T2N 1N4

Accepted 23 August 2006

Abstract

This paper presents a framework for online collaborative learning, also known as telecollaboration. At the centre of this flexibleframework are online collaborative educational experiences where knowledge creation and knowledge in action are the nexus ofsocial, teaching and cognitive presence based on the Community of Inquiry model of Garrison, Anderson and Archers [Garrison, D.R., Anderson, T., and Archer, W. (1999). Critical thinking in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in highereducation. Internet and Higher Education, 2(2–3), 87–105]. The framework provided should guide educators as they design,develop and implement authentic educational experiences within local, national or international settings in partnership with othereducational stakeholders.© 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Collaboration; Community of inquiry; Telecollaboration; Online

1. Introduction

Constructivist learning environments enhanced through the use of technology integration have opened new spaces forteaching and learning at the post-secondary level. The emphasis of learning needs tomove away fromhow learners learn towho they learn from (Fowler&Mayes, 1999). Information communication technologies (ICT) provides an array of forumsfor students, colleagues, mentors, instructors, and experts to access and interact with a plethora of resources and people tosupport innovative ways for curriculum to be taken up and to foster dynamic discussions as part of a rich learningexperience. “The capability of extending learning beyond the classroom and creating relationships allows students toconstruct their learning through their environment and at their individual learning rates” (Brown, 2004, p. 36).

McCurdy and Schroeder (2006) comment that because higher education is “(s)purred by competition and the needto address the explosion of information and knowledge, we are pushed toward finding new ways to work together”(p. 63). If there is to be innovation and change “as the new technology requires, as the knowledge industry requires, andas students demand— then it follows that academics must become researchers in teaching” (Laurillard, 2002, p. 22). Insupport of innovative teaching and learning experiences, La Grange and Foulke (2004), argue that “ICTs must be

⁎ Corresponding author. Currently on faculty exchange at University of Calgary, Canada. Tel.: +1 403 220 6321; fax: +1 403 282 3005.E-mail addresses: redmond@usq.edu.au (P. Redmond), jvlock@ucalgary.ca (J.V. Lock).

1 Tel.: +1 403 220 6321; fax: +1 403 282 3005.

1096-7516/$ - see front matter © 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2006.08.003

268 P. Redmond, J.V. Lock / Internet and Higher Education 9 (2006) 267–276

examined within the context of broader approaches to teaching and learning (e.g., inquiry-based and problem-basedpedagogies and constructivist epistemology)” (p. 10). ICT integration into teaching and learning needs to be groundedin pedagogy. The challenge is to learn from our past and from our current practices, to design a framework to support acritical mass of educators to effectively use technology beyond the transmission of knowledge to transactional learningin support of collaborative, co-construction of knowledge.

The purpose of this paper is to present a framework for online collaborative learning also known as telecollaboration. It is aflexible framework to guide educators as they design, develop and implement authentic collaborative educational experienceswithin local, national or international settings in partnership with other educational stakeholders. It provides a mechanism forcollaborative learning in support of the creation of knowledge through interdisciplinary online learning experiences. Beingpro-active in the planning by working through the framework should result in a more productive and collaborative learningexperience for learners and educators. Moving learning beyond classroom walls enables access to an abundance ofinformation and expertise in addition to the development of global relationships and increased understandings.

2. Literature review

Meaningful learning, as characterized by Jonassen, Peck and Wilson (1999), is “active, constructive, intentional,authentic, and cooperative” (p. 7). This engagement and active construction of knowledge by the learner is known asconstructivism. It differs from learning in traditional higher education where the transmission of information is thecentral focus. The concept of constructivism has a diverse range of definitions, however it can be thought to describe ateaching and learning experiences where “(1) learning is an active process of constructing rather than acquiringknowledge, and (2) instruction is a process of supporting that construction rather than communicating knowledge”(Duffy & Cunningham, 1996, p. 171).

“Social constructivists believe that meaning making is a process of negotiation among the participants throughdialogues or conversations” (Jonassen et al., 1999, p. 5). The learner is central to the learning process. Learning is asocial activity and learners make meaning through dialogue, communication, collaboration and interaction (Jonassen etal., 1999; Swan, 2005). The opportunity to interact with other learners in sharing, discussing, constructing andnegotiating meaning leads to knowledge construction. Swan (2005) advocates that while learners are constructingknowledge they should have support from more knowledgeable people (e.g., educators, peer mentors or experts fromthe field). These individuals can provide additional expertise, different perspectives and scaffolding in support of theco-construction of knowledge.

