This document discusses using online group work to advance cooperation, collaboration, and community through situated learning. It summarizes key aspects of situated cognition theory, including that learning occurs through social interaction and is influenced by context. The document advocates for designing online courses that incorporate authentic tasks and collaborative group work to foster communities of practice, as suggested by situated learning theory. It provides guidelines for structuring online group work and assessing student learning through authentic, integrated assessments.

1. ONLINE GROUP WORK 10
Online Group Work: Advancing Cooperation, Collaboration,
and Community Through Situated LearningIntroduction
Web-based learning continues to thrive, particularly as
collaborative tools are enhanced and learning becomes more
marketable and meaningful to students. However, the theoretical
framework for the application of some online efforts is still a
bit weak due to limited empirical evidence establishing not only
the methodologies, but more importantly, the learning results of
such instructional designs. The goal of this paper is to assemble
research supporting the application of situated cognition, a
theory that has promising implications but which lacks detailed
research support, in online educational environments.
Specifically, online group work, a strategy that can provide
meaningful learning and produce strong learning communities,
is addressed through the lens of situated learning. It is not the
intent of this paper to delineate every aspect of situated
cognition nor to provide details regarding every facet of online
group work, but rather to authenticate a situated approach to
online collaborative projects, or what Hiltz and Goldman (2005)
label computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL), in
order to enhance community and increase motivation.Situated
Learning in an Online Environment
Still considered a burgeoning theory due to its lack of
strong educational models, situated learning has been closely
associated with and juxtaposed against Vygotsky’s sociocultural
theory, constructivism, contextualism, problem-solving skills,
and cognitive information processing (Driscoll, 2005). In short,
according to situated cognition and the basis of the argument of
this paper, context matters. As Brown, Collins, & Duguid
(1989) explain, this learning-in-practice theory “challenges” the
more traditional approach of “separating what is learned from

2. how it is learned and used” (p. 32). Rather than placing
emphasis on either declarative knowledge or procedural
knowledge, as many individual educational psychology theories
do, situated cognition acknowledges the influence that one’s
learning environment has on cognition and addresses semiosis
itself – where, when, and how the meaning-making occurs.
Driscoll (2005) illuminates the heart of situated cognition when
she summarizes the theory’s position: “knowledge remains inert
and unused if taught in contexts that separate knowing from
doing….Moreover, what people perceive, think, and do
develops in a fundamentally social context” (p. 156-157).
At its essence, this theory is about providing meaningful,
authentic, social learning environments for students to
collaboratively explore, discover, apply, and adapt what they
are attempting to learn. The real value of knowledge, then,
comes from its sociocultural implications and the process of
constructing knowledge together. Individual learning, which is
“socially defined, interpreted, and support” (Driscoll, 2005, p.
163), is only accessible and assessable after specific social
influences have been factored (Lemke, 1997).
A primary objective of situated cognition is to move learners
from nonparticipation or legitimate peripheral participation,
where engagement is limited, to insider participation, where
community members are in full participation (Driscoll, 2005).
All modes of participation have legitimacy. While eventually
full participation in a community of practice is desirable,
“legitimate peripheral participation enables the learner to
progressively piece together the culture of the group and what it
means to be a member” (Herrington, Reeves, & Oliver, 2010). It
is through the process of observation, cognitive apprenticeship,
and collaboration that the shift in one’s participatory role
metamorphoses. “As we participate, we change” (Lemke, 1997),
and it is the change that spawns learning, according to situated
cognition. In more traditional classrooms, this upward mobility
is not always possible, as hierarchy dictates the supremacy of
the teacher as head of the community. However, fostering a

