Professional Writing Service http://HelpWriting.net/A-Flexible-Framework-For-Online-Collabo 👈

1. 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, Australia
b
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 flexible
framework are online collaborative educational experiences where knowledge creation and knowledge in action are the nexus of
social, 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 higher
education. 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 other
educational 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 for
teaching and learning at the post-secondary level. The emphasis of learning needs to move away from how learners learn to
who they learn from (Fowler & Mayes, 1999). Information communication technologies (ICT) provides an array of forums
for students, colleagues, mentors, instructors, and experts to access and interact with a plethora of resources and people to
support innovative ways for curriculum to be taken up and to foster dynamic discussions as part of a rich learning
experience. “The capability of extending learning beyond the classroom and creating relationships allows students to
construct 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 need
to 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, and
as students demand — then it follows that academics must become researchers in teaching” (Laurillard, 2002, p. 22). In
support of innovative teaching and learning experiences, La Grange and Foulke (2004), argue that “ICTs must be
Internet and Higher Education 9 (2006) 267–276
⁎ 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

2. examined within the context of broader approaches to teaching and learning (e.g., inquiry-based and problem-based
pedagogies and constructivist epistemology)” (p. 10). ICT integration into teaching and learning needs to be grounded
in pedagogy. The challenge is to learn from our past and from our current practices, to design a framework to support a
critical mass of educators to effectively use technology beyond the transmission of knowledge to transactional learning
in 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 a
flexible framework to guide educators as they design, develop and implement authentic collaborative educational experiences
within local, national or international settings in partnership with other educational stakeholders. It provides a mechanism for
collaborative learning in support of the creation of knowledge through interdisciplinary online learning experiences. Being
pro-active in the planning by working through the framework should result in a more productive and collaborative learning
experience for learners and educators. Moving learning beyond classroom walls enables access to an abundance of
information 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 as
constructivism. It differs from learning in traditional higher education where the transmission of information is the
central focus. The concept of constructivism has a diverse range of definitions, however it can be thought to describe a
teaching and learning experiences where “(1) learning is an active process of constructing rather than acquiring
knowledge, 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 through
dialogues or conversations” (Jonassen et al., 1999, p. 5). The learner is central to the learning process. Learning is a
social activity and learners make meaning through dialogue, communication, collaboration and interaction (Jonassen et
al., 1999; Swan, 2005). The opportunity to interact with other learners in sharing, discussing, constructing and
negotiating meaning leads to knowledge construction. Swan (2005) advocates that while learners are constructing
knowledge they should have support from more knowledgeable people (e.g., educators, peer mentors or experts from
the field). These individuals can provide additional expertise, different perspectives and scaffolding in support of the
co-construction of knowledge.
Scardamalia and Bereiter (2003) remind us that as learners construct meaning they are “identifying problems of
understanding, establishing and refining goals based on progress, gathering information, theorizing, designing
experiments, answering questions and improving theories, building models, monitoring and evaluating progress, and
reporting” (p. 1371). This parallels Fowler and Mayes' (1999) thoughts that “engagement and construction are both
about 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 professional
development 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 using
Internet 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 relationships
with others who are at a geographic distance. ICT has bought with it new ways of communicating and collaborating. It
enabled learners and educators to interact with each other, peers, experts, content and other resources in ways that were
previously unavailable. For this to occur, technology needs to be seamlessly integrated and grounded in the context to
support the needs of learners (Good, O'Connor, & Luce, 2004).
268 P. Redmond, J.V. Lock / Internet and Higher Education 9 (2006) 267–276

3. 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 to
solving real-world problems” (p. 47). In their survey of participants in a technology-based collaborative project
involving graduate students and a government research centre, they found that it is essential to utilize the skills of all
collaborators in order to meet the needs of the stakeholders. This will enhance the personal investment of collaborators
and 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 thinking
process” (Harris, 1999, p. 55). The online arena also provides multiple interactive opportunities with other learners, educators,
experts and content. Second, the use of asynchronous communication facilitates learning anywhere and anytime. Third, it
enables learners to move from their private to the public world and dialogue to create a shared understanding of meaning
through “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 orglobal levels expanding
participants “global awareness” (Harris, 1999, p.55). As noted by Riel (1996), it is the partnerships and interactions among
people 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 community
of 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 developing
capability that will lead to further learning” (p. 23).
There are three key elements to the community of inquiry: social presence, cognitive presence and teaching
presence. 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 and
Practice,” by Garrison and Anderson (2003). Reprinted with permission of D.R. Garrison.
269
P. Redmond, J.V. Lock / Internet and Higher Education 9 (2006) 267–276