Scardamalia and Bereiter (2003) remind us that as learners construct meaning they are “identifying problems ofunderstanding, establishing and refining goals based on progress, gathering information, theorizing, designingexperiments, answering questions and improving theories, building models, monitoring and evaluating progress, andreporting” (p. 1371). This parallels Fowler and Mayes' (1999) thoughts that “engagement and construction are bothabout doing and discovering” (p. 5).

In a cross cultural e-learning qualitative research study, Slotte and Tynjälä (2005) note that collaborative learning is“based on a simple but powerful idea: creating groups or learning communities that ground their professionaldevelopment on mutual learning processes” (p. 193). The collaborative learning process, according to Palloff and Pratt(2001) helps learners achieve a deeper level of knowledge construction. It involves a learner-centred approach where“knowledge is viewed as a social construct, facilitated by peer interaction, evaluation and cooperation” (Benbunan-Fich & Hiltz, 2003, p. 299). Through this process learners share and negotiate understandings.

2.1. Online collaboration — telecollaboration

Harris (1999) defines telecollaboration as “an educational endeavor that involves people in different locations usingInternet tools and resources to work together. Much educational telecollaboration is curriculum based, teacher-designed, and teacher coordinated” (p. 55).

Technology enables learning to expand beyond the walls of the classroom to create authentic learning relationshipswith others who are at a geographic distance. ICT has bought with it new ways of communicating and collaborating. Itenabled learners and educators to interact with each other, peers, experts, content and other resources in ways that werepreviously unavailable. For this to occur, technology needs to be seamlessly integrated and grounded in the context tosupport the needs of learners (Good, O'Connor, & Luce, 2004).

269P. Redmond, J.V. Lock / Internet and Higher Education 9 (2006) 267–276

Chen, Benton, Cicatelli, and Yee (2004) argue that “(t)he purposes of technology collaboration are to create real-world environments that employ the context in which learning is relevant, and to focus on realistic approaches tosolving real-world problems” (p. 47). In their survey of participants in a technology-based collaborative projectinvolving graduate students and a government research centre, they found that it is essential to utilize the skills of allcollaborators in order to meet the needs of the stakeholders. This will enhance the personal investment of collaboratorsand assist in meeting the clearly defined project goals.

There are four key benefits to online collaborative learning. First, online access to multiple people beyond the learners'immediate classmates and educator gives exposure to “differing opinions, perspectives, beliefs, experiences and thinkingprocess” (Harris, 1999, p. 55). The online arena also providesmultiple interactive opportunities with other learners, educators,experts and content. Second, the use of asynchronous communication facilitates learning anywhere and anytime. Third, itenables learners to move from their private to the public world and dialogue to create a shared understanding of meaningthrough “comparing, contrasting, and/or combing similar information collected in dissimilar locations” (Harris, 1999, p.55).Fourth, online collaborative learning experiences can create learning communities at local, national or global levels expandingparticipants “global awareness” (Harris, 1999, p.55). As noted by Riel (1996), it is the partnerships and interactions amongpeople who gather online that define community, not the digital technology that is used.

2.2. Community of inquiry

The conceptual model for the online collaborative framework presented in this paper is based on Garrison,Anderson, and Archer's (2000) Community of Inquiry. Garrison (2006) explains that the “goal is to create a communityof inquiry where students are fully engaged in collaboratively constructing meaningful and worthwhile knowledge”(p. 25). Garrison and Anderson (2003) go on to say that this community is made up of learners and educators“transacting with the specific purposes of facilitation, constructing, and validating understanding, and of developingcapability that will lead to further learning” (p. 23).

There are three key elements to the community of inquiry: social presence, cognitive presence and teachingpresence. At the centre of these elements is the educational experience which promotes deep and meaningful learning(Garrison & Anderson, 2003). Fig. 1 shows the relationship between each of the presences.

Fig. 1. Community of Inquiry, (Garrison & Anderson, 2003, p. 28). Note. From “E-learning in the 21st Century: A Framework for Research andPractice,” by Garrison and Anderson (2003). Reprinted with permission of D.R. Garrison.