3. community of practice within a class where all members are
valued and can contribute to the collective knowledge is a step
toward authenticity. Even in the real world there are
hierarchies, chapter fees, and degrees required before full
participation in a community is enabled (Lemke, 1997), thus the
concept of the teacher as head is not always counter to authentic
learning environments. Mirroring the advancement of
participation, Conrad and Donaldson (2011) propose a
framework of engagement that moves learners through various
phases in online education. Starting the course as a newcomer,
students or trainees progress to the cooperator phase when they
begin working with partners to advance critical thinking skills.
As collaborators, learners join small groups to solve problems.
Finally, initiators or partners are full members of the
community and lead discussions and direct class learning.
Part of becoming active, valued members of a community
involves a certain degree of competency. It is the goal, then, of
situated cognition to afford learners with opportunities to
experience more real-life situations that require them to perform
in “more ‘worldly’ settings” (St. Julien, 1997, p. 261). How can
this correlate to an online classroom where students and
teachers are disembodied and coursework is completed
virtually? That is indeed the central question of this paper. It is
in the design of the instructional practices where competency
and collaboration can and do flourish, whether it’s in a brick-
and-mortar classroom or an online one. Designing projects that
enable students to activate prior knowledge, manipulate,
practice, experiment, and experience consequences for their
choices is imperative for the collision and marriage of knowing
and doing (Juwah, 2006).
According to Oliver and Herrington (2000), best practice in
educational technology warrants the use of computers as a
learning partner, rather than a medium for direct instruction or a
generic tool. The logic and reason behind this application of the
technology stems from the need for effective learning tools not
to represent the world to the learner but to assist the learning in

4. building meaningful, personal interpretations and
representations of the world. (p. 179)
This implies that online learning should then utilize existing
technologies in ways that foster co-constructed realities that
help students find their place in the world around them. This
can be achieved through the application of situated learning.
Oliver and Herrington go on to elucidate nine essential
characteristics of situated learning as they apply to computer-
based environments. Vital for meaningful interaction, authentic
contexts in online learning take the shape of intentional
instructional design “which preserves the complexity of real-life
context with ‘rich situational affordances’” (p. 180). Authentic
activities include those that surround students with “real-world
relevance” (p. 180). Oliver and Herrington recommend loose
assignment parameters, solitary complex tasks rather than a
fragmented series of steps, student-selected objectives, ample
time for exploration, and multi-disciplinary foci to replicate
authentic situations. To “provide leaders with access to expert
thinking and modeling processes,” learners need exposure to
such expert performances and models and the ability to interact
and share with others regarding the expertise demonstrated (p.
180). Coaching and scaffolding is enabled through strategic
feedback and support at crucial points throughout the learning
process. Online courses can utilize automated feedback or
individual remediation, for example, to inspire learner growth.
Additionally, authentic assessment is integral to situated
learning practices. Assessment measures should take into
account context and provide opportunities for students to
demonstrate their knowledge in real-world circumstances.
The final four standards for Oliver and Herrington’s (2000)
design focus on a core tenant of situated learning and the
premise of this paper – collaboration. Situated cognition implies
the value of multiple perspectives and representations in order
to develop a well-informed understanding. This can be
especially achieved through collaboration with peers and
experts who hold contrasting positions. Collaborative

5. construction of knowledge is achievable in an online
environment via small groups of students who work jointly on a
common goal and with mutual benefits. Requiring reflection can
help students assess their own outcomes as they relate to expert
performance and real-life expectations. Closely associated with
reflection, articulation empowers students to define the specific
knowledge they have gained as a result of their efforts. As
Oliver and Herrington explain, “The purpose of articulation is
to create inherent, as opposed to constructed meanings. The
tasks that are required to create the appropriate contexts for
articulation are complex and involve collaborative groups,
which enable first social and then individual understanding” (p.
181). Each of these elements, according to Oliver and
Herrington, are critical for well-designed online instruction.
Advancing Collaboration and Community
A foundation of situated learning, one’s community of
practice plays a fundamental role in the development and
application of knowledge. Because “learning is a co-constitutive
process in which all participants change and are transformed
through their actions and relations in the world” (Driscoll,
2005, p. 159), for meaningful learning to occur, learners must
contribute to and partake in the communities in which they live,
work, and grow. Furthermore, as Juwah (2006) argues, the
demands of contemporary reality necessitate “the acquisition,
development and regular updating of knowledge, skills,
competences, and the ability to work in cross-cultural contexts
or situations” (p. 171). Employing this theory, then, in an online
learning environment means special attention must be applied to
the formation and fostering of online communities of learning.
“When a classroom becomes a learning community…the social
structure transforms into one in which teacher and learners work
collaboratively to achieve important goal, goals that may well
have been established jointly” (Driscoll, 2005, p. 177).
Intriguingly, some researchers indicate that online learning
environments, with their sundry tools that assist with discussion
and group work, actually offer more possibilities for