4. The first element is social presence. Garrison et al. (2000) define it as “the ability of participants in a
community of inquiry to project themselves socially and emotionally, as ‘real’ people though the medium of
communication being used” (p. 94). The communication medium in which the community is working has a serious
impact on social presence and it is important to minimize communication anxiety. In a pilot study examining the
adjustment of learners to online learning environments, Kinsel, Cleveland-Innes, and Garrison (2005) found that
time is required for novice online learners to feel comfortable in communicating openly and in expressing emotion
within a text based environment. If asynchronous text based dialogue is the only communication participants
experience within the community, contributors must be aware of the lack of visual cues, intonation, and
immediacy that are commonly used in face-to-face dialogue to assist with making meaning. Garrison and
Cleveland-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 confirm
meaning 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 in
the 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 combine
both internal (e.g., discourse, collaboration) and external (e.g., reflection and knowledge construction) constructs when
facilitating higher level learning.
The third key element is teaching presence. It is “the design, facilitation and direction of cognitive and social
processes 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 outcomes
the role of teaching presence is critical to coordinate synergistic interaction. It must be noted that all participants within
the 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 online
framework 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 students
make powerful, worthwhile use of online tools and resources” (p. 52). Such frameworks need to foster complex thinking
guided by a deep constructivist approach.
The focus of the framework is to shift online learning environments into a collaborative, interactive space where
learners and educators are co-creators of knowledge. Through interaction, the collective intelligence encompasses
learning from each other so that the overall learning gained is greater than the sum of the independent work of each
learner. As noted by Haythornthwaite (2006), collaboration can occur within various continuums (e.g., division of
labor to joint construction; application of knowledge to shared, co-construction of knowledge). The co-construction of
knowledge should be the emerging force within the framework.
Fig. 2 shows the online collaborative learning framework seen through the Community of Inquiry lens of Garrison
et al. (1999).
3.1.1. Section A: Fostering social presence
Wiske, 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 online
environment is the “degree of feeling, perception and reaction of being connected” (Tu & McIsaac, 2002, p. 140) to
others within the learning community using text based communication. At the beginning of educational experiences it
is important for learners and educators to see and sense the other participants to “create the condition for sharing and
challenging 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 successfully
in the online world. It is imperative for the development of the learning community and cultivating an environment of
270 P. Redmond, J.V. Lock / Internet and Higher Education 9 (2006) 267–276

5. trust, where participants are free to express emotions, ideas, concerns, and collaborate. The social construction of
knowledge 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 community
It 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 see
themselves 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 to
the degree of social presence experienced by learners. From their research, Slotte and Tynjälä (2005) argue successful
communication and collaboration “requires profound, pedagogical insight, an eye for situations, and skills in guiding
other people” (p. 205). Strategies to promote social presence tend to include activities which focus on getting to know
other participants by posting personal information, images and artifacts. Further, it is the role of educators to provide
etiquette instruction and to model appropriate responses that promote the development of social and cognitive
relationships.
3.1.3. Section C: Developing and maintaining teaching presence
Teaching 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 functions
required 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 the
educational experience through setting curriculum and instructional strategies. Purposefulness and reflective planning
need 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 learners
share 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 constructivism
there is also a role for direct instruction where educators or experts would provide information, focus the discussion and
diagnose misconceptions throughout the learning experience.
Fig. 2. Online collaborative learning framework (Adapted from Garrison, Anderson, and Archer's community of inquiry model, 1999).
271
P. Redmond, J.V. Lock / Internet and Higher Education 9 (2006) 267–276