270 P. Redmond, J.V. Lock / Internet and Higher Education 9 (2006) 267–276

The first element is social presence. Garrison et al. (2000) define it as “the ability of participants in acommunity of inquiry to project themselves socially and emotionally, as ‘real’ people though the medium ofcommunication being used” (p. 94). The communication medium in which the community is working has a seriousimpact on social presence and it is important to minimize communication anxiety. In a pilot study examining theadjustment of learners to online learning environments, Kinsel, Cleveland-Innes, and Garrison (2005) found thattime is required for novice online learners to feel comfortable in communicating openly and in expressing emotionwithin a text based environment. If asynchronous text based dialogue is the only communication participantsexperience within the community, contributors must be aware of the lack of visual cues, intonation, andimmediacy that are commonly used in face-to-face dialogue to assist with making meaning. Garrison andCleveland-Innes (2005) have noted that creating social presence is “a precondition for a purposeful and worth-while learning experience” (p. 135).

The second element is cognitive presence, defined as “the extent to which learners are able to construct and confirmmeaning through sustained reflection and discourse in a critical community of inquiry” (Garrison, Anderson, & Archer,2001, p. 11). According to Garrison and Anderson (2003) it “concerns the process of both reflection and discourse inthe initiation, construction and confirmation of meaningful learning outcomes” (p. 4). Kanuka and Garrison's (2004)study investigating how to support higher levels of learning when using online discussions found the need to combineboth internal (e.g., discourse, collaboration) and external (e.g., reflection and knowledge construction) constructs whenfacilitating higher level learning.

The third key element is teaching presence. It is “the design, facilitation and direction of cognitive and socialprocesses for the purpose of realizing personally meaningful and educationally worthwhile learning outcomes”(Anderson, Rourke, Garrison, and Archer, 2001, p. 5). In the discussion of the findings from the study of Garrison et al.(2001) investigating critical discourse in computer conferencing, they argue to achieve higher-order learning outcomesthe role of teaching presence is critical to coordinate synergistic interaction. It must be noted that all participants withinthe community of inquiry have a role to play in teaching presence, not just the educator.

3. Online collaborative learning framework

3.1. Framework for design

Designing rich learner-centred, curriculum focused learning that integrates technology requires a flexible onlineframework to support the development of higher order thinking using inquiry and collaborative learning. Harris (2000–01)argues that flexible frameworks are required “to structure understanding-focused learning activities that help studentsmake powerful, worthwhile use of online tools and resources” (p. 52). Such frameworks need to foster complex thinkingguided by a deep constructivist approach.

The focus of the framework is to shift online learning environments into a collaborative, interactive space wherelearners and educators are co-creators of knowledge. Through interaction, the collective intelligence encompasseslearning from each other so that the overall learning gained is greater than the sum of the independent work of eachlearner. As noted by Haythornthwaite (2006), collaboration can occur within various continuums (e.g., division oflabor to joint construction; application of knowledge to shared, co-construction of knowledge). The co-construction ofknowledge should be the emerging force within the framework.

Fig. 2 shows the online collaborative learning framework seen through the Community of Inquiry lens of Garrisonet al. (1999).

3.1.1. Section A: Fostering social presenceWiske, Franz, and Breit (2005) argue “(l)earning is a social process that is mediated by language and advanced

through interpreting and negotiating meaning with other people.” (p. 99). Social presence within the onlineenvironment is the “degree of feeling, perception and reaction of being connected” (Tu & McIsaac, 2002, p. 140) toothers within the learning community using text based communication. At the beginning of educational experiences itis important for learners and educators to see and sense the other participants to “create the condition for sharing andchallenging ideas through critical discourse” (Garrison & Cleveland-Innes, 2005, pp.142–143).

Social presence is an enabler for the critical discourse required for a community of inquiry to function successfullyin the online world. It is imperative for the development of the learning community and cultivating an environment of

Fig. 2. Online collaborative learning framework (Adapted from Garrison, Anderson, and Archer's community of inquiry model, 1999).

271P. Redmond, J.V. Lock / Internet and Higher Education 9 (2006) 267–276

trust, where participants are free to express emotions, ideas, concerns, and collaborate. The social construction ofknowledge within a community of inquiry draws from and connects to a larger community and culture.