6. collaboration and situated learning than do traditional face-to-
face classrooms where students are often limited to discussing
topics with their peers seated in their immediate vicinity
(Herrington et al., 2010; Wiley, 2006).
Additionally, due to the nature of situated learning, knowledge
itself isn’t fixed but rather is re-formed and adapted to fit the
perceived needs of the individual or environment (Driscoll,
2005). Pinterest is a great example of this repurposing of
knowledge. A chest of drawers becomes an urban garden, a
sailboat transforms into a playhouse, newspaper is reshaped into
a gift box, and so on. Where one person sees an old book full of
valuable insight and charm, another sees wallpaper and
bookmarks made out of the spine. The perceived affordance of
the object or information is dependent upon the learner’s
“interactive and reciprocal relation between and organism and
its environment” (Driscoll, 2005, p. 162). Providing
opportunities where this becomes the norm is key to a
successful online program, according to situated cognitive
theory.
With today’s advancements in technology, finding the right tool
to support situated learning becomes a matter of selecting the
very best fit for the learners, the learning context, and the
objectives of the course. Collaborative and interactive tools
such as chat rooms, discussion boards, blogs, and wikis, enable
students to thoroughly discuss and cooperatively create products
that demonstrate their learning (Juwah, 2006). Often these tools
are embedded into a course’s learning management system
(LMS), such as Blackboard or My Big Campus, but other free or
subscription services are available, including Google Drive,
PiratePad, and Blogspot.
Both synchronous (real-time) and asynchronous tools can
enhance the collaborative process. Although some synchronous
tools may be best suited for group discussions and team
meetings, organizing all students within a group to meet at a
designated time may be difficult given the non-traditional status
of many online learners, and such discussions often favor the

7. fastest typist or may encounter bandwidth issues that interfere
with smooth delivery and discussion. Asynchronous tools, on
the other hand, offer ample time for reflection, can
accommodate various schedules, and better allow multiple
voices to be heard; however, they also have the potential for
information overload due to the lack of time constraints (Conrad
& Donaldson, 2011).
Designing Online Group Work
One way to achieve meaningful, productive communities is
through the design and development of intentional,
collaborative groups that enable purposeful participation and,
therefore, learning. Because “much of the learning that occurs
outside the walls of formal institutions takes place through
activities and tasks that are addressed and attempted by a group
rather than an individual,” utilizing online group work is
consistent with situated cognitive theory that places emphases
on authentic, real-world experiences (Oliver & Herrington,
2000, p. 181). Virtual group work, or what some call peer
learning, can take the form of co-constructed projects, joint but
separate efforts, collaborative planning, and various other
designs along the continuum. Through a “mutually negotiated
goal” and “mutual accountability” learners work together to
create meaning (Driscoll, 2005, p. 165). In some instances,
online group work requires individual learners to rely heavily
on other group members before, during, or after the generation
of their own course products, through what Driscoll (2005) calls
“planned interdependence,” a method that inspires
accountability and self-awareness (p. 178). Such cooperation
among learners is viewed as an essential human experience, tied
to the common good of the group and both individual and
community success (Slavin, 1982). One rendition of such
interdependence is the application of the jigsaw method, where
each member of a group is responsible for one aspect of a given
project or topic. Although social cohesion theory suggests
jigsawing is a great team-building activity that can enhance

