You are here

Task, Team and Time to structure online collaboration in learning environments

Journal Name:

Publication Year:

Abstract (2. Language): 
The debate on whether and how to structure collaboration in online learning environments is quite active. In this paper the authors identify Task, Team and Time as the main components of an online collaborative activity, through which the overall structure of the activity can be determined to scaffold learners’ interactions. Based on five examples of real-life online learning activities featuring different degrees of structure as to Task, Team and Time, the authors reflect on the extent to which the way these three dimensions are structured may affect the overall learning process. Method of the study is interaction analysis of the students messages, exchanged in asynchronous mode during the activity. The analysis was carried out according to a quantitative and qualitative model that distinguishes among the participative, social, cognitive and teaching dimensions. The results of the study seem to support the hypothesis that the three Ts well represent the structure of CSCL activities and that, in many cases, it is the lack of structure in one or more of them that is associated to a higher frequency of some indicators, as if the missing guidance causes an enhanced effort on the side of the learners to compensate the deficit.



Aronson, E., Blaney, N., Stephin, C., Sikes, J., and Snapp M. (1978). The jigsaw classroom. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publishing Company.
Aviv, R., Erlich, Z., Ravid, G., and Geva, A. (2003). Network analysis of knowledge construction in asynchronous learning networks. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(3), 1-23.
Bell, P. (2004). Promoting students' argument construction and collaborative debate in the classroom. In M. C. Linn, E. A. Davis and P. Bell (Eds.), Internet environments for science education, (pp. 114-144), Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Blocher, J.M. (2005). Increasing learner interaction: using jigsaw online. Educational Media International, 42(3), 269-278.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., and Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18 (1), 32-41.
Daradoumis, T., Martinez-Monés, A., and Xhafa, F. (2004). An integrated approach for analysing and assessing the performance of virtual learning groups. Lecture notes in Computer Science, 3198, 289-304.
Delfino, M. and Persico, D. (2007). Online or face-to-face? Experimenting different techniques in initial teacher training. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(5), 351–365.
Demetriadis, S., Dimitriadis, Y., and Fischer, F. (2009). Introduction to the SFC-2009 Workshop. In: Proceedings of the workshop “Scripted vs. free collaboration: alternatives and paths for adaptable and flexible CS scripted collaboration”, Rhodes, June 2009. Available online at:
De Wever, B., Shellens, T., Valcke, M., and Van Keer, H. (2006). Content analysis schemes to analyze transcripts of online asynchronous discussion groups: A review. Computers and Education, 46, 6-28.
Dillenbourg, P.(2004). Split where interaction should happen- A model for designing CSCL scripts. In Proceedings of the "Special Interest Meeting 2004 of EARLI SIG 6 and SIG 7”, Tuebingen, 2004. Available online at:
Dillenbourg, P. (Ed.) (1999). Collaborative Learning: Cognitive and Computational Approaches. Pergamon Press.
Dillenbourg, P. (2002). Over-scripting CSCL: The risks of blending collaborative learning with instructional design. In: Kirschner P. A. (Ed.), Three worlds of CSCL. Can we support CSCL, (pp. 61-91), Heerlen, NL: Open Universiteit Nederland.
Dillenbourg, P. and Jermann, P. (2007). Designing interactive scripts. In F. Fischer, I. Kollar, H. Mandl, and J. Haake, (Eds.) Scripting computer-supported collaborative learning: Cognitive, computational and educational perspectives, (pp. 276-301), New York: Springer.
Donatella Persico & Francesca Pozzi / Cypriot Journal of Educational Sciences (2011) 01-15
Fischer, F., Kollar, I., Mandl, H., and Haake, J.M. (Eds.) (2007). Scripting computer-supported collaborative learning – cognitive, computational, and educational perspectives. New York: Springer.
Garrison R. and Anderson T. (2003). E-learning in the 21st century. A framework for research and practice. London and New York: Routledge Falmer.
Ghefaili, A. (2003). Cognitive Apprenticeship, Technology, and the Contextualization of Learning Environments, Journal of Educational Computing, Design and Online learning, 4
Hara N., Bonk C. J., and Angeli C. (2000). Content analysis of online discussion in an applied educational psychology course. Instructional Science, 28, 115-152.
Henri, F. (1992). Computer conferencing and content analysis. In A. R. Kaye (Ed), Collaborative Learning Through Computer Conferencing, (pp. 115—136), The Najaden Papers, New York: Springer.