3.1.2. Section B: Creating and sustaining a learning communityIt is at the intersection between social presence and teaching presence where educators and learners explore their

roles in the creation of a sustainable learning community. Within a community of inquiry, participants must seethemselves as both individuals and as an active participant in the learning community.

The educator's intentional planning of activities to promote social presence and group cohesion will contribute tothe degree of social presence experienced by learners. From their research, Slotte and Tynjälä (2005) argue successfulcommunication and collaboration “requires profound, pedagogical insight, an eye for situations, and skills in guidingother people” (p. 205). Strategies to promote social presence tend to include activities which focus on getting to knowother participants by posting personal information, images and artifacts. Further, it is the role of educators to provideetiquette instruction and to model appropriate responses that promote the development of social and cognitiverelationships.

3.1.3. Section C: Developing and maintaining teaching presenceTeaching presence, according to Garrison and Anderson (2003) “brings all the elements of a community of inquiry

together” (p. 29). This section pulls together the social and cognitive presences with a focus on the roles and functionsrequired to create and sustain a dynamic learning environment (Vaughan, 2004).

Garrison and Anderson (2003) suggest that successful teaching presence includes the design and organization of theeducational experience through setting curriculum and instructional strategies. Purposefulness and reflective planningneed to include what to do before, during and after an educational experience in order to achieve learning outcomes.

Facilitating discourse moves the online group discussion from trivialized comments or monologues where learnersshare experiences and express opinions with limited connection to other comments or research (Henri, 1992; Klemm&Snell, 1996; O'dowd & Eberbach, 2004) to postings that demonstrate higher order thinking “that is conceptually rich,coherently organised and persistently exploratory” (Lipman, 1991, p. 19).

Although Garrison et al.'s (1999) Community of Inquiry model is based on the concept of social constructivismthere is also a role for direct instruction where educators or experts would provide information, focus the discussion anddiagnose misconceptions throughout the learning experience.

272 P. Redmond, J.V. Lock / Internet and Higher Education 9 (2006) 267–276

The majority of the design and organisation element of teaching presence is normally carried out by educators priorto learners entering the learnscape. However, this element must reflect the learners' needs and the educational outcomerequired. It is here where educators begin to design for authentic communication and dialogue with peers and/or expertsin order to solve a real world problem, issue, or complete a task connected to curriculum.

There are two key factors to be considered when working with other educational stakeholders or experts in onlinecollaborative learning. First, is to find a suitable partner(s) and/or experts to assist with the facilitation of learning. Innegotiating the planning of the educational experience, ongoing discussions should be used to address the followingitems to ensure the work is suitable for the participants and promotes deep learning: roles and responsibilities, context,timing, learning outcomes and curriculum. In addition, educators must consider how learners will demonstrate theirknowledge gained through these experiences and the assessment of knowledge. Second, if more than one class isinvolved in the experience, consideration needs to be given to the role of a liaison at each site. The liaisons need to havebuy-in along with leadership, motivational and ICT skills. An experience, such as this, requires open communicationbetween educators at each end and the development of relationships with all stakeholders.

In the design and development of teaching presence, three factors need to be addressed. First, ensure there is timewithin the project for flexibility and access to experts and appropriate resources. Consideration may need to be given tovarious forms of interaction, synchronous and asynchronous communication and communication media (e.g., text,audio or video conferencing). Second, specific attention must be paid to the development of the educator's own andothers' social presence and the planning of activities should extend the discussion in order to nurture rich and robustcollaborative learning experiences. Online collaborative learning requires both educators and learners to move beyondcooperation and basic interaction to collaborative knowledge building and/or action. Third, consideration should begiven to the pre- and post-activities where learners explore their prior knowledge and provide them with opportunitiesto present/represent their new knowledge.

3.1.4. Section D: Scaffolding learningAt the intersection of teaching and cognitive presence is the cognitive activities designed to enable students to

achieve deep learning while achieving educational outcomes. This can be viewed as the link between content,pedagogy and assessment. It is here where learners move beyond social interaction and relationships to the engagementin cognitive activities and interaction with peers, educators, experts and content to guide learning in the promotion ofknowledge in action.