8. cooperation, others have found inconclusive evidence validating
its use (Mayer, 2008).
In order to foster greater community and collaboration, the
distribution of learners within groups must be regarded during
the design phase. Simply dropping students into random groups
does not automatically produce meaningful learning (Gillies,
2004; Johnson & Johnson, 1990). Varying levels of expertise
and experiences within a group, for example, initiates a
dynamic that encourages learners to build on the joint
knowledge existing within their designated community. One
type of group work, cooperative learning involves groups of six
heterogeneous learners working together on a single project and
being assessed as a team (Driscoll, 2005). Some researchers,
however, recommend placing students in groups of similar or
equal skill levels. They argue that more homogenous groupings
or those that are self-selected by students foster greater
collaboration and cooperation. Most researchers agree, however,
that a supportive, open, and responsive group is key to a
successful online collaborative experience (Juwah, 2006).
Unfortunately, many learners do not come to the online
classroom with adequate interpersonal skills necessary to
facilitate such a group. This generates additional instructional
need, requiring trainers and instructors to tackle relational skills
necessary for successful interaction (Lee, 2006).
Perhaps more importantly, the learning task itself should be
meaningful and authentic. Oliver and Herrington (2000)
propose, for example, allowing students to explore varying
perspectives through collaboration. In their analysis of situated
cognition as it applies to web-based learning, they also suggest
utilizing problem-based activities that will help students master
real-world problems through authentic assignments that require
learners to think outside of the classroom’s (virtual) walls.
Skills learned are then more readily transferred to new,
unfamiliar settings and problems. Likewise, Conrad and
Donaldson (2011) encourage the application of the higher levels
of Bloom’s taxonomy (application, analysis, synthesis, and

9. evaluation) to inspire greater learning and to engage learners in
meaningful tasks.
Assessing Online Group Work
As situated learning implies, an individual’s response to new
knowledge is often tied to their perception of the cognitive
affordances. Online group work, then, when well-crafted can
“facilitate learning and motivation”, or it can create a “free-
loading” atmosphere “if individual accountability is not
included” (Driscoll, 2005, p. 162). As a result, strong
instructional design when applying situated cognition is about
building on the existing cultures of students and cultivating a
significant culture of learning within the educational
environment. This is often achieved, in part, through the
assessment methods employed.
An underpinning of situated cognition, task authenticity must
also be transferred to the assessment measures employed. Oliver
and Herrington (2000) acknowledge this may take significant
time on the part of the student and often warrants collaboration
and a “full array of tasks with the assessment seamlessly
integrated with the activity” (p. 182). Juwah (2006) argues that
assessment of online group work needs to address both the
process of learning and the product and “should be interactive,
involve group collaborative activity and be integral to learning”
(p. 179). Interestingly, Glaser and Silver (1994), for example,
propose enabling students to observe feedback for other
students so that can they vicariously enhance their own learning
and adapt their methods according to feedback given to their
peers.
Adapting Collins’ (1990) three-part model for assessment,
McLellan (1992) proposed a similar model designed specifically
for situated learning that aligns nicely with the idea of
integrated assessment throughout the learning process. The first
phase, diagnosis, involves systematically evaluating and
responding to students’ progress throughout a course of study.
Driscoll’s (2005) reflective activity that requires students to
respond to four particular prompts (“their own, individual

10. learning,” “the learning of their collaborative group,” “the
learning of the class as a community,” and “suggestions for
improvement”) (p. 179), for example, could be adapted as a
formative assessment activity within an online group project, as
demonstrated in Figure 1. Utilizing such assessment methods
enables instructors to better assess and address individual needs
as they arise (Driscoll, 2005; McLellan, 1993).
Similarly, employing self-reflective practices encourages
students to “deliberate on both their learning and learning
processes” (Oliver & Herrington, 2000, p. 181). This could take
the form of journaling, metacognitive essays, self-revision, or
sundry other methods meant to empower students to take
responsibility for their learning and cognitive processes.
According to Conrad and Donaldson (2011), the most essential
factor in self-reflection is for students to examine carefully
“how the newly acquired knowledge will change the learner’s
understandings and actions” (pp. 36-37). Strong self-reflection
is about enabling mental mapping to connect new knowledge to
existing schemata.
Figure 1. Self-reflective activity to address individual needs,
based on Driscoll (2005, p. 179).
Self-Reflection on Learning
1. Individual growth. What are your personal goals for this
project? Are you learning what you hoped to achieve at this
point in the project? What else could you and/or your instructor
do to help you accomplish your goals?
2. Collaboration. How well is your group working together?
What learning goals are you able to achieve as a result of your
participation in this community? What else could you, your
group members, and/or your instructor do to help your group
accomplish its goals or you accomplish your personal learning
goals?
3. Community growth. How do you feel about the direction of
the coursework overall? What about the design of the course
materials, interactions, and projects help you accomplish the
course goals and your personal learning goals? What