Hernández-Leo, D., Villasclaras-Fernández, E. D., Asensio-Pérez, J. I, Dimitriadis ,Y., Jorrín-Abellán, I. M., Ruiz-Requies, I., and Rubia-Avi, B. (2006). COLLAGE: A collaborative Learning Design editor based on patterns. Educational Technology and Society, 9 (1), 58-71.
Hewitt, J. (2005). Toward an understanding of how threads die in asynchronous computer conferences. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(4), 567-589.
Kanuka, H. and Anderson, T. (1999). Using Constructivism in Technology-Mediated Learning: Constructing Order out of the Chaos in the Literature. Radical Pedagogy. 1(2).
Kerr, N. L. and Bruun, S.E. (1983), Dispensability of member effort and group motivation losses: free rider effects, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44 (1983), pp. 78–94
Lally, V. (Ed) (2002). Elaborating collaborative interactions in networked learning: a multi-method approach. In: Proceedings of the Networked Learning Conference, March 2002, University of Sheffield.
Lombard, R. and Biglan, B. (2009). Implications of Role Play and Team Teaching as Strategies for Information Technology Pedagogy, Information Systems Education Journal, 7(20).
Lovaglia, M.J. and Houser, J.A. (1996) Emotional reactions and status in groups, American Sociological Review, 61, pp. 867–883.
Lipponen, L., Rahikainen, M., Lallimo, J. and Hakkarainen, K. (2003). Patterns of participation and discourse in elementary students’ computer-supported collaborative learning. Learning and Instruction, 13, 487-509.
Liu, C. and Tsai, C. (2008). An analysis of peer interaction patterns as discoursed by on-line small group problem-solving activity. Computers and Education, 50, 627–639.
Martinez, A., Dimitriadis, Y., Rubia, B., Gomez, E. and De La Fuente, P. (2003). Combining qualitative evaluation and social network analysis for the study of classroom social interactions. Computers and Education, 41(4), 353-368.
Palloff, R. M. and Pratt, K.(1999). Building learning communities in cyberspace, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Persico, D., Pozzi, F. and Sarti, L. (2009). A model for monitoring and evaluating CSCL. In: Juan, A.A., Daradoumis, T., Xhafa, F., Caballe, S., Faulin, J. (Eds.) Monitoring and Assessment in Online
Donatella Persico & Francesca Pozzi / Cypriot Journal of Educational Sciences (2011) 01-15
Collaborative Environments: Emergent Computational Technologies for E-learning Support. Herhsey, PA-New York, NY: IGI Global.
Pozzi, F. and Persico, D. (2011a, in print). Task, Teams and Time: three Ts to structure CSCL processes. (Eds. Francesca Pozzi and Donatella Persico) Techniques for fostering collaboration in online learning communities: theoretical and practical perspectives. Herhsey, PA-New York, NY: IGI Global.
Pozzi, F. and Persico, D. (2011b, in print) Techniques for fostering collaboration in online learning communities: theoretical and practical perspectives. Herhsey, PA-New York, NY: IGI Global.
Pozzi, F., Manca, S., Persico, D., and Sarti, L. (2007). A general framework for tracking and analyzing learning processes in CSCL environments. Innovations in Education and Teaching International. 44(2), 169-180.
Rosenshine, B., Meister, C. (1994). Reciprocal teaching: a review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 64(4), 479-530
Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, R., and Archer, W. (2001). Methodological Issues in the Content Analysis of Computer Conference Transcripts. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 12, 8-22.
Scardamalia, M. and Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge-building communities. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(3), 265-283.
Schank, R. 1992. Goal-based scenarios. Chicago: Northwestern University Institute for the Learning Sciences. 00/00/06/24/cog00000624-00/V11ANSEK.html.
Schrire, S. (2006). Knowledge building in asynchronous discussion groups: Going beyond quantitative analysis. Computers and Education, 46, 49-70.
Strijbos, J. W., Martens, R. L., Prins, F. J. and Jochems, W. M. G. (2006). Content analysis: What are they talking about? Computers and Education, 46, 29-48.
The Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1991). Some thoughts about constructivism and instructional design. Educational Technology, 31(10), 16-18.
Weinberger, A. and Fischer, F. (2006). A framework to analyse argumentative knowledge construction in computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers and Education, 46, 71-95.
Winter, E.C. and McGhie-Richmond D. (2005). Using computer conferencing and case studies to enable collaboration between expert and novice teachers, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21, pp. 118–129.
Wu, D. and Hiltz, S.R. (2004). Predicting learning from asynchronous online discussions. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 8(2).

Thank you for copying data from