It is within this section that the concept of practical inquiry begins to emerge. Dewey (1933) believed that practicalinquiry is grounded in experience and reflective or critical thinking. It is at this point where learners' cognitive privateand public worlds begin to intersect. Garrison et al. (2000) developed a Practical Inquiry Model to examine the depthof critical thinking within the cognitive presence element of a community of inquiry.

Fig. 2 indicates that cognitive presence, hence practical inquiry impacts four sections of the online collaborationframework, sections D, E, F and G. Garrison et al. (1999) have broken practical inquiry into four phases. They note thatthis “multi-phased educational process designed to construct meaning and confirm understanding” (Garrison &Anderson, 2003, p. 28) creates a context for critical thinking. These phases are not linear but represent the intersectionof two continua as shown in Fig. 3.

The first phase is a triggering event where learners are puzzled or see a problem. This is followed byexploration where learners search for information or explanations. The third phase is integration where studentsbring together all information their have to try and develop a shared understanding. The final phase is that ofresolution where the learners develop a solution or test an action to resolve their thinking around the initialtriggering event. When designing collaborative learning consideration should be given to the triggering event inorder to entice and motivate learners.

3.1.5. Section E: Exploring cognitive presenceCognitive presence is characterized by knowledge building and knowledge application. This section focuses on

the exploration phase of practical inquiry. Garrison et al. (2001) advise that this is where learners seek information,brainstorm ideas, provide personal narratives and question themselves and others while exploring the problem.

In achieving critical thinking it is important to understand that it is both a process and a product. As a process,consideration needs to be given to metacognition. According to Henri (1992) this includes “procedural knowledgerelating to evaluation, planning, regulation and self-awareness” (p. 131). Critical thinking as a product or outcome

Fig. 3. Practical Inquiry Model (Garrison & Anderson, 2003, p. 59) Note. From “E-learning in the 21st Century: A Framework for Research andPractice,” by Garrison and Anderson (2003). Reprinted with permission of D. R. Garrison.

273P. Redmond, J.V. Lock / Internet and Higher Education 9 (2006) 267–276

might include “the acquisition of deep and meaningful understandings as well as content-specific critical inquiryabilities, skills and dispositions” (Garrison et al., 2001, p.8). When exploring cognitive presence, educators need todesign the learning experience to ensure there is scaffolding for the development of critical thinking.

3.1.6. Section F: Participating in critical discourseThe intersection between social and cognitive presence is when learners move beyond the exchange of information,

to a more reflective and in-depth investigation or analysis. Here they compare, contrast and connect ideas from theirpeers and the literature. Using informed voices learners' dialogue should demonstrate an increasing breadth and depthof knowledge. Learners continue to share and question for understanding in addition to justifying their thoughts,acknowledging and building on others' ideas and linking or connecting to other sources while creating solutions orrecommendations (Garrison et al., 2001).

“Working with a group of equal-status peers to solve a problem is particularly conducive to the development ofcritical thinking skills because it exposes individuals to different perspectives and interpretations of a problem oridea” (Abrams, 2005, p. 26). Critical discourse within group work is where students integrate their priorknowledge with multiple perspectives and engage in higher order thinking. For this critical discourse to occuronline, educators and learners must consider the type of communication mode to use. For example, would it bemore successful if the learners are able to dialogue synchronously via text, video or audio conferencing orasynchronously? Access to and selection of communication tools needs to be carefully chosen to best suit learnersand the educational experiences.

3.1.7. Section G: Knowledge in actionKnowledge in action is at the centre of the community of inquiry and is the intersection of the other six sections

within the online collaborative learning framework. It represents the final phase of the practical inquiry model knownas resolution. It is where learners test and defend solutions to problems or apply their knowledge to the real world(Garrison et al., 2001). At this stage, learners may be expected to create artifacts (conceptual or real), develop processstructures, solve problems, develop and/or carry out an action plan or create a performance. According to Garrison andAnderson (2003), the resolution phase will often “raise further questions and issues, triggering new cycles of inquiry,and, thereby, encouraging continuous learning” (p. 60).

When possible, educational experiences should leave a legacy for others. This may be in the form of action taken bylearners or sharing of the representation of their knowledge for future learners and educators to build on. Further,Harris (1995) suggests that in this final phase of the educational experience, educators provide all participants with theopportunity to reflect on the learning experience and to say “thank you” and “good-bye”.