6. The majority of the design and organisation element of teaching presence is normally carried out by educators prior
to learners entering the learnscape. However, this element must reflect the learners' needs and the educational outcome
required. It is here where educators begin to design for authentic communication and dialogue with peers and/or experts
in 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 online
collaborative learning. First, is to find a suitable partner(s) and/or experts to assist with the facilitation of learning. In
negotiating the planning of the educational experience, ongoing discussions should be used to address the following
items 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 their
knowledge gained through these experiences and the assessment of knowledge. Second, if more than one class is
involved in the experience, consideration needs to be given to the role of a liaison at each site. The liaisons need to have
buy-in along with leadership, motivational and ICT skills. An experience, such as this, requires open communication
between 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 time
within the project for flexibility and access to experts and appropriate resources. Consideration may need to be given to
various 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 and
others' social presence and the planning of activities should extend the discussion in order to nurture rich and robust
collaborative learning experiences. Online collaborative learning requires both educators and learners to move beyond
cooperation and basic interaction to collaborative knowledge building and/or action. Third, consideration should be
given to the pre- and post-activities where learners explore their prior knowledge and provide them with opportunities
to present/represent their new knowledge.
3.1.4. Section D: Scaffolding learning
At 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 engagement
in cognitive activities and interaction with peers, educators, experts and content to guide learning in the promotion of
knowledge in action.
It is within this section that the concept of practical inquiry begins to emerge. Dewey (1933) believed that practical
inquiry is grounded in experience and reflective or critical thinking. It is at this point where learners' cognitive private
and public worlds begin to intersect. Garrison et al. (2000) developed a Practical Inquiry Model to examine the depth
of 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 collaboration
framework, sections D, E, F and G. Garrison et al. (1999) have broken practical inquiry into four phases. They note that
this “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 intersection
of 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 by
exploration where learners search for information or explanations. The third phase is integration where students
bring together all information their have to try and develop a shared understanding. The final phase is that of
resolution where the learners develop a solution or test an action to resolve their thinking around the initial
triggering event. When designing collaborative learning consideration should be given to the triggering event in
order to entice and motivate learners.
3.1.5. Section E: Exploring cognitive presence
Cognitive 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 knowledge
relating to evaluation, planning, regulation and self-awareness” (p. 131). Critical thinking as a product or outcome
272 P. Redmond, J.V. Lock / Internet and Higher Education 9 (2006) 267–276

7. might include “the acquisition of deep and meaningful understandings as well as content-specific critical inquiry
abilities, skills and dispositions” (Garrison et al., 2001, p.8). When exploring cognitive presence, educators need to
design the learning experience to ensure there is scaffolding for the development of critical thinking.
3.1.6. Section F: Participating in critical discourse
The 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 their
peers and the literature. Using informed voices learners' dialogue should demonstrate an increasing breadth and depth
of 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 or
recommendations (Garrison et al., 2001).
“Working with a group of equal-status peers to solve a problem is particularly conducive to the development of
critical thinking skills because it exposes individuals to different perspectives and interpretations of a problem or
idea” (Abrams, 2005, p. 26). Critical discourse within group work is where students integrate their prior
knowledge with multiple perspectives and engage in higher order thinking. For this critical discourse to occur
online, educators and learners must consider the type of communication mode to use. For example, would it be
more successful if the learners are able to dialogue synchronously via text, video or audio conferencing or
asynchronously? Access to and selection of communication tools needs to be carefully chosen to best suit learners
and the educational experiences.
3.1.7. Section G: Knowledge in action
Knowledge 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 known
as 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 process
structures, solve problems, develop and/or carry out an action plan or create a performance. According to Garrison and
Anderson (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 by
learners 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 the
opportunity to reflect on the learning experience and to say “thank you” and “good-bye”.
Fig. 3. Practical Inquiry Model (Garrison & Anderson, 2003, p. 59) Note. From “E-learning in the 21st Century: A Framework for Research and
Practice,” by Garrison and Anderson (2003). Reprinted with permission of D. R. Garrison.
273
P. Redmond, J.V. Lock / Internet and Higher Education 9 (2006) 267–276