11. adjustments could be made to help you or your group better
achieve your course objectives?
Summary statistics, another element of Collins’ (1990) three-
phase assessment model, are maintained to identify a pattern of
learning over time. To “show when learners have achieved
certain benchmarks and whether they are progressing at an
adequate pace” (Driscoll, 2005, p. 180), for example, instructors
can employ the history features within certain online
collaborative tools. Record keeping becomes accessible with the
click of a link when each individual contribution is stored
electronically within the online tool itself. Caution must be
applied, however, as some students may have worked on certain
aspects of the project yet are not awarded “credit” because they
completed work offline, such as finding valuable print resources
or emailing a group member who then posted the material for
them, for example. Despite the limitations of the software, the
historical records of the development of the online group
project does become a wealth of information, affording
instructors the opportunity to intervene, offer encouragement,
and generally support learning throughout the process.
The final mode of Collin’s assessment model, portfolios
are “particularly well suited for assessing situated learning
because of [their] emphasis on process as well as product”
(Driscoll, 2005, p. 180). Portfolio assessment can again be
adapted to online group work, depending on the needs of the
instructor and students. To further encourage metacognition,
students could be required, for example, to select key elements
of various group products that they feel demonstrate their
individual growth and reflect on their process of generating
such artifacts within the community of practice.
In order to be truly effective, summative assessment
practices must consider both the individual’s contribution as
well as the group performance (Mayer, 2008). In his research,
Slavin (1983) concluded that group rewards (communal
incentives) combined with individual accountability achieved

12. the greatest results in cooperative learning environments. In
practical terms, this might include a rubric evaluating the group
product and collaborative efforts as a whole as well as the
individual performance, contribution, and collaborative
practices. Conrad and Donaldson (2011) also promote the use of
peer evaluation as a means of accurately determining the
effectiveness of the teamwork. Although some argue that such
assessment measures may not expose the real efforts of the team
due to lack of student directness or honesty, a well-designed
peer evaluation tool could guide students to offer specific
positive comments as well as detailed feedback regarding how
the project or process could be improved the next time. As
mentioned previously, teaching these types of interpersonal
skills, where students respond to each other “tactfully and
helpfully,” is vital to a successful assignment (p. 67).
Increasing Motivation, Learning, and Transfer
The impact that situated cognitive theory and online group
work have on student learning depends on a number of factors.
Research has shown, for example, that groups that are
collectively rewarded based on the performance of individuals
within their group often achieve the highest returns in
motivation (Mayer, 2008). Tobias (2006) supports the
application of intentional, meaningful metacognitive practices
that require students to think critically about what they know,
what they can do, and what they don’t know and can’t do, to
increase motivation and ultimately influence cognitive growth.
Each specific instructional method related to online learning,
then, plays a role in the impact group work and situated
learning has on motivation, learning, and transfer.
Ultimately, authentic tasks and assessments, driving forces
of situated learning, naturally induce motivation and therefore
increase learning. As Herrington, Reeves, and Oliver (2006)
explain, “the more similar learning tasks are to ‘real-world’
tasks, the more likely students are to engage in the tasks, and
the more likely they are to develop knowledge, skills, and
attitudes that will transfer to real contexts” (p. 91). Through