274 P. Redmond, J.V. Lock / Internet and Higher Education 9 (2006) 267–276

4. Implications

Online collaborative learning can easily fail and people can become disgruntled with the experience if attention isnot given to various human and logistical factors. Being pro-active and flexible in planning, anticipating potentialchallenges and developing clear communication among the stakeholders are critical elements to the life and longevityof this type of work.

According to Harris (2000), there are three areas where educational online collaboration can fail: context, planning andlogistics.With context, Harris argues successful online collaboration is the result of multiple levels of stakeholder support.For example, technology use in education facilities “is often more of a human relations challenge than a technical one. Itrequires building and maintaining good connections with peers, technology specialists, and administrators who allocatevaluable resources like time, budget, and professional opportunities” (Wiske et al., 2005, p. 80).

Harris (2000) claims in addressing contextual issues there is a need for educational experiences to be authentic andcurriculum-based as opposed to being technology focused. To develop successful online collaborative learning is tobegin by articulating “specific goals, specific tasks, and specific outcomes” (Rogers, Andres, Jacks, & Clauset, 1990).With the specific tasks, educators can then determine the type of online collaborative activity they will use and selectthe appropriate technology to be integrated.

Educators who are involved in the design and development of collaborative learning will need to be purposeful in theirselection of technology to accommodate the appropriate mode(s) of communication (e.g., synchronous and asynchronous)and bandwidth available to meet the specific learning goals and outcomes. Access to the technology needs to be addressedin the early planning discussions. Wiske et al. (2005) argue that organizational structures influence what learners andteachers are willing and/or able to do. Therefore, consideration may need to be given to flexible schedules and access tohardware and software when needed (just-in-time) to accommodate the learning experience.

Harris' (2000) second area of concern is with planning. She recommends that collaborative planning by keystakeholders (e.g., teachers and learners) in the online learning experience will foster greater ownership andparticipation which will reduce the likelihood of abandonment of the work before completion. She cautions that thestructure needs to be flexible and accommodate customization by participants at each location. The shared vision needsto be supported with consistent leadership so that the project evolves via the collaborative work from all sites, and notshaped by what occurs within specific classes. Therefore, in the planning, educators “need to consider beforehand thecombination of factors that stem from the subject matter, technology-mediation tools, and the nature of the activities inwhich students participate” (Lopez-Ortiz & Lin, 2005).

The final area of concern is with logistics. Harris (2000) identifies two key issues that need to be addressed to avoidfailure. First is the role and responsibility of a liaison or coordinator. Harris (2000) describes the responsibility of thecoordinator as one who summarizes decisions made as part of planning process, refines timelines based on participants'schedules and sends out reminders to the site coordinators/educators to assist them in carrying out the project asplanned. Second, she acknowledged that the quantity of time allocated for an online collaborative learning experiencecan be insufficient. Time is a critical factor that needs to be addressed in planning, developing and implementing onlinecollaborative learning. In the early stages, time needs to be committed for the development of a team who verify andagree with shared understandings and philosophies (Good et al., 2004). Time is required for people in developingrelationships, in “building trust and online community that promotes collaboration” (Haythornthwaite, 2006, p. 11).Harris (2000) comments “engaging, worthwhile pedagogy usually takes more time” (p. 61) than educators expect.

5. Directions for future research

Based on the framework, there are emerging areas for consideration for future research. At this point it is aconceptual framework for online collaborative learning experiences. Extensive empirical testing is required to validatethe framework. The integrity of the framework will be strengthened and refined through future studies that examine theelements and the relationships among the elements within the overall framework. Given the current body of researchliterature on social, cognitive and teaching presences, the future research focus needs to be on the other four elements ofthe framework: creating and sustaining a learning community, scaffolding learning, participating in critical discourseand knowledge in action.

After validating the framework it can be used by educators to guide online collaborative learning experiences.Research should then be conducted examining the process and the results of such learning experiences through the lens

275P. Redmond, J.V. Lock / Internet and Higher Education 9 (2006) 267–276

of the framework. An additional area to examine is the impact the framework has as a process to guide educators intheir planning and facilitating of online collaborative learning experiences.