8. 4. Implications
Online collaborative learning can easily fail and people can become disgruntled with the experience if attention is
not given to various human and logistical factors. Being pro-active and flexible in planning, anticipating potential
challenges and developing clear communication among the stakeholders are critical elements to the life and longevity
of this type of work.
According to Harris (2000), there are three areas where educational online collaboration can fail: context, planning and
logistics. 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. It
requires building and maintaining good connections with peers, technology specialists, and administrators who allocate
valuable 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 and
curriculum-based as opposed to being technology focused. To develop successful online collaborative learning is to
begin 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 select
the appropriate technology to be integrated.
Educators who are involved in the design and development of collaborative learning will need to be purposeful in their
selection 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 addressed
in the early planning discussions. Wiske et al. (2005) argue that organizational structures influence what learners and
teachers are willing and/or able to do. Therefore, consideration may need to be given to flexible schedules and access to
hardware 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 key
stakeholders (e.g., teachers and learners) in the online learning experience will foster greater ownership and
participation which will reduce the likelihood of abandonment of the work before completion. She cautions that the
structure needs to be flexible and accommodate customization by participants at each location. The shared vision needs
to be supported with consistent leadership so that the project evolves via the collaborative work from all sites, and not
shaped by what occurs within specific classes. Therefore, in the planning, educators “need to consider beforehand the
combination of factors that stem from the subject matter, technology-mediation tools, and the nature of the activities in
which 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 avoid
failure. First is the role and responsibility of a liaison or coordinator. Harris (2000) describes the responsibility of the
coordinator 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 as
planned. Second, she acknowledged that the quantity of time allocated for an online collaborative learning experience
can be insufficient. Time is a critical factor that needs to be addressed in planning, developing and implementing online
collaborative learning. In the early stages, time needs to be committed for the development of a team who verify and
agree with shared understandings and philosophies (Good et al., 2004). Time is required for people in developing
relationships, 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 a
conceptual framework for online collaborative learning experiences. Extensive empirical testing is required to validate
the framework. The integrity of the framework will be strengthened and refined through future studies that examine the
elements and the relationships among the elements within the overall framework. Given the current body of research
literature on social, cognitive and teaching presences, the future research focus needs to be on the other four elements of
the framework: creating and sustaining a learning community, scaffolding learning, participating in critical discourse
and 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
274 P. Redmond, J.V. Lock / Internet and Higher Education 9 (2006) 267–276

9. of the framework. An additional area to examine is the impact the framework has as a process to guide educators in
their planning and facilitating of online collaborative learning experiences.
6. Conclusion
The flexible online collaborative learning framework presented maximizes the ever-evolving capacity of digital and
social networks in diverse settings. Along with innovative pedagogical practice, educators are able to move teaching
and learning beyond the walls of the classroom. Educators can create global classroom learning experiences where
learners work as virtual team members, have access to an array of expertise and co-create knowledge with others for
whom they may never meet in person but only online. This framework provides educators with a process that can assist
with ICT integration to support meaningful learning experiences.
Wiske et al. (2005) suggest that “people learn by reflecting what they know, considering ideas from multiple
perspectives, and analyzing their experience with alternative interpretive frameworks. Collaborating with others
enriches one's capacity to develop and apply ideas” (p. 99). The framework is focused on the collaborative creation of
knowledge 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 learning
communities whose boundaries are only limited by the imagination of those who participate within that learning
community.
Acknowledgments
This paper was adapted from one originally presented at the Summer 2006 Institute, “Linking Research to
Professional 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 of
Asynchronous 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 of
Distance 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.
275
P. Redmond, J.V. Lock / Internet and Higher Education 9 (2006) 267–276

10. 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 of
Instructional 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 Canada
on behalf of Canadian Association of Deans of Education (CADE) L'Association francophone des doyennes et des doyens, des directrices et des
directeurs 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) (Retrieved
August 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 Learning
Networks, 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.html
Rogers, 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 Distance
Education, 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.
276 P. Redmond, J.V. Lock / Internet and Higher Education 9 (2006) 267–276