13. their studies of problem-based learning Herrington et al.
concluded that such real-world tasks enhance cognitive,
affective, and conative learning. Whereas previous models may
have touched on one or two of the modes of learning,
Herrington et al. argue that problem-based learning addresses
all three in meaningful ways.Conclusion
Researchers have consistently found cooperative learning
efforts enhance productivity and learning, although there is no
definitive proof that it is more effective than some traditional
individual learning methods (Mayer, 2008; Lee, 2006). Despite
some evidence that group work can produce meaningful results,
Mayer (2008) points out the need for more substantial research
supporting online collaboration, specifically with studies tied to
performance related to explicit learning objectives, and Driscoll
(2005) acknowledges the limitations of existing evidence in
favor of situated learning. Furthermore, designing effective
online team projects can be limited by timing, tools, and
physical distance. In spite of the setbacks, positive evidence
remains that warrants additional study and exploration of
situated learning and collaborative group work in online
learning environments.
References
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition
and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18, 32-42.
Conrad, R. & Donaldson, J. A. (2011). Engaging the online
learner: Activities and resources for creative instruction
(updated ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Driscoll, M. P. (2005). Psychology of learning for instruction
(3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Gillies, R. M. (2004). The effects of cooperative learning on
junior high school students during small group learning.
Learning and Instruction, 14, 197-213.
Glaser, R. & Silver, E. (1994). Assessment, testing, and
instruction: Retrospect and prospect. Review of Research in
Education, 20, 393-421.
Herrington, J., Reeves, T. C., & Oliver, R. (2006). A model of

14. authentic activities for online learning. In C. Juwah (Ed.),
Interactions in online education: Implications for theory and
practice (pp. 91-103). New York, NY: Routledge.
Herringon, J., Reeves, T. C., & Oliver, R. (2010). A guide to
authentic e-learning. New York, NY: Routledge.
Hiltz, S. R., & Goldman, R. (Eds.) (2005). Learning together
online. Mahweh, NJ: Erlbaum.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1990). Cooperative learning
and achievement. In S. Sharan (Ed.), Cooperative learning:
Theory and practice (pp. 23-37) New York, NY: Praeger.
Juwah, C. (2006). Interactions in online peer learning. In C.
Juwah (Ed.), Interactions in online education: Implications for
theory and practice (pp. 171-190). New York, NY: Routledge.
Lee, A. (2006). Learning and transfer in two web-based and
distance applications. In H. F. O’Neil & R. S. Perez (Eds.),
Web-Based learning: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 221-
238), Mahweh, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Lemke, J. L. (1997). Cognition, context, and learning: A social
semiotic perspective. In D. Kirschner & J. A. Whitson (Eds.),
Situated cognition: Social, semiotic, and psychological
perspectives (pp. 37-56). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Mayer, R. E. (2008). Learning and instruction (2nd ed.). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
McLellan, H. (1993). Situated learning in focus: Introduction to
special issue. Educational technology, 33, 5-9.
Oliver, R., & Herrington, J. (2000). Using situated learning as a
design strategy for web-based learning. In B. Abbey (Ed.),
Instructional and cognitive impacts of web-based education (pp.
178-191). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publ.
Slavin, R. (1982). Cooperative learning: Student teams.
Washington, DC: National Education Association.
Slavin, R. (1983). When does cooperative learning increase
student achievement? Psychological Bulletin, 94, 429-445.
St. Julien, J. (1997). Explaining learning: The research
trajectory of situated cognition and the implications of
connectionism. In D. Kirschner & J. A. Whitson (Eds.), Situated

15. cognition: Social, semiotic, and psychological perspectives (pp.
261-279). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Tobias, S. (2006). The importance of motivation, metacognition,
and help seeking in web-based learning. In H. F. O’Neil & R. S.
Perez (Eds.), Web-Based learning: Theory, research, and
practice (pp. 203-220), Mahweh, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Wiley, D. (2006). Scalability and sociability in online learning
environments. In H. F. O’Neil & R. S. Perez (Eds.), Web-Based
learning: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 295-306), Mahweh,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.