6. Conclusion

The flexible online collaborative learning framework presented maximizes the ever-evolving capacity of digital andsocial networks in diverse settings. Along with innovative pedagogical practice, educators are able to move teachingand learning beyond the walls of the classroom. Educators can create global classroom learning experiences wherelearners work as virtual team members, have access to an array of expertise and co-create knowledge with others forwhom they may never meet in person but only online. This framework provides educators with a process that can assistwith ICT integration to support meaningful learning experiences.

Wiske et al. (2005) suggest that “people learn by reflecting what they know, considering ideas from multipleperspectives, and analyzing their experience with alternative interpretive frameworks. Collaborating with othersenriches one's capacity to develop and apply ideas” (p. 99). The framework is focused on the collaborative creation ofknowledge that utilizes online learning environments. It can be used as a way to structure and support interdisciplinary,learning partnerships at the local, national or international levels. Technology enables educators to establish learningcommunities whose boundaries are only limited by the imagination of those who participate within that learningcommunity.

Acknowledgments

This paper was adapted from one originally presented at the Summer 2006 Institute, “Linking Research toProfessional Practice”. July 7– 9, 2006. Calgary, AB.

References

Abrams, Z. (2005). Asynchronous CMC, collaboration and the development of critical thinking in a graduate seminar in applied linguistics.Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 31(2), 23−47.

Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing teacher presence in a computer conferencing context. Journal ofAsynchronous Learning Networks, 5(2) (Retrieved August 15, 2006, from http://www.aln.org/publications/jaln/v5n2/v5n2_anderson.asp).

Benbunan-Fich, S., & Hiltz, R. (2003). Mediators of the effectiveness of online courses. Transactions on Professional Communication, 46(4),298−312.

Brown, K. (2004). Technology: Building interaction. TechTrends, 48(5), 34−36.Chen, L. L., Benton, B., Cicatelli, E., & Yee, L. (2004). Designing and implementing technology collaboration projects: Lessons learned. Tech-

Trends: Linking Research and Practice to Improve Learning, 48(3), 46−51.Dewey, J. (1933). How we think, rev. ed. Boston: D.C. Heath.Duffy, T. M., & Cunningham, D. J. (1996). Constructivism: Implications for the design and delivery of instruction. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.),

Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 170−198). New York: Simon Schuster Macmillan.Fowler, C., & Mayes, J. (1999). Learning relationships: From theory to design. Association for Learning Technology Journal, 7(3), 6−16 (Retrieved

August 15, 2006, from http://www.learningservices.gcal.ac.uk/apu/papers/Fowler&Mayes1999.pdf ).Garrison, D. R. (2006). Online collaboration principles. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 10(1), 25−34.Garrison, D. R., & Anderson, T. (2003). E-learning in the 21st Century: A framework for research and practice. NY: RoutledgeFalmer.Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (1999). Critical thinking in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education.

Internet and Higher Education, 2(2–3), 87−105.Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education.

Internet and Higher Education, 11(2), 1−14 (Retrieved August 15, 2006, from http://communitiesofinquiry.com/documents/CTinTextEnvFinal.pdf ).

Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance education.American Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 7−23.

Garrison, D. R., & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2005). Facilitating cognitive presence in online learning: Interaction is not enough. American Journal ofDistance Education, 19(3), 133−148.

Good, A. J., O'Connor, K. A., & Luce, E. F. (2004). Making long distance relationships work. Meridian, 7(2), 1−15 (Retrieved August 15, 2006,from http://www.ncsu.edu/meridian/sum2004/relationships/).

Harris, J. (1995). Organizing and facilitating telecollaborative projects. Retrieved August 15, 2006, from http://lrs.ed.uiuc.edu/mining/February95-TCT.html

Harris, J. (1999). First steps in telecollaboration. Learning and Leading with Technology, 27(3), 54−57.Harris, J. (2000). Taboo topic no longer: Why telecollaborative projects sometimes fail. Learning and Leading with Technology, 27(5), 58−61.

276 P. Redmond, J.V. Lock / Internet and Higher Education 9 (2006) 267–276

Harris, J. (2000–01). Structuring internet-enriched learning spaces for understanding and action. Learning and Leading with Technology, 28(4), 50−55.Haythornthwaite, C. (2006). Facilitating collaboration in online learning. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 10(1), 7−24 (Retrieved

August 15, 2006 from http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/jaln/v10n1/pdf/v10n1_2haythornthwaite.pdf ).Henri, F. (1992). Computer conferencing and content analysis. In A. R. Kaye (Ed.), Collaborative learning through computer conferencing: The

Najaden papers (pp. 117−136). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Jonassen, D. H., Peck, K. L., &Wilson, B. G. (1999). Learning with technology: A constructivist perspective.Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall, Inc.Kanuka, H., & Garrison, D. R. (2004). Cognitive presence in online learning. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 15(2), 21−39.Kinsel, E., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Garrison, D. R. (2005). Student role adjustment in online environments: From the mouths of online babes.20th

annual conference on distance teaching and learning Retrieved August 16, 2006, from http://www.uwex.edu/disted/conference/Resource_library/proceedings/04_1228.pdf

Klemm, W. R., & Snell, J. R. (1996). Enriching computer-mediated group learning by coupling constructivism with collaborative learning. Journal ofInstructional Science and Technology, 1(2) (Retrieved August 15, 2006, from http://www.usq.edu.au/electpub/e-jist/docs/old/vol1no2/article1.htm).

La Grange, A., & Foulke, E. (2004). Emergent framework for ICT integration within faculties of education in Canada. Prepared for Industry Canadaon behalf of Canadian Association of Deans of Education (CADE) L'Association francophone des doyennes et des doyens, des directrices et desdirecteurs d'éducation du Canada (AFDÉC).

Laurillard, D. (2002). Rethinking teaching for the knowledge society. Educause Review, 16–25 (Retrieved August 15, 2006, from http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/erm0201.pdf ).

Lipman, M. (1991). Thinking in education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Lopez-Ortiz, B. I., & Lin, L. (2005). What makes an online group project work? Students' perceptions before and after an online collaborative

problem/project-based learning (PBL) experience. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance learning, 2(2) (RetrievedAugust 15, 2006, from http://www.itdl.org/Journal/Feb%5F05/article04.htm).

McCurdy, S., & Schroeder, R. (2006). Achieving diversity through online inter-institutional collaborations. Journal of Asynchronous LearningNetworks, 10(1), 63−68 (Retrieved August 15, 2006, from http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/jaln/v10n1/pdf/v10n1_6mccurdy.pdf ).

O'dowd, R., & Eberbach, K. (2004). Guides on the side? Tasks and challenges for teachers in telecollaborative projects. ReCALL, 16(1), 5−19(Retrieved August 15, 2006, from http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=229543).

Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2001). Lessons from the cyberspace classroom: The realities of online teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Riel, M. (1996). The Internet: A land to settle rather than an ocean to surf and a new “place” for school reform through community development.

Retrieved August 15, 2006, from http://www.gsn.org/gsh/teach/articles/netasplace.htmlRogers, A., Andres, Y., Jacks, M., & Clauset, T. (1990). Keys to successful telecomputing. The Computing Teacher, 17(8), 25−28 (Retrieved August

15, 2006, from http://lrs.ed.uiuc.edu/Guidelines/RAJC.html).Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2003). Knowledge building. In G. W. Guthrie (Ed.), Encyclopedia of education (pp. 1370−1373)., Second Edition

New York: Macmillan Reference.Slotte, V., & Tynjälä, P. (2005). Communication and collaborative learning at work: Views expressed on a cross-cultural e-learning course.

International Journal on ELearning, 4(2), 191−207.Swan, K. (2005). A constructivist model for thinking about learning online. In J. Bourne & J.C. Moore (Eds.), Elements of quality online education:

Engaging communities Needham, MA: Sloan-C Retrieved August 15, 2006, from http://www.kent.edu/rcet/Publications/upload/constructivist%20theory.pdf.

Tu, C. H., & McIsaac, M. (2002, September). The relationship of social presence and interaction in online classes. American Journal of DistanceEducation, 16(3), 131−151.

Vaughan, N. D. (2004). Investigating how a blended learning approach can support an inquiry process within a faculty learning community.Doctoral dissertation, University of Calgary.

Wiske, M. S., Franz, K. R., & Breit, L. (2005). Teaching for understanding with technology. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.